Maybe some atheists or agnostics do not rule out some kind of maximally great intelligent Being that does not have a desire to be worshipped or obeyed and has no desire to communicate with the world. And has not intervened in the world it has created.
The concept that you begin with of what “God” is or “great” is seems to dictate what kind of God possibly, and therefore, actually exists, at least for you. It could be a very different “God” to someone else.
So the argument seems to have serious limitations, if not flaws.
The bible supports the idea that there is some intuitive idea of God present in the mind of man. The explanation being that he is made in the image of God.
Romans 1:
20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Just my thoughts on the matter. As an armchair philosopher at best.
Allah will come in the shape of a donkey. “…’ Then the Almighty will come to them in a shape other than the one which they saw the first time, and He will say, ‘I am your Lord,’… Sahih al-Bukhari 7439
All arguments of this kind have limitations since they are attempting to deduce the reality of God through our reason without reference to His self revelatory Word whether it be the Qur’an, the Gospel, or the Torah.
The purpose of these arguments, in my opinion, is akin to the ayats of the Qur’an which use the natural world as an example of God’s attributes in which it usually finishes with ‘herein are signs for those who use their reason’. Reason which can be clouded by the fitrah or illuminated by Revelation.
In other words, not everyone is going to see the same thing when looking at the creation whether it be in the form of an argument or meditating on the creation itself. The job is to apply these arguments (if necessary) and hopefully guide a person to the profound conversion of Abraham, to simply see the Reality of God through the movement of the creation, knowing that they cannot fulfill our deepest desire to know and give obeisance to its Originator.
Considering the fact you usually post stupid, asinine and useless shit like your butt buddy Agnostic…it is hard to tell if you made that post or someone else
you know, a part of me will miss reading agnostics comments. Because if anyone showed that being against religion doesn’t automatically make you a genius, it was defiantly him.
It’s wrong for someone to pretend to be Iggy, but let’s face it…Iggy does not post “serious comments”. I’m still laughing from his “prove hares don’t chew the cud” comment. š
Are you taking on a new persona there Iggy? For the 10th time, you made the assertion that the Quran justifies killing dummy. So you have to prove it. Similarly, it’s the Bible that claims hares chew the cud. So, it’s up to Bible-believing zombies such as yourself to prove. Asking someone to prove a negative is only something a brainless moron would do.
Speaking of Zombies. Muslim apologists are pushing for the interpretation of Quran-believing zombies. Since it makes more sense to believe in Zombies. https://youtu.be/p2c0sppFIGI
Speaking of zombies. The gospel of Matthew says that the dead rose from their graves and walked around the city. Christians literally believe that zombies were walking around.
I could not care less about Matthew, Tom, Dick and Paul. I don’t believe in fairy tale. Since your scholars claim the followers of Isa were scared of zombies. Maybe it’s the same zombies lol. But nice try diverting that Muslim scholars literally believe in Zombies. I believe the walking dead is a tv show. You Muslim believe its real.
Did I ever claim it’s a tenet of faith? You’re the stupid using a strawman argument. The first message you tried to divert. This did not work. Second message using strawman and ad hominem. It’s not working as well. Your only embarrassing yourself and your cult. It’s ok I know you’re embarrassed as we have evidence your brothers believe in Zombies lol.
Lol, yeah you did say it stupid. You lied, got called out, then tried to lie again by backtracking. Stop lying.
And why would I be “embarrassed” just because some Muslims suggested that Gog and Magog could be zombies? Even the video you linked to showed a prominent and respected Muslim scholar refuting such a belief! So you only embarrassed yourself! š¤£
I don’t think you watched the video. He’s encouraging the interpretation of zombies. Zombies are the best interpretation according to the Muslim scholar. It’s too embarrassing you did not even watch the whole thing. You should challenge him for a debate about zombies believing Quran š. Great title for a debate. You’re a waste of time. You got exposed since your brothers in Islam believe in zombies lol.
I don’t think your brain is fully functional. Yasir Qadhi was criticizing that belief dummy. You keep projecting your own stupidity on to me. Every time you say I’m “embarrassed” you actually embarrass yourself! š
If It sounds it’s binding upon all Muslims including QB. If you’re consistent as a result when he wrote Christians. That binding upon all Christians. That would make him a dishonest person since the vast majority of Christians don’t believe the doctrine of resurrection is like zombies.
QB is definitely not honest he is misrepresenting what I wrote and the scholar in the video.
š¤£ It is binding upon Christians dummy because…wait for it…it’s in their scripture! Even if many Christians don’t believe that the dead literally rose, it is irrelevant because it is in their scripture. So it is binding, even though many may not believe the story. But let’s see what evidence you have for your claim that “the vast majority of Christians” don’t believe it. I have a feeling you’ll backtrack on this one as well. š
In contrast, Yasir Qadhi was referring to an interpretation he had heard from some Muslim, which he then proceeded to criticize. Evidently, you have a hard time understanding simple English.
from 1:04:51 onward is where he discusses the issue of Ya’juj And Ma’juj by offering two interpretations. one he seriously considers and one another scholar suggested that he prefaces is “embarrassing to mention”
I’m sorry your English is so terrible it’s hard to understand so I’ll try my best at interpreting.
1. Your hasty generalization fallacy v. QB quoting text
The difference here is the text of Christian Scripture says the saints rose from their graves and walked around. You are making the comparison of a person’s opinion on a text as being the equivalent when its not. Christians MUST accept Matt, we have no obligation to accept this opinion. Big difference here and not that hard to get for anyone with two working brain cells.
2. What Sheikh Yassir Qadhi actually said starting @1:04:47:
As I tell people when talking about Yassir Qadhi he’s the type you can’t “clip” what he’s saying and you have to follow him in his train of thought:
A. There is ONE hadith that mentions them digging every day in the wall and its authenticity has been disputed by many classical and medieval scholars (including the heavyweight legend Ibn Kathir) that this comes from the Bible or Jewish stories.
B. The tribes mentioned in the Quran could have been these people later’s ancestors
C. He says that the wall coming down and their descendants being mentioned is a position he prefers.
D, He clearly says at 1:08:15 that he does not believe in the zombie interpretation he is relaying a conversation he had in private (he emphasis TWICE at 1:08:46 this is NOT his opinion and don’t say he believes this) He even makes a joke about it
E. All he said was that by dropping this disputed hadith his friend’s joking interpretation makes more sense then something we are not required to believe in.
F. Stewjo is going to solve the problem right now…
Wall’s down. Descendants are walking around. Ta-dah, not that hard to believe.
G. What does any of this have to do with you disbelieving in your Lord?
You just prove my point. Zombies are not in the text, as a result, it’s not binding on them. Since you make the claim, bring the evidence the text say zombies. ” I have a feeling youāll backtrack on this one as well. š” That your interpretation of the text, the text never said zombies. Do you consider resuscitation turn people into zombies as well? You’re so dumb you probably say yes lol.
Zombies according to Muslim scholar:
@ 17.00 It makes MORE sense
@ 17.50 My laughter turned into SERIOUS contemplation
@ 18:06 But the laughter will slowly turn to contemplation and deep down inside you’ll realize the makes a lot MORE sense than anything ELSE out there.
All your ‘lol’ and laughing emoji will turn into SERIOUS contemplation. And it will make MORE sense to you according to the Muslim scholars.
Um moron, the text says the dead rose from their graves. I can see you trying backtrack now. You know you have no evidence for your claim so now you are trying to avoid answering the question. š
You’re the one who brought zombies into the discussion dummy. And each time you were refuted, you moved the goal post. Looks like your brain definitely is not fully functional. Maybe you should eat some brains. Get it? š
I’m sorry this is level of thinking is hurting. I’m going to simplify things with pretty pictures:
Matt:
“and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life.” (Matt 27:52)
So what the text is saying is when this happened š
This happened ā°ļø+ š =š§
They must explain the dead rising
Yassir Qadhi:
Hey, guys here’s this funny thing my one friend said, I laughed at first while obviously not zombies in monster movies it does make a little sense they may share some of those qualities.
1. Never said zombies himself
2. He’s obviously playing and exploring the concept
3. It does NOT make sense as it doesn’t explain the Gog and Magog during Dhul Qarfnain’s time.
These are vastly different statements,
The problem is the dumb kaffir you listened too (who put words into Yassir’s mouth btw) is influencing you to say dumb things. Let’s now contemplate on the Quran together and see if we can apply this to our lives:
“…There were evil ones from both humans and demons. They would inspire each other with propaganda but had your Lord wanted they would not have done that, so leave them and what they make up alone. I allowed this only so that those who donāt believe in a life to come, will have their hearts incline towards that and become obsessed with it, so that they can earn these sins theyāre constantly committing… If you were to follow most of whoever is on the earth they will misguide from Godās path, because theyāre following nothing but assumptions and are doing nothing but making things up.” (6:112-116)
You’re the first who wrote zombies, not me. You had too much camel urine you’re losing your memory. Bring your evidence that the text say zombies. I don’t care about your interpretation of the text lol. StewJo already brought the evidence for me, the text does not say Zombies. Are you blind?
