Was Muhammad a good man?

[1robin]

I can provide evidence and evidence which I have and it would mean nothing to a bias person.

You make better points for my case than I do. Here you admitted that you are yelling bias again and have also not posted any evidence to support the claims. I can only say ditto and until you post sufficient evidence these types of statements can do nothing but prove what I have claimed so many times.

You wish to say I prove a stereotype but the fact is that with me not being a Muslim I will be more honest about Islam and you will use this as gratification to attack Muslims.

I made no claim about how honest or potentially honest you or someone with your ambiguous position would be about Islam. I said (so far) your argumentation has consisted of exactly what is most complained about concerning those who defend Islam.
1. Mere assertions.
2. No evidence.
I make no claim about your honesty just your arguments quality.

I have brought more than enough evidence to the table and all of it was overlooked.
You made wild claims such as Muhammad was possessed yet I asked you three times to provide evidence of this where he stated this himself and you provided none.

Let me state for at least the third time I do not claim he was possessed. I only said the symptoms stated by Muslims (and I did post several examples that were never even contended) Muhammad exhibited during his revelations exactly match those given for a demon possessed person in the Bible. I maintain that he was influenced or troubled by demons as he himself claimed (and I gave evidence for this as well, and again it was not even questioned). Post #528 is proof your claims of no evidence are false. Can you give me the post number where your evidence exists.

Here is even more information to claim I never posted as well:
‘Anas reported that Gabriel appeared before the Apostle of Allah (Muhammad), while he was playing with some boys. Gabriel took him, laid him down, pierced his heart, and took out a clot of blood. Then he said, “This is the portion of you possessed of a devil.” Next, he washed it in a gold cup with water from the well Zamzam. Thereafter sewed him up and took him back to where he found him…’ (Attended by Muslim. Al-Hadis, Volume 4 page 367)
‘Have you, then, seen Al-Lat and Al-Uzza?
And Manat, the third one, the other?
These are exalted females (sublime ones),
Mounting nearer and nearer to Allah
And truly their intercession may be expected.
( Al-Qur’an, Sura 53 verse19-20, and the Satanic verses in bold letters)
Plenty more at the site.
http://peace-of-mind.net/islamic_belief.htm

When it was the night on which God honored him with his mission and showed mercy on His servants thereby, Gabriel brought him the command of God. "He came to me," said the apostle of God, "while I was asleep, with a coverlet of brocade whereon was some writing, and said, ‘Read!’ I said, ‘What shall I read?’ He pressed me with it so tightly that I thought it was death; then he let me go and said, ‘Read!’ I said, ‘What shall I read?’ He pressed me with it again so that I thought it was death; then he let me go and said ‘Read!’ I said, ‘What shall I read?’ He pressed me with it the third time so that I thought it was death and said ‘Read!’ I said, ‘What then shall I read?’—and this I said only to deliver myself from him, lest he should do the same to me again. He said:
‘Read in the name of thy Lord who created,
Who created man of blood coagulated.
Read! Thy Lord is the most beneficent,
Who taught by the pen,
Taught that which they knew not unto men.’
So I read it, and he departed from me. And I awoke from my sleep, and it was as though these words were written on my heart."[3]
So far so good, except for the violent manner in which Gabriel brought the message to Muhammad. But Muhammad’s interpretation of the event is quite revealing. His first impression of his encounter was that he had been possessed; as a result, Muhammad quickly became suicidal:
Now none of God’s creatures was more hateful to me than an (ecstatic) poet or a man possessed: I could not even look at them. I thought, Woe is me poet or possessed—Never shall Quraysh say this of me! I will go to the top of the mountain and throw myself down that I may kill myself and gain rest.[4]
Compare that story with every Biblical example where the real Gabriel showed up on the scene. In every single instance Gabriel identifies himself and commands everyone present to have no fear. What ever met Muhammad in that cave, it was not Gabriel.
Additional evidence for Muhammad's claims he was possesed and even Aisha's confirmation of his demonic troubles as well as many other examples are at this site and many others and I believe they are all Islamic sources.
A Bewitched Prophet? Examining Muhammad’s Psychological and Spiritual Stability

 

[F0uad]

You make better points for my case than I do. Here you admitted that you are yelling bias again and have also not posted any evidence to support the claims. I can only say ditto and until you post sufficient evidence these types of statements can do nothing but prove what I have claimed so many times.
I made no claim about how honest or potentially honest you or someone with your ambiguous position would be about Islam. I said (so far) your argumentation has consisted of exactly what is most complained about concerning those who defend Islam.
1. Mere assertions.
2. No evidence.
I make no claim about your honesty just your arguments quality.
Let me state for at least the third time I do not claim he was possessed. I only said the symptoms stated by Muslims (and I did post several examples that were never even contended) Muhammad exhibited during his revelations exactly match those given for a demon possessed person in the Bible. I maintain that he was influenced or troubled by demons as he himself claimed (and I gave evidence for this as well, and again it was not even questioned). Post #528 is proof your claims of no evidence are false. Can you give me the post number where your evidence exists.

