Skeptic_v.1

Half-Life, I think you anwered your own questions....

You asked :

Then later you stated:

That seems to apply to your opening statement as easily as it applies to Hubbard

nuff said, look at all the money the "Benny Hinn" style faith healers bring in, people are and have always been very gullible.

Salam

LMAO, no my friend it's Muhammad. Jesus had 12 disciples, but Muhammad had thousands in his life time.

I'm only kidding here atheists.

paarsurrey

Hi

Then:

1. Search for the historical Gospels should continue.
2. And if one does not find them; nothing to worry; all previous essential teachings in the books of the RevealedReligions from GodAllahYHWH have been included in Quran. I quote the specific verse from Quran in this connection:

The Holy Quran : Chapter 98: Al-Bayyinah

[98:1] In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[98:2] Those, who disbelieve from among the People of the Book and the idolaters, would not desist from disbelief until there should come to them the clear evidence -
[98:3] A Messenger from Allah, reciting unto them the pure Scriptures,
[98:4] Wherein are lasting commandments.
[98:5] And those to whom the Book was given did not become divided until after clear evidence had come to them.
[98:6] And they were not commanded but to serve Allah, being sincere to Him in obedience, and being upright, and to observe Prayer and pay the Zakat. And that is the right religion.
http://www3.alislam.org/showChapter.jsp?ch=98

This is reasonable, I think.

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

-Jay-

First, a point of order. It's generally considered very poor form to point to a link, and essentially say "Oh, yeah? Well what about THIS? Nyah!" That's what you've done here. It tends to make people think that you might not know what you're talking about, and instead of making reasoned arguments, you're just going down a laundry list of canned rebuttals that somebody else put together.

That said, what you've cited is a very well-ridden horse that tries to claim that the words that the author of Matthew put in Jesus' mouth were intended to be interpreted two different ways depending on who reads them when. Anyone that's been here more than, oh, a year, has seen this one come up at least a couple of times.

The problem with this is that there's absolutely nothing within the text to indicate that such was the intent. Your source for this rationale would have you believe that there is, but in order for the proposed explaination to work, you've got to appeal to a whole bunch of magic and to distorted interpretations of other scriptures.

At the heart, what you're doing here is altering the intent and context of whatever passages you need to in order to get around the fact that they're wrong. You're taking the approach of declaring that scripture is to be taken literally except when it's not, that it means what it says except when what it says doesn't make any sense (despite the fact that it might have made sense at the time and within the context that it was written...). You're just scrambling.

Try again, this time in your own words.

regards,

NinJay

Minimalist

By that logic, Osiris, Odin and Quetzalcoatl were real, too.

Were they?

Sheshbazzar

For all who are not yet aware, Half-Life has clearly announced a significant change of heart, so let us all be on our best behaviour, as he collects his thoughts, and allow him to get himself oriented to his new perspective.

lpetrich

Acts is likely to be largely fictional; its portrayal of Paul differs significantly from the potrayal in Paul's letters.

And what's so special about a religious movement growing, anyway? EVERY religious movement starts small.
Only according to Luke (the likely writer of Acts) did the Sanhedrin say that.
Where did that Sanhedrin write about Xianity outside of the New Testament? And there's plenty of reason to write about religions that one considers to be kooky cults.

(an alleged prophecy of Jesus Christ from the Buddha...)

That is so vague and generalized that it could be a whole lot of other notable religious leaders. Half-Life, consider that a few weeks ago I watched an eclipse of the Moon. When it would happen was published long ago, and as I watched it, I noticed that the prediction was exactly correct to within the time resolution possible from observing the eclipse's progress. So why can't we have prophecies like that? Why do prophecies always have to be vague and obscure? Half-Life, please address this issue.

I don't see what the relevance is of that detail.
So when it's your religion, it's "how can people believe it unless it's true?", while when it's some other religion, it's "look how dumb they are for believing in it!"
Yawn. One does not have to be "inspired" by some sanctified spook in order to prodict something like that.

Scientologists might say the exact same thing about SP's (Suppressive People), psychiatrists, etc.; they could say that their prophet LRH had predicted that such people would attack Scientology.