split/retitled: Potato Muslim on the one true God and His witnesses & scriptures

[PeteWaldo]

No problem with being straightforward and honest, in truth, because there is no point in dancing around the heart of matters. The Gospel, through the Holy Spirit, fills Christians with complete resolve as to what to believe. The Quran fills Muhammad's followers with complete resolve to DISbelieve the whole subject of the Gospel, as an article of your faith in Muhammad alone.

No, Muslims are not required to disbelieve in the whole subject of the Gospel. On the contrary, we believe that it was originally the inspired word of God along with the Old Testament books revealed to Moses. The only problem is that they are not reliable anymore because of the so many variants in the text today and because of the copies of copies of copies of the Bible which in many places do not even agree with each other. The Quran, on the other hand, is a single book without having any differences in it's language between the millions of Qurans that we have today and it is still preserved in the same Arabic since the time it was revealed.

The above quoted and specifically replied to in its own thread:
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=5001.msg19066#msg19066

Since perfect and exact opposites cannot be reconciled, there is obviously no reason for us to waste time dancing around, that 500 pound gorilla in the room.

They are not exact opposites.

Sorry my friend, but Islam is as opposite to the Gospel as the negative is to a photograph. Indeed Islam is so opposite it is specifically and exactly antichrist. Which makes each and every Muslim an antichrist, as an article of their faith in Muhammad alone:

1 John 2:22 ..... He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. 23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father.....
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/islam_is_antichrist.htm

Indeed Islam is as opposite to Christianity, as Muhammad and his follower's raging imperialistic slaughter, rape and sexual enslavement of little girls and women, and his thievery was (and as his true fundamental orthodox followers Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and his gang of murdering, rapist thieving thugs are), the opposite of the Christians of Mercy Ships who help and heal the most broken and least able among the world's humanity:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfjYeQzCwzU

[PeteWaldo]

Islam and Christianity started from the same god.

No my friend, Christianity springs from the 1600 year record of revelation of YHWH to mankind, as revealed through all of his prophets and witnesses, whose people have followed Him through two covenants for 3500 years.

Muhammad alone, came along nearly 600 years later to deny and blaspheme that record, as revealed in the STAND-ALONE, heavily abrogated, 23-year 7th century record of THE false prophet Muhammad alone. This is how we can rest assured that Muhammad's god was Satan:
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/

They teach that there is only one God and that that God has no images nor any wordly representations of Himself. I can point to many explicit verses from both the Bible and the Quran and show you how similar they are in some of their most fundamental messages for the followers.

Besides slaughtering those who denied he was a prophet (as his orthodox followers do today), the false prophet Muhammad's fooling his followers into believing he was speaking for the God of the Jews and Christians, is how Satan was so easily able to deceive his followers.
But as we can see "their most fundamental messages" are exact opposites.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/

[PeteWaldo]

As Muslims, we believe in something known as 'progressive revelation' by which God revealed the Old Testament to the Jews, then the New Testament to the Christians, and lastly, the "Final Testament" (the Quran) to the Muslims, but the messages are all from the same divine creator.

But to believe that applies to Muhammad, would require believing that Yahweh decided to nullify His 1600 year record as revealed through all of His prophets and witnesses, with a self-contradictory and thus heavily abrogated 23-year 7th century record of recitations of a STAND-ALONE, imperialistic, slaughtering, child molesting, thief that came along over 500 years later and denied the whole subject of the Gospel.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/

[PeteWaldo]

As a Christian, obviously the last thing I would want is for false information to be disseminated in this forum, since I believe I am being held accountable by my Creator for every word.

Well I think you do spread a lot of false information. You also say things in a very condescending and arrogant manner, as if your views on Christianity are definitely the correct ones and everyone else is wrong. I've seen you smear and ridicule even Christians on this forum, which goes to show that you don't seem to tolerate or embrace difference of opinions, at all.

We are certainly not friendly toward opinion that is contrary to scripture. Nor should we be. There is no shortage of 19th century cult followers that have tried to peddle their wares in here.

But surely you can see that the reason you brush off a need for archaeological evidence is because there isn't any. Just because kids desire to believe in a tooth fairy, doesn't mean that she will magically become real.

An absence of archaeological evidence doesn't necessarily mean that something didn't exist at an earlier time, especially if they are at least some historical records of it, oral or otherwise.

You don't know much about oral transmission. If that is a reference to the Quran and Hadith, then you seem to be suggesting that somehow, history was reliably transmitted through over a period of 4,500 years through a bunch of illiterate pagans in the SW Arabian desert, that were cut off from the civilized world and located 1400 KM away from THE Holy Land of the prophets and witnesses.

But what recorded Islamic history actually tells us is that they were a bunch of moon, sun, star and jinn-devil worshipers that your own texts tell us worshiped 360 gods in and around the pagan's Kaaba. Indeed the etymology of the very name "Allah" suggests it was a name for the pagan Arabian's moon god:
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/the_name_allah.htm#etymology_name_allah

[PeteWaldo]

Regarding the history of Mecca and the Kaaba as well, the fact is that we do have some historical records speaking of their existence prior to 4th century, which provides us a further reason to believe that Mecca and the Kaaba did exist during that time.

By "us" you of course are speaking of those that were indoctrinated to believe Islamic so-called "tradition", that was all created and put to the pen in the 7th to 10th centuries AD, without reference to any actual historical record that preceded the 5th century AD. Can't even you see the problem with believing such a poorly cobbled together and edited, self-contradictory record? By a god that was in such a state of confusion over the short span of just 23 years, that Muhammad's earlier Mecca drivel, had to be annulled and replaced by his later stuff that contradicted it.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=116.0

[PeteWaldo]

Yet even as you reject archaeology for confirmation of your beliefs, other ancient Arabian towns like Yemen, Qudar, Dedan, Tiema, Mada'in Saleh (Al-Hijr), Magan (Oman) and Dilmun are well attested in the historical and archaeological records of Arabia, and even attest to each other.

Archaeologists are not so stupid and ignorant like Rafat Amari, who thinks that just that because there isn't any archaeological evidence of Mecca prior to 4th century AD means that there was no Mecca during that time.

Can't even you see how seriously compromised your capacity for critical thought is? The archaeological records of Arabia are some of the best preserved on earth because of the low rainfall. Yet even as we find the rich archaeological record of all of those other ancient Arabian towns, there is not a shred of evidence that suggests that Mecca existed before pagan migrants arrived to initially settle it in around the 4th century AD.