For the last time, where does the text use the word “zombies”?
And do you consider resuscitation as people becoming zombies?
You should go to sleep with dead people like your prophet. That dead woman got a shock in the grave that probably resuscitates her lol.
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
We were (in the funeral procession) of one of the daughters of the Prophet (ļ·ŗ) and he was sitting by the side of the grave (Ų¬ŁŲ§ŁŁŲ³Ł Ų¹ŁŁŁŁ Ų§ŁŁŁŁŲØŁŲ±Ł – literally “sitting on the grave”). I saw his eyes shedding tears. He said, “Is there anyone among you who did not have sexual relations with his wife last night?” Abu Talha replied in the affirmative (Ų£ŁŁŁŲ§ā – literally “me!”). And so the Prophet told him to get down in the grave. And so he got down (ŁŁŁŁŲ²ŁŁŁ) in her grave.
Sahih Bukhari 2:23:374
āI (Muhammad) put on her my shirt that she may wear the clothes of heaven, and I SLEPT with her (ŁŲ§Ų¶Ų·Ų¬Ų¹ Ł Ų¹ŁŲ§) in her coffin (grave) that I may lessen the pressure of the grave. She was the best of Allahās creatures to me after Abu Talibāā¦
š Apparently you are stupider than you seem. You were the one who started talking about zombies. I merely referred to Erasmus as a “zombie”. Obviously, I was not saying he is literal zombie from Night of the Living Dead. Do you enjoy embarrassing yourself? š
The gospel of Matthew says the dead rose from their graves. The dead came to life. You really are stupid if you think the word “zombie” existed back then, or the concept as we understand it in popular culture. The text states the graves opened up and the dead started the walking around. Ergo, corpses were literally walking around.
So I’ll ask you again dummy
What is your evidence that the “vast majority” of Christians don’t believe in the story?
No point using ad hominems like QB after losing an argument. I know you’re getting emotional because it’s embarrassing. You’re using words like “dumb kaffir” when other Muslims came on this blog called you a “dumb” and a “kaffir. That must hurt especially when it comes from your own people.
šš¤£ Hey Stew, apparently you have another secret admirer! But notice how this liar avoided responding. It’s information overload for the zombie, as I said. She needs some… brains. š
I can’t believe you just prove my point again. Put down the camel urine and think before you write. You’re making it too easy for me. Since your losing memory from too much camel urine. That what you wrote: “the word āzombieā existed back then, or the concept as we understand it in popular culture.” Heeelllooo, you just prove the concept did not exist. If they believe in “Zombies” the concept would be the same. Even if they used a different word or did not have a word for it. What evidence you need when both of you are stupid enough to help me prove my case. You can’t prove it’s the same concept. If that the best you can give it means resuscitation makes people into zombies. lol
You seem to forget to answer this one over and over again. Does resuscitation mean people turn into zombies? Your whole argument falls apart that why you can’t answer.
Wake up stop being stupid before you wake up next to a dead woman like your prophet lol.
š¤¦āāļø Lol, you really are a dunce aren’t you? I said the concept as it is understood in pop culture…i.e., the horror fantasy of corpses rising to eat the living. This is what the word “zombie” implies. That concept was not know in that time. However, the gospel says that the graves opened and the dead walked around Jerusalem. Ergo, the dead came to life again. How would you refer to that in modern parlance? Come on, say it with me…z-o-m-b-i-e-s.
Still waiting for your evidence. And now youve dug yourself into an bigger hole. Where does the text say anything about resuscitation? Why do you keep lying? Is it do hard to tell the truth?
“the horror fantasy of corpses rising to eat the living” where do you see that in the text? You’re exposing yourself again.
I never said resuscitation is in the text. But based on your stupidity modern day resuscitation would mean turning a person into a zombie. We need to warn all the doctors around the world lol. Can you answer the question coward, does resuscitation turn someone into a zombie?
I don’t think I will get an answer from you. Better I listen to Yasir on his lecture of Zombie in Islam lol.
Still no evidence for you claims? Why do you keep running little zombie?
Again, the text says the dead came out of their graves. What word do we use in modern parlance to describe? Come on. You know it. Say it. There’s a good girl.
Dummy, the text describes a supernatural incident. The graves literally opened and their occupants came out. It was a literal resurrection. There was no resuscitation. It was an alleged miracle. This is a far cry from when a doctor resuscitates a patient using CPR.
Now can you answer my question little zombie coward? I’m waiting. Once you answer, we’ll get you some brains for you to munch on.
If “resuscitation” is not in the text, then why bring it up? You whine about QB and Stew, saying the text doesn’t mention ‘zombies’ but then turn around and mention “resuscitation” which has absolutly NOTHING to do with the whole issue.
As for camel urine (of course you’ll be a filthy/nasty person and throw it out like that) there is nothing wrong with a 7th century bedouin/prophet telling a group of people who were ill to cure themselves by mixing camel mil with some urine. They didn’t have the luxury of modern medicin and care. Hence they had to use what was available to them. We make medicin from urine and dung even today. The difference is that we use highly sophisticated technics based on modern technology to get the required ingredient from them which of course was not availeble to the 7th century bedouins and hence there is no error or blame on them for using urine in raw form.
Your claim it’s in the text. But you can’t show it in the text. Based on what StewJo quoted it does not prove zombies (or a concept of zombies) or else modern day resuscitation would mean zombies as well. Your simple definition of zombies will backfire since you won’t admit modern day resuscitation means zombies. He will have to use a more complex description which is not found in the text. I’m not making the claim that resuscitation is in the text. You’re the one who making a claim whats in the text. Get it now stupid. Stop with the camel urine. Drink some Zamzam water, give you brain a rest from camel urine lol. I’m using resuscitation as an example since your argument is stupid.
Sharia-Medicine: Egyptian Clinic Treats People with Camel Urine Per Prophetās Advice
A recent Egyptian TV program showed how Islamic Sharia lawās many prescriptions do not merely clash with modern-day concepts like free speech and religious freedom, but even with medicine and science.
Naturally you show your ignorance with a quick google search to try and save face as well as your ugly face.
Firstly “resuscitation” has NOTHING to do with the text. Nothing!
Resuscitation implies people that are ALIVE and not dead. The ones that come out of the grave in Matthew are DEAD. You bring up “resuscitation” to try and achieve a gotchya moment but this is a false equivalence and you know it. Now you claim that you didn’t say it’s in the text which even if that’s true it’s still irrelevant. Your ‘argument’ still fails bigtime.
Secondly what is the purpose of the link you threw forward? It doesn’t adress my points. You couln’t refute what I said so you went and quickly did a google search (most likely didn’t even properly read it all) in an attempt to save face. I clearly and explicitly said:
(((((there is nothing wrong with a 7th century bedouin/prophet telling a group of people who were ill to cure themselves by mixing camel mil with some urine. They didnāt have the luxury of modern medicin and care. Hence they had to use what was available to them. We make medicin from urine and dung even today. The difference is that we use highly sophisticated technics based on modern technology to get the required ingredient from them which of course was not availeble to the 7th century bedouins and hence there is no error or blame on them for using urine in raw form.))))
The article backs me up! Have you even read it?
It’s written by some retard kafir that’s clearly foaming at the mouth since he too can’t refute what I said.
And not to be mentioned the classic retarded lies like that were mentioned like:
(((canonical hadiths, or traditions and sayings of Muhammadāwhich is where both urine-drinking ideas appearāas sacred and not to be questioned.)))
I guess he missed the thousands of pages of critical analysis from scholars on the hadith.
I couldn’t care less if half of Egypt is drinking raw camel urine since even that wouldn’t scratch my arguments.
You’re making an argument for camel urine and you call other stupid. Hahahahaha. Ofc you don’t care Egyptian follow the stupid teaching of Muhammad who kills many of them. You don’t care if Muhammad talks bullshit and this cause the death of many people. If you cared about people you would tell others to stop following the stupidity of Muhammad. But you don’t give a shit about other Muslim life. You prefer to defend the nonsense of Muhammad.