Here is even more information to claim I never posted as well:
‘Anas reported that Gabriel appeared before the Apostle of Allah (Muhammad), while he was playing with some boys. Gabriel took him, laid him down, pierced his heart, and took out a clot of blood. Then he said, “This is the portion of you possessed of a devil.” Next, he washed it in a gold cup with water from the well Zamzam. Thereafter sewed him up and took him back to where he found him…’ (Attended by Muslim. Al-Hadis, Volume 4 page 367)
‘Have you, then, seen Al-Lat and Al-Uzza?
And Manat, the third one, the other?
These are exalted females (sublime ones),
Mounting nearer and nearer to Allah
And truly their intercession may be expected.
( Al-Qur’an, Sura 53 verse19-20, and the Satanic verses in bold letters)
Plenty more at the site.
http://peace-of-mind.net/islamic_belief.htm

When it was the night on which God honored him with his mission and showed mercy on His servants thereby, Gabriel brought him the command of God. "He came to me," said the apostle of God, "while I was asleep, with a coverlet of brocade whereon was some writing, and said, ‘Read!’ I said, ‘What shall I read?’ He pressed me with it so tightly that I thought it was death; then he let me go and said, ‘Read!’ I said, ‘What shall I read?’ He pressed me with it again so that I thought it was death; then he let me go and said ‘Read!’ I said, ‘What shall I read?’ He pressed me with it the third time so that I thought it was death and said ‘Read!’ I said, ‘What then shall I read?’—and this I said only to deliver myself from him, lest he should do the same to me again. He said:
‘Read in the name of thy Lord who created,
Who created man of blood coagulated.
Read! Thy Lord is the most beneficent,
Who taught by the pen,
Taught that which they knew not unto men.’
So I read it, and he departed from me. And I awoke from my sleep, and it was as though these words were written on my heart."[3]
So far so good, except for the violent manner in which Gabriel brought the message to Muhammad. But Muhammad’s interpretation of the event is quite revealing. His first impression of his encounter was that he had been possessed; as a result, Muhammad quickly became suicidal:
Now none of God’s creatures was more hateful to me than an (ecstatic) poet or a man possessed: I could not even look at them. I thought, Woe is me poet or possessed—Never shall Quraysh say this of me! I will go to the top of the mountain and throw myself down that I may kill myself and gain rest.[4]
Compare that story with every Biblical example where the real Gabriel showed up on the scene. In every single instance Gabriel identifies himself and commands everyone present to have no fear. What ever met Muhammad in that cave, it was not Gabriel.
Additional evidence for Muhammad's claims he was possesed and even Aisha's confirmation of his demonic troubles as well as many other examples are at this site and many others and I believe they are all Islamic sources.
A Bewitched Prophet? Examining Muhammad’s Psychological and Spiritual Stability

If you accept that hadith above will you also accept that the Angel took it out? Surely if you belief a angel came and took out something evil you also have to accept the rest when it says he cleaned him up. Just to point out some Hadiths in Fazlul Maulana are not Authentic and some are but this still doesn't changes that according the story the Angel purified him.

 

[1robin]

If you accept that hadith above will you also accept that the Angel took it out?

That the angel took what out? The surrah? If you are talking about the Satanic verses then I do believe they were removed but by humans not an angel. However it is little help if an angel did so. If not you will have to tell me which claim in that very large post you are talking about. I will hate it if I must leave you hanging but I will have to bolt in about 10 minutes. BTW that Hadith is not the only evidence of this issue as I am sure you are aware.

 

[F0uad]

That the angel took what out? The surrah? If you are talking about the Satanic verses then I do believe they were removed but by humans not an angel. However it is little help if an angel did so. If not you will have to tell me which claim in that very large post you are talking about. I will hate it if I must leave you hanging but I will have to bolt in about 10 minutes. BTW that Hadith is not the only evidence of this issue as I am sure you are aware.

I am talking about this:

Anas reported that Gabriel appeared before the Apostle of Allah (Muhammad), while he was playing with some boys. Gabriel took him, laid him down, pierced his heart, and took out a clot of blood. Then he said, “This is the portion of you possessed of a devil.” Next, he washed it in a gold cup with water from the well Zamzam. Thereafter sewed him up and took him back to where he found him…’ (Attended by Muslim. Al-Hadis, Volume 4 page 367)


Please don't start on the Satanic verses that crap has been refuted over and over by Muslims, this is one of the oldest Christian arguments and it got rebuked over and over here again: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Polemics/sverses.html

 

[1robin]

I am talking about this:

Anas reported that Gabriel appeared before the Apostle of Allah (Muhammad), while he was playing with some boys. Gabriel took him, laid him down, pierced his heart, and took out a clot of blood. Then he said, “This is the portion of you possessed of a devil.” Next, he washed it in a gold cup with water from the well Zamzam. Thereafter sewed him up and took him back to where he found him…’ (Attended by Muslim. Al-Hadis, Volume 4 page 367)


Please don't start on the Satanic verses that crap has been refuted over and over by Muslims, this is one of the oldest Christian arguments and it got rebuked over and over here again: "Those Are The High Flying Claims"

Yes and it has been proven over and over again by Christians, Jewish scholars, and secular scholars. Islam’s usually defense goes a lot like what you did here. Contend against a single point and then proven or not declare it either biased or demonstrated wrong and then throw out the other 99% of the evidence left untouched about the entire argument. I have never seen an effective counter to the Satanic verses and almost no one claims the event is untrue, mostly the ones biased enough to bother arguing against it just attempt to obscure it or kill who ever claims it (however the most famous man who did so was not killed, but knighted instead). Will not work with me and has never worked anywhere I am aware of, though you are welcome to try. I did not use that story from the Hadith in question, as an example of verbatim word for word testimony in every detail. I used it with several others examples I posted and tons I did not post to indicate there is good evidence to suspect demonic influence concerning Muhammad. In fact I would classify it as virtually certain. I see I hung on these ten minutes for no reason ( I could have posted this typical response for you, including the zero evidence it contained). If you are not going to attempt a counter to my original Badr battle claims then you may pick this issue up, or wait for the next installment of Muhammad's violence without justification, but it will be later this week.