Since the ridiculous fictional Islamic record penned in the 7th to 10th centuries, suggests that Mecca and the Kaaba has existed since Adam, Mecca and all of the countryside for miles away would be rich with artifacts, just as the one true Holy Land of the prophets and patriarchs is.

This type of logic is utterly wrong and utterly childish.

No, as the absence of record conclusively proves, it is about truth and matters of fact, as opposed to Islamic created fiction.

Real and honest archaeologists understand that there are many complexities as well as limitations when it comes using archaeological methods to gain knowledge of the unknown. For instance, the American archaeologist Michael Schiffer categorized impacts on the archaeological record into two processes: Cultural formation processes and non-cultural formation processes. The cultural formation processes are defined as "the processes of human behaviour that affect or transform artefacts after their initial period of use in a given activity." The non-cultural formation processes are defined as "any and all events and processes of the natural environment that impinge upon artefacts and archaeological deposits" (Schiffer 1987:7).

But as I showed you there is not a shred, of historical or archaeological evidence that suggests that Mecca existed prior to about the 4th century AD.

Throughout the ages, Mecca ......

False premise for openers.

...... has undergone both natural and cultural formation processes to a great extent, which include things such as floods, storms, countless battles between tribes, looting, etc. All of these things no doubt caused a severe impact on the archaeological record of the city.

Those things you mention would have added to the archaeological record in terms of weapons, vessels, and other gear - just as it enriched the archaeological record in THE Holy Land of the prophets and patriarchs, located 1200 kilometers away from Mecca. Just as it did around actual ancient Arabian towns.

Even the Kaaba had to be reconstructed several times because its damage from both natural and cultural phenomenons.

But that is just another fiction you have been indoctrinated to believe. If it were true, then Mecca and the surrounding area for miles around would be rich with archaeological evidence to support Islamic claims that spring from nothing at all.

[PeteWaldo]

Also, you are probably aware of the fact that Mecca has been architecturally modernized with the development of many new buildings, shopping malls, and hotels over the last two decades. This also had a significant impact on the remaining archaeological records. 

Also, Mecca is difficult to study because it is an ancient city.......

Not even the contributors to Wikipedia can list it as an ancient city, because there is absolutely no evidence to support that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_towns_in_Saudi_Arabia

....... that has thrived into the modern times,.....

Like the archaeologically rich Jerusalem and surrounding areas, in THE one true Holy Land of the prophets and patriarchs, located 1200 KM away. An ever expanding archaeological record that continues to confirm the scriptures as a reliable historical record.
Most recently it seems King David's palace was uncovered:
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=2964.0

....... and this is an idea that is well-acknowledged in archaeological literature:

"Because the dynamics of urban change typically require razing old buildings to construct new ones, cities with long lives are much more difficult for archaeologists to study. The most difficult ancient cities to excavate are those that have continued to thrive into modern times, such as Damascus, Beijing, Rome, London, and Mexico City." (Smith, Michael E., ed. Ray Hutchinson, Encyclopedia of Urban Studies, p. 27)

Yet in Jerusalem and the surrounding area, a person can hardly plant a tree without excavating incidental artifacts.

"As both Mecca and Medina ........

Which Medina/Yathrib is an ancient city the evidence of which suggesting it was initially settled in around the 6th century BC, when the original overland route was being established along the Red Sea.

....... are living religious centres, it is neither possible to carry out excavations nor is there much possibility of architectural survey as the area of the Kaaba 'now has a mechanical and uniform cast of modernity written all over it' (Jairazbhoy 1986:151)."[/b] (Petersen, A. 1994. The Archaeology of the Syrian and Iraqi Hajj Routes. World Archaeology 26(1): 47)

But then the surrounding countryside would be fair game. Let alone that a GPR survey could likely be done around the Kaaba in search of the alleged older larger foundation, without disturbing a single paver stone, but we all know that such a survey would not be allowed, because the powers that be know it would further confirm what a fraud Islamic so-called "tradition" is. Which would end their wildly profitable enterprise of Kaaba Inc. Just like they know that if they allowed a chip to be removed from their black stone idol, it would expose the nonsense about it being white underneath. Just like they know that if they allowed the Gospel of Jesus Christ to be preached in Arabia, the way we allow Muslims to preach here, Islam would collapse.

[PeteWaldo]

But, of course, your homeboy Rafat Amari is too stupid to understand these concepts.

Demonizing Dr. Rafat Amari and his scholarly 20 year full-time study of the historical and archaeological record of Islam and Arabia, won't magically create a 4,500 year historical and archaeological record of Mecca when there is not a shred of evidence of one ever having existed.

He mentions a bunch of other ancient cities in Arabia in his website and refers to their archaeological records as evidence of their long existence, but fails to take into account  that, according to archaeologists, there is not one but a multitude of explanations for why one particular ancient city (Mecca, for instance) may not contain evidence pointing to it's very distant past like other ancient cities although it still may have existed, contrary to your flawed and foolish "No evidence of Mecca before 4th century AD = No Mecca before 4th century AD haha!" type of logic.

You believe that Mecca was established over 6,000 years ago, while admitting there is no historical or archaeological evidence that suggests it ever existed prior to the 4th century, that is aside from the Islamic pure fiction that was all created and put to the pen between the 7th and 10th centuries AD. Yet somehow you can't see how impaired critical thinking skills must be, that make you want to believe a lie, just so you can follow the exact opposite of the Gospel, through Satan - the father of lies - through his "messenger" THE false prophet Muhammad.

If any real and honest archaeologist read the kind of things that Rafat Amari wrote about Mecca, they would laugh at him. The guy is just way too stupid to be an actual scholar.

Interesting that an antichrist, who comes up empty handed in regard to what should be 6,000 years worth of evidence, with cognitive function so impaired he is determined to follow Satan's messenger to hell, would denigrate scholars for pointing out the truth as revealed through the facts.

[PeteWaldo]

There is a very rich - and ever expanding - archaeological record regarding the Holy Land of the prophets and patriarchs. This supports the actual historical record that was passed down over generations through the scriptures. There are over a million artifacts just on display. Please browse that forum section.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?board=68.0

There is also a very rich - and ever expanding - archaeological and historical record of Arabia ........

With still no evidence of a pre-4th century Mecca. Thank you for helping make my point. Doesn't that tell you something?

....... along with the history of the Quran and the life of Muhammad (peace be upon him), and there are lots of historical information about the earliest days of Islam as well as the pre-Islamic periods.

