[b]Diocesan priest and professor of Biblical Theology and chairman of the department of theology at Barry University, Miami, John F. O’Grady says about Mark,

“The Gospel itself never states anything about its author, its origin, or the time of composition.” [7]

He continues later under the heading “Anonymous Evangelists“,

“Who wrote Mark? First, recall that nowhere does the author identify himself. The same is true for all the Gospels. Matthew does not identify himself, nor does Luke, and in the Gospel of John the author seems to identify himself with the beloved disciple, but this cannot be equated with the apostle John(Jn. 21:24).

Dr. Neil S. Fujita concerning the Gospels,

“Traditionally the writer of the Second Gospel has been identified with John Mark… This identification, however, is uncertain; there exists no evidence in the New Testament which bears out this assertion. For the sake of convenience, we call the author of this Gospel Mark.” [9] (emphasis added)

It is merely out of CONVENIENCE that the Gospel is called Mark instead of saying for example the second book of the Ne[/b]w Te[b]stament, Chapter 5, verse 3. Out of convenicne one may say Mark 5:3. It is not based on grounded knowledge, but, only to facilitate easiness![/b]

[b]oncerning Matthew he writes,

“Traditionally this Gospel has been considered to have been written by Matthew, one of the twelve disciples of Jesus… there is nothing to suggest the personal identity of the writer. The very fact that the writer used Mark’s Gospel and the Q source well indicates that he was probably not a direct companion of Jesus.

“The use of Mark also points to the date of the composition of the Gospel after A.D. 70. It is a matter of conjecture how much later than 70;” [10] (emphasis added)

Concerning Luke he writes,

“In the opening statement (1:1-4), the author explains the aim and reason for writing the Gospels…for the sake of the “most excellent Theophilus”.”

“Since at least the second century A.D., the author has been identified as Luke, “a beloved physician”, and a companion of Paul(Col. 4:14). This identification, however, is by no means conclusive; there is no definitive evidence to support it.” [11]

So, Luke wrote the Gospel not for the sake of God or Jesus or anything like that. Rather, the “gospel” was written for some unknown guy “Theophilus”.[/b]

[b]The scholar Helmut Koester readily admits this,

“Since there is no second-century manuscript evidence; the quest for the text of the Synoptic Gospels in the second century is identical with the question of the earliest usage of their text in other writings.” [6](emphasis added)

When studying the gospels and other writings concerning them it is difficult to miss dates that are attributed to the gospels by certain Christian writers. For example, one may commonly come across claims that the Gospel of Mark was written in 70 A.D. You will be able to notice that usually when such claims are made not a shred of evidence is offered as substantiation for the given date. In reality, there is no proof for such dates. They are really made on the basis of nothing short of guess work and conjecture as Dr. Neil S. Fujita testifies,

“Scholars usually assume it to have been written shortly after A.D. 70 when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans.”

The Christian predicament is compounded further by the fact that these four gospels are absolutely anonymous! Can you imagine your sibling bringing to court an anonymous document which states that he is to inherit more than half the family estate which posthumously came into existence after the death of your parent and the court takes the anonymous will and gives him the said inheritance? No, any reasonable man will eschew such a notion since no court of law in the world will consider such a faulty document that is untraceable to the alleged source as legitimate. This is precisely what we stumble upon when dealing with the Gospels.[/b]

Prof. Emeritus Edwin D. Freed says,

“Most NT scholars agree that the gospels are anonymous and that the present titles probably were not added until sometime in the second century.

^^^Magnificent.^{*sarcastic applause*} You are a poor advertisement for Islam! In one single post you argue both for and against the compilation of the qur'an!

vedaxcool:

"Narrated Zaid bin Thabit; Abu Bakr as-Saddiq sent for me when the people of Yamama had been killed,  (I went to him) and found `Umar bin Al-Khattab sitting with him. Abu Bakr then said (to me); "Umar has come to me and said; "Casualties were heavy among the Qurra of the Qur'an (i.e. those who knew the Qur'an by heart) , and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place,  whereby a large part of the Qur'an may be lost. Therefore I suggest, you (Abu Bakr) order that the Qur'an be collected."

^So if there was an original copy somewhere as you claim, why the fear that as those who'd memorized it died, it would be lost?

vedaxcool:

I said to `Umar, "How can you do something which Allah's Messenger did not do?", 

^Yep. Wasn't compiled into a codex by Muhammad. Ironic; considering that y'all keep asking us to show the writings of Jesus when we point you to the bible, and all the while it turns out your prophet didn't write a book! Just some fragments on bones, leaves etc.

vedaxcool:

"Umar kept urging me until Allah opened my chest for it and I began to realise the good idea which `Umar had realised.",  "then Abu Bakr said (to me).', So you should search for (the fragmentary scripts of) the Qur'an and collect it (in one book).", So I started looking for the Qur'an and collecting it,  Then the complete manuscripts (copy) of the Qur'an remained with Abu Bakr till he died, then with `Umar till the end of his life, and then with Hafsa, the daughter of `Umar."

^Fragments. Some were missing. Some got eaten by a goat. Seriously for all his bombast the god could not even safeguard his "writings".

vedaxcool:

  So to simply dismiss you futile point, Usman(Ra) didn't compile the Qur'an, it was Abubakar, that is there was an original copy, immediately after the death of the Holy Prophet S.A.W,

^Here the contradiction emerges! There was an original copy you say but. . .

vedaxcool:

"Narrated Zaid bin Thabit; Abu Bakr as-Saddiq sent for me when the people of Yamama had been killed,  (I went to him) and found `Umar bin Al-Khattab sitting with him. Abu Bakr then said (to me); "Umar has come to me and said; "Casualties were heavy among the Qurra of the Qur'an (i.e. those who knew the Qur'an by heart) , and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place,  whereby a large part of the Qur'an may be lost. Therefore I suggest, you (Abu Bakr) order that the Qur'an be collected."

^And not discounting the fact that there were several compilations also floating around until Uthman.

vedaxcool:

hence Usman (Ra) merely standardized the Qur'an., due to the fact that people were reciting ( reading) it differently on other parts of the Islamic Empire due to what? due to the fact that the initial copies of the Qur'an did not have those floating symbols that were known to be vowels which indicate whether it is an a, e or u etc sound, but the meccan, medina etc  knew where the apporiate marks are to be placed due to the fact that the qur'an was revealed in their own dialect, to cut a long story short the Standardization of the Qur'an only added those marks that were misssing and hence made the pronunciation of the meccans to become the standard recitation because Arabic has I think 12 dialect. Now as for your claim that because Ibn Musaud was clearly the only expert and know all in matters involving the Qur'an only goes to show how Ignorant you are of the situation( I know you are quoting verbatim from Answering- Islam

^Oh, and you have not been quoting verbatim from atheists websites: At least I read and digest what I am posting unlike you. The old dialect argument. Where do I make the claim that Ibn Masud was the only expert? I said he was preeminent among those versed in the qur'an and if the difference in Thabit's copy and his was merely dialect, he would have surrendered his copy willing, but his grouse was that Thabit's copy was corrupt. A view shared by other contemporaries as documented in your hadiths!

