Posted by Mike on February 19, 1998 at 19:11:12:
In Reply to: Re: The Burden of Proof posted by Mohamed Ghounem on February 19, 1998 at 01:11:31:
Mike: In logic, as well as in law historical precedent means that the burden of proof rests on those who set forth new theories and not on those whose ideas have already been accepted. That which is already recognized as truth judges any and all new claims to truth. Since Islam follows Christianity, the burden of proof rests upon the Muslim to first prove, to the Christian, the truth claims of Islam such as Allah is God, the Qur'an is the Word of God etc…
Mohamed do you accept the burden of proof? If not why not? Until you answer the above contention all of your attempts to change the subject to the Bible only serves to demonstrate the utter absence of truth behind the claims of Islam. Once you open your mind and accept the reality that Islam is not true, I will do all I can to answer your questions and concerns about the Bible and Christianity.
M: Answer these tensions/discrepancies according to your web sites "Was the tomb open when they arrived? Matthew 28:2 "No" Mark 16:4 "Yes" Luke 24:2 "Yes" John 20:1 "Yes"and Did Jesus stay on earth for a while? Mark: "No" (16:19) Compare 16:14 with John 20:19 to show that this was "all done on Sunday" Luke: "No" (24:50-52) "It all happened on Sunday" John: Yes, at least eight days (20:26, 21:1-22) Acts: "Yes, at least forty days" (1:3)
Mike: Your "tensions" listed above can be easily resolved by reading the Gospels chapters in question (or books) in their entirety. So Mohamed I challenge you to read the Gospel chapters in question and discuss them with someone. Of course we are assuming you would do so with an open mind which assumes you no longer believe Islam is true.
M: I have (gotten off my butt)
Mike: You have made a very interesting concession.
M: and I can not find the answers…
Mike: I will not believe your assertions that you have in fact explored the cites I listed until you provide proof like I have when I explored your references. For example, I cut and paste portions of your cite locations and I have directly addressed and even spelled out to you the arguments your reference uses.
Mohamed: I have open mindedly discussed theological topics …
Mike: If you approached this with an open mind you would no longer consider yourself a Muslim. I ask you, what good reasons do you have to continue to believe that Islam is true?
Mike: I challenge you again to answer the Islamic dilemma: Since Muslim claim that Allah is the same God as the Christian God whose word cannot be corrupted and since the Qur'an and the NT contradict each other on the historical fact of Jesus' crucifixion, Allah contradicts himself. Therefore, Allah cannot be God.
M: a wonderful new poster here has answered this very nicely, the Qur'an does not contradict the Old Testament: http://debate.org.uk/weboard/debate/messages/1053.html
Mike: Mohamed you have committed another logical fallacy called the red herring. You are bringing into the discussion issues that are not relevant to the dilemma I posted above. The "tension" for you is that the Qur'an contradicts the Bible (which it immediately follows) thus Allah contradicts himself. Therefore He cannot be God. The issue of the relationship between the Qur'an and the Old Testament is irrelevant.
Mike: Let us not forget that have yet to answer any of my logical objections against your defense of what you still believe. Mohamed it is clear beyond all-reasonable doubt that you do not have any good reason to continue to believe that Allah is God or that the Qur'an is the Word of God. I pray that you will come to reason and open your heart and mind to the loving truth that Jesus is God :-)
Your Brother in Christ: Michael