While I agree that modern day Muslim embellishment to Islam's fiction, like lies about corruption of the bible that are not found in Islam's books, expand like wildfire.
And I of course agree that actual Meccan history exists that began to be recorded around Muhammad's birthday - as fictional and foolish as so much of the associated fables that Islamic history is embellished with may be (like birds stoning to death an army http://petewaldo.com/fables_fantasies.htm) - but it is at least constructive in showing the world what an amoral, murderous, child molesting, thieving, self-admitted terrorist reprobate Muhammad was.

Bukhari:V5B59N459 "I entered the Mosque, saw Abu, sat beside him and asked about sex. Abu Said said, 'We went out with Allah's Apostle and we received female slaves from among the captives. We desired women and we loved to do coitus interruptus.'"
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1564.msg15592#msg15592

[PeteWaldo]

Yes, Islamic history is very rich whether you believe it or not.

I believe the stories like Muhammad's effectively ordering up the murder of a female poet who was stabbed to death in her sleep as her baby slept on her breast.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=127.0

You are obviously a biased observer of history and a skilled cherry--picker, in fact a Christian with an agenda of posting things that only support your own preconceived ideas and beliefs and then passing them on as "facts" and "historical".......

What i post in here is supported by the scriptural, historical, geographical and archaeological records  which ever increasingly demonstrate the scriptures to be a reliable record of ancient history.

........ while everything about Islam is immediately identified as "tradition" and "lies" ...

That's because so-called "tradition" regarding anything of a pre-4th century AD Mecca, is proven to be false and unhistorical by the very same scriptural, historical and archaeological records that confirm the one true God Yahweh, while being a geographical impossibility since Mecca is was located over a thousand KM from where the actual records inform us that Abraham ever traveled, and was not settled until over 1,000 years after the first overland route was established along the Red Sea, which trade route was not established until well over 1,000 years after Abraham roamed the earth. A geographical impossibility. Yet even in this 21st century information age this is the kind of tripe Muslims are fed by their leaders.

Here is a sample Islamic site regarding Islamic so-called "tradition": 
"Abraham took Hagar and her son, Ishmael to a place near the Kabah; he left them under a tree at the site of Zamzam. No one lived in Makkah back then, yet Abraham made them sit there, leaving them with some dates, and a small water-skin. Thereafter he set out towards home."

So Abraham left his home in Hebron (where Jewish, Christian and Muslim pilgrims go to visit his tomb today), wandered across 1200 kilometers of harsh barren largely untraveled, uncharted, dry barren desert wasteland with Hagar and Ishmael, well over 1,000 years before the first caravan route was established along the Red Sea, then he supposedly abandoned them in a place with no other people, so no farming, that was too dry for pasture, left them no food except a handful of dates, and no water except that in a water-skin he gave them - and thus obviously no chance for survival - and then after abandoning them supposedly wandered the 1200 kilometers back home alone!
http://www.historyofmecca.com/geography_mecca_islam.htm#hebron

Makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

Indeed even Ibn Ishak was smart enough to recognize the demographic and geographical impossibility of Islamic so-called tradition, so he embellished the tale by claiming that Abraham rode on a Baraq, when he wanted to travel between Damascus and Mecca to visit Ishmael. A Buraq like the magic flying donkey mule that Muhammad claimed he rode on one night from Mecca to Jerusalem up to the paradise of Muhammad's overactive imagination and back to Mecca by morning.

My friend, can't even you see the preposterous nature of what you have been indoctrinated  to believe? It's really pointless to discuss actual historical record, and particularly theology, with someone who insists on believing such ridiculous hogwash as Islamic so-called "tradition" in this 21st century information age.

[PeteWaldo]

The nonexistent record that you follow contradicts the rich historical and archaeological record of the God of the Jews and Christians that is also perfectly supported geographically.

Sorry, but simply posting a picture of a map doesn't prove anything. You need to explain and/or provide a link which has a detailed explanation of how it is "perfectly supported geographically" and which cites both historical and archaeological evidence, not simply a picture of a map.

Or to put it in a question form: Are there any historical or archaeological records which prove that Abraham made all those travels, aside from being found in the scriptures only?

The same scriptures that Muhammad's followers reject, as well as other historical records of the time, provide such an accurate record of ancient history it is how archaeologists are able to figure out where to dig to find the long-buried places detailed therein.
Like most recently King David's palace:
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=2964.0

If so, where are they? Where is the historical and archaeological record that made you come to the conclusion that he never came anywhere within 1,000 kilometers of Mecca?

They are presented throughout these threads and forum.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/seed_ishmael_ishmaelites.htm

Yet you believe 7th to 10th century AD provably created fiction, that masquerades as 4500 years of historical record - with absolutely no evidence - while proclaiming you do not need archaeological evidence. Do you understand the difficulty with that?

You have absolutely no evidence that Mecca was a 7th to 10th century AD "provably created fiction" either, so stop making hypocritical statments. If you think it's provable, then go ahead and prove it.

It proves itself since it was created and penned without reference to any actual historical record that precedes the 5th century AD and is contradictory to the actual historical record we have in scripture.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=2423.0

That is only testament to peoples willingness to parrot each others repeated falsehoods in spite of the absolute vacuum of historical or archaeological evidence.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=2039.0

"If you move in the same circles that I do then you’ve probably heard the following phrase many times, 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.' In and of itself this is totally true. In fact, it is just a special case of a well-known logical fallacy called an argument from ignorance."
https://hilbertthm90.wordpress.com/2013/03/19/bayes-theorem-3-arguments-from-absence-of-evidence-historical-edition/

"An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence."
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

No, I don't "move in the same circles" as people that would be gullible enough to believe that Adam built the first Kaaba, and that 6,000 years of civilization centered around Mecca, yet there is not a trace of evidence in any of the surrounding countryside that does other than contradict Islam's counter-scriptural tripe.

[PeteWaldo]

Apparently both Muslim and non-Muslim scholars agree that Mecca and the Kaabah were in existence long before the Christian era. And there is a indeed a sufficient reason to think so:
http://callingchristians.com/2013/09/04/the-historicity-of-the-kabaah/

The Muslim website operator opens with blatant falsehood:

"One of the recent things I have heard from Christian missionaries, when debating with them is that they say, the Ka’bah in Mecca where Muslims go for pilgrimage annually has no history before the advent of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)."