It’s called clinically dead you retard. Based on your nonsense it should be called clinically alive. Your as smart as your prophet lol. No wonder he convince you camel urine is medication. Dumb shit. Did you also have you fly-wing medcine as well? ššš
Muslims are the stupid not the kaffir. We tell you to stop drinking this shit.
But, according to the World Health Organization, it could be deadly.
You see, there’s a bit of a MERS situation. MERS ā officially called Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus ā leads to fevers, breathing problems, pneumonia, kidney failure and other deadly complications.
And this is what you’ll always do: divert and weasel you’re way out.
Your rant did nothing to refute what I said about camel urine. You can post links as much as you like and pretend that refutes me since that gives you the illusion of having “won”.
Firstly when I said I don’t care I meant IN REGARDS TO MY ARGUMENTS. If you’re so stupid that I have to explain this to you then you’re among the most stupid kafirs.
All you can say is ‘this muslim here says this or does that’ and that’s ALL you’ll ever say and pretend it’s proof. You’re not debating me or QB or Stew. You’re just talking to yourself since a debate would imply you engage with the other sides arguments.
I said clearly that in 7th century Arabia there is nothing wrong with this since they don’t have the luxury of modern technology to get the necessary ingedrients out of urine like we do today. Hence we can’t hold them responsible for not having the capabilities to pure medicin.
We use horse urinie in medicin which is first gone through a proces of extraction. But again: the bedouins 14 centuries ago didn’t have that luxury and hence cannot be held accountable.
I know raw urine has negative effects on the body you retard. I never said that I approve of using it like that today with the technology that is available to us. People that have cancer get cured with radiation!
Is radiation healthy? To make it easier for your monkey brain: If you had to choose between radiation and some camel piss mixed with milk, then not only would you choose camel urine but you would stick your fitlhy toung up that camel’s ass out of gratitude that you can pick that instead of radiation. So no radiation is EXTREMELY unhealthy for the body. But it gets rid of cancer and that’s why it exists today. If a thousand years from now people come up with a better way to cure it than use radiation and has barely any negative effects, then obviously radiation would not be used anymore. Now, would it be logical for the people a thousand years from now to start bitching, whining and yapping about how stupid we are today to use radiation? Well if you don’t count retards like you, then no.
But it won’t matter. You’ll keep talking to yourself like a complete retarded kafir since that’s all you insignificant maggots can do.
As for your pathetitc attempt at saving face with the “clinically dead” approach. Amusing! Trying to play verbal gymnasitics. You sure you ain’t a xtian?
The term used is “clinically”. Dumbass it’s just a medical term. It does not mean they are dead.
If they were dead then it wouldn’t say “clinically” but just “dead”.
A mere search for the term “resuscitation” shows the following:
The act or an instance of reviving someone from APPARENT death or from unconsciousness.
They are not really dead. They come close to dying but are NOT dead. It’s used for people that are very close to dying. If to much time passes (and we’re talking about seconds here!) then resuscitation is meaningless.
The saints coming out of the graves didn’t come close to dying. They were dead for a LONG time with maggots eating their bodies. For you to use this as an attempt to desperatly defend (lol, for someone who ‘doesn’t care’ what Matthew says, you sure are desperatly trying to defend this so called gospel) the matthew narrative is just pahtetic.
This is the best she got. Woow, just woow. She is just an insect making little noises and can’t handle the bitchslaps she’s receiving. Poor biatch. Don’t worry, it wasn’t the first and from the looks of you trying to save face, it won’t be the last.
Trying to save face only leads to you shooting yourself in the ass. Keep talking.
Many countries don’t have the medical luxury. They don’t advice even those countries to drink that bullshit. They just want people to stop following the bullshit teaching of Muhammad.
You don’t even realise the flaws of your argument. You refute yourself. Even modern medicine can’t save them. That bullshit can be deadly. That show how much more retarded it was in the 7th century for an idiot to say drink that crap. Do I really need to refute you. Your stupid your going to make stupid arguments.
Clinically dead mean dead. That why it says DEAD lol. No wonder your prophet went to sleep with a dead woman. He probably thought dead mean alive lol. You are as dumb as your prophet.
Don’t rant about cancer. Camel urine, dates and black seed oil can fix almost everything according to Dr. Muhammad š. What kind of idiot would say that kind of crap.
Speaking of b*tch slap. Let see according to Aisha if Muslims get b*tchslap more than unbelievers. ššš
Aisha said, āI have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!ā Sahih al-Bukhari 5825
ššš
Aisha would know about bitch slap she bend over at the age of 9 like a whore.
Theoretically the easiest way to prove that Allah doesn’t want you to harm the kuffar in any of these ways would be to find a command, or commands, in the Koran against these things. But there is none because, guess what, Allah does want Muslims to do these things to non-Muslims. Until they pay the jizya and feel themselves subdued.
Can you quote any scripture from the Koran that would make the killing, kidnapping, raping, enslaving and plundering of the kuffar unlawful stewpot?
You are making the claim so the burden is on you. If you disagree prove to everyone you are not a homosexual rapist. This should be easy Watson just give us something.
The koranic paradigm is that the prophet or warner goes to the unbelieving people and summons them to submit to Islam. This is never portrayed as a peaceful process in the Koran but as a judgement with violence inflicted as part of the judgement in the form of punishment. Allah has not constrained this punishment by any rules or regulations. It could take any shape or form. From a koranic point of view this confrontation is the perennial duty of the Ummah. This is a license for any kind of action that achieves the objective of removing all obstacles to the implementation of Sharia.
It is interesting that Mohammed himself failed to meet the criteria that he himself set up in the Koran by the historical examples of judgement that he gave. There were no miracles involved in his confrontation with the Meccans contrary to the confrontations of the earlier prophets or warners cited in the Koran and Mohammed depended solely on human power to engage with and oppose the unbelievers. If God was with him his judgement upon the Meccan polytheists should have been quick, decisive and supernatural by necessity because there was no other force available to him. Instead he was begging for years for the pagans in Mecca to change their ways without success. This proves that he was not a prophet according to the koranic examples of previous warners and destroyers of non-islamic civilizations.
Jesus (as) conquered Jerusalem riding a purple elephant while shooting fireballs from his eyes. See how easy it is to make claims? What are your sources?
Regarding your other arguments, as Paul noted there are just so many wrong things its hard to know where to start:
1. Prophets act as warners. Disbelievers such as yourself not listening are not the fault of the prophet. This point presented is actually a proof FOR Islam as prophets are not accepted by their people when they first arrive. The purpose of this is simply to establish proof against the people. Using your poor understanding, Moses(as) begged the Pharaoh and Jesus(as) begged the Jews.
2. We do not have a license to do anything necessary to implement Shariah we actually have a lot of constraints.
3. Muhammad(saw) did perform miracles they were mocking and weren’t really sincere so they rejected.
4. He was given the option to destroy them through supernatural means but asked for an extension (as they are still his family at the end of the day)
5. There are many prophets that did not use supernatural means to establish the Message on disbelievers and this is even referenced in the Quran:
How many Prophets have FOUGHT, with religious people at their side who never gave up? When they suffered in God’s Cause, they did not waver or degrade themselves because God loves those who remain patient and continue to persevere. (3:146)
Besides these many prophets not listed, other prophets who did not have supernatural destruction on evil nations but had fighting include:
Jesus(as), Moses(as), Aaron(as), Elijah(as), David(as), Solomon(as) and Samuel(as)
So this observation you made not reading the Quran is just plain incorrect.
6. Muhammad(saw) was not just sent to Arabia but humanity so these small insignificant disbelievers are nothing in the grand scheme. God doing completely supernatural means would not give an example for the rest of humanity for all time.
“Jesus (as) conquered Jerusalem riding a purple elephant while shooting fireballs from his eyes. See how easy it is to make claims? What are your sources?”
Imran:
3:123. God had already given you victory at Badr when you were a weak little force. Therefore be god-fearing so that you can become thankful.
3:124. (Like) when you said to the believers: “Is it still not enough for you, if your Lord reinforces you by sending down three thousand angels?ā
3:125. If you remain patient and are god fearing, when the enemy comes down on top of you, yes, your Lord will reinforce you with five thousand angels with distinct marks.
3:126. Help only comes from God, the Almighty and Wise. God arranged this solely to make it good news for you, and to put your hearts at rest,
3:127. in order that He could cut down a side of the disbelievers or humiliate them, sending them away frustrated.
3:128. They are doing wrong, Ė¹butĖŗ whether God forgives or punishes them is not for you to decide.
3:129. Everything in the heavens and earth is Godās. He forgives whoever He wishes and punishes whoever He wishes; and God is Most Forgiving and forever merciful….