There were numerous differences of reading between the texts of Zaid and Ibn Mas'ud. Just one example will suffice here:
"Surah 5.91, in the standard text, contains the exhortation fasiyaamu thalaathati ayyaamin' - "fast for three days". Ibn Mas'ud's text had, after the last word, the adjective mutataabi'aatin, meaning three "successive" days. The variant derives from at-Tabari and was also mentioned by Abu Ubaid. This variant reading was, significantly, found in Ubayy ibn Ka'b's text as well and in the texts of Ibn Abbas and Ibn Mas'ud's pupil Ar-Rabi ibn Khuthaim."
^So how does an additional word transmute into a difference in dialect?

vedaxcool:

. . .the prophet companions were very competent and were involved in the process of both the initial compilation and then the standardization of the Qur'an. . .

^ Why bother to compile and standardize a book that you hitherto claim was not corrupted and descended in pure form from the god? An arbitrary standard that Masud disagreed with.

@Vedaxcool: I just finished my Salatul Subh and I saw your posts as i was just about to respond to the struggling to strengthing his faith in christianity aletheia guy. May Allah reward you my dear brother. hy do we even attempt to respond to the likes of Aletheia? If we dont, his disbeleif may become a "belief" in the heart of those who are unaware that Jesus couldnt do anything of his own power, but Paul has made him a hero that does everything. Thou, Paul spoke his own desire on behalf of Jesus who didnt send him and had no authority to send anyone for anything.



@aletheia: My Brother Vedaxcool already responded to you. But I need to just remind you of few things. « #93 on: Yesterday at 09:39:52 PM »

^^ No study of the early transmission of the Qur'an would be complete without an analysis of the contribution of Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, one of the most prominent of Muhammad's companions.

One of the most, meaning there are people who were just as Most as him (RA). Ai bin Abitalib was one of the most, too. He was from the house of Muhammad (AS). In every respect was a muslim before Mas'ud who recited Surah Rahman at Ka'aba publically. But it was Umar bin Kattab who asked muslims to demostrate publically to the place of Ka'aba, in the face of the idolaters.

#1. He was one of his earliest disciples and we are told that he was "the first man to speak the Qur'an loudly in Mecca after the apostle" (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p.141).

Abu Bakr and his whole family including Aisha, except a wife and a son were muslims before Mas'ud. So was Uthman and many other friends were muslims before Mas'ud. Ali bin Abitalib, Zaid were from the house of Muhammad (AS) and the whole of the revelations came during their Islam, except the first 5 verses revealed to initiate Islam of Muhammad into existence.

#2. There is much evidence to show that he was regarded by Muhammad himself as one of the foremost authorities on the Qur'an, if not the foremost, as appears from the following hadith:

So was Ali bin Abitalib (RA) who was regarded as the door of knowledge; Muhammad (AS) being that knowledge. (Note; Every Messenger and or Prophet (AS) was and is a knowledge (source of knowing the Creator) among his community).

     Narrated Masruq: Abdullah bin Mas'ud was mentioned before Abdullah bin Amr who said, "That is a man I still love, as I heard the Prophet (saw) saying, 'Learn the recitation of the Qur'an from four: from Abdullah bin Mas'ud - he started with him - Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa, Mu'adh bin Jabal and Ubai bin Ka'b". (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 5, p.96)

Even though the chain of narration is not known or complete, we must not forget that Mas'ud (RA) is one of the four Abdullah(S), and he was not alone in this quality.

The same tradition in the other great work of hadith also specifically mentions that Muhammad "started from him" (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 4, p.1312), showing that he was deliberately mentioned first, indicating that Muhammad regarded him as the foremost authority on the Qur'an. Among others mentioned is Ubayy ibn Ka'b who also compiled a separate codex of the Qur'an before it was destroyed by Uthman.

Before the Qurans by accent[s] that Uthman, the 3rd kalifah (RA) binded (Makkan/Madina, Kufah, Basra/Bagdad, and Syria texts), under Abu Bakr (RA), who ruled just 2.5 years starting from the day the Messenger passed away, the SINGULAR MAster Quran was Binded, still leaving compilations that existed in the hands of owners, which were used to produce it, including those who memorized any part of the Quran to recite it to act as additional guaranty that everyone agreed that what came out was the Quran. Abdullah Mas'ud was there and agreed and did not raise objection.

#3. It is significant to find no mention of Zaid ibn Thabit in this list which shows quite conclusively that Muhammad regarded Ibn Mas'ud and Ubayy ibn Ka'b as far better read in the Qur'an than him.

Lets leave Ubayy ibn Ka'b to argue against your allegation for a moment. Why didnt Ubayy ibn Ka'b (RA) take the same position that you are claiming that Mas'ud took, against what you called Zaid's authority? Was Zaid in authority, or was it Abu Bakr at his time as Kalifah in his kalifate, and each kalifah in their individual kalifate? Did Zaid attained kalifate or did Mas'ud? Neither and whoever disobey the kalifah authority acting for the community after agreement have been reached deserves to be excoriated until he returns from his position of disagreement. There is no time any of the leadership made decision without overall agreement by the community to move forward.

#4. In another hadith we find further evidence of Ibn Mas'ud's prominence in respect of his knowledge of the Qur'an:

     Narrated Abdullah (bin Mas'ud) (ra): By Allah other than Whom none has the right to be worshipped! There is no Sura revealed in Allah's Book but I know at what place it was revealed; and there is no verse revealed in Allah's Book but I know about whom it was revealed. And if I know that there is somebody who knows Allah's Book better than I, and he is at a place that camels can reach, I would go to him. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.488).

Hadith is only from Muhammad (AS). no one except that he is quoting Muhammad (AS) can say what he says is hadith. There is just one Messenger and Prophet (AS) Muhammad, and no one else is the Messenger/Prophet and can be said that his speech is hadith. No one, not Abu bakr, or Umar, or Uthman or Ali bin Abitalib, or Aisha, or Fatimah (RA). None. So Mas'ud's speech could not be hadith.

#5. In a similar tradition we read that he added to this that he had recited more than seventy surahs of the Qur'an in Muhammad's presence, alleging that all Muhammad's companions were aware that no one knew the Qur'an better than he did, to which Shaqiq, sitting by, added "I sat in the company of the Companions of Muhammad (may peace be upon him) but I did not hear anyone having rejected that (that is, his recitation) or finding fault with it" (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 4, p.1312).

There are 112 Chapters in the Quran. But in all of these so called "hadith", merely speeches of Mas'ud, we didnt read what is missing of the Quran that he would have added, or what he would have subtracted and yet he did not form his own Quran. In all, what he knew that no one else knew, he did not teach it to those he led, in his community. These show that his so called disagreement was not because he felt that the Quran is missing anything, but may have been personal.

Mas'ud (RA) being a good muslim would have endeavor to preserve the "TRUE Quran" as he knew it, considering that he loved that the message of Allah delivered by Muhammad be preserved as was delivered, and to make the Verse of Allah saying that He will Preserve and Guard the Quran be a fulfilled VERSE. I say the way the Quran is, for over 1400 years from during the lifetime of Muhammad (AS), the VERSE is fulfilled and continue to be fulfilled till the day of Judgement by Allah. And did anyone find recitation with the recutation of Zaid bin Thabit, or that of Abdullah bin Abbass, or Ali Abitalib, etc?