 

[F0uad]

Yes and it has been proven over and over again by Christians, Jewish scholars, and secular scholars. Islam’s usually defense goes a lot like what you did here. Contend against a single point and then proven or not declare it either biased or demonstrated wrong and then throw out the other 99% of the evidence left untouched about the entire argument. I have never seen an effective counter to the Satanic verses and almost no one claims the event is untrue, mostly the ones biased enough to bother arguing against it just attempt to obscure it or kill who ever claims it (however the most famous man who did so was not killed, but knighted instead). Will not work with me and has never worked anywhere I am aware of, though you are welcome to try. I did not use that story from the Hadith in question, as an example of verbatim word for word testimony in every detail. I used it with several others examples I posted and tons I did not post to indicate there is good evidence to suspect demonic influence concerning Muhammad. In fact I would classify it as virtually certain. I see I hung on these ten minutes for no reason ( I could have posted this typical response for you, including the zero evidence it contained). If you are not going to attempt a counter to my original Badr battle claims then you may pick this issue up, or wait for the next installment of Muhammad's violence without justification, but it will be later this week.

I am still waiting for your posts on the one vs one section so why do you even mention that?

What is proven by Secular, Christian and Jewish historians?

I was just addressing the two points you made, one was about the hadith you quoted and the other one about (alleged) satanic verses. You copied a article about the satanic verse i gave you a article that refutes the claims.. Whats wrong with that? About Mohammed(saws) being possessed we already debated that you have given no accurate information in the debate you just copied a article written by someone who made errors and invented things that did not exist in Islamic literature remember?

(Have send you a pm for a debate)

 

[lewisnotmiller]

This is absurd. Jesus quoted scripture as historical fact and he was never known to lie once. Stating the Bible is historical is so obvious claiming it would be redundant but I am sure it does in places. However the issue is settled so securely that the time necessary to look it up is unjustified. Not to mention it has over 25,000 historical corroborations, routinely destroys historian’s claims, and has no know historical mistake beyond scribal error.

I'd disagree that there are no known historical mistakes. IN truth, I don't think that is a strong argument that it's not a holy book. Men wrote the bible (whether inspired or not is where we disagree), and any time men are inserted into a process, mistakes can happen and bias can be introduced.

My guess is that what I'd see as historical mistakes/issues or inconsistencies, you'd most likely see from the other side (ie. that the Bible is correct). Not sure it's worth that sort of debate, but I'll leave it to you to decide.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

They would say you are just as wrong as they. They however have a massive advantage over you in time spent in study.
I have no reason to contend that the Muslims are right (in truth not interpretation). I think they are actually wrong but I think they are far more capable of knowing what their verses mean (not whether true or not) than you do. The point was the people most likely to know almost all disagree with you. Why should I believe you?
Tell that to Islam's scholars and you might want to have some actual evidence before you do so. They like all others need reasons to believe what you simply claim.
This is based on absolutely nothing; it in fact is made in-spite of the evidence. Jesus claimed he was dead and risen in the very verses where you get he appeared to others from. He went out of his way to make that perfectly clear. I rarely see discussions where evidence is as useless as this one.
Not exactly. His spirit was divine and could never be destroyed and that is not what is meant by the second death. His body was not divine and died on the cross. His spirit was then separated from the father as payment for our sins. His physical death was not the payment obviously because we still physically die. It was his spiritual separation that we are spared from. While it would be permanent for us it was not for him because only sin would keep us from God and he had none. It is a complex issue far too sophisticated for ignorant Hebrews to have invented and I would recommend you actually study it before commenting or criticizing it.

Christianity is to be gained from two primary resources, the Bible and the Holy Spirit. You only have access to the Bible until you are born again. I do not recommend you adopt doctrine based on what your friends claim but through study and supplication, and definitely not from simply another religion devoid of demonstrations of its source.
Did you?
I claim the Quran is an incoherent product of an evil man. I do am not surprised it condemns it's self but that does not mean that Baha'i knows more about what it claims to be true than Islam’s countless scholars. I also think you are taking these surah out of context and meaning. Even Muhammad would not have claimed that his own words could never be understood. Even if he did so that means that the Baha'i would be just as mistaken as Muslims are.
That makes no sense at all. Famous means to be known by large segments of the population.
That is why God in the NT condemns them and Jesus constantly did so. Saying some people disagree is not an argument. Some people disagree about every subject ever discussed including Baha'i.
Show me a single line in the Gallic wars, the Peloponnesian wars, or Lee's lieutenants that state the words are historical yet all three are taught as historical fact in most colleges on earth. Demanding God must statement whatever it is you demand he do is one of the worst arguments possible. You never stated you were a human being are you then a cow? This is absurd. Jesus quoted scripture as historical fact and he was never known to lie once. Stating the Bible is historical is so obvious claiming it would be redundant but I am sure it does in places. However the issue is settled so securely that the time necessary to look it up is unjustified. Not to mention it has over 25,000 historical corroborations, routinely destroys historian’s claims, and has no know historical mistake beyond scribal error.
That is so meaningless I never thought that is what you meant. It is not a magazine, it is not a cookbook, nor a do it yourself pamphlet. What does that prove?
I tell you what if I can demonstrate it by showing it to be historically accurate in countless confirmed areas or that it states it is historically accurate (though God may have been presumptuous enough to use his own words and not yours in claiming it) then you must admit it in size 5 font. It is not worth the effort if it will not resolve anything.

The issue is whether the Bible is historically accurate or claims to be historical where appropriate (in general, there are scribal mistakes here and there) and that is what I will demonstrate. What you claim is meaningless. You can't dictate what words God must use. You can only require him to be truthfull and accurate where he claimed intended to be and I will prove that. Deal? BTW the reason that parables were said to be allegory is because they were the exception to the rule (historical) and you only care what you are told believe the Bible to say. What it actually does say is not high on your list.

So you didn't show me any verse that says bible is a literal history Book. Yes, Bible contains events. But these events are not necessarily to be taken literally.

These events are written with symbolic language and in many places parabols are used. So these have inner meanings. It seems to me you see Bible Outwardly. Similar to Mulims who treat Quran outwardly. Did moses appear literally to the Desciples? No. It is a Symbolic story with inner meanings. So is appearing Jesus after death.

Moreover, all your beliefs are based on what you heard from people of the past. How do you know what you Heard about Resurrection of Jesus is true? There are other Religions such as Hinduism that have many recorded Miracles. Krishna is believed to be God too. Why should one believe the story of Jesus but not Krishna?