The Ontological argument is a good one, and Anslem made it from a Christian viewpoint – the most perfect is the Holy Trinity of the Bible – One God in essence, three in person, eternal existing in a pure and holy and love relationship.
God is Love. Islam cannot say that. The most perfect being is both Sovereign, the Creator of all things, Holy, Good, All Wise and All knowing, Pure and Love.
Since we have conceived of this most perfect being, through the revelation of the Scriptures, – it means that there had to be something outside of us that revealed this perfection to us – which points to the perfect revelation, the Bible, revealed to man – way before Islam.
How can you determine what we can and cannot say lol? Literally every attribute you mamed we posses in Islam.
Next, the Biblical text is far from perfect (even ignoring agreed corruptions) you still have issues of morality, practicaloty, contradictions and major theological issues.
Finally your sect is just a bunch of heretical Jews and thet can (and do) argue they “perfect revelation” before the NT.
Even Paul Williams had articles up on one of his websites over the years (there have been I think up to 4 different “blogging theologies” over the years where he deleted the whole web-site and started over, twice before the one that Ijaz took over by stealth.)
-even Paul had articles that showed that Islam cannot say “God is Love”. I have seen quotes from Islamic theologians that agree that they cannot say “God is Love”.
Therefore, the Allah of Islam is not a perfect being.
Only the Trinity of the Bible is a perfect being.
So, the Ontological argument points to the Holy Trinity as the true God.
Temple: -even Paul had articles that showed that Islam cannot say āGod is Loveā. I have seen quotes from Islamic theologians that agree that they cannot say āGod is Loveā. Therefore, the Allah of Islam is not a perfect being.
If God is unconditionally loving then he cannot be perfect since an unconditionally loving being must love evil unconditionally, and to love evil is immoral.
Actually Rabbinic and Pharisee Judaism that rejected Jesus as Messiah is the heretical sect of Jews. The true Jews are the Messianic ones. (Romans 2:28-29; Philippians 3:3)
Given the textual variants, the Bible is still perfect, essentially for “everything we need for life and godliness” (salvation, power for living life, power for holy living) (2 Peter 1:3-4; “all Scripture is God-breathed . . . to be equipped for every good work” – 2 Tim. 3:16-17), since no textual variant affects essential doctrine, since other verses combine to preserve the truth.
Without seeing these articles in context I assume they are saying He is not “love” in the generic sense. For example, we understand God has the attribute of anger but it is inappropriate to say:
“God is anger”
God clearly refrences Himself in Islam as Al Wadood (The Loving)
And so this defeats your entire premise. But you should already know this as this has been explained to you before.
Moving on, the Trinity is a contradicting hot mess made by pagans to justify worshipping a human. Also quoting the NT to defend your heresy is not evidence it would be like how you don’t accept me quoting the Quran it is the same for the Jews towards the NT. You’re all heretics to me but the childish argument you have attempted to use of “who came first” can EASILY be applied to your sect and as far as the Jews are concerned they have everything they need (which as a neutral observer is true) Your heresy really added nothing new to the Jewish faith accept more overt paganism.
Finally as I didn’t want to go on tangents the variants do affect major doctrine and show a clear attempt to strengthen said heresy. Couple this with the fact that the Jews (who you blindly follow) ADMIT they changed their text this is a slam dunk for us. But again this is irrelevant because as I said earlier you still have issues of morality, contradictions, practicality and major theological plot holes that your textual corruption is in reality just icing on the cake.
if your father, you and grandfather were one human being, then that one human being would cause you three to take one action, but in trinity each is different from the other and has co-equal powers. the “one being” cannot “unitarianize” or “singularize” them.
do you see now why you are a polytheist?
even craig understood this, thats why he reduced jesus and the other two to parts.
every time father difers from son, then you pagans change the argument, you say that they “share…..”
because you need to keep that SEPARATION alive, otherwise you make them ONE being like
granfather
father
and son = 1 human being.
so it is a game of changing the argument
how many times have you heard idotic crosstians at hyde park say that they are the “same in every way” is just like saying that the “one human being” merges the THREE persons, father, grandfather and son.
The fact of the matter is the trinity is polytheism and idolatry not by our standards but by you’re own. we are often told that the trinity is not polytheism because “it is a plurality of persons not beings” however you believe jesus(a.s) had two natures. now unless i’ve misunderstood something, or you’re somehow able to distinguish nature from being, i’d say this fulfills the requirements of polytheism.
As for Idolatry, because the human and divine natures cannot be separated when you worship the second person of the trinity you HAVE to give worship to the human nature as well. anything less would be separating the natures in your mind.
But it is the Divine nature that is worthy of worship, because in eternity past, the Word (John 1:1-5; John 17:5) was fully God and still is fully God. That He added to Himself a human nature (John 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8) does not mean we also worship a human nature. Estaqfr’allah Ų§Ų³ŲŖŲŗŁŲ±Ų§ŁŁŁ
“But it is the Divine nature that is worthy of worship, because in eternity past, the Word (John 1:1-5; John 17:5) was fully God and still is fully God. That He added to Himself a human nature (John 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8) does not mean we also worship a human nature. Estaqfrāallah Ų§Ų³ŲŖŲŗŁŲ±Ų§ŁŁŁ”
Then let me ask you, what does the human nature of the “godman” do when jesus(a.s) receives worship? Also i don’t feel you addressed my other accusation. If jesus(a.s) has two natures that you worship, is the trinitarian formula then no longer “3 persons 1 being” but instead “3 persons 2 natures/beings” and thus polytheism?
“No, because the human nature does not receive worship.”
Okay so you separate the human nature from the divine nature when you worship the second person of the trinity. got it.
“The human nature in Jesus does not ādoā anything.”
That’s actually my point and what i’ve been getting at. Since i’m bad at explaining i’ll try being more thorough so you can understand my contentions. The second person of the trinity, the son, has two natures. Fully human and fully divine. These natures are distinct, not mixed, and unified in the person jesus christ(a.s).
These natures cannot be separated. What that should mean is that you cannot pick and choose which nature you want to experience your actions toward the person of jesus christ(a.s). For example,if you were to say hi to the “godman” you could not pick which nature to say hi too. you just say hi to the person and by extension his nature(s). Similarly, if you want to worship jesus you by extension, worship the natures attached to him. saying you pick the divine nature to worship but not the human sounds like to me separating the natures. It’d be like saying the “godman” stops being human when you worship him.
“What that should mean is that you cannot pick and choose which nature you want to experience your actions toward the person of jesus christ(a.s). For example,if you were to say hi to the āgodmanā you could not pick which nature to say hi too. you just say hi to the person and by extension his nature(s).”
simple mathematcis
x = y and z
x is ALWAYS divine
what christians do is SEPARATE x from y and plug it into z making y “personless”
my argument is that xy and xz are not two but one CONSCIOUSNESS.
so it is clear that the CONSCIOUSNESS OF THEIR gOD does mix with human consciousness
Generic type and can be used for anything. Used frequently in romantic poetry and carries a sexual connotation
Eshq
Ų¹Ų“Ł
Irresistible desire to get the one sought after. It is a passionate love that blinds the person to the faults of the one they want to be with. Obviously carries a sexual connotation and is more akin to lust.
wadood
ŁŲÆŁŲÆ
Special type of love. Often used for a mother with her child. Unlike the previous versions this type of love is selfless. Its a nurturing love in which you want to genuinely benefit and be in the other person’s company. Muhabbat is what is in the heart, wadood is what is shown through action. Al Wadood is loved and shows it back. No sexual nature is involved.
“The NT is full of the Father ā Son distinction and also of the One, same essence/ nature Ų°Ų§ŲŖ Ų Ų¬ŁŁŲ± of Yahwheh / God.”
Yea…no normal human knows what that means.
Simpler answer? People went to the extreme in venerating a righteous person.
If the Son is not the Father cool so they can’t both be God then Ken. Worship the one Jesus(as) worshipped not the creation.
There is debate even among Arabic linguistic scholars of the nuances of the words and there is always the principle of depends on the context. The Sufis use Eshq for God’s love, etc. – so it is not “cut and dried” as your explanation indicates.
The pre-existence and Deity of the Word / Son is clear – John 1:1-5; 1:14-18; 17:5; Philippians 2:5-8; Hebrews 1:3, 6, 8; Revelation 5:13-14.
It is His Deity that is worshiped, not His humanity, in Jesus Christ.