#6. There are solid evidences to show why Abdullah ibn Mas'ud at first refused to hand over his codex for destruction. It was precisely because the companion of Muhammad considered his own text to be superior to and more authentic than Zaid's that he was angered at Uthman's decree.

Whats superior and or authentic about 10 or 200 or 1000 or 10,000, or 100,000 people having "John comes to school. Mary comes to school. The teacher comes to school", if everyone has the same exact thin g, though some were copied from another, maybe the earlier in black ink, the later as copies in blue ink, lead pencils, different color of crayons? This seem to be what your argument is.

#7. In a source we find that, when Uthman's order came for the destruction of the other codices and the uniform reading of the Qur'an according to Zaid's codex alone, Ibn Mas'ud gave a khutba (sermon) in Kufa and declared:

I think your argument forgets that there is a complete Quran BINDED by Abu Bakr in the hand of Hafsa (RA), already. SHould there be a need for anyone to ask for codices? No. Except that Uthman (RA) wants the community to unite as many accented QUran were going to be produced by this already in existence in Book form.

     "The people have been guilty of deceit in the reading of the Qur'an. I like it better to read according to the recitation of him (Prophet) whom I love more than that of Zayd Ibn Thabit. By Him besides Whom there is no god! I learnt more than seventy surahs from the lips of the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, while Zayd Ibn Thabit was a youth, having two locks and playing with the youth". (Ibn Sa'd, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p.444).

And Muhammad (AS) said that the recitation of the Quran are many; in accents and style; Walsh, Hafs are examples.

Abdullah ibn Mas'ud clearly resisted Uthman's order, not because of sentiment but clearly because he sincerely believed that his text of the Qur'an, gained firsthand from Muhammad himself, was more authentic than the text of Zaid.

Zaid does not have a text. Mas'ud does not have a text. Each at best had a copy of Quran. Same Chapters, same verses, same sections, same arrangement; the reason we do not have Mas'ud give any evidence, even remote one against what was already established, which he was part of, in the lifetimes of Abu Bakr with a legacy of Binded Quran, and the next Kalifah, Umar. Ali bin Abitalib would have supported Mas'ud (RA) if Mas'ud was in the right.

Far from the Qur'an being universally accepted in a standard form there were, on the contrary, vast differences in the texts distributed in the various provinces. Uthman's action brought about the standardisation of a single text for the whole Muslim world - it was not a perpetuation of an already existing unity - and Zaid's copy had no greater claim to authenticity than Ibn Mas'ud's. It was simply arbitrarily chosen as the standard text because it was close at hand in Medina despite evidence that it was missing several suras and shortened others.

So where and what are the missing Suras according to your master christian webmaster, the Answering-Islam person? I wonder why Mas'ud didnt have his own Quran, or was tghis the same case as the Satanic verses, too? These two ideas, i summit that they never were. Just talking about it if long enough and no one opposes you and your leaders, will be taken as truth, just like Dick Cheney's WMD of Iraq was believed by Colin Powell to start a war, until after so much destructions that the truth began to emerge. We know now that it was all a lie.

Aletheia, when a muslim raises a matter about Christianity, you will see that it is about the content of the Bible and just a shot in the dark like you do about the Quran, lying about it, and hoping that something may fly under the radar, and gained acceptance in the mind of those who do not know that your style is to make up stuff.

@Vedaxcool: I just finished my Salatul Subh and I saw your posts as i was just about to respond to the struggling to strengthing his faith in christianity aletheia guy. May Allah reward you my dear brother. hy do we even attempt to respond to the likes of Aletheia? If we dont, his disbeleif may become a "belief" in the heart of those who are unaware that Jesus couldnt do anything of his own power, but Paul has made him a hero that does everything. Thou, Paul spoke his own desire on behalf of Jesus who didnt send him and had no authority to send anyone for anything.

So if there was an original copy somewhere as you claim, why the fear that as those who'd memorized it died, it would be lost?

It seems u read the reply upside down,it was that was the first stuff I posted, and reading on wards it states that all the fragemnt of the Qur'an were collected into one place, you are building your case based on the premise that Uthman compiled and standardized the text, while I am making it known to you the Qur'an was compiled during Abuakar's (RA) reign.

Oh, and you have not been quoting verbatim from atheists websites:

I did not quote any of the evidence I have given you from an atheist site, funny you digest yet you still quote verbatim.

We all know you will not answer any of the criticism about the bible or crucifixion, you are only good in quoting verbatim from answering Islam.

[b]Now Let us eamine Zaid whom you have tried so hard to belittle

The Prophet Meets the Young Ansar: Zayd ibn Thabit is Zayd ibn Thabit ibn al-Dahhak (Abu Kharija). He was born in Madina eleven years before the Hijra (in 611 C.E.) but was raised in Mecca. His father was killed when he was six years old, and he emigrated at age eleven to Madina, approximately the same time the Prophet migrated to that city in 622 C.E. Zayd and his family were among the first ansars (helpers) to accept Islam, when members of his clan embraced the faith and swore allegiance to the Prophet in Year 1 of the Hijra. In one report Zayd himself reported that the Prophet had just arrived in Madina and: “I was brought to the Prophet and the people said: O Messenger of Allah! This is one of the boys of (the tribe of) Bani al-Najjar, and he has memorized seventeen surahs. So I recited to the Prophet, and he was well pleased with that.”



Not yet 13, Zayd personally appealed to the Prophet to join the Muslim army, which was preparing for the Battle of Badr (2 A.H) against the Makkan pagans. On account of his youth, the Prophet denied his request and sent him home, much to the distress of his mother al Nawar bint Malik. A couple of years later, he again attempted to re-enlist in the Muslim army preparing for the Battle of `Uhud (3 A.H.) with a group of other teenagers, some of whom were admitted to the ranks, but the Messenger again rejected Zayd due to his youth and inexperience. Maybe the Messenger foresaw the heavy burden history would later place on the shoulders of this young man!



Chief Scribe to the Prophet: Twice rejected for military service, Zayd continued his effort to work for the cause of Islam. Though young in age, he was academically inclined and was also gifted in languages. He could read and write (a rare commodity at that time). He excelled in Arabic and distinguished himself in the recitation of Qur’anic surahs. For these reasons, the Prophet selected him as his Chief Scribe of the Qur’an (kaatib al nabiyy), despite his youth. This was a characteristic trait of the Prophet—appointing bright and energetic young people to high office—much to the chagrin of older companions!



In a hadith in his Sahih, Al Bukhari reported: Al-Bara’ said: “There was revealed ‘not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah” (al-Nisaa’/4:95). The Prophet said: ‘Call Zayd for me and let him bring the board, the ink pot and the scapula bone, (or the scapula bone and the ink pot.)’ Then he said: ‘Write: Not equal are those believers …’ Several types of materials were used to write down the “revealed verses,” including palm stalks, white stones, wood, shoulder bones, and leather, among others.



