Answer to Mr. M .Tovey

So if Luke was a disciple of Paul then there is more of a possibility that Luke had a very good chance to be influenced by Paul's teachings. Then another possibility is that Paul might have influenced Luke as Luke was Paul's disciple. This possibly could have led to Luke's writing of the gospels.

Now coming back to the meeting of Paul with Jesus is concerned this can be described in two ways. Either that meeting was a physical one if it was then it should have been proved historically or the meeting could have been a spiritual meeting.

As per as your view that Paul was a persona-non-Grata in the Jewish circles was concerned this is not historically provable. Remember Paul was from the tribe of Benjamin which is concerned "Jews among the Jews" so there is a high possibility that Paul was not any persona-non-Grata in the Jewish circles at the time.

As I have mentioned previously that Flavious Josephus , who too was a contemporary of Paul , does not mention about the meeting of Paul with Jesus. This is significant.

As per as my view that all the four Gospels were officially organized during the time of Constantine at Nicaea , this is historically correct and provable. The fact is that Jesus influenced thousands and thousands of people and may people who were influenced by Jesus might have written their accounts of Jesus so why we only have four documents which can be considered as authentic ?

Remember there were certain Christians at the time like the Nestorians and some others who did not share the views of the four gospels about Jesus. Then why were they and their gospels were wiped out by the Christian evangelicals of the time ?

Now coming to the point that whether Prophet Mohammad met Jesus or not I would say that the same spiritual evidences that you give to support your viewpoint about Paul meeting Jesus is concerned can be used here to justify Prophet Mohammad's meeting with Jesus.

See if Jesus can meet Paul the Jew about say 60 CE then why can he not meet Prophet Mohammad the Arab about 630 CE ?

You have to accept that by all logical conclusions if the first proposition is true then the second also has to be true.

Now kindly provide me any verse from HEBREW HOLY BIBLE which justifies that Prophet Mohammad did not met Jesus in person.

Now coming back to the question of Israel and Jewishness , see from your previous posts I can discern that you consider modern state of Israel is the current embodiment of the Jewishness.

My contention is that the concept of the state of Israel by Theodor Herzl was an western influenced idea which is based upon the concept of a homogeneous ethnic nation state.

Now when Christian evangelists say that the state of Israel is the current representative of the Jewish people do not you think that the Jewishness of HEBREW HOLY BIBLE is getting replaced and superseded by the western idea of nation state ?

Is not any inherent danger there of man trying to undo God's work ?

I for one believe that the only political solution to the current problems in the holy land is to create a nation state where people from all three Abrahamic faiths (i.e. Judaism , Christianity and Islam ) can freely practice and preach their faith. I would love to know your viewpoint on this one.

Another question I have observed many Jews and Christian evangelists trying to belittle Muslim rights and claims upon the holy land particularly Jerusalem. My viewpoint is since Muslims love and revere all Jewish prophets then why should they be not allowed equality in the Holy land ?

I would love to know your viewpoints on this one.