Every Christian that knows anything at all about Islam, knows that the Kaaba existed most of a century before Muhammad was born, because the Quraish built their kaaba for pagan Arabian moon, sun, star and jinn-devil worship.
http://www.petewaldo.com/hajj___umrah.htm#kaaba

Nor will a few parroted tidbits of false presumption magically create 4500 years worth of pre-4th century AD historical and archaeological evidence of Mecca, when there is absolutely no evidence that it existed.
http://www.historyofmecca.com/historical_claims.htm

But then we've discussed the demographic and geographical impossibility of Islamic so-called tradition before.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=3631.msg14816#msg14816

It should also be painfully obvious to you that a 4500 year historical record could not have been passed down orally, by a bunch of naked pagans that venerated 360 idols, one of which Muhammad's followers still venerate today.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=2039.0

Christians did the same regarding Jesus (see below), so what makes you think that the Christians were able to pass it down orally?

Jews had some oral transmission too. But then they began to record it on animal skins and such.
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/bible_manuscript_errors_.htm

There was some oral transmission in Christianity as well, but we have over 5300 partial or complete manuscripts of the Gospel that date before 300 AD.

Somehow you seem to lack the capacity to understand the difference between that, and believing that 4500 years of Islamic history dating all the way back to Adam, was transmitted by a bunch of naked pagans in the SW Arabian desert that worshiped 360 idols!

"Story telling was at the center of the beginnings of the Jesus movement. And I think we're right to call it the Jesus movement here because if we think of it as Christianity, that is, from the perspective of the kind of movement and institutional religion that it would become a few hundred years later, we will miss the flavor of those earliest years of the kind of crude and rough beginnings, the small enclaves trying to keep the memory alive, and more than that, trying to understand what this Jesus meant for them. That's really the function of the story telling...it's a way for them to articulate their understanding of Jesus. And in the process of story telling, when we recognize it as a living part of the development of the tradition, we're watching them define Jesus for themselves. At that moment we have caught an authentic and maybe one of the most historically significant parts of the development of Christianity."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/oral.html

Where did the parrots that you intend to cite get their historical record of Mecca from? The 7th century pagan "Library of Mecca"?

They got it from oral traditions which, once again, is no doubt a vital and indispensable part of history.

Your inability to grasp the difference would be amusing, if the consequences weren't so tragic.
To reject the 1600 year record of revelation of the one true God to mankind, as revealed through all of His prophets and witnesses, whose people have followed through two covenants for 3500 years.

To instead embrace a specifically counter-scriptural antichrist 7th century fiction, cobbled together by a bunch of naked pagan idol worshipers that lived in the SW Arabian desert, that lived about 1200 kilometers away from THE Holy Land of the prophets and patriarchs.

I've been reading an interesting book on this subject, titled Memory in Oral Traditions: The Cognitive Psychology of Epic, Ballads, and Counting-out Rhymes. In the book, the author has carefully presented a comprehensive model - by synthesizing a multitude of empirical, theoretical, and historical research - of how oral traditions passed down through memory is more reliable than people nowadays imagine it to be. One of the conclusions is that "Oral traditions maximize memorability so that information can be stored without external memory aids for long periods of time" (p. 317). Evidently, there are many examples of ballad verses, poems, and songs produced by oral cultures in which the same basic ideas and some of the poetic structures have remained stable for centuries. The same holds for the preservation of everyday human affairs as well:

"In many situations, oral traditions provide a more appropriate model of everyday human behavior than do psychological experiments on memory. At times, people do have to remember what exactly happened on one particular occasion, as in eyewitness testimony. It is much more common, however, to abstract and remember the structure from many similar events, no one of which by itself is the best version. In general, people are better suited for the more common task." (David C. Rubin, Memory in Oral Traditions, p. 7)

"Western discourse has come to prioritize the written word as the dominant form of record keeping and until recently, Westerners have generally considered oral societies to be peoples without history. This could not be further from the truth. Oral societies record and document their histories in complex and sophisticated ways, including performative practices such as dancing and drumming. Although most oral societies, Aboriginal or otherwise, have now adopted the written word as a tool for documentation, expression and communication, many still depend on oral traditions and greatly value the oral transmission of knowledge as an intrinsic aspect of their cultures and societies."
http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/home/culture/oral-traditions.html

First language Arabic Dr. Rafat Amari's 20 year full-time study cites historical and archaeological EVIDENCE, much of which is from Islam's own books. You should avail yourself of the free papers presented in the left sidebar of his website, and for you I recommending beginning each page by first scrolling down to the bibliography and consider his sources. Then review the bibliographies of the parrots you have selected to ease your mind:
http://religionresearchinstitute.org/

Well, Amari's main problem is that he seems to place a disproportionately high amount of credibility to writings and archaeological evidence as compared to the oral traditions. He doesn't into account the fact that writing was very uncommon in those times in Arabia and that oral transmission was the primary means of communication. Another thing that he doesn't address is that Mecca used to be heavily guarded/protected against people coming from other countries. I read somewhere that there used to be a boundary around the Hijaz in Mecca which people were not allowed to pass unless they were going there to make a religious pilgrimage. So, it's possible that Mecca was made more accessible to others only later on, i.e. for the purpose of allowing trade and business within the city. 

Maybe this will help you in regard to the value of consensus. A near unanimity of the world believes that our calendar begins the year Jesus was born. Yet the archaeological evidence on when Roman census occurred (along with other evidence) suggests that Jesus was born around 6-8 BC.
So a near unanimity of the whole world is wrong in their belief that our calendar begins at Jesus' birth, including those in societies that use different calendars, that still understand what those who use our calendar believe in this regard.

I don't disagree with a conclusion if it is well-supported and/or defensible from an academic perspective.

Like Muhammad's fanciful ride on a magic flying donkey-mule one night, from Mecca to Jerusalem to the blasphemous paradise of his overactive imagination and back to Mecca by morning?
http://www.petewaldo.com/muhammads_night_journey.htm

Or how about Solomon's magic flying carpet:

""The Real Flying Carpet

Among what the devils made for Prophet Solomon was a wide, carpet-like, wooden platform covered with gold and silk. This platform was big enough to carry humans, castles and other buildings, tents, supplies, horses, camels, and other animals."

"The flying carpet carried him, taking Solomon wherever he wanted. If he wanted to travel or fight an enemy, the carpet would be loaded with all that an army needs. Then a special wind that was designated by God to obey Prophet Solomon would come under the carpet, raising the carpet into the sky. This wind would be as gentle as a breeze, carrying Prophet Solomon and his army to their destination."
http://www.petewaldo.com/fables_fantasies.htm#flying_carpet

[PeteWaldo]

Similarly, regarding the question of Mecca's existence, I was talking more about scholarly opinions on it than just the public opinions. There's a difference between the two.

