This is what Osama Abdallah originally wrote to Keith, and where I personally got involved (I have removed insults, issues posted to Keith, etc); what you will witness here is a typical debate with Osama Abdallah online:
Osama Abdallah wrote:Keith the snake,
Why did you delete my last post? Was it too exposing and humiliating to you?
Again liar, show us where Ibn Abbas said that.
I challenge you to produce your evidence liar.
As to your corrupt bible's authors, I've given ample quotes from the bible's theologians admitting that your bible's books had been:
1- Written by unknown men.
2- Written by an unknown number of men.
3- Written in unknown dates.
4- Written in unknown places.
Christians lie and state that such and such "scholar" is an atheist when he isn't, and he's just another snake and a liar like them who had put on an atheist's mask and made a statement favoring to the gospel of porn on their behalf.
These tricks are getting old. All you've got are speculations and desperations.
LOL Plus Even if it were true that the gospel narratives were written by those who followed the desciples or passed on oral tradition God is powerful enough to pull that off. It's justnot an issue.
Osama Abdallahwww.answering-christianity.com
April 7, 2009 9:27 PM
I (Elijah) replies:Osama Abdallah wrote:
As to your corrupt bible's authors, I've given ample quotes from the bible's theologians admitting that your bible's books had been:
1- Written by unknown men.
2- Written by an unknown number of men.
3- Written in unknown dates.
4- Written in unknown places.
Elijah replies:A few issues need to considered here. Osama's appeal to theologians is a typical islamic trick.
It typical backfires, since these scholars and their methods will ussually harm islam in the same way; muslims ussually avoid telling us that side of the story.
Furthermore, this approach of Osama is a joke and fairly non-academic.
While I spend my time studying primary sources, all Osama can do is posting us references or quotes from secondary sources. And not only are these secondary sources these are quotes. As to his four objections, they are easily refuted.
No the Gospels were not written by unknown men, Papias a disciple of John the elder (and eyewitness and disciple of Jesus) and who also was aquainted with a number of early successors and eyewitnesses, had it from John while John was alive that Mark dictated his Gospel from the mouth of Peter in Rome.
Furthermore, Papias also confirms that Matthew wrote Matthew in Hebrew (probably Aramaic language).
A similar testimony is provided by Justin Martyr in Rome in 150 AD in which a line of successors and transmitters were present, in which he testifies that Mark's Gospel is the Gospel of Peter.
Irenaeus who was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John the apostle, and who also knew a number of other eyewitness confirms the information as well, and also provides information about Luke and John Gospels.
Here we have primary sources testifying to the authors, the number of authors and the date, which would be the first century.
In fact even critical scholars admit that the gospels are written within the first century.We also know that Mark was written in Rome and Matthew was written in Syria and John written in Ephesus.
We are not certain about where Luke wrote his gospel, but who cares, we know Luke wrote it, we know that Luke knew the apostles and we know when he wrote it.
April 8, 2009 6:22 AM
Osama replies:Hogan,
If quoting your bible's commentaries and appendecies to each chapter are secondary sources to you, then obviously you are a hopeless case.
Osama Abdallahwww.answering-christianity.com
April 8, 2009 8:22 AM
I (Elijah) replies:Osama wrote:
Hogan,If quoting your bible's commentaries and appendecies to each chapter are secondary sources to you, then obviously you are a hopeless case.
Elijah replies:Osama,
commentaries are secondary sources.
For example, the Bible is a primary source, early church fathers are primary sources as to the history and background of church history and in the field of textual criticism.
Commentaries and opinions on Bible and these writings from second century scholars are secondary sources.
I find it funny that you can plant a large website on the internet promoting islam and attempting to refute Christianity, without focusing on the primary sources.
This debunks you (Osama)as a scholar; it certainly suggests that you are not worthy of consideration when probing into the Biblical studies. You need to provide something more impressive.
April 8, 2009 8:40 AM
Notice, this is how it ussually works, Osama comes up with some incredible ideas, I refute these, he brings up more ideas of similar nature, I refute these, then he runs.