It has also been reported that the Prophet requested Zayd to study Hebrew and Syriac to assist him with diplomatic letters and correspondences, later sent to neighboring heads of state, inviting them to Islam. Then in his early twenties, Zayd became an exponent of the Qur’an and one of those who had memorized the existing Revelation as taught by the Prophet himself. Hadith records also state that Zayd had the unique distinction to witness the Prophet’s recitation before Jibril during the last Ramadan. According to Ibn Abi Dawud, once, after the Prophet’s death, some people went to Zayd and asked him: “Narrate to us something from the Prophet.” He responded: “And what should I narrate to you?” I used to be a neighbor of the Prophet, so whenever any inspiration came to him, he would call me to write it…

Written Qur’an Existed at the Time of the Prophet’s Death: Tradition holds that, at the time of the Prophet’s death (in 632 C.E./10 A.H.), the revealed Qur’an existed in written form, with ayat and surahs (verses and chapters) arranged in order, at the Prophet’s direction under divine Guidance. For example, Ahmad and others reported: `Uthman ibn Abi Al-`Aas said: “Once while I was sitting with Allah’s Messenger, he rolled his eyes upwards in a stare, then after a while he lowered them and said: ‘Jibril came to me and ordered me to place this ayah in this place in this surah’: => ‘innallaha ya’-muru bil `adli wal-‘ihsaani wa iitaa’i dhil qurba.’ => Verily Allah commands justice, kindness, and charity to close relatives.” [16:90] However, the written verses were not assembled under two covers in ‘book form.’ That is, the Qur’anic text was completely written down but was not assembled in one master volume. Ibn Hajar reported: Zayd ibn Thabit said: ‘The Prophet was taken [from this life] whilst the Qur’an had not yet been gathered into a book.[/b]

Zayd Appointed to Collect Manuscript: After some initial hesitation over Umar’s request, Abu Bakr finally agreed to sanction this extraordinary project. He then sent for the Prophet’s Chief Scribe, Zayd ibn Thabit, and commissioned him to do as Umar had requested, in the following words: “Zayd, you are young and intelligent, you used to record the revelations for the Prophet, and we know nothing to your discredit. So pursue the Qur’an and collect it together …”


Zayd’s Impeccable credentials: Zayd had excellent credentials being the chief scribe of the Prophet; this fact alone gave Abu Bakr comfort and assurance that Zayd was duly qualified to undertake the formidable task “to gather” the sacred Qur’an together. Zayd’s qualifications included the following:


· He was the well-known Madinite Scribe to the Prophet for the Revelation (kaatib al wahy al mashur).

· He was a renowned hafiz of the Qur’an during the lifetime of the Prophet.

· He was a witness to the Prophet’s recitation in the presence of Jibril during the last Ramadan.

· He had irreproachable morals (Abu Bakr said: “we do not accuse you of any wrongdoing.”)

· He was young, knowledgeable, wise, and reliable (with sound and powerful memory).

· He had excellent skills in languages (written and spoken), especially in Arabic.



At first, Zayd himself was hesitant to accept the Caliph’s order to spearhead this novel task. However, like Abu Bakr, he was soon reconciled to the wisdom of the undertaking and accepted the mission to head the committee, which included `Umar al Khattab and other companions.



[b]“Law of Witness” Methodology: It is vital to understand the methodology employed by Zayd and his committee in this project, which required ‘public disclosure and openness’ in the “collection process” to assure acceptance that the written verses collected were “the divine verses” revealed to the Prophet. This idea of “authoritativeness” is central to issues of reliability and authenticity of the “collected manuscript.” The caliph Abu Bakr understood the implication and gravity of this question. Hence, to assist Zayd in the project, he issued a general decree requesting that all Muslims, who had copies of written verses (recited to them by the Prophet himself), to bring such verses to the Prophet’s masjid (in Madina), along with two reliable witnesses.



Ibn Abi Dawud stated: Abu Bakr told `Umar and Zayd: ‘Sit at the entrance to the [Prophet’s] masjid. If anyone brings you a verse from the Book of Allah along with two witnesses, then record it.’ The written materials, attested by two witnesses, were also compared with oral recitation of the noted qurra’ for correctness, coherence and consistency. Zayd’s extraordinary efforts ended with all surahs and verses duly arranged, probably in the Madinite script and spelling conventions.



This “law of witness” methodology was a critical procedure applied to authenticate the written Qur’an, a standard later adopted by hadith scholars: that is, validating the “written verses”, as confirmed by witnesses to establish reliability and authoritativeness of the compiled Text. This approach constituted the core of Abu Bakr’s instruction to Zayd on his appointment as head of the Qur’an project.



Suhuf of Abu Bakr: The compiled manuscript became known as the Abu Bakr’s Suhuf {parchment (pages) of sacred writings}, bringing the written Qur’an in book form under two covers, for the first time ever. The Suhuf was placed in the state archives in the custody of the Caliph. On his deathbed, Abu Bakr appointed `Umar to succeed him and entrusted the Suhuf in the latter’s custody. `Umar’s regime lasted next ten years, during which time he stabilized the Islamic nation and expanded the borders beyond the Arabian Peninsula: into Egypt, Syria and Iraq. Sadly, `Umar died at the hands of an assassin, Abu Lu’Lu. The Suhuf then found its way in the custody of Hafsa (a hafizah), Umar’s daughter and wife of the late Prophet. According to al-Bukhari in his Sahih, Hafsa kept the Qur’an in her house in Madina, but she made it available to anyone who wanted to make copies from it or check the accuracy of what they had memorized.[/b]

More on the crucifixion: this evidence is based on disconcerted sources -- contradictory statement

1[b].False promise by Jesus?

In Luke 23:43 we have Jesus making a promise to his fellow crucified victim,

“Jesus answered him, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.”"

This was during the crucifixion. According to the Creed of the Apostles which may well have been based on 1 Peter 3:18-20 Jesus went down to hell after the crucifixion, “Jesus who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, buried and descended into hell.” (Apostles’ Creed) Further more, in John 20:17 Jesus says, “Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’ ” Where is the father? The Father is in heaven according to Matthew 6:9-13 and Matthew 23:9. What was the promise again? The promise was that he would see Jesus in heaven today i.e. on Friday. Apostles’ Creed says Jesus went to hell after he died and John 20:17 says Jesus did not yet ascend to the Father(in heaven) on Sunday. It is clearly a contradiction.

2.Who and where were the women at the crucifixion?

Matthew 27:56 claims that Mary Magdelene, Mary the mother of James, Joseph and the mother of the sons of Zebedee were watching at the scene. Mark 15:40 claims that Mary Magdelene, Mary the mother of James the younger and Joses and Salome were watching. Luke 23:49 says, “And all his acquaintances and the women who had followed him from Galilee stood at a distance watching these things.” If Luke is correct then all the witnesses including the women were standing at a distance watching the incident. John goes against the rest and claims that Jesus’ mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary Magdelene were standing close to the cross. It was so clase that Jesus was able to communicate with his mother.(John 19:25-26). Did you also notice that the women were all MARYS? Were there no other name among Jewish women other than Mary? How very coincidental that all the women mentioned are Marys. Is it easier to say it’s a coincidence or that they are inventions of the authors?[/b]

@Aletheia: « #99 on: Today at 11:25:24 AM »

^^^Magnificent.*sarcastic applause* You are a poor advertisement for Islam! In one single post you argue both for and against the compilation of the qur'an!
Quote from: vedaxcool on Today at 09:09:49 AM
"Narrated Zaid bin Thabit; Abu Bakr as-Saddiq sent for me when the people of Yamama had been killed,  (I went to him) and found `Umar bin Al-Khattab sitting with him. Abu Bakr then said (to me); "Umar has come to me and said; "Casualties were heavy among the Qurra of the Qur'an (i.e. those who knew the Qur'an by heart) , and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place,  whereby a large part of the Qur'an may be lost. Therefore I suggest, you (Abu Bakr) order that the Qur'an be collected."
^So if there was an original copy somewhere as you claim, why the fear that as those who'd memorized it died, it would be lost?

