Belief in the Old Testament precludes belief in the New Testament or Koran

Proof #1 Interestingly, my opponent interpreted "whether or not God spoke is almost irrelevant" to mean "whether or not God spoke has no bearing on my conclusion, it isn't a factor". I suppose the explanation I gave of this statement in the same paragraph I originally wrote it bears no relevance. Perhaps my opponent inadvertently ignored it. If that's the case, I'll restate it here, for his convenience. "My opponent concedes that events of a supernatural or miraculous nature did take place… The primary point is that a standard was set up that was never duplicated." Furthermore, I reread my previous response, certain I had inadvertently used the world integral in relation to my own argument. Unfortunately, I could not find it. Perhaps my opponent misread it. In any case, I certainly never would make the argument it Gods voice is integral. I did however, point out that if I was wrong about my point that it wasn't (which is not to say I was, because my opponent never even addressed my arguments as to why my proof was valid without Gods voice, preferring to discuss irrelevant prophets who never tried changed the law), my arguments still stand. This is the statement I did make: "…God's presence and approval were apparent to the whole nation, and that is an unparalleled standard in my opinion. Nonetheless, if God's voice is integral to establish a non duplicated standard in my opponents eyes, I still stand by those proofs, and my opponent must refute them." In other words, the point of the argument was (as I originally said) "that a standard was set up that was never duplicated". God's voice is "irrelevant" in that "supernatural or miraculous nature did take place" and such a standard did exist regardless, not in that Gods voice does not improve that standard, and can't still be used as proof if necessary. If such a standard was duplicated by Jesus or Mohamed, I'd love to know it. They never did duplicate it, and my opponent never even tries to claim they did. Thus, that argument still stands. My opponent tried to establish a lesser standard for divine revelation by using other Old Testament prophets. When I pointed out they did not attempt to give commandments, he accused me of changing my arguments from Sinai establishing a standard for divine revelation in general to establishing a standard for giving commandments, and states he can't argue with me if I change my arguments. (As an aside, part of the point of debating is so each side can modify and refine their arguments. My opponent must respond to any new or changed argument too. Just because it's new doesn't mean it's not true.) I find this strange, as I stated I'm my original argument- in the very same paragraph that I first mentioned it- exactly what kind of divine revelation I was referring to: "If God spoke to you (or your grandfather, who told you about it), then a new "prophet" contradicting what God said is regarded with suspicion, regardless of how impressive he seems. Namely, if God changed His mind, why wouldn't He tell you like last time? Essentially, God set it up so no mortal man (or being bearing the appearance of one) can change the original commandments." I did not write no one could come as a later prophet. I wrote no one could contradict this. In fact, I did ever say the standard was prophecy. Divine revelation means something revealed by God. Standard for divine revelation means a set of circumstances must that accompanies something revealed by god. In this case, its "no mortal man can change the original commandments." As long as the prophet is doing that, he is fulfilling the standard. Regardless of whether I contradicted myself in semantics, the base argument is still true and stands unrefuted. If my opponent wants a clear version of it here it is: At Sinai, God revealed Himself in a way that was never duplicated, so He could give people commandments. If He were to ever do that again, the events would have to be duplicated, so that the new commandments (especially any changing those of old) were incontrovertible, and so that no one could disobey them, and claim that the old ones had greater authority and were irrevocable because God himself gave them. Using semantic contradictions that don't undermine the logic of my arguments as a strawman excuse to stop debating is not a valid argument. Proof #2 I assume that because my opponent doesn't address the Koran, he concedes it violates the commandment not to add or subtract commandments. As far as Jesus is concerned, it really is irrelevant what type of commandments he gave. A universal theme amongst all types of Christians is that the commandments of the Old Testament were overturned by Jesus. [1][2]That is entirely forbidden. "See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it." This does not say "except for acts of obedience, love, and reverence for our Savior." Interestingly, my opponent's link to the list of commandments proves my point. I never asserted that my argument only applies to the Ten Commandments- in fact, they apply to every last one listed. Notice that every one of them was either given by God or by Moses, to whom God spoke in front of the entire nation, thus confirming him as a valid conveyer of God's commandments. Even if Moses was lying- which he couldn't have been, since God Himself confirmed him in front of the whole nation- God still puts himself into the same conundrum; He is confirming a prophet who eventually will ensure no one believes in His change of the commandments. Obviously, this is not Gods Modus Operandi either. Additionally, He would not personally confirm anyone who would eventually lie- thus Moses had a level of absolute believability that no other human has ever received. So every one of Moses's given commandments have the status of God giving them Himself (as was originally intended; see Exodus 20), and are thus irrevocable, making anyone who attempts to do so invalidate themselves. Thus, the logic of my argument still stands. [1] http://ask.metafilter.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...