long awaited answersPatience is a virtue which you apparently do not possess. It's also a fruit of the Holy Spirit. It's not as if these issues are going away is it?
"Not so do those who show patience and constancy, and work righteousness; for them is forgiveness (of sins) and a great reward." Q 11:11 Yusuf Ali
they may well existBut this applies to koranic mss as well see http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/393588/20121012/oldest-koran-manuscript-quran-islam-muslims-mohammed.htm This wasn't known to exist prior to 1972. Who knows what biblical mss will come to light in the future. The Dead Sea Scrolls are another good example.
that Quran was memorised by the companions from MuhammadThis is an unprovable claim.
answering-islam websiteYou obviously don't like this website, but that does not mean its claims are incorrect. It does not apply the "toilet paper" epithet to the Koran unlike answering-christianity with the Bible.
no two Muslims since its inception fourteen centuries ago recited or recite the Quran in two different ways let alone countless waysHow do you prove that one. Another groundless assertion.
It sounds like God has inspired a main book 2000 years ago as well as a subset of the main around 500 years ago!The 66 books of the "Protestant" Bible existed well before the Protestant Reformation. You have distorted the truth here,
the whole Christendom used to believe 73 books are inspired word of GodThis is incorrect. See for instance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_trent and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books i.e. deuterocanonical books not officially adopted by the RCC until 1545-63. What do you think "deuterocanonical" actually means?
Secondly, if Matthew 28:19 is accurate then there is no explanation for the apparent disobedience of the apostles, since there is not a single occurrence of them baptizing anyone according to that formula!
You've misunderstood Christianity. It doesn't depend on magic incantations. The "in the name of Jesus Christ" in Acts 2:38 doesn't necessarily mean those were the exact words used for each person baptised that day. "Into" may be a better word than "in" for Mt 28:19. Note that this does not support your thesis that Jesus is not God (in the name of the Father is not used in Acts)
ónoma – name; (figuratively) the manifestation or revelation of someone's character, i.e. as distinguishing them from all others. Thus "praying in the name of Christ" means to pray as directed (authorized) by Him, bringing revelation that flows out of being in His presence. "Praying in Jesus' name" therefore is not a "religious formula" just to end prayers (or get what we want)!
["According to Hebrew notions, a name is inseparable from the person to whom it belongs, i.e. it is something of his essence. Therefore, in the case of the God, it is specially sacred" (Souter).]
This verse refers to three, but never says they are "one."This is nonsense. The Bible clearly teaches that there is one God and teaches that the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are all divine as has been said repeatedly in this thread. You are repeating yourself ad nauseam. It is true that it took a while for the early church to agree the doctrine of the Trinity but the formulation was based on the Bible - it just took a while to understand fully the full implications of Jesus' life and teachings and the teachings of the apostles. As I've said before the Bible is not a systematic theology: it is an account of God's dealings with mankind.
You have a faulty understanding of this word. See http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/430.htm. In Jer 10:10 http://interlinearbible.org/jeremiah/10-10.htm "Elohim" is equated to "Yahweh". Yahweh is certainly not plural. You are clutching at straws unavailingly and sadly on this one.
logically proveIt was you who first used this phrase. So why can't you "logically prove" the Koran is the "100% word of God". You are yet to do this. Now you are dodging this.
Justification and Forgiveness
You are forgetting Jn 3:16 in which faith (i.e. trust) or belief in Jesus is the only condition for salvation that Jesus tells Nicodemus about. Note that Paul was not rejected by the other apostles and he certainly passed the "by their fruits you shall know them" test through his work amongst the Gentiles. Mt 16:27 still applies to me because God imputes Christ's righteousness to me even though I don't deserve it.
"Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness" Gen 15:6 NIV.
"because by one sacrifice he (Jesus) has made perfect forever those who are being made holy. Heb 10:14 NIV "
"Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38
You are ignoring verses like these. It was not only Paul who preached justification by faith. "God forgives sins unconditionally in Isaiah 43:25" You are ignoring the fact that this is spoken to God's people, the people of Israel and applies to a particular situation - their return from Babylon. As such it prefigures God's forgiveness of the sins of Christians. God is God and He can choose on whom he will have mercy.
How do I know Muhammad is a sinner?
Well have you met anyone who is sinless? "all have sinned" Rom 3:23. See also Ps 14:2,3, Ps 143:2 and 1 Kings 8:46. Note that it is Muslims who make this special claim about Muhammad so given the observed extent of sin the burden of proof is yours. Similarly you have the burden of proof over Muhammed's alleged non lying. Do you know anyone personally who has never lied for sure? Do you know anyone who claims this?
" For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. "
Three days and three nights - It will be seen in the account of the resurrection of Christ that he was in the grave but two nights and a part of three days. See Matthew 28:6. This computation is, however, strictly in accordance with the Jewish mode of reckoning. If it had "not" been, the Jews would have understood it, and would have charged our Saviour as being a false prophet, for it was well known to them that he had spoken this prophecy, Matthew 27:63. Such a charge, however, was never made; and it is plain, therefore, that what was "meant" by the prediction was accomplished. It was a maxim, also, among the Jews, in computing time, that a part of a day was to be received as the whole. Many instances of this kind occur in both sacred and profane history. See 2 Chronicles 10:5, 2 Chronicles 10:12; Genesis 42:17-18. Compare Esther 4:16 with Esther 5:1.See also: http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=756
The derivative nature of the Koran
All you've done is dodge the question. It seems you know that the Arabic document of the Arabic Infancy Gospel used by Sike in 1697 is now lost, but it was evidently used at the time. Can you quote any non Muslim scholars who deny it ever existed. See http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TXMcJPy1axAC&pg=PA100&dq=Arabic+Gospel+of+the+Infancy+Elliott&sig=J2qCmZX8U2VKEmZ2x02_QWPmiVc&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=arabic%20infancy%20gospel&f=false. There are many other examples of derivations cited in Tisdall. You have not addressed these.
How do you prove that Muhammed's recitations were actually words from God? Why don't you prove the (sic) otherwise?Is that the best you can do? This is a tacit admission that you can't prove this fundamental belief of yours.
This seems at variance with your assertion that diacritical marks do not change meaning: http://answering-islam.org/Green/seven.htm