Regarding the history about Muhammad from Muslim there is no reason to trust Muslims accounts as those accounts contradict each other and each sects has their own Hadithes.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I could make the exact same cases I have been making from the Quran alone. However that does not mean the Quran is any more valid than the Hadith or the historical accounts from his time. In short we can establish with little doubt what kind of a man Muhammad was and the validity of his claims without issue. Getting people to accept what history makes obvious is another matter altogether.
They are identical in the context we are discussing.
Islam's scholars have had well over a thousand years to arrive at what they think the Quran means. The Baha'i have had a about 150 years. Do you have any reason to believe what you claimed that anyone who is not a Baha'i would believe? 95% of your claims are Baha'i is right and others wrong and 5% reasons and evidence when it should be the opposite. What do you expect me or anyone else to say, "Well IT said Baha'i was right so I reject most of histories scholars, all of the accepted commentators, and simple history for two entire religions. This will never be convincing and I hate to see you waste your time on such a futile effort. .
Again no evidence. I can give you more evidence to support the Bible's claims than this entire forum can contain and have posted an enormous amount for you. Until you can even attempt to do this for Bahaullah you are wasting your time I am afraid.

I did not say major religions. Who defines what qualifies as major? It is subjective and meaningless. I said thousands of religions and there are probably actually thousands that begin with simply the letter A.
That is exactly the opposite from what the two greatest experts in testimony and evidence have claimed about the Gospels (Simon Greenleaf, Lord Lyndhurst). When you or Bahaullah co found the greatest law school on Earth, write textbooks on evidence and testimony, and are the only human to have occupied every high court office in the largest empire in history then you may have the qualifications to contend this. Not only the Bible but 40 extra biblical authors mention Christ. Virtually all mainstream scholars (on any side) believe Christ was historical not to mention you believe it. This was an utterly futile, and meaningless assertion apparently made for effect because it cannot stand on it’s merits.
There is more textual evidence for Christ than any other figure of ancient history of any kind. Secular scholars of the Bible almost universally believe he is historical and the tomb was empty are brute facts as sure as any in ancient history. This simply claiming this or that is true or not is pointless. The scholars and evidence confirm my claims and denounce yours. What is the point to this? Even you can't believe that simply claiming historical evidence does not exist will ever prevail in an argument. Why are you wasting your time? That is not sarcasm, it is a legitimate concern.
That is why I never used it as evidence for that claim. I did not claim any historical fact concerning his resurrection though it has very good evidence. My claim concerned what Christianity teaches about the empty tomb and that you have it completely wrong.
Every argument ever conceived by brilliant or irrational men to get out of the inconvenient facts of Christ’s resurrection have introduced these plus much better argument than this. Each one has been refuted and dismissed by the majority of NT scholars (even the nonbelievers). Since these are so easy I will eradicate them myself.
1. There was a several ton stone rolled in front of the tomb entrance and sealed by the Romans and guards placed at the closed door.
2. The Romans (the most brutal, efficient, and capable empire on Earth) as well as the Jewish establishment had vested interest in making very sure the body could not be stolen. They suspected it might be and took every precaution possible to ensure it wasn't. There is no evidence of even a theoretical opportunity to steal the body.
3. The resurrection appearances to thousands are evidence against your claims.
4. The instant explosion of Christianity based on the appearances is evidence against them.
5. The lack of a single shred of contradictory testimony is evidence against them.
6. The apostle’s new commitment and fearless faith is evidence against it.
7. No Body ever turned up and the Romans could have searched every house and cave in existence in the area. The evidence was so good they did not even attempt it and no else did either.
The list is endless and conclusive.
You could save a lot of time if you simply said you believe whatever Baha'i mandates you must in-spite of evidence, scholarship, tradition, historical evidence, theological consistency, and theological philosophy. I could then say that I disagree but you have the right to believe as you wish. There is no point in everything else you have point. No one knows for a fact what took place back then. We must make the best conclusion given the evidence. The evidence is good and is all on my side. I have a case and you have a preference and neither one is effective against the other but only one is a rational basis for faith.
The only way this many assertions can be posted with virtually no evidence or scholarship is that there is none (not even bad evidence). What did you think a statement like this one you made here would do? I am aware of your personal stances and the repetition of them with no reason to believe them is pointless. Do you actually not see that prefernce is driving every claim you make?

When we are talking about Historical evidence we mean verifiable facts. Not just what some people have heard from some other people who heard from previous generations. Is the Tomb of jesus found today? Is it scientifically proved where Jesus tomb is located? Surely not! Even if it was found, it can never be proved that such a physical Resurrection ever happend. When asked a Christian how you believe? The reply is by Faith. But what is Faith based on? The Prophet you never saw or Miracles you never witnessed? Should faith be based on immitation or based on investigation of truth? Should it be based on saying of people or based on verifiable facts? No Merciful and Wise God ever expects His creatures to believe based on blind faith or based on imitation. A True faith is based on Logic and Reasoning not imagination. There are many other Myths or even religions who have wonderfull miraculus stories. Why should one believe One and reject the others? Is it because of Bias?

 

[F0uad]

Regarding the history about Muhammad from Muslim there is no reason to trust Muslims accounts as those accounts contradict each other and each sects has their own Hadithes.

They do?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

They do?

Off course. The Islamic History about Muhammad is based on Two Sources: These sources are known as sīra and hadith, and accounts of Muhammad's life written down by later Muslims, based on oral traditions.

Shias and Sunnis for example each have their own recorded Traditions, which one group does not accept the other group's Traditions.
There are overlaping, and agreements too, but there are significant differences.