That is why Reformed Protestants object to the Roman Catholic and Orthodox views of icons and praying to saints – 2nd Nicean council in 787 AD – they “venerate” holy people / saints / heroes of the faith because of Christ as one Divine Person was and is worshipped; and they wrongly take sanctification and glorification in heaven as “deification”. that is why most Protestant, especially Reformed Protestants, reject icons and statues in the context of worship. It was confusing for early Muslims to see the large icons and statues and emphasis on Mary, etc. That problem even caused the author (s) of the Qur’an to think the Trinity was Father, Son, and Mother (5:72-78; 5:116; 6:101; 112)
And why do I care what ignorant Sufis say? Lets get Jehovah Witness commentary on the Bible then.
Them using the word Eshq in Arabic (idk about Turkish or Urdu) is inappropriate as it has to do with infatuation so they are literally saying they are in love with God n classical Arabic.
These terms are very distinct from one another. Just accept you made a mistake and were incorrect in saying Islam doesn’t have a concept of God being loving like a parent or God having a loving nature. It’s okay to make a mistake its not okay to defend it.
Finally I guess you must think I have never interacted with Christians before:
1. MANY Christian sects accuse Catholics and Roman Catholics as worshipping the Saints. (My grandma was one)
2. As has been established that you are ignorant of the Quran I am now challenging you to show the verse where it says Mary is in the Trinity. Hint its verse 5:115
3. From an Islamic standpoint praying TO someone is worshipping them. Catholics and Roman Catholics pray TO the saints and Mary. (If you would like me to bring you some of their prayers I can) and this is OBVIOUSLY what is being condemned in the verse’s context. Please see Mary as the “Mother of God” or “Co-Redemptrix”
4. Please prove their are multiple authors in the Quran. Just talking from a literary standpoint the author has the same style throughout so what scholarly work do you have to prove your assertion?
Quote:
Thread for #ttquran w/
@islamoyankee
: Metaphysics of āal-Rahmanā; word is from Rahma which means āloving compassionā & not merely āmercyā. Polemicists who say God of Quran doesnāt bestow unconditional love consider this. Prophet likened Rahma to motherly love (quote Shah-Kazemi):
ken temple, why the sickening and disgusting lies?
“But it is the Divine nature that is worthy of worship, because in eternity past, the Word (John 1:1-5; John 17:5) was fully God and still is fully God”
you worship 3 beings who are not each other and perform different roles and when jesus does something, he knows that the father is not doing the same thing. two pagan gods.
“No, because the human nature does not receive worship.
The human nature in Jesus does not ādoā anything.”
but you crosstians relate to the “human nature” and “the word” became “god-man,” they are not two, but one.
“The human nature in Jesus does not ādoā anything.”
the human person is fully conscious that it is a human . the divine person is fully conscious that it shares in the same consciousness as the human person. you WORSHIP BOTH united persons because they are one, not two.
jesus the word = human nature and divine nature
you said “human nature does not do anything”
this means you made jesus into a meat puppet
since you have “jesus the word” THROUGH “divine nature” IN human nature, but “human nature” does nothing, so jesus the man DID NOT REALLY exist.
Al-Ghazali explained love is an Attribute of Allah. He loves everyone in a general sense (i.e. giving them time to repent) and reserves specific love/mercy for believers.
1. Could care less what a bunch of deviants (who actually are considered kuffar by pretty much any scholar in existence) calls me. We are not the same and they are not “my people” as far as I’m concerned there no different than the rest of you and maybe worst.
2. As QB mentioned you are the one who brought up zombies. Performing CPR is not the same as a miracle of resurrection. As Atlas said there were dead saints in a grave and they rose from the dead and walked around. Also as Atlas said man you sure seem to care a lot about what nonsense “Matt” says happened at Jesus’s(as) alleged resurrection.
3. “Muslims are the stupid not the kaffir”
No, you are the stupid one because “the stupid” is grammatically incorrect and the plural is not “kaffir” its “kuffar”.
4. As we explained to the one atheist, oh Christian zombie quoting what a few people do randomly in the world without knowledge is not evidence. If that’s the case all Christians live with dead corpses in their homes:
“An ethnic group indigeĀnous to the mountainous Pangala region of Indonesiaās South Sulawesi, about 800km northeast of Bali, the Toraja are nominally Christian ā mostly protesĀtant, but also Catholic ā thanks to the influence of Dutch colonial missionaries. But they learn from a young age to accept death as part of lifeās journey, and when a family member passes away, in accordance with their traditional religion ā Aluk To Dolo (āway of the ancestorsā), WHICH SITS SURPRISINGLY COMFORTABLY ALONGSIDE CHRISTIANITYā they are treated as if they are sick (toma kula). Food, water and even cigarettes are offered to the toma kula on a daily basis, because it is believed the spirit remains near the body and craves care.”
“In the time between a person’s death and their burial, verses from the Bible are read daily, while the corpse is preserved ā and eventually mummified ā with a solution of formaldehyde and water.”
are you male or she-male or fully b*tch and fully she-male?
quote :
Do you agree that the words SOMA and EGEIRO are indicative that Jesusā resurrection is meant to be literal? If so, then why not say the same of the use of those words in Matthew 27:52-53?
joel,safiya, robert bitch, did dead saints “soma” and “egeiro” ?
Since the Bible clearly says there is only one God, no matter how you try to justify what you donāt like about the doctrine of the Trinity, all your attempts fail because of the fact that within the doctrine of the Trinity is the truth that there is only one God .
After eagerly awaiting your reply to the questions given to you i must say i’m disappointed. your preaching can be easily rewritten to support…well anything. for example-
” Since the Bible clearly says there is only one God, no matter how you try to justify the doctrine of the Trinity, all your attempts fail because of the fact that within the doctrine of the Trinity is the truth that there is more than one God.”
Translation of Temple’s response: I don’t know how to respond to Vaqas’ excellent points but I will still cling to the trinity doctrine despite having no logical or even Biblical evidence for it.
I meant questions in general not just mine. Because with all due respect Ken, resorting to preaching in response to an argument or question just looks bad.
And [beware the Day] when Allah will say, “O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, ‘Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah ?'” He will say, “Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen.
Surah 5:116
And surah 5:72-78
They have certainly disbelieved who say, ” Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary” while the Messiah has said, “O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.” Indeed, he who associates others with Allah – Allah has forbidden him Paradise, and his refuge is the Fire. And there are not for the wrongdoers any helpers.
They have certainly disbelieved who say, ” Allah is the third of three.” And there is no god except one God. And if they do not desist from what they are saying, there will surely afflict the disbelievers among them a painful punishment.
So will they not repent to Allah and seek His forgiveness? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food. Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded.
Say, “Do you worship besides Allah that which holds for you no [power of] harm or benefit while it is Allah who is the Hearing, the Knowing?”
Say, “O People of the Scripture, do not exceed limits in your religion beyond the truth and do not follow the inclinations of a people who had gone astray before and misled many and have strayed from the soundness of the way.”
With 4:171
O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, “Three”; desist – it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs.
And 6:101
[He is] Originator of the heavens and the earth. How could He have a son when He does not have a companion and He created all things? And He is, of all things, Knowing.
Clearly show the Quran thought Mary was one of the Trinity.
Then you should go and look up in a dictionary what “to prove” means since you got it backwards.
All jimmy did was whine like you and had NO SHRED of evidence to show that it’s talking about the trinity. You were asked to prove it and you couldn’t just like jimmy couldn’t. Nowhere does it say trinity. Nowhere. When you can actually provide evidence then we’ll talk. But you’ll just come up with the same old boring “arguments”.
Get over yourself.
It does not have to use the word for Trinity to know that is what they were talking about; it is obvious when it says, “Did I say take Me and mother as two gods besides Allah?” (5:116) and then later “Jesus and his mother both ate food” (ie, they are not gods) and “worship only one god” and “say not three” and “God cannot have a son because there is no wife for Him”. The combination of all of it proves that the author of the Qur’an did not understand the doctrine and did not know – He was ignorant. It is just a human book; not inspired at all.
You see the lies are just so overwhelming you just can’t help yourself.
I asked you to show me where it says trinity and you didn’t cus you can’t since there is ZERO evidence for it.
All the verses say is “don’t say three, there is only one God” which rejects tri-ism of any kind including your pagan doctrine of the trinity. And when it talkas about Mary and Jesus being deified in other verses, it only denies their deification and NO MENTION of the trinity is made in those verses. NONE. NADA. NETSJIVO. TSHACHOOM. NUL DE BALLEN. NIKS.
Poor kenny. Jimmy got slapped around and all he could say is repeat the same boring trash ‘It says jesus and mary and Allah and bam bam boom that magically proves the Qur’an got the trinity wrong’.
Pathetic.
Agreed, I mean I find it hilarious how not ONE classical, medieval or modern scholar is quoted to prove their argument. Just what Jimmy “feels” the text is saying. But what do you expect from people who don’t even know how to read their own text?