There is no such thing as a scholarly opinion that suggests that Mecca existed prior to the 4th century AD, outside of Islamic fiction that was all created and put to the pen in the 7th to 10th centuries without reference to any actual historical record that preceded the 5th century AD.
That's why scholars I inquire of, do not reply. Why don't you try asking Islamic "scholars" for evidence that suggests that Mecca existed prior to the 4th century AD?

While you're at it try asking them for answers to these questions:
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/ask_your_imam.htm

Here's another exercise in consensus.
About 1/3 of mankind in the world today believe in the crucifixion, death and resurrection of the Messiah, who saves all from sin who have faith in His shed blood.

But that's not a scholarly opinion because there is a LOT of disagreement on those in the academic spheres, especially on the point "who saves all from sin who have faith in His shed blood,"

That is the only opinion a Christian can have throughout the entirety of the Christian era, since that is the whole subject of the Gospel. There has not been a single Christian throughout the last nearly 2,000 years that denied that Christ was crucified, died and resurrected from the dead.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/the_love_of_god.htm#god_is_love

The father of lies, Satan, fills his followers whether they are atheist or Muslim with the spirit of antichrist, that compels them to deny the crucifixion and shed blood of the Passover Lamb of God. It's all that matters my friend. Old Testament or new:

Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh [is] in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it [is] the blood [that] maketh an atonement for the soul.

You reject atonement of sin through shed blood because Satan has filled you with the spirit of antichrist through his messenger Muhammad.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/islam_is_antichrist.htm

Indeed the sacrifice of the Lamb of God is the very expression of God's love for mankind:
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/the_love_of_god.htm

[PeteWaldo]

Our belief is supported by a rich historical record, which is confirmed by a massive archaeological record, that is consistent with geography.

A rich historical record? Or did you mean more like a mass of self-contradictory, heavily-edited, orally transmitted record with vague and questionable authorships?

This from a guy who believes a 4500 year old history that was created in the 7th to 10th centuries without reference to any actual historical record that preceded the 5th century AD. That springs from a stand-alone, heavily abrogated, 23-year, 7th century record.

I will quote an excerpt from Jesus, Interrupted, by Bart Ehrman:

Should we be surprised that a Godless Muslim turns to a Godless agnostic to further his blasphemy against the one true God of the Jews and Christians?

"As we have just seen, the Gospels are filled with discrepancies large and small. Why are there so many differences among the four Gospels? These books are called Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John because they were traditionally thought to have been written by Matthew, a disciple who was a tax collector; John, the "Beloved Disciple" mentioned in the Fourth Gospel; Mark, the secretary of the disciple Peter; and Luke, the traveling companion of Paul. These traditions can be traced back to about a century after the books were written.

"But if Matthew and John were both written by earthly disciples of Jesus, why are they so very different, on all sorts of levels?

They aren't.

Why do they contain so many contradictions?

They don't. Instead of worshiping an agnostic, why don't you Bing search something like "Bible contradictions resolved"?
The reason you don't of course, is because as a Muslim you must remain terrified of truth, or face perhaps losing your job, being disowned, disinherited or even killed by your own father or mother.

Why do they have such fundamentally different views of who Jesus was? In Matthew, Jesus comes into being when he is conceived, or born, of a virgin; in John, Jesus is the incarnate Word of God who was with God in the beginning and through whom the universe was made.

That each included different things in their witness, rather than being carbon copies of each other, is how we can rest assured their testimonies were arrived at dependently.

Unlike Muhammad who stands alone and opposite to their testimonies, who not a single witness ever heard his alter-ego "Allah" give a single "revelation" to.

In Matthew, there is not a word about Jesus being God; in John, that's precisely who he is. In Matthew, Jesus teaches about the coming kingdom of God and almost never about himself (and never that he is divine); in John, Jesus teaches almost exclusively about himself, especially his divinity. In Matthew, Jesus refuses to perform miracles in order to prove his identity; in John, that is practically the only reason he does miracles." [Continued at the link below]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124572693

But even more convincing than that, is fulfilled prophecy. About 1/4 of the Bible is prophecy.
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/psalms_22.htm

The "fulfilled" prophecies are nothing more than textual forgery and mistranslations that offer a glimpse into the level of dishonesty and desperateness of Christian missionaries. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsPgvgbxpxU (at the 55 minute mark)

Are we supposed to be surprised that a Jew that rejects that Jesus is the Messiah would reject Him as fulfillment of Messianic prophecy? I only watched a few moments of it, but it seems the poor fellow can't even be honest about it, unless he is just as ignorant to the Gospel as you are.
He claimed that Christians make an "assertion" that Deuteronomy 18 is a Messianic prophecy through "assumption". But is that really how we arrive at that?

Acts 3:22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. 23 And it shall come to pass, [that] every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people. 24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days. 25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. 26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=219.0

Considering your access to this forum, you should have known better.

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/isaiah53/why-jews-cannot-accept-the-new-testament/

http://outreachjudaism.org/crucifixion-psalm/

So now you cast your lot in with agnostics and Jews that reject that Jesus is the Messiah. But then perhaps by now you do too. Can't even you see how Satan has his grip on you? You are running around like a chicken with its head cut off in willy-nilly vain efforts to seek out any amount of lies that you can, to advance the blasphemy you proclaim, all in your effort to deny the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Messiah, the Lamb of God, the Prince of Peace.

We believe in the ONE true God YHWH, through ALL of His prophets and witnesses, as revealed in His 1600 year record of revelation to mankind, that His people have followed through two covenants for 3500 years.

But evidently there was a plethora of early heterodox Christians who had radically different ideas of what Jesus was and what he stood for.

Like the famous sorcerer Simon Magus, who through his disciple Basilides and then the 2nd century occult cult of the Ebionites, passed on his gnostic denial that Christ was crucified to Muhammad through Waraqa bin Naufal.
http://www.petewaldo.com/simon_magnus_gnostics_ebionites_islam.htm#basilides

Modern Christians like to summarily dismiss all the heterodox Christians, the Ebionites, Marcionites and Docetics as minor deviant, insignificant groups even though apparently they were a big problem for the early church. Did Jesus teach us to keep the OT laws as Matthew would suggest, or abolish them as Paul would suggest? Did Jesus teach that he was a separate being from and subordinate to God as the synoptic Gospels suggest, or was he God in a man's body as John would suggest? These were just some of the many issues where the early Christians differed amongst themselves.