In the sīra literature, the most important extant biography are the two recensions of Ibn Ishaq's (d. 768), now known as Sīrat Rasūl Allah ("Biography/Life of the Messenger/Apostle of Allah"), which survive in the works of his editors, most notably Ibn Hisham (d. 834) and Yunus b. Bukayr (d.814-815), although not in its original form.[1] According to Ibn Hisham, Ibn Ishaq wrote his biography some 120 to 130 years after Muhammad's death. Many, but not all, scholars accept the accuracy of these biographies, though their accuracy is unascertainable.



Sunni Islam

For Sunnis, after the Qur'an the most widely accepted and famous collection of traditions is Sahih al-Bukhari. Imam Bukhari, the author of the book is said to have spent over 16 years gathering over 1600000 traditions and finding the best 7397 of them. Some, but not all, of these traditions deal with the life of Muhammad.[14]

Shia Islam

For Shi'is, the words and deeds of their Imams, who are also progeny of Muhammad, is authoritative. These were originally oral but were written down after several generations. Some of these sayings, according to their chain of transmission, are sayings of Muhammad as transmitted through the Shi'i' Imams.[15]
Muhammad in Mecca - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[1robin]

I am still waiting for your posts on the one vs. one section so why do you even mention that?

I thought I had told you that I would just use this one for that discussion, but you may be right (all the arguments in this one have had virtually nothing to do with he evidence I gace) and you are welcome to create a 1 on 1 thread, or let me know if you need me to.

What is proven by Secular, Christian and Jewish historians?

Actually nothing is proven by either side, I was just mimicking your claims the Muslims have proven over and over that the Satanic verses are a non-issue. I was simply saying the scholars I use have demonstrated the exact opposite, so that argument was not effective.

I was just addressing the two points you made, one was about the hadith you quoted and the other one about (alleged) satanic verses.

I have seen so much information on the Satanic verses that there is no way anyone on your side can demonstrate they are false. Might be true, but there is too much evidence to prove you claim. IOW it is an issue that is not in any ell settled at this time.

You copied a article about the satanic verse i gave you a article that refutes the claims.. Whats wrong with that?

Do you actually think a single article will overturn all the evidence, the books, and the articles written that confirming the opposite. I told you I was in a hurry yester day and did not have to read anything beyond the post. Post this in that new thread if you wish. I will read that article in the meantime.

About Mohammed(saws) being possessed we already debated that you have given no accurate information in the debate you just copied a article written by someone who made errors and invented things that did not exist in Islamic literature remember?

That is not how it went. You simply a claim or two was inaccurate and wrote off the dozens of claims based on those two and I am not claiming that those two were right to begin with. If you bring it up again I can show this again and you can tell me how you can dismiss the other claims after the first two or three are examined.

(Have send you a pm for a debate)

Got it and replied. BTW I have no idea why but even after I state over and over and over again that I do not believe Muhammad was possessed but only influenced by demons do I have to keep straightening that out. They are two vastly different things.

 

[1robin]

I'd disagree that there are no known historical mistakes. IN truth, I don't think that is a strong argument that it's not a holy book. Men wrote the bible (whether inspired or not is where we disagree), and any time men are inserted into a process, mistakes can happen and bias can be introduced.

I am not claiming it perfect. In fact I have on many occasions presented very large portions of material and evidence that it is not perfect. It's rich traditional pedigree (greater than any other in ancient history) has made it possible to know how many scribal errors there are, and all modern Bible's indicate them. I meant I know of no historical (nor a single detailed prophecy) claim that is supposed to be literal that is also demonstrably false and not a well-known scribal mistakes. That is an indication how small the total error is and was not used to claim it perfect. I know more about the errors and where they exist that most.

My guess is that what I'd see as historical mistakes/issues or inconsistencies, you'd most likely see from the other side (ie. that the Bible is correct). Not sure it's worth that sort of debate, but I'll leave it to you to decide.

There is no value in my believing what is not true. It is also easy to know if Jerusalem in fact never existed. Only those claims with evidence to corroborate them can be debated and I do not think you could even attempt to show more than a few dozen of it tens of thousands are even theoretically inaccurate. It has an undefeated track record with secular authorities that attempted to prove it inaccurate and actually converted many of them. One of the most common ways atheists adopted faith is by trying to prove the Bible wrong and giving it up. In Summary the Bible enjoys an almost supernatural record historically and scholars on all sides concede its reliability (historically). It is a primary secular archeological source. Scribal error makes it less than perfect but that has little to do with God. That is my claim and if you decline to post evidence against it, I will have to leave it there.

 

[1robin]

So you didn't show me any verse that says bible is a literal history Book. Yes, Bible contains events. But these events are not necessarily to be taken literally.

Christ took them literally, and so did the apostles and the prophets and 99% of Christianity and 90% of scholars on both sides. However you could not care less, in Bahaullah said a gnat can pull a plow then you hitch it right up. I have no burden to prove the Bible states that it is a history book. What the heck is that about? Until Bahaullah is raised from the dead, performs a miracle, creates the greatest religion in human history, and has even a slightly coherent not to mention possible interpretation on the Bible then I am going with Christ, the apostles, the scholars, and my own experience with the supernatural.

These events are written with symbolic language and in many places parables are used. So these have inner meanings. It seems to me you see Bible Outwardly. Similar to Muslims who treat Quran outwardly. Did mosses appear literally to the Disciples? No. It is a Symbolic story with inner meanings. So is appearing Jesus after death.

Scholars have known exactly which is which for thousands of years in almost all cases (especially in the NT and certainly in the Gospels). Simply repeating a mantra that exists in spite of evidence, experience, history, and the Bible author’s own claims will never prevail.

Moreover, all your beliefs are based on what you heard from people of the past. How do you know what you Heard about Resurrection of Jesus is true? There are other Religions such as Hinduism that have many recorded Miracles. Krishna is believed to be God too. Why should one believe the story of Jesus but not Krishna?