Exactly!!!
I mean they’ll just look you straight in the face and say jesus is God Almighty, the All Knowing. All the while LYING through their teeth about verses such as those that clearly state he didn’t know the Hour (which also include the HS btw and then) and then come up with some REDICLOUS nonsense about ‘o the human nature blablabla and also blablabla and of course blablablablabla ans do he is still God’ (where they jump to the God ‘nature’ and ignore the human ‘nature’ whenever it’s convenient) and where he denies being good and attributes that ONLY to God. And then these pagans come and try and bring our Qur’an down to that level.
As for his pathetic attempts like little jimmy to argue that some of what is in the Qur’an is found in non-Biblical sources I find just as ridiculous. As if we care whether THEY think their bible is end all, be all scripture and all the other attempts at making up scripture like the apocria and gnostics. Their all corrupt frankenstians. The bible is not much different. It too is a frankenstein made up of fake letters, poems, songs, authobiographies by unknown authors, documents written by those wo lie about their identity, etc etc.
We have no problem with there being similarities with things for example found in the Talmud since the Talmud is not only MASSIVE and talks about religious matters of the pas but comes from a people (ie. the Jews) who were give a scripture before us. This of course doesn’t validate the Talmud as a whole just like it doesn’t validate the Bible as a whole. It only makes sense statistically speaking for a God how gave a scripture to previous people, to have events discribed which are found in later scriptures. What are the chances of NOT finding something similar with that of the Qur’an in the Talmud? Purely from a statistically point of view: next to zero.
There is absolutly no problem there.
And the funny thing is that their comicbook itself has, not just similarities, but downright copy pastes from apocryphal sources. Like Jude quoting Enoch.
Yea I never understood that argument either. I mean their books are such a joke that ANY of these issues was enough to end the discussion. I mean its funny because he’s complaining about the average Muslim not understanding Christianity litfle does he know the MORE you study it the more appalled Muslims become. The average Muslim thinks Jesus(as) wrote the NT and there was some slight changes not analysis to write VOLUMES of books shredding the fanfiction apart. When I explain what the text is people’s mouths usually drop.
You know that shamoun is CONSTANTLY watching this blog like an eagle. Lol!!!
Br Paul put up a post about Luke’s position: “Jesusā death does not bring atonement for sin.”
And then you see shamoun posting his trashticles on facebook. I make a comment just now about Jesus and HS clearly not being God and like 10-15 min later he posts something about Jesus and HS being God and he is going to answer it on yt or something.
Since he’s watching so bad why doesn’t he post a response article to QB’s shredding about the Temple or rabbits not being ruminants since he’s got so much time on his hands.
3. From an Islamic standpoint praying TO someone is worshipping them. Catholics and Roman Catholics pray TO the saints and Mary. (If you would like me to bring you some of their prayers I can) and this is OBVIOUSLY what is being condemned in the verseās context. Please see Mary as the āMother of Godā or āCo-redemptrix
Yes, That is one of the primary disagreements that protestants like me have with Roman Catholics and the eastern orthodox , and that is also why we believe that it was the church or churches at the time of Mohammed that started to over exalt Mary that gave mom in the wrong impression of what Maryās role is in the Bible and what the doctor of the Trinity means and why the incarnation means.
the church or churches at the time of Mohammed that started to over exalt Mary that gave Mohammad and the Arabs the wrong impression of what Maryās role is in the Bible and what the doctrine of the Trinity means and what the incarnation means.
2. When Muslims see Roman Catholics and other eastern Orthodox groups praying to Mary and bowing before statues, that is idolatry to them and they see the Popes also in modern times doing the same think. They donāt care about distinctions. There are some famous pictures of John Paul II bowing before a giant Mary statue and the current Pope Benedict XVI praying with hands spread out in front of a giant Mary statue. There is no difference in the Muslims mind.
Because the Qurāan says the Trinity is Father, Son, and Mother, that is what they think our doctrine of the Trinity is.
Therefore, Roman Catholics and Orthodox should stop the Marian practices of devotion and dulia and hyperdulia and repent of the Marian dogmas, which are false doctrine and ātraditions of menā. (Matthew 15; Mark 7; Colossians 2:8
3. See what Ibn Kathir, one of the most important commentaries on the Quran in all of Muslim history says:
Ismail ibn Kathir (Arabic: Ų§ŲØŁ ŁŲ«ŁŲ±ā) (1301ā1373 AD) was an Islamic scholar and renowned commentator on the Qur’an.
If you study Inb Kathirās commentary (Tafsir) on the Qurāan, (see the link below), he lumps all of the Christian groups together. The Monarchites are the Melkites (meaning those that follow the king, the Monarch, meaning the Byzantine Emperor in Constantinople and the Chalcedonain Creed. He includes the Monophysites (Jacobite Syrians & Coptic church) and the Nestorians (church of the east in Syria and Mesopotamia and which spread out in missionary outreach along the silk road all the way to China. They were pretty much wiped out first by the Seljuk Turks and then completely by the Mongols under Gengis Khan and Timor Lang ( known in the west as Tamerlane.)
Muslims donāt care much about the differences in the Christian groups. It is too much to copy onto this combox, but read through the whole thing and you will see that he talks about the Christians, their monks, their priests, the ascetics who castrated themselves ( Like Origen, and Simon Stylitis, who lived on top of a pillar/column for many years.) The Muslims like their humility when contrasting with the Jews, but think that Monastisim and giving up marriage is ridiculous.
In the commentary, all the passages about Christians, the Chalcedonians (Orthodox/Melchites/Maronites/Monarchites) and the Monophysites and the Nestorians are all lumped together as āChristiansā. There is no doubt that Marian devotion, prayers to her and bowing before statues and icons, and later the Marian dogmas are indications for Muslims that the āChristians worship three godsā.
The Disbelief of the Christians; `Isa Only called to Tawhid
Allah states that the Christians such sects as Monarchite, Jacobite and Nestorite are disbelievers, those among them who say that `Isa is Allah. Allah is far holier than what they attribute to Him. They made this claim in spite of the fact that `Isa made it known that he was the servant of Allah and His Messenger. The first words that `Isa uttered when he was still a baby in the cradle were, “I am `Abdullah (the servant of Allah).” He did not say, “I am Allah,” or, “I am the son of Allah.” Rather, he said,
[Ų„ŁŁŁŁŁ Ų¹ŁŲØŁŲÆŁ Ų§ŁŁŁŁŁŁ Ų”ŁŲ§ŲŖŁŲ§ŁŁŁŁ Ų§ŁŁŁŁŲŖŁŁŲØŁ ŁŁŲ¬ŁŲ¹ŁŁŁŁŁŁ ŁŁŲØŁŁŁŲ§Ł]
Later . . .
Allah will also speak to His servant and Messenger, `Isa son of Maryam, peace be upon him, saying to him on the Day of Resurrection in the presence of those who worshipped `Isa and his mother as gods besides Allah,
[ŁŲ¹ŁŁŲ³ŁŁ Ų§ŲØŁŁŁ Ł ŁŲ±ŁŁŁŁ Ł Ų£ŁŲ”ŁŁŲŖŁ ŁŁŁŲŖŁ ŁŁŁŁŁŁŲ§Ų³Ł Ų§ŲŖŁŁŲ®ŁŲ°ŁŁŁŁŁ ŁŁŲ£ŁŁ ŁŁŁŁ Ų„ŁŁŁŁŁŁŁŁŁŁ Ł ŁŁ ŲÆŁŁŁŁ Ų§ŁŁŁŁŁŁ]
(O `Isa, son of Maryam! Did you say unto men: `Worship me and my mother as two gods besides Allah’) This is a threat and a warning to Christians, chastising them in public, as Qatadah and others said, and Qatadah mentioned this Ayah as evidence, . . .
(((Because the Qurāan says the Trinity is Father, Son, and Mother, that is what they think our doctrine of the Trinity is.)))
And once you can show proof we’ll accept it. You don’t have it. It ONLY mentions the deification of mary and jesus.
No one here cares about your whining ‘o but there are three mentioned, so there!’. What kinda proof is this?
A joke.
