Muslims and "Circular Reasoning"

[inJESUS]

Yet you expect every Muslim in the world to have a big, old, Cold-War-movie-style red telephone hotline to Mohammed?

Their justification for their faith is no sillier than yours.

again, the islamic tradition is clear : no one heard any spirit talk to Muhammad. When people accused him of forgery, he replied with verses saying " Allah say this and that". That’s it.
The gospels are clear : many people heard a voice from heaven attesting to Jesus. Add to this all the previous prophecies and scriptures.

All these might not be a reason for an atheist to believe in God or Jesus or the gospel accounts but from a THEOLOGICAL ( not scientific) point of view, Muhammad fails where Jesus wins because Jesus is backed up by prophecies, scriptures, the voice of God and miracles when Muhammad lacks all of these with the admission of Muslims. So why should i accept Jesus not Muhammad? because of the previous scriptures and prophecies, testimonies of people who heard God’s voice "and a voice came from heaven, “Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased.”, and because of MANY accounts written by different people. Why do i reject Muhammad? because no one heard God attesting to him, no prophecy about him, Jesus did not send him, he contradicts previous scriptures and claims they are corrupt.
These, i repeat, are theological reasons and not scientic because science cannot prove that Jesus even existed.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

Hi

For your pleasure, I have prepared a parody (please don’t mind) of your above post, see if you like it, or you suggest any changes.
Thanks

Catholics and "Circular Reasoning

…

Hi again paarsurrey,

We don’t base our faith in scripture on “Circular Reasoning”; We base it on Prophecy. And I think, that as long as your an Ahmadi/Muslim, you will fail to understand Prophecy.

[Moderator Note: Removed uncharitable comments.]

 

[pinkylee]

Actually, we don’t follow Jewish dietary law because of what Jesus said in the Gospel of Mark. It is supported Peter in Acts, and supported by Paul twice in the New Testament.

Question:

If Jesus didnt eat pork; why do Christians eat it? He fully observed Jewish law.
I thought Jesus’ life was a example for christian living?

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

Question:

If Jesus didnt eat pork; why do Christians eat it? He fully observed Jewish law.
I thought Jesus’ life was a example for christian living?

There is no need to change the subject. Start a new thread if you want an answer to that question. Better yet, do a search, I’m sure it has been answered already in an older thread.

 

[paarsurrey]

500 adulterous Jews???
Vickie

Hi

Matthew 12:38-41 (New International Version)
**The Sign of Jonah **
38Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, “Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you.”
39He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one[a] greater than Jonah is here.

Jesus promised to show the miraculous Sign of Jonah to a wicked and adulterous generation who asked for a sign. I don’t know what was their number? Maybe more than 500 or less, or exact but since my Catholic friends say there were 500 hundred witnesses of Jesus alleged ascension, so I have deduced the figure of the wicked and adulterous Jews for them. If I am wrong please rectify it and give the exact figure?

Thanks

The first and primary source on “Jesus was not killed on Cross” – but Jesus later died naturally in Kashmir, in India is the pristine Word of God revealed on the PromisedMessiahImamMahdi 1835-1908.
The Word of GodAllahYHWH is and had been the first/authentic and primary source of human knowledge whether revealed on Moses/Buddha/Jesus/Muhammad or Mirza Ghulam Ahmad; it is of itself a complete and without doubt and requires no external witnessing.

 

[Montalban]

‘Compiled’, not ‘written’.

Indeed. But the church didn’t have ‘the Bible’, as YOU claimed, and any number of books could have been added/excluded by the church that existed before the Bible. Your charge is simply false. Go to earlychristianwritings.com and see all the books concerning Christianity that existed before 300AD. They ‘existed’ but not all were used by the church.

And even then, the books of the Bible did not miraculously appear at Pentecost. There was some time before even the first books were written.

’
Let me ask you: why do you believe Catholicism the proper mode of worship?

I don’t believe this.

How can you justify its propriety to an outsider?

And therefore would not attempt to.

’
Generally, Christians answer this question by pointing to the gospels and saying ‘these writings in our holy book say how we’re supposed to worship’. Well, how about that! Convenient, isn’t it?

Then what you’re doing is offering a straw-man. Your arguing against me here by what you allege other people argue! You should be addressing what I’m saying, not what you allege other people are saying. I’m not here to defend other people’s points of view.

 

[Montalban]

To those who are citing the testimony of the “500 eye witnesses” as proof of the divinity of Jesus, remember that some 20 years ago, David Copperfield seemingly made the Statue of Liberty disappear before a live audience of hundreds as well as a TV audience of countless millions.

Well then, did the Statue of Liberty really vanish or was it merely an illusion?

You know the answer yourself, and therefore have defeated your own objection.

Your argument goes like this.

Person A witnessed what he believed to be a miracle.

But this can’t be true because person B witnessed what was an illusion. Proving one does not prove the other; more Islamic logic at work, I’m afraid!

 

[Montalban]

Well then, did the Statue of Liberty really vanish or was it merely an illusion?

You in fact believe your god performs illusions, anyway! Where he made it to appear that Jesus had died, but he hadn’t really!

 

[paarsurrey]

i partially agree. It is correct that a Christian must say one time or the other that “the Bible says so”. But to a Christian, Jesus is what He taught, what the disciples who witnessed God’s voice taught, and all the OT prophecies. To a Christian, it is not the testimony of one person,but of all scripture, prophecies, and people who heard God’s testimony about Jesus. However, in Islam, they reject scriptures since they contradict what Muhammad said,based on his claim that he encountered a “spirit” that nobody heard. That’s a lot of difference .