So are yours? My people however demonstrated the source of their revelation, unlike Muhammad and Bahaullah we proved what we claim. I have faith in the teachings about the revelation because I have experience about the claims of being born again and forgiven. I have literally used the Bible as I interpret it and met God. That personally trumps anything you can muster. However I usually do not mention that as I have to meet you on the common ground of evidence and reason if you will ever get there that is. For any question that asks how do I know this or that then my answer is because I experienced God by using the Bible in its common interpretation.

Regarding the history about Muhammad from Muslim there is no reason to trust Muslims accounts as those accounts contradict each other and each sects has their own Hadiths.

The fact that two thing contradict does not mean both are wrong but at least one is. Your interpretations conflict with everyone else’s so are your therefor false (especially considering everyone else has spent at least 10 times the time Bahaullah has spent studying the Quran and the Bible).
Everything you have ever said could be summed up as you are right based on the fact that prefer that to be true. Everything else has been commentary on that basic principle. In no academic, legal, historical, or theological category is the evidence for Bahaullah’s claims as strong as Christian, Jew, and Muslim for their respective texts. Not one category. Until you can find at least one valid category where the evidence for Bahaullah’s reliability exceeds ours then making claims is irrelevant, no one has any reason to believe it might even theoretically be true. You are making car dealer arguments for a religion. Buy, Buy, Buy.

 

[1robin]

When we are talking about Historical evidence we mean verifiable facts.

I need no lesson on what history is. I am far more familiar within than most. I am an amateur historian and have studied it in college specializing in military history. As I said there are currently 25,000 confirmed historical facts in the Bible. It has (at least to me) no known demonstrable historical error with any literal claim it has ever made. Its record is full of constantly prevailing when contested by secular scholars. Entire Museums are today filled with Hittite artifacts that at one time secular scholars claimed never existed. The obscure official titles given in Luke are now verified when for years critics said Luke was wrong. Many now claim Luke is an example an example of a perfect ancient historical document. Luke was a historian. It converts a large percentage of those scholars who set out to demonstrate it wrong. If you wish to contend with the Bible historical accuracy is not a good place to do it. It is uncontainable and routinely buries its critics. On no scale in existence is the Bible and unreliable historical resource.[/quote]

Not just what some people have heard from some other people who heard from previous generations. Is the Tomb of Jesus found today? Is it scientifically proved where Jesus tomb is located?

You may not determine how things are to be examined based on convenient and irrational stadards that do not exist in the historical discipline. I may not for instance consider you purple until you claim otherwise. I may demand that unless Alexander the great appears and unties the Cyprian knot he never existed. That is as invalid as your declaration that anything unknown today never existed. Apparently you have never been in a historical academic environment. I will list tools and understandings gained over thousands of years of historical study. Not that you care.

1. Contemporary testimony and claims are ALWAYS considered far better than later claims unless massive amount of new data are available.
2. All historical claims are determined by probability not absoluteness. You look at the evidence and derive the conclusion that fits them best and assign it a reliability factor.
3. The historical evidence for three things is almost unanimously agreed on by historical and NT scholars no matter what side they are on: 1. Christ’s being a true religious figure that at least had a sense of divine authority. 2. At the Hebrews suggestion the Romans crucified Christ on the cross. 3. The tomb was well known at the time and was found empty.

That settles the issue as far as what history reveals and defeats anything even theoretically possible that you can produce. However I can make it even worse. The most brilliant experts in the fields go even farther.
The noted scholar, Professor Edwin Gordon Selwyn, says: "The fact that Christ rose from the dead on the third day in full continuity of body and soul - that fact seems as secure as historical evidence can make it."
Many impartial students who have approached the resurrection of Chris with a judicial spirit have been compelled by the weight of the evidence to belief in the resurrection as a fact of history. An example may be taken from a letter written by Sir Edward Clarke, K. C. to the Rev. E. L. Macassey: "As a lawyer I have made a prolonged study of the evidences for the events of the first Easter Day. To me the evidence is conclusive, and over and over again in the High Court I have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling. Inference follows on evidence, and a truthful witness is always artless and disdains effect. The Gospel evidence for the resurrection is of this class, and as a lawyer I accept it unreservedly as the testimony of truthful men to facts they were able to substantiate."

Professor Thomas Arnold, cited by Wilbur Smith, was for 14 years the famous headmaster of Rugby, author of a famous three-volume History of Rome, appointed to the char of Modern History at Oxford, and certainly a man well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. This great scholar said: "The evidence for our LORD's life and death and resurrection may be, and often has been, shown to be satisfactory; it is good according to the common rules for distinguishing good evidence from bad. Thousands and tens of thousands of persons have gone through it piece by piece, as carefully as every judge summing up on a most important cause. I have myself done it many times over, not to persuade others but to satisfy myself. I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which GOD hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."

Lord Lyndhurst (1772-1863), recognized as one of the greatest legal minds in British history, the Solicitor-General of the British government in 1819, attorney-general of Great Britain in 1824, three times High Chancellor of England, and elected in 1846, High Steward of the University of Cambridge, thus holding in one lifetime the highest offices which a judge in Great Britain could ever have conferred upon him. When Chancellor Lyndhurst died, a document was found in his desk, among his private papers, giving an extended account of his own Christian faith, and in this precious, previously-unknown record, he wrote: "I know pretty well what evidence is; and I tell you, such evidence as that for the Resurrection has never broken down yet."

http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/myredeemer/Evidencep29.html

There is not one single thing you or Bahaullah can say that even approaches the credibility of these scholars and the thousands just like them (Secular, Islamic, Christian, and even atheistic).
Continued below:

 

[1robin]

Surely not! Even if it was found, it can never be proved that such a physical Resurrection ever happened.

Can you produce Caesar, Alexander, the fleet at Salamas, the shields used at Thermopylae, or the planes used to sink the Bismarck. Yet all are taught as factual history.
History does not validate Bahaullah claims so you must dismiss it by the most desperate means possible. Miracles do not validate him so you must do the same. Neither interpretation, scholarship, personal experience, nor philosophy validates Baha'i teaching and so everything and everyone must be dismissed. What makes it worth doing this for? How did you become so committed to something that in no way deserves it?