You guys are basing your argument on the fact that the Qur’an does not use the specific word, “Trinity”. The author of the Qur’an obviously does not know about 600 years of church history. He is saying things ignorantly – they (Mohammad and the Arabs and compilers of the Qur’an, Uthman burning all the older copies, etc. – most of the evidence of earlier texts was destroyed). It is obvious that he did not know what he is talking about. They saw the icons and statues and emphasis on Mary, saw the Christians of that day praying to Mary, etc. and heard a word that has as it’s roots “three” in it (“say not three”; “allah is not the 3rd of 3”, etc.) – it is obvious that the author or compilers (frankenstein book – cobbled together from Legends, apocryphal stories of heretics that were exiled to the deserts of N. Arabia, today’s area of Jordan, areas in Syria and Palestine, etc. – cobbled together with Jewish Midrash – They (Muhammad and the Arabs) were ignorant, both of the Bible and church history and doctrinal history. All of those verses together prove that the Qur’an wrongly thought that the Trinity was Father, Son, and Mother. From Surah 19:88-92, it is obvious that 6:101 and Surah 112 is speaking against the Sonship of Christ, and that the early Muslims wrongly thought that the Christians were saying God had sex with Mary – Estaqfr’allah !
Ų§Ų³ŲŖŲŗŁŲ±Ų§ŁŁŁ
It is obvious that the Qur’an thought the Trinity was God, Son Jesus, and Mary – 5:116; 5:72-78; 6:101; 19:88-92; 112; 4:171
The cumulative effect of all these together is clear.
((((You guys are basing your argument on the fact that the Qurāan does not use the specific word, āTrinityā.)))
Nop. We are also basing it on the fact that there is no attempt to try and define even the concept itself.
((((It is obvious that he did not know what he is talking about.)))
No it’s not. This is just your wishful thinking kicking it cus that’s what you want it to be just so you can find an error. You continu to make up stuff over and over again like ‘o he saw this statue and he got the idea that blablabla’ where is the evidence??? Where does it say ANY of that? Nowhere and you know it. You call that objective analysis? “Liberal” scholars use WAAAAYYYY less wishful thinking than that and when that is presented to rip apart your Frankenstein book made up of unkown authors, authors lying about their identity, authors wripping things out of context from the OT, authors just completly editing from previous documents like ‘Matthew’ editing Mark, etc etc… you reject it by crying “LIBERAL SCHOLARS”.
You whine for much less and here you are making stuff up and all you have to show for it is “O it’s obiously this and obviously that and obviously he saw this statue and obviously he then thought this and obviously yadayadayada”.
The Qur’an is clear on this issue.
The verses talking about ‘three’ reject all your pagan trash including your false pagan Greek/Roman trinity. Get over it. It’s ALL idolatry. ALL of it. You verbal gymnastics with your pathetic “o it’s person, o that is a being and o that is a a a a a nature and and and he has two of them and so aaaam…. well he is god, there!”. And we have to hear from such pagans about what monotheism is??? What a joke.
The Qur’an doesn’t care about what you say the bible is. It is no different then the other so called scriptures that you reject like the apocrophal documents.
Jude quotes from the book of Enoch and yet you swallow that. No problem there, hallelujah!
So let me repeat this again: verses mentioning ‘three’ denies all tri-isms, icluding your pagan trinity.
The verses about Jesus denying himself and his mother to be God are JUST THAT: denial of their divinity.
And no matter how much you try, you’ll never be able to show otherwise since none of the crap you claim is anywhere in the Qur’an.
And you keep showing what kinda wicked, deceptive snake you are by not only repeating this while having no evidence to back it up but also bring up Q 6:101. That’s talking about pagans. Sure xtians are pagans too but this is talking about other pagans. Have xtians gone so low that they even belong to this group which is mentioned in the verse just before it:
Q 6:100 “But they have attributed to Allah partners – the jinn, while He has created them – and have fabricated for Him sons and daughters. Exalted is He and high above what they describe”
((((are indications for Muslims that the āChristians worship three godsā))))
You DO worship three gods no matter how many times you deny it. The Qur’an doesn’t care in this case about what you think you worship but what you actually worship.
Jesus and mary are deified whether you believe it or not. Trinitarians have deified Jesus when he wasn’t whether YOU think that’s not the case is irrelevant to the what the Qur’an says.
Just like a you won’t change your mind about catholics going overboard with their devotion to Mary even if they think they’re not.
The Qur’an says “don’t say three” period. Whether it’s Father, Son and the Mother or Father, Son and HS or Father, Son and Mary or whatever made up pagan nonsense from the Greek/Roman world. You’re ALL idolaters.
“In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.ā Acts 17:30-31
Ahhhhhhā¦ so you DO understand then what is being criticized. Do you see why everyone here calls you either a liar or deceitful? You purposely knew what Christians have done for the majority of their existence (sorry to break it to you but your āProtestantā sect are just new deviants on the block) but then STILL made the lame claim that the Quran is saying Mary(as) is in the Trinity. I just like to point these things out so you understand why this happens to you.
Anyways not ONE of these texts say Mary is in the Trinity you have engaged in a fallacy called āreading in between the linesā and as shown previously have poor reading comprehension (which is why you canāt quote ANY scholar saying Mary is supposed to be in the Trinity in these verses mentioned and can ONLY quote Shamoun).
6:101
Not even talking about Christians
4:171
Has nothing to do with Mary being in the Trinity period. God is saying Jesus was a soul created that was placed into Mary, so donāt do to the extreme in worshipping a Messenger and stop saying God is a ātrinityā.
5:72
Again saying stop calling God a Trinity, God praises Jesus saying he was a prophet his mother was righteous
5:116
As noted you are already familiar with Christians over veneration of Mary and this really explains all the other passages.
Since you apparently want some deep philosophical crap about the Trinity Iāll keep this REAL simple is God wrong when He says that pagan idols are gold and wood when they in reality have much more complex systems and theology regarding their religion?
Finally yes you are correct (especially in the Middle Ages) we really donāt care about your deviant sects as they will all be in Hell the gist of idolatry is the same just minor nuances that have no defined methodology of evidence other than this is how I feel the Holy Spirit is guiding me which has always plagued Christendom.
4:171
Has nothing to do with Mary being in the Trinity period.
Yes it does since 5:116 and 5:72-78 and 6:101 and 112 and 19:88-92 indicate so.
God is saying Jesus was a soul created that was placed into Mary, so donāt do to the extreme in worshipping a Messenger and stop saying God is a ātrinityā.
see, you proved my point.
5:72
Again saying stop calling God a Trinity,
see, it is obvious what the Qur’an thought the Trinity was, along with 5:116; 6:101; 112; 19:88-92; 5:72-78 – you proved my point again.
God praises Jesus saying he was a prophet his mother was righteous
5:116
As noted you are already familiar with Christians over veneration of Mary and this really explains all the other passages.
Since the Qur’an nowhere mentions a proper understanding of the Holy Spirit – according to the NT and according to church history, which the Allah of the Qur’an is ignorant of, which proves he did not inspire that book; – and since it puts Mary together with God the Father and Jesus in 5:116; and since the Qur’an nowhere understands the One God in substance / nature/ essence and yet three in persons; it is obvious that it mistakenly thought that Mary was a part of the Trinity. Also the Qur’an is ignorant of what Christians meant by “Jesus is the Son of God” in the NT and 600 years of church history (112; 6:101; 19:88-92) – this also proves the massive ignorance of the Qur’an.
Because you are ignorant not the Quran let’s go one verse at a time I said 6:101 is not talking to Christians, not 4:171. So thank you again for proving my point about your poor reading skills. Besides being a liar and arrogant this is easily your next biggest problem. So once again 6:101 has NOTHING to do with Christianity. Do you agree so we can move on to your next claim?
No; it is the same thing basically as Surah 19:88-92 and Surah 112. It is against their ignorant and misunderstanding of the Christian faith and the Father and the Son, and the virgin birth of Christ.
The only ignorant misunderstanding is you and Jimmy thinking 6:101 has anything to do with Christians. Now letās give your butt a break from talking and read together:
6:99. It is He Who sent water from the sky, and with it I extract the growth of all things. I produce from it greenery and from that I bring out grains riding on top of one another. From the newly sprouting branches of date palms comes batches hanging low. Along with gardens of grapes, olives and pomegranates, that are similar yet different. Look at their fruits as they first come out and after they have fully matured because there are many lessons in that for people that seeks to believe.
6:100. Yet still they would make DEMONS partners with God even though He created them? They tear open their natural instincts and ignorantly attribute SONS AND DAUGHTERS to Him. How perfect and far above is He over elaborate descriptions they give?
6:101. He is the Original Creative Trigger of the heavens and earth. How could He have children when He has no spouse, He created all things and has complete knowledge of everything?
6:102. That is God, your Lord, there is no god but Him. The Creator of everything, so worship only Him because He is taking care of all things.
Now a few questions here Ken:
1.Do you make demons partners with God?
2.Do you attribute sons AND daughters to God?
I donāt think so but hey new Christians sects pop up every 5 min. Also notice God says He is far above the elaborate descriptions given to Him. Who makes up elaborate stories maybe something along what the Greeks, Hindus, etc say?