Read it. Again. Abu Bakr made the first and only complete Book Form during his leadership, within a mere 2.5 years of the death of the prophet (AS). This is a fulfillment of the Quranic verse calling this Oral document a Book, even while it was not a Book. What is wrong in writing down a thing memorized when those who memorized it were being killed by the 100s, considering how easily the Quran can flyaway from the memory if not recited constantly? ALlah says He will preserve and protect and guard the Book, are reasons that he made the condition for its making it to a Book happen. Now we have it in all parts of the world in the same letter, words, sentences, verses, chapters, sections, The Quran. Are these not proofs that nothing was lost and instead Allah's Promise is True?

Quote from: vedaxcool on Today at 09:09:49 AM
I said to `Umar, "How can you do something which Allah's Messenger did not do?",
^Yep. Wasn't compiled into a codex by Muhammad. Ironic; considering that y'all keep asking us to show the writings of Jesus when we point you to the bible, and all the while it turns out your prophet didn't write a book! Just some fragments on bones, leaves etc.

You didnt know that Muhammad (AS) didnt know how to write even his name? But memorization was all he did. So all the community memorized it, too. And now memorization is still the tradition, except that the Book is in front of you for others to know if you are reading it correctly from your memorization, just in case those who memorize it are not available. But the Quran is not like the Bible. Let me post a verse for you from the Bible and you tell me who the speaker is and what was he saying? 2 Corinthians 13:2-3; On my return I will not spare those who sinned earlier or any of the others, since you are demanding proof that Christ is speaking through me.

Quote from: vedaxcool on Today at 09:09:49 AM
"Umar kept urging me until Allah opened my chest for it and I began to realise the good idea which `Umar had realised.",  "then Abu Bakr said (to me).', So you should search for (the fragmentary scripts of) the Qur'an and collect it (in one book).", So I started looking for the Qur'an and collecting it,  Then the complete manuscripts (copy) of the Qur'an remained with Abu Bakr till he died, then with `Umar till the end of his life, and then with Hafsa, the daughter of `Umar."
^Fragments. Some were missing. Some got eaten by a goat. Seriously for all his bombast the god could not even safeguard his "writings".

Your rigidity is appauling. If you have ever seen a scene in the vicinity of a home of the berieved, you will know that it is impossible for a goat to get around to where the corpse is laid out. Just imagine what the traffic was in Madina when the Messenger (AS) passed? The whole of Madina, for certain the whole of the muslim community was present. How then will a goat have an upperhand? How is it possible that parts of the Quran is left open to perish when the leave or leaves would have been dried and easily would have crumbled if left to the elements, unprotected. Yet it was protected until death took the messenger and they let goat ate it! Was it the only copy? Didnt, Mas'ud have it in his own Quran, aletheia?

Quote from: vedaxcool on Today at 09:09:49 AM
 So to simply dismiss you futile point, Usman(Ra) didn't compile the Qur'an, it was Abubakar, that is there was an original copy, immediately after the death of the Holy Prophet S.A.W,
^Here the contradiction emerges! There was an original copy you say but. . .
Quote from: vedaxcool on Today at 09:09:49 AM
"Narrated Zaid bin Thabit; Abu Bakr as-Saddiq sent for me when the people of Yamama had been killed,  (I went to him) and found `Umar bin Al-Khattab sitting with him. Abu Bakr then said (to me); "Umar has come to me and said; "Casualties were heavy among the Qurra of the Qur'an (i.e. those who knew the Qur'an by heart) , and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place,  whereby a large part of the Qur'an may be lost. Therefore I suggest, you (Abu Bakr) order that the Qur'an be collected."
^And not discounting the fact that there were several compilations also floating around until Uthman.

Aletheia! Open your eye, christian soldier. The first leadership from the same day the prophet (AS) passed was Abu Bakr. SInce there was no Quran in a complete Book form, then the first one was commissioned by Abu bakr, within his kalifate which lasted 2.5 years. The Umar became kalifah. Then Uthman. It was in the time of Uthman that 4 or 5 was commissioned based on the one that Abu Bakr had commissioned and in the possession of Umar or Hafsa (RA), while the whole community was allowed to recite and voluntarily bring what they had, to recross-check the Quran, the 5 different dialectic Quran and let go of whatever is uncompleted that individuals had should be destroyed. What had floated around were not in complete book bind form and to me as i see it wisely, the Book form and the destruction of what was not in the book form followed the same Quranic pattern of injuction process of allowing something before, but cradually forbids it until it is totally forbidden.

Quote from: vedaxcool on Today at 09:09:49 AM
hence Usman (Ra) merely standardized the Qur'an., due to the fact that people were reciting ( reading) it differently on other parts of the Islamic Empire due to what? due to the fact that the initial copies of the Qur'an did not have those floating symbols that were known to be vowels which indicate whether it is an a, e or u etc sound, but the meccan, medina etc  knew where the apporiate marks are to be placed due to the fact that the qur'an was revealed in their own dialect, to cut a long story short the Standardization of the Qur'an only added those marks that were misssing and hence made the pronunciation of the meccans to become the standard recitation because Arabic has I think 12 dialect. Now as for your claim that because Ibn Musaud was clearly the only expert and know all in matters involving the Qur'an only goes to show how Ignorant you are of the situation( I know you are quoting verbatim from Answering- Islam
^Oh, and you have not been quoting verbatim from atheists websites: At least I read and digest what I am posting unlike you. The old dialect argument. Where do I make the claim that Ibn Masud was the only expert? I said he was preeminent among those versed in the qur'an and if the difference in Thabit's copy and his was merely dialect, he would have surrendered his copy willing, but his grouse was that Thabit's copy was corrupt. A view shared by other contemporaries as documented in your hadiths!

But in your argument, what was it that Mas'ud claimed to be the deficiency of what Zaid did or had, when we already know that there was Quran in Book form during the kalifate of Abu bakr? Why didnt Mas'ud produce his own Quran, like Barnabas did of his own Gospel, different from  the unique Gospel preached by Paul; [b]Galatians 1:11-12,20

I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it: rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.  Romans 2:16

This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.  Romans 11:13-14

I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.
1 Corinthians 1:17

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel.
Romans 16:25-26

Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God.? (i.e. Paul admits he learned of the crucifixion/resurrection through prophesizing scripture not on actual historical events.)
1 Corinthians 7:17
This is the rule I lay down in all the churches.[/b]

There were numerous differences of reading between the texts of Zaid and Ibn Mas'ud. Just one example will suffice here:
"Surah 5.91, in the standard text, contains the exhortation fasiyaamu thalaathati ayyaamin' - "fast for three days". Ibn Mas'ud's text had, after the last word, the adjective mutataabi'aatin, meaning three "successive" days. The variant derives from at-Tabari and was also mentioned by Abu Ubaid. This variant reading was, significantly, found in Ubayy ibn Ka'b's text as well and in the texts of Ibn Abbas and Ibn Mas'ud's pupil Ar-Rabi ibn Khuthaim."
^So how does an additional word transmute into a difference in dialect?