When asked a Christian how you believe? The reply is by Faith. But what is Faith based on?

Wrong again. Faith is based on evidence in most instances. If not that is usually defined as blind faith and God never demanded that, however Bahaullah lives on it.

Should faith be based on imitation or based on investigation of truth?

I nor you ever saw 99.99999999% of humanity nor 99.9999999% of history is all therefor never existent? This is terrible terrible argumentation. In fact you never saw Bahaullah.

Should it be based on saying of people or based on verifiable facts?

It should be based on exactly what it is, the reasonable conclusion given reasonable facts and evidence. That is far more than your faith can be based upon. It is based in opposition to facts and history.
No Merciful and Wise God ever expects His creatures to believe based on blind faith or based on imitation. A True faith is based on Logic and Reasoning not imagination. There are many other Myths or even religions who have wonderful miraculous stories. Why should one believe One and reject the others? Is it because of Bias?[/quote]This has lost its appeal or justification. I suggest study of the Historical methods and what evidence exists and how historical claims are evaluated. The Biblical claims of miracles (literal) is consistent with ALL the evidence available and testimony given by contemporary witnesses yet you claim no miracles were done (based on what, no evidence exists for that). Not to mention Baha’i is hypocritical and inconsistent in claiming that the greatest literal miracles were performed yet denying the less significant, based on what? Whatever problems that exist or you invent for the Bibles historical claims they are far far worse for Bahaullah’s claims.

Also see the almost infinite advantage in textual tradition over other works taught as fact by colleges around the world at the table from this site.
Foolish Faith - Chapter 6: Unparalleled Historicity - A Brief History of the New Testament

Here is the conclusion from he most popular critic of the Bible current alive and one of it's worst.

Not only for Jesus’ burial, but also for the women’s discovery of the empty tomb, and therefore, he says, we can conclude with “some certainty” that Jesus was in fact buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb and that three days later the tomb was found empty.


Read more: Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? The Craig-Ehrman Debate | Reasonable Faith

You should read the transcipts or watch debates like this one from two of the most competant and qualified scholars on either side on the issue, before you contend it.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I am not claiming it perfect. In fact I have on many occasions presented very large portions of material and evidence that it is not perfect. It's rich traditional pedigree (greater than any other in ancient history) has made it possible to know how many scribal errors there are, and all modern Bible's indicate them. I meant I know of no historical (nor a single detailed prophecy) claim that is supposed to be literal that is also demonstrably false and not a well-known scribal mistakes. That is an indication how small the total error is and was not used to claim it perfect. I know more about the errors and where they exist that most.

I'm not 100% sure of your position. If I could ask a couple of clarifying questions, it might help. Whilst we obviously disagree about the religious aspects of the Bible, I'm not convinced we really have anything to debate here...

1) How do you determine what is supposed to be literal.
2) What constitutes a 'scribal error'. Is it judged by measurement against earlier versions of the bible, does it include translation errors, etc.

I suspect if we did debate, we'd end up in some argument about whether a particular verse is meant literally or not, and how many different meanings can be assigned to a root word from Hebrew/Aramaic/Koine.

I don't mean that as a condescension in any way, I just suspect that our default positions respectively would lead us that way.

There is no value in my believing what is not true.

People believe what is not true all the time for a variety of reasons. But I don't think you are being disingenuous if that's what you meant.

It is also easy to know if Jerusalem in fact never existed. Only those claims with evidence to corroborate them can be debated and I do not think you could even attempt to show more than a few dozen of it tens of thousands are even theoretically inaccurate. It has an undefeated track record with secular authorities that attempted to prove it inaccurate and actually converted many of them. One of the most common ways atheists adopted faith is by trying to prove the Bible wrong and giving it up. In Summary the Bible enjoys an almost supernatural record historically and scholars on all sides concede its reliability (historically). It is a primary secular archeological source. Scribal error makes it less than perfect but that has little to do with God. That is my claim and if you decline to post evidence against it, I will have to leave it there.

A lot of hyperbole here. The whole undefeated track record is in your view. I could equally say 'one of the most common ways Christians lose faith is by trying to understand and corroborate the Bible and giving up'. It's easy to say it, but doesn't make it true.

Again, I think we'd be arguing at cross-purposes. I wouldn't expect the Bible to be perfect, and as I said, since men were involved, even if it was holy I wouldn't expect that. However, if you're interested, what would your opinions be about the following;

The use of daric as a monetary term : Chronicles 29:7

The prophecy on Egypt

Ezekiel 29:10 Behold, therefore I am against thee, and against thy rivers, and I will make the land of Egypt utterly waste and desolate, from the tower of Syene even unto the border of Ethiopia.

Ezekiel 29:11 No foot of man shall pass through it, nor foot of beast shall pass through it, neither shall it be inhabited forty years.

 

[james bond]

Of course I do. Would you like to test this?

How tolerant am I? I'd say lately I have been learning to be more tolerant as I have learned the extremist Islam is not as correct as they wish to make one think. But of course I will judge one as weak when instead of reading Quran, they rather just memorize and parrot others ideas, instead of making their own.


I have known plenty of Muslims to say such. To work ways to justify suicide bombing, terrorism, hatred, etc. Yet al of these go against classical scholars and principles laid out in Quran and Hadith. This friend of yours makes some wild conlusions, saying Islam is the reason for 9/11. It doesn't take a fool to realize 9/11 happened and global terrorism to be a product of politics.

Care to explain what you mean by 'Sharia law and creep"?

And Halal practice? Of what exactly?

Burqa is a cultural invention and is not an obligation upon women. It is just sad that some force it upon women, and the same can be said of the general mistreatment of women.

