Quote Originally Posted by total relism View Post
My reasons for rejecting Islam come from the info in those debates, as well as the post numbers I listed on OP. Here is why your objection fails to muslims, the bible has been corrupted/mistranslated. So we cant trust it claiming jesus is god. That is why one of my argument, that you could not call a "coherent reason". Is to show the muslim, that the koran and Muhammad said the bible was 100% correct in 600 AD. Than pointing out, that the bible was in full 200 years before that, and is the same as the bible we have today. So even if it was mistranslated, Muhammad and koran say its perfect. See why that is a more "coherent reason" to argue against them than yours?. Plus I garentee 100% you cannot point out why my arguments fail that I have made against islam, as you have not even read any.
I've browsed your "arguments - but I don't see the force of them.

Muhammed did not say the was "100% correct", in fact as I'm sure Hax will tell you, he said quite the opposite. In any case, the Bible does not state that Jesus was the Incarnation, which is the core contention between Christians and Muslims.

As I clearly showed, these are two diffident episodes, john 1 happens before matt 4. There are even diffident people involved with these two accounts [Andrew]. In all of john 1 peter is never called.
Andrew is in both - in Matthew Andrew is with his brother Simon Peter - even your NIV shows that.

Also why would the disciples up and follow jesus when he called them? this would not happen unless they already knew him. That is why in matt 4 when peter is called [when he is fishing] he right away follows jesus. He already new him and learned from him etc.
For the same reason the lame got up and walked, he was the Incarnation. His death rattle rent the curtain of the temple, caused and earthquake and blotted out the sun.

I am starting to wonder how much of bible you understand? or are just repeating from what you may have herd. John was one of the twelve original disciples, and one of the three major apostles, peter,john and james. I cant give you all references but look at, mark 9 1-13, 13 1-3, 14.33 3.17. These and many more show john was a original disciple,there from the beginning. Also look at john 21.24.
Nowhere does it show that the "Beloved Disciple" is actually John, he is NEVER named in John, and he has that role only in John.

Count them - the Eleven Apostles go away with Jesus to be instructed in John, but the Beloved Disciple walks off into the sunset and is never heard from again - he may have never died. In any case there are lots of Johns in the New Testament

As I said, you cannot provide one piece of evidence, the bible has been corrupted, the original.
There are no original manuscripts - all copies are corrupt.

The world is Fallen, get over it.

I will ask again, you like to make claims. I wish you would back up claims please. Please provide evidence, I have original hebrew/greek bible. No expert but I know some. I ask questions and am learning all the time.
No, you have the Bible in original languages, edited together from newer manuscripts. Read the Forward to your Bible, the editors should explain it there.

You want evidence? Look up the oldest Hebrew manuscript, it's medieval.

If you are like me and believe god is the real author of the bible, than john certainly did write the gosple john14.26 15.25 16.13
I despise atomisation of Sciptura, but very well.

14.26 references the Holy Spirit, the "advocate" will teach the Apostles everything and remind them of what Christ has said - it doesn't say theywill write these things down. Nor do the following verses

15.25 - this is the tale end of Jesus' bit about the Temple Priests, (18-26) they hate him (and God) because of his good works, he has incited them to wrath and damned their souls to fulfil the prophecy, because they are hateful. Perhaps you meant to reference 26? Here the disciples are called to testify because they have been with Jesus from the beginning, still there is nothing about writing.

16.13 - the Holy Spirit again - he will guide and testify to the Apostles. This still didn't stop Peter from initially disbelieving the Command of God in Act's 10, though, did it.

None of this pertains to the Gospels, which were clearly not written by the disciples themselves.

John is in many ways a counter-intuitive book, and much of the New Testament is about anti-intellectual inspiration and word of mouth, none of the Gospels are about writing. In fact, Jesus never writes anything and people bring messages to him by word of mouth. The only significant writing done is by Pilate, when he hangs a sign above Christ's head as he is Crucified.

The New Testament is about the movement of the Holy Spirit, not a written word. Indeed, the "Word" of God is not the Bible - it is YHWH - "I AM" - which is the sum totality of everything we need to know about God, and can know.