The style of arab speeches. Each group having his own style of pronounciation. Walsh style if you are not a reciter will think that he is not correct, especially if you only heard Hafs before this. But a Quari; Quranic reciter knows all the style because even in the time of the Messenger (AS), he told people who thought the others were incorrect in their recitations, that it was revealed in 7 styles. Each 7 has 7 styles in it, and so on, hence you will hear an indian who cant say Wa saying Va when he actually writes Wa. This allowance in accent sounding as if its a different word is Mercy from Allah.

Quote from: vedaxcool on Today at 09:09:49 AM
. . .the prophet companions were very competent and were involved in the process of both the initial compilation and then the standardization of the Qur'an. . .
^ Why bother to compile and standardize a book that you hitherto claim was not corrupted and descended in pure form from the god? An arbitrary standard that Masud disagreed with.

Was the standardization not a way in your heart that it will be assured that it is not corrupted? But Mas'ud did not produce his own Quran separate from what we accept today. Why didnt he, like Paul did to the earlier established understanding, or what barnabas did in opposition to Paul's Gospel; [b]Galatians 1:6-7

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel-which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.?

Galatians 4:10-11

You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.

Galatians 4:17

Those people are zealous to win you over but for no good.

Galatians 2:11

When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.

Galatians 5:10

I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty, whoever he may be.

1 Thessalonians 2:2

We had previously suffered and been insulted in Philippi, as you know, but with the help of our God we dared to tell you his gospel in spite of strong opposition.

Romans 16:17

I urge you, brothers to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned.

1 Corinthians 1:10-12

I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. What I mean is this: One of you says, I follow Paul; another, I follow Apollos; another, I follow Cephas; still another, I follow Christ.

1 Corinthians 3:4

For when one says, I follow Paul, and another, I follow Apollos, are you not mere men?[/b]

IF ALETHEIA does not even attempt to explain any of the personal opinions of Paul, as listed, above, which are in the Word, i will not care to post to engage him. After all what Paul wrote is sign of leading to confusion. Was it Jehovah that was talking as Paul was personally giving his own statement?

nopuqeater:

IF ALETHEIA does not even attempt to explain any of the personal opinions of Paul, as listed, above, which are in the Word, i will not care to post to engage him. After all what Paul wrote is sign of leading to confusion. Was it Jehovah that was talking as Paul was personally giving his own statement?

^^What exactly is your question that needs answering? Please state it in clear terms. I won't respond to vague insinuations.
And by the way, here is a Ramadan message for you from Jesus Christ of Nazareth, the Son of the Most High God:
Revelation 22.
16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. 17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. 18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. 20He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. 21 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

@Aletheia: The verses from Paul that are listed in my Post do need explanations. They are personal opinions of Paul. So explain them and make then that of God's revelation to Jesus as in the Gospel or should I call it the New Testament or GoodNews?

I dont think Peter felt it a goodnews when Paul confronted him to his face. I dont think th others who are preaching different Gospels apart from the newcomer (Paul) will accept Paul's statement as Goodnews.

But then, who knows where your heart is. SO fit the above within the Goodnews from God to Jesus in the inside of Paul. Yes?

Quite Joyous i am that alethia could hardly raise any defense to the tons of proof that he has been given instead he try hard( but failed woefully) in trying to use criticism against ISLAM( it has always been his strategy) IN COVERING THE PURPORTED CRUCI-PLAY IN THE BIBLE, NEITHER HAS HE answered why the writers of the bible remain anonymous people  even in trivial matters people will always ask for the source of whatever that is in question yet alethia and his co-travelers prefer to believe in anything without asking where is the source, any well researched peerson wil clearly tell you Majority of the authors in the OT and NT are unknown, reminds one of Moses in the bible where he said: Moses died in the land of Moab, he was , , now how will a dead person talk and write his own Obituary, Looking at the cruciplay you will come to the conclusion even if for argument sake that his disciple where not witness to the cruciplay since they forsook him and fled, yet we come to learn that according to christian thinking they wrote the NT and hence by default they wrote the cruci-play, yet they forsook and fled ---they were not available to know what actually happened.

A[b] brief story:

there live a man(KITAKUntai) who had a brother(kuntakitai). The day came  when their father died, this made them all sad. they gave their father a beffiting burial. The time came for the sharing, Kitakuntai, his brother and rest of the family all sat down to discuss how there were going share their fathers wealth, Kitakuntai excussed himself and went into his room, moments later he brought out a piece of paper that read, I have given 99% of my wealth to Kitakuntai, the rest of you can take the 1%, yet the paper didn't carry their fathers signature or name,,

Now alethia would you, without any question, accept such claims as truly the word of the Kitakuntai fathers?[/b]

I guess No, since it is clearly an ANONYMOUS WRITING, so is the NT coz they do not even bear the name of their alleged writer.

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? -- (Psalm 22 The Evidence Bible).

Jesus words recorded in Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34 were the fulfillment of David's prophecy in Psalm 22:1.  Verse 3 of this psalm then gives us insight into why God forsook Jesus on the cross: "But You are holy . . ."  A holy Creator cannot have felowship with sin.  When Jesus was on the cross, the sin of the entire world was laid upon Him (Isaiah 53:6; 2 Cor.5:21), but Scripture says God is "of purer eyes than to behold evil, and cannot look on iniquity" (Habakkuk 1:13).

My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?

2O my God, I cry in the day time, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not silent.

3But thou art holy, O thou that inhabitest the praises of Israel.

4Our fathers trusted in thee: they trusted, and thou didst deliver them.

5They cried unto thee, and were delivered: they trusted in thee, and were not confounded.

Pls Olaa point to me were the prophecy is, coz David?? is clearly speaking of himself.

true, [img]http://s07.flagcounter.com/count/DymW/bg=ffffff/txt=ffffff/border=ffffff/columns=1/maxflags=1/viewers=3/labels=0/[/img]

@vedaxcool,

David was sometimes taunted for his confidence in God but in the suffering of Christ this was literally and exactly fulfilled.  See John 19:28,29; Luke 23:35; and Matthew 27:35.  In Psalms 22:6-18 alone, you will see a graphic description of the Messiah on the cross.

[list]
[li]He was aware of their scorn (in verse 6-7)[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]He could hear the mocking words (in verse [/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]He was praying (in verses 9-13)[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]The strain of crucifixion pulled His bones out of joint (verse 14)[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]Loss of blood made His heart feel as though it were melting (verse 14)[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]His strength completely left Him (v. 15)[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]Thirst caused His tongue to adhere to His mouth (v. 15)[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]They pierced His hands and feet (v. 16)[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]He could see them gambling for His clothes (v. 18)[/li]
[/list]

These Messianic allusions constitutes irrefutable testimony to the divine inspiration of the Scriptures, especially when crucifixion had not been invented, and this explains why cults and false religions will be used by Satan to fight against Christians and the Bible.