Jews and Christians share our Old Testament scriptures with complete confidence that they are the inspired Word of God.

Yet their practice and their beliefs are very much different, because .......

.....Jews deny Jesus is the Messiah, which is why you find comfort with them. They deny the Gospel of Jesus Christ, just as Muhammadans do.

...... Christians parted ways from the Jews once they began upholding the New Testament in addition to the Old Testament.

According to the Old Testament, for example, it is considered to be a great blasphemy and a sin to attribute Jesus as being God Himself or anything of that sort. To the Jews and Muslims, Jesus was only a Prophet of God, nothing else. And he didn't come to earth to perform any kind of a sacrifice on himself for anyone's sins. However, one of the core beliefs of Christianity is the death of Jesus/God as an "atonement" for sins. That is one of the central beliefs of Christians today which are in contradiction with Muslim and Jewish beliefs. Christians believe in original sin but Jews and Muslims clearly don't. See the comparison chart below:
http://christianityinview.com/xncomparison.html

There you are, joining those that deny Jesus is the Messiah, reveling in your collective ignorance to the Gospel again.
But to argue against original sin is a moot point since we find sin manifest so early in life. Who hasn't witnessed a baby greedily snatch a rattle from another baby's hand, or a 3 year old push another child down, or pull their hair and delight in their screams of agony from the pain they so happily inflicted on them?

The reason you likely can't see it, is because Satan filled Muhammad's followers with a false sense of self-righteousness and piety, that hides the sinful nature we all harbor from them.

About 1/4 of mankind in the world today are filled with complete resolve, not so much as to what to believe, as much as to DISbelieve the WHOLE SUBJECT of the Gospel,

The whole subject of the Gospel isn't so clear in the first place.

It is absolutely crystal clear as revealed throughout the Gospel.

I've heard too many contradictory views from different Christians about things like the role of the Jesus, the divinity of Jesus, the validity of the concept of Trinity, and several other issues which you might argue are "universal core doctrines" in Christianity even though they are not.

Your effort to confuse the subject by bringing in tangents, only further demonstrates your effort to run and hide from the whole subject of the Gospel.

to DENY the Son of God,

I don't believe that God can have a son, in a literal sense.

Certainly not in the sense that God had literal sex with Mary. However even you believe that Jesus had no earthly father. To deny that God is His father, would be to render Him fatherless, which would be a physical impossibility for Mary.

The only reasonable interpretation of the "son of God," as far as I know, is that it refers to those people whom the word of God were revealed upon. Let me explain.

The explanation is that you remain in abject ignorance to the Gospel, because you are likely terrified of finding the love of God within its pages. Making your "as far as I know" a zero.
First it was prophesied in Psalms 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou [art] my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

Confirmed as fulfilled in Acts 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

In the words of YHWH Himself:

Matthew 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Matthew 17:5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.
Mark 1:11 And there came a voice from heaven, [saying], Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Luke 3:22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
2Peter 1:17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/jesus_the_son_of_god.htm

When the Jewish leaders accused Jesus for claiming to be God (to use that as an excuse to kill him), it does NOT mean that their accusation was correct. Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said, you are gods'? If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came - and the Scripture cannot be broken - what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?" (John 10:34–36). So, what Jesus meant was that he was amongst the "sons of God" as mentioned in the Old Testament (which is, because the word of God came to him).

Your ignorance is appalling. Just because you are willing to proclaim offhand blasphemous lies won't make them magically come true. I am a son of God in the sense you indicate. But Jesus is THE only begotten Son of God:

Galatians 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

There is only ONE THE Son of God as indicated by all of the verses that use the article "the" when referring to THE Son of God:
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/jesus_the_son_of_god.htm#the_son_of_god

The "sons of God" also used to be called "gods" because when Jesus tells the Jews, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said, you are gods'?", he is referring to the following verse found in the Book of Psalms:

"I said, Ye are gods, And all of you sons of the Most High. Nevertheless ye shall die like men, And fall like one of the princes." (Psalm 82:6-7).

And this:
"For all who are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God." (Romans 8:14)

Therefore, according to the Bible itself: "gods" = to whom the word of God came = sons of God

and to REJECT His shed blood[/b] - as articles of faith - in Muhammad alone,

And the question is, why did he shed his blood? Apparently, according to Mark and Luke, the answers are quite different:

"So what is the reason for Jesus’ death in Luke? The matter becomes clearer in Luke’s second volume, the book of Acts, where the apostles preach about the salvation that has come in Christ in order to convert others to the faith. In none of these missionary sermons is there a single word about Jesus’ death being an atonement. Instead, the constant message is that people are guilty for rejecting the one sent from God and having him killed. The death of the innocent one (Jesus) should make people repent of their sins and turn to God, so he can forgive them (see Acts 2:36–38; 3:17–19). Luke’s view is that salvation comes not through an atoning sacrifice but by forgiveness that comes from repentance." (Bart Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted, p. 93-94)

"The death of Jesus is important to both Mark and Luke. But for Mark, his death is an atonement; for Luke, it is the reason people realize they are sinful and need to turn to God for forgiveness. The reason for Jesus’ death, then, is quite different, depending on which author you read." (Ehrman, 94)

through his STAND-ALONE 23 year 7th century record.

I'm not sure why you call it a "stand-alone" record.

It is the opposite of the scriptures. Muhammad standing alone and naked of truth. Not a single witness ever heard his "Allah" give him a single revelation.
Do you really think your phony god gave Muhammad a special "revelation" that allowed him to steal his monogamous step-son's only wife?
Or that your phony god lavished on him 1/5 of all the property he and his boys stole from others, but only for him, just like a Mafia Don?
Or your phony god lavished on Muhammad all the wives he wanted, but only for him?
Can't even you see, the ridiculous nature of the phony Muhammad-serving god you follow, that was obviously nothing more than the confused false prophet Muhammad's alter-ego serving himself?

The transmission of the Quranic verses were publicly announced and recitted daily and repeatedly. The scribes and compilers of the Quran were some of Muhammad's closest companions and they even memorized the entire Quran. Yes, every human is fallible, but it is possible to accurately memorize a text and a text can be memorized within a community. This can be accurately done if there is also a parallel written back-up support. This was also present. So we have the good intentions of the compilers (Muhammad's companions/disciples), added to the fact they are all working as a team (so if one errs, others can catch it), added to the fact they are not only dependent upon memory, but also actively going through the written data and consulting the very scribes of Muhammad.

