(Disappeared, then restored from database)
Dear Peter
Your argumentative style (discussion) leaves a lot to be desired and when I adopt it you suddenly take offense, that is why I made the remark that you are somewhat biased and will accept what I say, you wont examine it, but you will keep repeating drivel that makes no sense to anyone but you,
Let me prove my point to you by way of an example, I admit I may have been a tad hasty and irritated with your attitude but I am now observing patience with you, and will show you how wrong the Writers are that base claims on scant historical evidence.
Here is my point that your writers are stating opinion (well a blatant lie) just because he read a few historical books now claims falsely that Makkah could not exist is unfounded and uncalled for because he is saying that he has searched the haystack and cannot find the needle therefore there is no needle, when it is abundantly clear there is. The Bibles claims of the Prophets cannot be proven acheoligically, many of the sites and evidence is circumstantial.
Faith is not based on physical evidence as we have no conclusive evidence for GOD's existence, It is faith.
Let me put it another way and let Me use Jesus (messiah born of Mary) May ALLAH bestow peace and blessings on him)
Quote 1: Nothing is known of the life of Jesus other than what is recorded in the four Gospels, written down some fifty to eighty years after his death. No trace of him survives in any contemporary historical record. Nevertheless the Gospels, based on a continuous oral tradition deriving from those who knew him, contain more detail than can be assembled about anyone else of comparable obscurity in his own time.
The evidence of the Gospels suggests that Jesus is born in about 6 BC - revealing an initial error in the chronology of the Christian era.
Read more:
http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ac34#ixzz0t1xdV3RYQoute 2: The historicity of Jesus concerns the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth. While scholars often draw a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith, and while scholars further debate what can specifically be known concerning Jesus' character and ministry, essentially all scholars in the relevant fields agree that the mere historical existence of Jesus can be established using documentary and other evidence.[1]
The lines of evidence used to establish Jesus' historical existence include the New Testament documents, theoretical source documents that may lie behind the New Testament, statements from the early Church Fathers, brief references in histories produced decades or centuries later by pagan and Jewish sources, gnostic documents, and early Christian creeds.
Quote 3. 1.3. There is No Evidence for the Story of the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus“
The crucifixion story of Jesus Christ is mythical, based on pagan religions, and makes no sense:
There is a complete absence of evidence for the events described - no authors mention the phenomenal events that supposedly occurred at the time of Jesus' resurrection, and, there are no records of Jesus being crucified in the first place. This is despite there being multiple historians of the time who kept extensive records of events in that era, especially of unusual events and the misdeeds of rulers. The only records we have are those written by Christians themselves, the Gospels. And within each of those gospels nearly all details of the crucifixion and resurrection are different. Very important details, such as Jesus' last words, are so different that it appears they are simply being made up by the authors. The earliest Christians did not know simple details such as where Jesus was buried.
Most the details of Jesus' death and rebirth are similar to the existing myths surrounding god-men in that era. The similarities to the Christs of other pagan religions are shockingly detailed, so much so that early Church fathers had to defend themselves against pagan critics who said that the stories of Jesus were simply pagan stories with new names. ref:
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/christianity_nojesus.html#BirthSo why do I and you believe in that Jesus is born of a virgin, preached the truth, was rejected by the Jews, was persecuted ascended into heaven and will return one day if there is no historical evidence other than an account of a convert that married the duaghter of a prominent Christian and prabably converted because of her, had a vision (SATAN came to him) and rewrote accounts of Jesus to suit the ROMANS!!?
Why would we still believe,
You see the evidence is given to us by the prophets in the only scripture that is untainted, and reads like it is directly from ALLAH, uncorrupted, unpretentious taking the whole of mankind into account, the Quran. That is why I believe the virgin birth of Jesus and that the Ka'aba was always in Makkah ( I will verify the accounts of Abraham myself) Adam built the firts house of worship, Abraham rebuilt it and prophets after him and it has always been a sanctuary, A house of peace protected in a valley with absolutely no vegetation, but well of pure water.
Just because an ignorant fool cannot find sufficient evidence does not make anyone a liar,
And ALLAH KNOWS BEST MAY ALLAH GUIDE US TO THE STRAIGHT PATH ON WHOM ALLAH HAS BESTOWED HIS FAVOR NOT THE PATH OF THOSE THAT HAVE INCURRED HIS WRATH NOR THE PATH OF THOSE THAT HAVE GONE ASTRAY.