* He was aware of their scorn (in verse 6-7)

    * He could hear the mocking words (in verse

    * He was praying (in verses 9-13)

    * The strain of crucifixion pulled His bones out of joint (verse 14)

    * Loss of blood made His heart feel as though it were melting (verse 14)

    * His strength completely left Him (v. 15)

    * Thirst caused His tongue to adhere to His mouth (v. 15)

    * They pierced His hands and feet (v. 16)

    * He could see them gambling for His clothes (v. 18)

Please show the verse that says all what David was saying is a prophecy,  Even your allusion do not show anything or any linkage between psalms, rather your desperation is clearly evident, as trying ---but failing ---- to drag two verses that hardly have any similarity except the starting point, We all know typically how a prophecy begins not someone talking of his personal problem but placed clearly in future context.

Mind you have you note that alethia and co have ran for cover as evidences placed are far above their ability to refute, one even started crying for me to stop the thread but rather --the truth is bitter.

For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and feet (Psalm 22:16).

This reads as though it was dictated in the first person singular as Jesus hung on the cross, even though it was written 800 years earlier. Let's pick just one of the phrases there: "they pierced my hands and my feet." What makes this remarkable is that it was written by David 700 years before crucifixion was even invented! The form of capital punishment in Israel used to be by stoning and not crucifixion. Crucifixion was invented by the Persians about 90 B.C. and was adopted heavily by the Romans. But here, 800 years before the fact, all of Psalm 22 graphically portays crucifixion. In fact, there have been articles in the American Medical Association Journal based on Psalm 22 analysing the medical cause of death by crucifixion.

22:2 2O my God, I cry in the day time, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not silent.

3But thou art holy, O thou that inhabitest the praises of Israel.

did Jesus cry day and night that God have forsaken him? no



20Deliver my soul from the sword(not crucifix); my darling from the power of the dog. is the sword and crucifiction any similar to you

21Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns. was Jesus in any lions mouth


An ancient controversy has surfaced once again in
our times. It revolves around the text of Psalm 22:16
(verse 17 in the He brew). In the He brew Masoretic text,
the verse reads: “For dogs have encircled me, an evil
con gre gation surrounded me; like a lion my hands and
my feet.” The Lxx trans lation, how ever, did not read
the He brew word yria}K;, ka’ari, “like a lion” but rather
Wra}K;, ka’aru, “they dug,” and thus they trans lated the
word with the Greek word wruxan, oruxsan, “they
dug” or “they pierced.” The difference was whether
the origi nal word ended with a vav or a yod.


Again your claims to the "my hand has been pierced" is debatable as the ancient mesoretic text talks of a Lion and s=reading verse 21"Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns (I wonder whether unicorns ever existed", one can come to the conclusion that the Lion theory might be more correct than the pierced theory

^^ One would have thought any reasoning human would understand that "the lions mouth" signifies the "jaws of death" which BTW, is another allegory of danger. When people say "jaws of death", do you see teeth shining in the face of death? When last did you see death? What manner of human looks for holes so much he starts to look stupid all by himself even without any help?

In the day I cry and also at night <---> from the beginning of my tribulations even to the end. How difficult was that to reason?

And of course, David was CLEARLY speaking of Himself? Okaaaaaay, and it was muhammad that entered the "lion's mouth" and brought him out, abi? So now its David, where's the lion? And David was nailed to a cross? and surrounded by those who cast lots for his cloths?

This is just talk for the sake of talk and makes no sense.

nopuqeater:

@Aletheia: The verses from Paul that are listed in my Post do need explanations. They are personal opinions of Paul. So explain them and make then that of God's revelation to Jesus as in the Gospel or should I call it the New Testament or GoodNews?

I dont think Peter felt it a goodnews when Paul confronted him to his face. I dont think th others who are preaching different Gospels apart from the newcomer (Paul) will accept Paul's statement as Goodnews.

But then, who knows where your heart is. SO fit the above within the Goodnews from God to Jesus in the inside of Paul. Yes?

^Your confusion becomes evident. One question for you:
What was the good news that Paul and Peter and other Apostles preached? Perhaps you will care to enlighten us?
As for personal opinions of Paul. . .I have answered you on the other thread where you raised the same issue.

OLAADEGBU:

For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and feet (Psalm 22:16).

This prophecy was fulfilled in Luke 24:39 when Jesus after His resurrection, said the following words:

"Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones, as you see me have."

Psalm 22:18 reads

"They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture"

This Messianic prophecy was fulfilled in Mark 15:24

"And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take."

Psalm 22:6-8

"But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.  All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him"

Fulfilled in Matthew 27:39-40 you can continue till verse 44.

"And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads, and saying, You that destroy the temple, and build it in three days, save yourself.  If you be the Son of God, come down from the cross."

These were the very gestures used by those who reviled Jesus Christ; they wagged their heads, they were so much filled with malice that their very words ended up fulfilling prophecy (verse 43), "He trusted in God; let him deliver him."

@Aletheia: « #119 on: Yesterday at 06:50:26 PM »

^Your confusion becomes evident. One question for you:
What was the good news that Paul and Peter and other Apostles preached?

Goodnews would have been the Gospel. It it was pure, it would have been what Jesus preached. Jesus was the servant. Not peter who at best was the follower of the servant. never could it be Paul, who at last count was not known to Jesus and only followed the generation left behind by Jesus, but the usurped the position by force.

Perhaps you will care to enlighten us?

Pure goodnews would have been just one complete document; what jesus was sent with; remember he was a servant? No stories of his travels, or of his eating, his sleepings (all functions that we expecetd from human, servant of God. that was not what he was sent with). We would not have had many Gospels, each does not match the others, step by step, verse by verse, etc. There are too many variables, additions, distortions, subtractions, based on revisions, generational editions, and sect preferred copy. There are no two gospels that are exactly alike. Show us if you know any, in any language. Never will you be able to do it.

As for personal opinions of Paul. . .I have answered you on the other thread where you raised the same issue.

When Paul said to people of Peter that he confronted him to his face, then thats war and a person who didnt witness a situaton, unless told by the witness and God of the event, can not be as accurate of the fact, except if the eyewitness is a liar. Since Paul was not an eyewitness and Peter was, unless God, not Jesus was telling Paul what happened (Then Paul will have to be the another comforter that Jesus promised), and Peter was a liar, the two of them will have to have the same story, and there will not be any reason fro Paul to confront Peter. What did he confront him for, except that Peter disagreed with what paul was doing, and Paul wanted to crush him out once and for all? And if you think your answer make any sense, it does not. You can call a servant of God, God.

Na Wa Just as GOD heard his prayer in your bibl yet, did not save him.


AN UN-WILLING VICTIM

If this was God's plan for a vicarious atonement to redeem mankind, then obviously He had chosen a wrong substitute. This candidate was most reluctant to die. Arming! Wailingi Sweating! Crying! Complaining!

PRINCE OF PEACE

Why do not the Christian controversialists give their "Lord and Master" credit for this simple common-sense? Because they have been programmed for a period of two thousand years that Jesus, the "lamb", the "prince of peace", couldn't harm a fly. They overlook the other side of his nature which demanded blood and fire! They forget his instructions to his soldiers regarding those of his enemies who would not like him to rule over them, to bring them forth:

. . . and SLAY1 them before me."