Unlike New Testament manuscript traditions, things here are different when it comes to the Quranic manuscript tradition. That is because, thanks to the parallel oral transmission, the variations which come about at the secondary copying stage are limited and restricted to specific manuscripts. They are easily identifiable and do not spread like wildfire once a manuscript is copied and recopied. In sharp contrast, due to a lack of mass memorization, mistakes in NT manuscript spread rapidly from one to another, with new mistakes coming about in the copying stage. In the case of the Quran, however, that is less likely to happen because of the widespread memorization of the Quran.

Islam is to the Gospel, as the negative is to a photograph.
http://www.petewaldo.com/simon_magnus_gnostics_ebionites_islam.htm

Actually the Gospels themselves are the negative. The Gospels can't even keep their own story straight, as Bart Ehrman notes:

"There are much larger differences among these authors and books - differences not simply in a detail here or there, a date, a travel itinerary, or who did what with whom. Many of the differences among the biblical authors have to do with the very heart of their message. Sometimes one author’s understanding of a major issue is at odds with another author’s, on such vital matters as who Christ is, how salvation is attained, and how the followers of Jesus are to live." (Jesus Interrupted, p. 62)

Besides Ehrman getting his head handed to him in a debate with the Christian scholar Lane Craig, even the Godless agnostic you worship isn't so ignorant to the historical record as to deny the crucifixion of Christ, because the historical record is just too compelling:

Bart Ehrman remarks:  "What I think we can say with some confidence is that Jesus actually did die, he probably was buried, and that some of his disciples (all of them? some of them?) claimed to have seen him alive afterward. Among those who made this claim, interestingly enough, was Jesus’ own brother James, who came to believe in Jesus and soon thereafter became one of the principle leaders of the early Christian church."4
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=2558.0

[PeteWaldo]

Either all of the prophets and witnesses of the 1600 year record of YHWH to mankind were false, or 7th century Muhammad was a false prophet. There is no in between my friend. One must choose.

That is a false dilemma. I can accept ALL of them as prophets, but with the condition that each subsequent Prophet has a divine precedence over the previous ones.

There is only one person with a dilemma here, my friend. Because you deny the whole subject of the Gospel and thus reject the blood of the Lamb of God that would save you, as an antichrist that denies and blasphemes the Son of God, you must reject the prophets and witnesses of the one true God YHWH as revealed in His 1600 year record to mankind, to follow Muhammad alone through his heavily abrogated 23-year 7th century record that was inspired by the enemy of the one true God.

You can speak ill about my Prophet all you want but ultimately it doesn't make any difference. His integrity, his character, ......

As manifest in his rape of captives for example?
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=4969.msg19136#msg19136

...... and his achievements ........

Like his theft of the property of those he vanquished. His alter-ego "Allah" even having lavished on him 1/5 of all the property he and his boys stole from others, just like a Mafia Don. After all, they were marauders that obviously didn't want to work for a living.

........ have been praised even by non-Muslim scholars.

I suppose any that would consider someone's ability to band together a bunch of immoral reprobates, with the promise of women to rape and property to steal, as being an achievement. The same would also have to then judge Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as an influential achiever.

If you are referring to websites on the internet that declare him "influential", most would agree, since who could deny that?
You will also find that a near unanimity of non-Muslims that wrote of him in anything that even alludes to a complimentary fashion, are almost universally atheists and agnostics. But then that's where Godless people look for support. Like you citing Bart Ehrman.

And it is an incontrovertible fact that many people in Arabia were transformed into a much wiser and well-mannered people after the Prophet Muhammad came to the scene. He changed almost everything that was negative about the Arabs - their politics, ethics, manners, religion, etc. - with his own great character.

No, what he did was slaughter the peaceful, faithful, literate Jews, that could have helped him find the one true God, to seize control over Arabia with his reprobate, invented, satanic, imperialistic death cult.

"His readiness to undergo persecutions for his beliefs, .......

He ran from persecution. He skulked out of Mecca like a dog with its tail tucked between its legs, after the Meccans rightly laughed him out of town for coming up with his preposterous tale of riding around on a magic flying donkey-mule from Mecca, to Jerusalem, to "paradise" and back to Mecca by morning. He lost the bulk of his naive followers after he tried to pull that nonsense. Since even most of his illiterate pagan followers weren't fooled, how can we explain those duped in this 21st century information age?
http://www.petewaldo.com/muhammads_night_journey.htm

After leaving Mecca he went to Medina and enlisted the two lazy caravan-plundering bandit tribes of the Oas and Kazraj with the promise of women to rape and property to steal if they would cast their lots in with him. It was only after Muhammad converted Islam into an imperialistic death cult, bent on the conquest and subjugation of innocents, that anyone followed Muhammad in any numbers. Indeed the Islamic calendar doesn't even begin until after this conversion to violence at the Hijra.

When unsurprisingly, after the Jews rejected him as a prophet (preferring to be slaughtered instead since they knew who the one true God YHWH is), he also switched the Qiblah from facing THE Holy Land of the prophets and patriarchs, to instead facing toward the Quraish pagan's moon, sun, star and jinn-devil worshiping Kaaba in Mecca to pray.

....... the high moral character of the men who believed in him and looked up to him as leader, .......

That would be his fellow blaspheming, slaughtering, rapist, thieves.

...... and the greatness of his ultimate achievement - ........

Which would be imperialistic conquest and slaughter in the vein of other leaders like Genghis Khan, Pol Pot and Adolph Hitler.

..... all argue his fundamental integrity.

Certainly not any moral people do, if they have seen how Muhammad is exposed and revealed as a terrorist thief in the Quran and Hadith.

To suppose Muhammad an impostor raises more problems than it solves.

Certainly not to the Jews of Medina who preferred to be beheaded, than to pretend Muhammad was a true prophet, thereby forsaking the one true God of our scriptures.