 

[Montalban]

Hi

Moses , Jesus or other Prophets left nothing of the pristine **Word ** revealed by

Thanks

Seems like this is what you posted on another thread!

 

[paarsurrey]

Seems like this is what you posted on another thread!

Hi

It is different, with changes.

Thanks

 

[Mirdath]

Indeed. But the church didn’t have ‘the Bible’, as YOU claimed, and any number of books could have been added/excluded by the church that existed before the Bible. Your charge is simply false. Go to earlychristianwritings.com and see all the books concerning Christianity that existed before 300AD. They ‘existed’ but not all were used by the church.

And even then, the books of the Bible did not miraculously appear at Pentecost. There was some time before even the first books were written.

I’m quite aware of that. I was trying to keep it simple – sure, add the Didache, add the epistles of Clement and everybody, add City of God and the other writings of the Church fathers – it doesn’t change anything. You’re still justifying your faith based on writings of the faith.

I don’t believe this.

And therefore would not attempt to.

Woops I keep forgetting you’re Orthodox. Feel free to make the word-substitution. How do you justify your chosen method of worship? What makes you so sure it’s correct, in the end?

 

[Booklover]

I’m quite aware of that. I was trying to keep it simple – sure, add the Didache, add the epistles of Clement and everybody, add City of God and the other writings of the Church fathers – it doesn’t change anything. You’re still justifying your faith based on writings of the faith.

Woops I keep forgetting you’re Orthodox. Feel free to make the word-substitution. How do you justify your chosen method of worship? What makes you so sure it’s correct, in the end?

As an agnostic, how do you justify your beliefs?

Vickie

 

[Mirdath]

As an agnostic, how do you justify your beliefs?

What beliefs?

 

[jpasta]

You know…the belief that you have no beliefs

 

[Mirdath]

You know…the belief that you have no beliefs

That’s not a belief.

 

[birdsong]

Your objections are silly Miradath, and have no place in a THEOLOGICAL discussion, which I believe is the context that is being used in this thread. You are basically asking people to scientifically prove to you that God exists, and that Christianity is God’s religion, etc, etc, etc. Sorry, I am afraid we can not do that within this context, and I, for one, would not want to waste my time with you. InJESUS already gave you an excellent response within a theological context regarding why muhamedans resort to all sorts of logical fallacies (including, of course, circular reasoning) in order to validate their claims that islam follows on the Judaism/Christianity tradition.

My impression is that you are trying to play the “smart guy” here, but instead of being perceived as such, you are being perceived (at least by me) as totally clueless and silly.

I’m quite aware of that. I was trying to keep it simple – sure, add the Didache, add the epistles of Clement and everybody, add City of God and the other writings of the Church fathers – it doesn’t change anything. You’re still justifying your faith based on writings of the faith.

Woops I keep forgetting you’re Orthodox. Feel free to make the word-substitution. How do you justify your chosen method of worship? What makes you so sure it’s correct, in the end?

 

[jpasta]

That’s not a belief.

That was sarcasm…doesn’t come across that good in the written word.
I too am what you are…

 

[birdsong]

Excellent responses InJESUS. However, if I were you, I’d not waste my time with this Miradath fellow. He just wants to play the “smart guy” and is not interested in a theological argument and debate.

again, the islamic tradition is clear : no one heard any spirit talk to Muhammad. When people accused him of forgery, he replied with verses saying " Allah say this and that". That’s it.
The gospels are clear : many people heard a voice from heaven attesting to Jesus. Add to this all the previous prophecies and scriptures.

All these might not be a reason for an atheist to believe in God or Jesus or the gospel accounts but from a THEOLOGICAL ( not scientific) point of view, Muhammad fails where Jesus wins because Jesus is backed up by prophecies, scriptures, the voice of God and miracles when Muhammad lacks all of these with the admission of Muslims. So why should i accept Jesus not Muhammad? because of the previous scriptures and prophecies, testimonies of people who heard God’s voice "and a voice came from heaven, “Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased.”, and because of MANY accounts written by different people. Why do i reject Muhammad? because no one heard God attesting to him, no prophecy about him, Jesus did not send him, he contradicts previous scriptures and claims they are corrupt.
These, i repeat, are theological reasons and not scientic because science cannot prove that Jesus even existed.

 

[Mirdath]

Your objections are silly Miradath, and have no place in a THEOLOGICAL discussion, which I believe is the context that is being used in this thread. You are basically asking people to scientifically prove to you that God exists, and that Christianity is God’s religion, etc, etc, etc. Sorry, I am afraid we can not do that within this context, and I, for one, would not want to waste my time with you. InJESUS already gave you an excellent response within a theological context regarding why muhamedans resort to all sorts of logical fallacies (including, of course, circular reasoning) in order to validate their claims that islam follows on the Judaism/Christianity tradition.

Then tell me, what makes ‘the Bible is right because it says it is’ so different and so much more logically sound and valid than ‘the Quran is right because it says it is’?

I am not asking for a proof of God’s existence or anything like that, only for a demonstration of how one set of writings can be self-validated while another cannot.

My impression is that you are trying to play the “smart guy” here, but instead of being perceived as such, you are being perceived (at least by me) as totally clueless and silly.

I am a skeptic and a fool; and what’s so bad about that?