(HOLY BIBLE) Luke 19:27

"Think NOT that I am come to send PEACE on earth; I. came NOT to send PEACE, but a SWORD."

(HOLY BIBLE) Matthew 10:34

"I am come to send FIRE on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?
Suppose ye that I am come to give PEACE on earth? I tell you, NAY; but rather DIVISION."

(HOLY BIBLE) Luke 12:49 & 51

He neither cme to die for your sins neither did he want to die for your sins even the bible testifies to this ---LET THIS CUP PASS OVER ME:

vedaxcool:

Na Wa Just as GOD heard his prayer in your bibl yet, did not save him.

Don't you see how you fall into the category of those mockers who fulfill this scripture?

vedaxcool:

AN UN-WILLING VICTIM

If this was God's plan for a vicarious atonement to redeem mankind, then obviously He had chosen a wrong substitute. This candidate was most reluctant to die. Arming! Wailingi Sweating! Crying! Complaining!

Jesus had to do this so as to satisfy for the dishonour we had done to God by our sins, He did it by submitting to the lowest possible instance of ignominy and disgrace so as to pay the eternal penalty.

vedaxcool:

PRINCE OF PEACE

Why do not the Christian controversialists give their "Lord and Master" credit for this simple common-sense? Because they have been programmed for a period of two thousand years that Jesus, the "lamb", the "prince of peace", couldn't harm a fly. They overlook the other side of his nature which demanded blood and fire! They forget his instructions to his soldiers regarding those of his enemies who would not like him to rule over them, to bring them forth:

. . . and SLAY1 them before me."

(HOLY BIBLE) Luke 19:27

"Think NOT that I am come to send PEACE on earth; I. came NOT to send PEACE, but a SWORD."

(HOLY BIBLE) Matthew 10:34

"I am come to send FIRE on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?
Suppose ye that I am come to give PEACE on earth? I tell you, NAY; but rather DIVISION."

(HOLY BIBLE) Luke 12:49 & 51

He neither cme to die for your sins neither did he want to die for your sins even the bible testifies to this ---LET THIS CUP PASS OVER ME:

This seems like a desperate attempt to grasp at straws.  These questions have been answered in other threads and answering them here will only serve in distracting or diverting this one.  If you have any questions relating to the prophecy of Psalm 22 let us know about it.

@Olaadegbu: « #125 on: Today at 01:33:33 PM »

Quote from: vedaxcool on Today at 12:36:42 PM
Na Wa Just as GOD heard his prayer in your bibl yet, did not save him.Huh
Don't you see how you fall into the category of those mockers who fulfill this scripture?

Let me ask you; did he pary to God he called ELOI later? Was his prayer accepted or rejected? Why would a God pray to anyone, especially an equal like ELoi? Why would God reject a prayer of His preferred servant? Allah never refused Muhammad (AS). Ever. He will not let him make the prayer He will not accept. And when you say Jesus is God, though he said he was a servant, why would he not answer his own prayer anyhow if his partner, Yahweh refused? And we know that Jesus said Eloi is his God, already.

Quote from: vedaxcool on Today at 12:36:42 PM
AN UN-WILLING VICTIM
If this was God's plan for a vicarious atonement to redeem mankind, then obviously He had chosen a wrong substitute. This candidate was most reluctant to die. Arming! Wailingi Sweating! Crying! Complaining!
Jesus had to do this so as to satisfy for the dishonour we had done to God by our sins, He did it by submitting to the lowest possible instance of ignominy and disgrace so as to pay the eternal penalty.

Allah says if believers have been so arrogant not to seek His Mercy, Forgiveness, Pleasure, calling Him to protect from all kind of calamities, He will raise other people who will seek mercy, forgiveness from Him, calling Him day and night for protection.

Quote from: vedaxcool on Today at 12:36:42 PM
PRINCE OF PEACE
Why do not the Christian controversialists give their "Lord and Master" credit for this simple common-sense? Because they have been programmed for a period of two thousand years that Jesus, the "lamb", the "prince of peace", couldn't harm a fly. They overlook the other side of his nature which demanded blood and fire! They forget his instructions to his soldiers regarding those of his enemies who would not like him to rule over them, to bring them forth:
. . . and SLAY1 them before me."
(HOLY BIBLE) Luke 19:27
"Think NOT that I am come to send PEACE on earth; I. came NOT to send PEACE, but a SWORD."
(HOLY BIBLE) Matthew 10:34
"I am come to send FIRE on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?
Suppose ye that I am come to give PEACE on earth? I tell you, NAY; but rather DIVISION."
(HOLY BIBLE) Luke 12:49 & 51
He neither cme to die for your sins neither did he want to die for your sins even the bible testifies to this ---LET THIS CUP PASS OVER ME:

This seems like a desperate attempt to grasp at straws.

These are all from your Bible. The proper thing is to explain it away. But to say its a cheap attempts actually malign the Bible. If you quote from the Quran, we will explain its best meaning, relative to its reason for which it was revealed. We will not say its a cheap attempt at anything.

These questions have been answered in other threads and answering them here will only serve in distracting or diverting this one.

Is he God? No. Why? He said and was known by his discciples as servant of God WHo sent him.

If you have any questions relating to the prophecy of Psalm 22 let us know about it.

Was the man you people are too quick to call killer, murderer, wife snatcher, adulterer, drunk, etc mentioned Jesus by name, anytine, anywhere in the Psalm? No. How then are insinuating that Psalm 22 applies to Jesus?

this alleged evidence from Psalm has a major defect ( just like most of the bible) the whole prophecy does not have any semblance of order --meaning David was talking of himself--- prophecy come in a style that one would know that it is an indication of the future, yet it does not show any sign of talking of the future, more importantly it starts with my lord,  anybody would know that was the last saying of jesus before he allegely died in the bible, it follows a pattern that gives us the impression that the person prophesying did not know what he was or those alleging he was prophesying about the crucifixion are utterly confused, they are in fact imposing the crucifixion on it.

Let me give you another unfulfilled  prophecy
christian claim that Jesus was a lamb as  "Isaiah predicts about Jesus Christ:- "
1. He would not defend himself at his trial
(Jesus did not): "He opened not his mouth

but yet Jesus defended himself time and time again:
Incredulously he asks Jesus:

"… Art thou the King of the Jews?’ … Jesus answered him, "MY KINGDOM IS NOT OF THIS WORLD, if my kingdom was of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now is my kingdom not from hence.’ "


Jesus had to be liquidated! There was no question of right or wrong; Justice or injustice; it was "EXPEDIENT"! The trial was a farce. By hook or by crook they would have Jesus convicted and done away with. In the middle of the night, what we might call at 2 o'clock in the morning, the Jews had mustered up false witnesses to testify against Jesus. A trial, past midnight was against Jewish practice; but who cares? Despite sympathetic and encouraging prosecutors and jurors, the false witnesses could not tally in their evidences.

It was too much for Jesus. He could not hold his peace. He had to remonstrate. He made a telling plea in his own defence, saying:

",  I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, where the Jews always gather; and in secret have 1 said nothing."

(HOLY BIBLE) John 18:20