As for not willing to accept an inebriated passenger, why is this not acceptable to you? Are you speaking of taxi drivers refusing to take drunks? It is their right not take them, and it is only the driver himself who misses out of the money.

And refusing to touch pork products that may result from a job is ridiculous, and I will agree with you. But this is not something all muslims complain about. I think I know what you are referencing to... a single event And yet you still see so many muslims in the work force who wil touch pork through plastic gloves. Painting the whole muslim population as picky workers is seriously offensive.

:clap:clapAssumptions are always bad

First, I am surprised you replied. At least you are honorable.

What is your view on who wrote the Qur'an? Was it Muhammad or others? What was written when Muhammad was alive? What was written after his death?

It could not have been written by Muhammad since he was illiterate.

You must know what Sharia Law is. It's written in the Qur'an and is religious law to govern Muslims. Sharia creep is how non-Muslim people think Muslims try to enforce their views, customs, and Sharia Law upon them. I gave you examples of a Muslim taxi driver refusing to pick up a drunk person or Muslim clerks who refused to ring up legitimate purchases. This also includes the practice of halal food which restaurants, markets, schools, and prisons have adopted for Muslims. Usually, it refers to meat. If a meat product is slaughtered under halal custom, then it should be labeled as such. It should not be forced upon consumers without their consent or knowledge. Also, halal is more expensive. Some people think it's animal cruelty as stunning the animal is not allowed. In the US, I think the animal is stunned even if it is halal. The US and UK hasn't had the same type of problems with kosher practices, but halal has caused problems.

 

[Assad91]

What is your view on who wrote the Qur'an? Was it Muhammad or others? What was written when Muhammad was alive? What was written after his death?

It could not have been written by Muhammad since he was illiterate.

Google is a nice invention

You must know what Sharia Law is. It's written in the Qur'an and is religious law to govern Muslims. Sharia creep is how non-Muslim people think Muslims try to enforce their views, customs, and Sharia Law upon them.

Pfft, only right-wing xenophobic people believe this nonsense.

I gave you examples of a Muslim taxi driver refusing to pick up a drunk person

A taxi driver has the right to refuse his service to others. And a drunk man can be passed by anyone, muslim or nonmuslim, as some, including me before I converted to Islam, feel uncomfortable around drunks. White taxi drivers used to pass blacks all the time due to the fear.

or Muslim clerks who refused to ring up legitimate purchases.

Pfft, one example that I already talked about. Try again.

This also includes the practice of halal food which restaurants, markets, schools, and prisons have adopted for Muslims. Usually, it refers to meat. If a meat product is slaughtered under halal custom, then it should be labeled as such. It should not be forced upon consumers without their consent or knowledge. Also, halal is more expensive. Some people think it's animal cruelty as stunning the animal is not allowed.

People hav the right to not go to whatever restaurant or market. Schools, people can have a choice to bring their own food, and if you ever had halal meat, it is not much different And prisons, well, you don't have many choices in prison.

In the US, I think the animal is stunned even if it is halal. The US and UK hasn't had the same type of problems with kosher practices, but halal has caused problems.

Lol which is due to xenophobia as halal and kosher are very similar.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Christ took them literally, and so did the apostles and the prophets and 99% of Christianity and 90% of scholars on both sides. However you could not care less, in Bahaullah said a gnat can pull a plow then you hitch it right up. I have no burden to prove the Bible states that it is a history book. What the heck is that about? Until Bahaullah is raised from the dead, performs a miracle, creates the greatest religion in human history, and has even a slightly coherent not to mention possible interpretation on the Bible then I am going with Christ, the apostles, the scholars, and my own experience with the supernatural.
Scholars have known exactly which is which for thousands of years in almost all cases (especially in the NT and certainly in the Gospels). Simply repeating a mantra that exists in spite of evidence, experience, history, and the Bible author’s own claims will never prevail.
So are yours? My people however demonstrated the source of their revelation, unlike Muhammad and Bahaullah we proved what we claim. I have faith in the teachings about the revelation because I have experience about the claims of being born again and forgiven. I have literally used the Bible as I interpret it and met God. That personally trumps anything you can muster. However I usually do not mention that as I have to meet you on the common ground of evidence and reason if you will ever get there that is. For any question that asks how do I know this or that then my answer is because I experienced God by using the Bible in its common interpretation.
The fact that two thing contradict does not mean both are wrong but at least one is. Your interpretations conflict with everyone else’s so are your therefor false (especially considering everyone else has spent at least 10 times the time Bahaullah has spent studying the Quran and the Bible).
Everything you have ever said could be summed up as you are right based on the fact that prefer that to be true. Everything else has been commentary on that basic principle. In no academic, legal, historical, or theological category is the evidence for Bahaullah’s claims as strong as Christian, Jew, and Muslim for their respective texts. Not one category. Until you can find at least one valid category where the evidence for Bahaullah’s reliability exceeds ours then making claims is irrelevant, no one has any reason to believe it might even theoretically be true. You are making car dealer arguments for a religion. Buy, Buy, Buy.

Christ and His Disciples talked most of the time with symbols and parables.
The Disciples came to Jesus, and asked Him: "Why you speak in Parables?"

Prophecies regarding Messiah could not be fulfilled by Jesus unless interpreted symbolically and spiritually. Messiah was supposed to be king, Jesus was not, He was from carpenter family. Messiah was to conquer east and west. Jesus did not conquer anywhere literally. Messiah was supposed to rule with sword. Jesus did not rule literally with sword.

I am not debating about which religion is true or you accept. I am debating the "reasoning and method for investigating"

A belief based on Miracles that you were never witnessed in my view can be totally vain, and as I said, a Wise and Merciful God would not make His Proof, "Miracles". The Proof must be based on something that everyone else can also verify. Miracles even if it was done, can be a proof for those who witness them. But the teachings, and verifiable Historical life can be proof.