Ishaq:462/Tabari VIII:30 "The Jews said, 'We will never abandon the Torah or exchange it for the Qur'an. Asad said, 'Since you reject this proposal of mine, then kill your children and your wives and go out to Muhammad and his Companions as men who brandish swords, leaving behind no impediments to worry you.'"
http://www.petewaldo.com/banu_qurayza_massacre.htm#jews_torah

Moreover, none of the great figures of history is so poorly appreciated in the West as Muhammad"[/b] - William Montgomery Watt, in Muhammad at Mecca (1953)

Others of us appreciate him as being one of the greatest moral reprobates and slaughtering, rapist thieves in the history of mankind, in the mold of other megalomaniacs like Genghis Kahn, Pol Pot and particularly Adolph Hitler who was so conspicuously influenced by Muhammad.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=2371.msg19170#msg19170

[PeteWaldo]

Muslims say they believe Jesus was a prophet even as you must reject His prophecies:

Matthew 20:17 And Jesus going up to Jerusalem took the twelve disciples apart in the way, and said unto them, 18 Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death, 19 And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify [him]: and the third day he shall rise again.

Weren't the four Gospels of the New Testament written after those events already happened? I mean, you can't call it a prophecy if those words were recorded after the incident already occurred. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes you're wrong. That wasn't the Apostle prophesying, but the Apostle's record what Jesus Himself had prophesied prior to his crucifixion, death and resurrection. Jesus Himself made reference to His prior prophecy after He was resurrected from the dead:

Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning me. 45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, 46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: 47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 And ye are witnesses of these things.
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/the_lamb_slain.htm#crucifixion_fulfilled

If that was predicted in the Old Testament, then yes, that can be taken as a prophecy, given that the translations are correct.

It was prophesied in the Old Testament, which are the prophesies that Jesus made reference to in that passage.

For example, what was He referring to that was "written in the Psalms"?

Psalms 22:16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. 17 I may tell all my bones: they look [and] stare upon me. 18 They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/psalms_22.htm

Regarding translations, the same is indicated in a Torah translation uploaded by openly Christian-hostile Jews.

[PeteWaldo]

So Muslims don't believe in Jesus any more than secular historians or atheists do, because you reject the whole purpose of the Messiah - Yeshua - whose name means YHWH "saves" "delivers" or "rescues".
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/the_lamb_slain.htm

The purpose of the Messiah was to bring back people to the worship of the one God just as all the other Prophets have done and THAT is how he "saves", "delivers," or "rescues." Not by dying on a cross for the sins of other people which he is not even responsible for. Just because his name means one who "rescues' or "delivers" doesn't mean that he also had to go through a very painful suffering or a sacrifice for doing that.

That is all that matters, my friend. That the false prophet Muhammad filled you with complete resolve to DISBELIEVE the WHOLE SUBJECT of the Gospel, as bequeathed to us through ALL of the prophets and witnesses in the 1600 year record of revelation to mankind, that His people have followed through two covenants for 3500 years.

We don't reject the whole subject of the Gospel, but rather it is the Christians themselves who misread, mistranslate, and misinterpret the book over and over again, as scholars have exposed quite clearly.

The whole subject of the Gospel is the same today, as it was in Muhammad's 7th century as it was in the first century. If you had ever read the New Testament you would know that it's whole subject centers around the crucifixion, death and resurrection of the sacrifice of the Lamb of God.

Let me ask if you recognize the following quote, and if you can guess where I copied and pasted it from:

"My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?"

I recognize it, and it's just one of the many ways that typical Christian missionaries like yourself twist the meanings of that verse and quiote it as a proof of a so-called "suffering" Messiah. Even the Jews found it ridiculous.

Perhaps Jews that weren't familiar with their own books.
I quoted that verse from Psalms 22:1 in the Old Testament. When Jesus made that exclamation it was further fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies of His crucifixion:
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/psalms_22.htm

"In reality, the idea that Jesus was the suffering Messiah was an invention of the early Christians.

Isn't it odd then that those early Christians would be willing to be tortured and slaughtered rather than renounce their testimony of Jesus Christ? Beginning with the stoning of Stephen and escalating of Christian persecution under Nero:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians

Just as it has been throughout the Christian era and as God's people are persecuted and slaughtered by Satan's people - the Muhammadans - around so much of the world today today.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/muslim_persecution_of_christians.htm

It is no wonder that the apostle Paul, writing decades after Christians had come up with this idea, indicates that it is the greatest 'stumbling block' for Jews (1 Corinthians 1:23).

Indeed, for some it remains so. Paul also indicates that some Jews were blinded by God Himself, so they couldn't sin against the Gospel.
http://www.israelinbibleprophecy.com/spirit_of_slumber.htm

Others that are perhaps too young, mentally challenged, or are perhaps in a remote tribe that have never been brought the Gospel, may be given a pass:

Rom 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

But you, my friend, are a lying, deceiving, blaspheming, antichrist that contends against the Gospel, that will stand in judgment in full knowledge of the Gospel, before the very Son of God you deny and blaspheme:

Jhn 5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

How can you not see you are in Satan's grip, when Muslims are taught that if they were to confess that Jesus is the Son of God, or even pray in Jesus' name, they will have committed the single most "heinous" and only unforgivable sin in the false prophet Muhammad's cult. A sin worse than, for example, cold blooded mass murder or child rape.
http://www.petewaldo.com/unforgivable_shirk.htm

So each and every Christian throughout the last nearly 2,000 years, would be guilty of committing the false prophet Muhammad's, only unforgivable sin!

Even though this is the very foundation for all Christian belief, to many Jews it was a ridiculous claim."

No surprise you turn to those that deny that Jesus is the Messiah, to further your blasphemy against the one true God. Jews who, just like you, put all there effort into DISbelief.
However Jews have been finding their way to Christ Jesus, throughout the Christian era, generally through the prophesies of the Messiah contained in their own scriptures.
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/isaiah_53.htm

Like Jews for Jesus, for example:
http://jewsforjesus.org/

Let alone the 6 million Muslims that come to Christ, every year, in Africa alone!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lu8Nm3Vobds

Also, if Jesus is really God incarnate in a man's body, as Trinitiarians insist,......

It wasn't the first time He did so. Indeed even Muslims believe God manifest Himself in the physical form of a burning bush.
Nothing new. God manifest Himself in the flesh of a man to Abraham as well:

Genesis 18:1 And the LORD {Yehovah} appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
Please read on:
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/god_manifest_flesh.htm

......then why would he need to cry or call out to God as if He is so distant from him?

Jesus was manifest as being fully man, to provide the perfect sinless example for all mankind to follow. I do not believe that Jesus had the mind of God, at least until after He ascended to the Father when He was given His glorified body after His resurrection from the dead, after which He returned to earth for a short time.

I believe He cried out as the weight of the burden of sin of all mankind bore down on Him, let alone that His crying out for whatever reason, was prophesied in the book of Psalms:

Psalms 22:1 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/psalms_22.htm