Anyways, now letās take a look at who is being referred to. In the SAME chapter:
6:1-70 is referring to the pagan Arabs making fun of being warned and that God should have sent an angel instead of a human. God refutes this then moves on to speaking about Abraham(as) and him debating his pagan people and talks about the many prophets He chose from his lineage. He then is clearly transitions again to talking about the pagans:
6:136. The pagans assign to God a portion of the produce and the livestock He created, claiming: “This is for God and this is for our idols…” So their idolās portion doesnāt reach God, but God’s portion reaches their idols? How horrible are their decisions?
6:137. Just like in the same way, their idols have made it attractive to them to kill their own children, bringing themselves to ruin and confusion within their faith? If God had wanted otherwise they wouldnāt have done this, so leave them in the things they make up.
He then proceeds to refute the pagans beliefs they just made up. This entire chapter is talking to the pagan Arabs. So even though your paganism and idolatry isnāt anything new of giving the Creator children this particular verse is not addressed to you nor the Trinity. Are you ready to admit this so we can move on?
P.S.
19:82 is NOT talking to you either. So again thank you for proving your total lack of knowledge of the Quran as it really makes things easier for people following our conversation.
Surah 19:88-92
and
Surah 112
seems to be speaking directly against Christian’s doctrine of Jesus as “the Son of God”
So, although 6:99-100 is speaking directly to the pagan Arabs, by way of application, 6:101 seems to also apply to the Christians in the same way that Surah 112 and 19:88-92 and 4:171 and 5:116 and 5:72-78 is speaking to what they wrongly thought Christians were believing. An ignorant author. Not inspired by God.
SAHIH INTERNATIONAL
But they have attributed to Allah partners – the jinn, while He has created them – and have fabricated for Him sons and daughters. Exalted is He and high above what they describe
Surah 6:100 Sahih International
Seems to make a general statement about Jinn (Ų§ŁŲ¬Ł ) – it does not use the the word, “Shayatin”, usually the word for demons, – and attributing “sons and daughters” could be including all sorts of paganism and misunderstanding of what Christianity is, since those other verses seem to be speaking about Christianity, although ignorantly.
Too long to explain long story short many idols are Jinn who did something for a culture. Moving on:
Please we said we want to give your butt a break so let’s stop talking out of it:
19:88 is about the pagans saying God has children (common mistranslation here is son) http://tafsir.io/19/88
Now again granted you have the same beliefs as the Pagans:
(.. the Christians have said: “The Messiah is the son of God!” These are the words that have come from their own mouths, plagiarizing and adapting what disbelievers before them have said. 9:30)
but this is not talking about the Trinity directly, only the concept of saying your Lord has a child (also I would suggest you stop calling God stupid). However, the verse we are discussing and you are attempting twist 6:101 has NOTHING to do with modern Christendom’s blasphemy in its immediate context. This entire chapter is talking to the pagans. Shockingly not every verse in the Quran is about Paulism.
While you do have pagan beliefs (and you admit this) this verse cannot be used for your reading in between the lines fallacy. While we can apply this to you as well, it is not about you. For example you said:
“That is why Reformed Protestants object to the Roman Catholic and Orthodox views of icons and praying to saints… they wrongly take sanctification and glorification in heaven as ādeificationā.
and
“Yes, That is one of the primary disagreements that protestants like me have with Roman Catholics and the eastern orthodox…”
So you agree they worship the Saints. Now do THEY think that they’re worshipping the Saints Ken? Let’s read, ahem:
“Often non-Catholics will claim that āCatholics worship saints.ā This statement usually comes from the fact that Catholics often pray to saints, performing various devotions to them. While it may appear to some people that Catholics are worshiping saints, what they are doing is far from it. Catholics firmly believe that adoration and worship is due to God alone. Only God is divine and so only God can be the object of worship.” https://aleteia.org/2018/06/21/do-catholics-worship-saints/
Also:
“Many people seem to think Catholics worship Mary as the Mother of God. This is wrong. Catholics do not worship Mary as such, but instead, āthe Church commends to the special and filial veneration of Christās faithful the Blessed Mary ever-Virgin, the Mother of God, whom Christ constituted the Mother of allā (Can. 1186). We know this because Jesus Christ said on the Cross, āBehold your motherā (John 19:27). Thus, since Mary is our mother (not just Jesusā mother), we show profound reverence and respect for her, hence the term, āvenerateā… some argue for the verse that comes after the First Commandment, āYou shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.ā (Ex. 20:4), the Churchās Canon Law states that āthe practice of exposing sacred images in churches for the veneration of the faithful is to be retainedā (Can. 1188). This is because, the primary context of Ex 20:4 must be understood in the context of not worshipping false gods or idols instead of the one, true, living, triune God, in the Holy Trinity. Therefore, maintaining that such images are to inspire the faithful to holiness, through veneration of the Saints and Blesseds, Can. 1188 states that the images of such are to be ādisplayed in moderate numbers in suitable fashion, so that the Christian people are not disturbed [not giving rise to a] less appropriate devotionā. Understood simply, God must always be the centre of our lives and the first priority, but we can also, in fostering our own sanctification, as allowed by the Church, venerate the Saints and Blessed and aspire towards holiness, taking them as our examples of how to live a good Christian life. However, we must never, under any circumstances, allow ourselves to become so obsessed over a particular devotion to a Saint or Blessed, thinking they are to be worshipped, in such a way it jeopardizes our relationship with God. So, next time you hear someone talking of āworshippingā Mary or the Saints/Blesseds, stop them for a moment and question them. Ask them, gently, if they understand what they are implying, and if they realize that the Church teaches us that we can venerate Saints/Blesseds, but that we can only truly worship the One True God. Dare to question and respond back to those who think Catholics worship anything other than God, and inform them about the Truth of our faith.”
So as we both know this is idolatry right? But in their minds, they aren’t doing anything wrong and you little Ken are simply ignorant of their beliefs. Now:
THE SAME THING APPLIES WHEN GOD CONDEMNS YOUR PAGANISM CALLED THE TRINITY IN THE QUR’AN!!!
While you do have pagan beliefs (and you admit this)
No, I do not admit this.
Regarding Roman Catholicism and EO and statues, icons, etc. – Yes, I fully know that that is what they claim, but they are wrong. So I am not ignorant of their official beliefs. But they give the impression of idolatry at best and that is also the misunderstanding that the Qur’an and Arabs had.
Revelation 19:10 and 22:8-9 are clear that they should not bow before angels or statues of Mary or saints, etc. The text says “don’t do that” and that it was “worship” and so it means, “Worship God only” and yet the same book buts the Father and the Lamb together as 2 persons worthy of worship – Revelation chapters 4 & 5. see especially 5:9-14.
“SAHIH INTERNATIONAL
But they have attributed to Allah partners ā the jinn, while He has created them ā and have fabricated for Him sons and daughters. Exalted is He and high above what they describe
Surah 6:100 Sahih International
“Seems to make a general statement about Jinn (Ų§ŁŲ¬Ł ) ā it does not use the the word, āShayatinā, usually the word for demons, ā and attributing āsons and daughtersā could be including all sorts of paganism and misunderstanding of what Christianity is, ”
christianity is paganism. you worship a god who came out from a private part. you identify it as “fully god and fully man”
this is PAGAN shit.
“So, although 6:99-100 is speaking directly to the pagan Arabs, by way of application, 6:101 seems to also apply to the Christians in the same way that Surah 112 and 19:88-92 and 4:171 and 5:116 and 5:72-78 is speaking to what they wrongly thought Christians were believing”
you see, this is what i hate about these pieces of scum. PASTE THE VERSE and make your point.
In addition, Ahad negates the henotheism of the pre-Islamic Arabs who certainly affirmed that Allah was Wahid, but also acknowledged the existence of lesser deities
.
With respect to Christianity, the Qurāan repudiates the belief that God has a āSonā (ŁŁŲÆ) in the Trinitarian sense by stating that āAllah is only One (ŁŲ§ŲŲÆ) Godā (Q 4:171.5). Thus while Allah is numerically one (ŁŲ§ŲŲÆ), the term wahid also denotes His āinternal oneness,ā i.e. He is only one person (hypostasis; Arab. nafs; Heb. nefesh); there is no multiplicity in the godhead and He shares His Essence with no one and nothing else.
“The text says ādonāt do thatā and that it was āworshipā and so it means, āWorship God onlyā and yet the same book buts the Father and the Lamb together as 2 persons worthy of worship ā Revelation chapters 4 & 5. see especially 5:9-14.”
but kafir pagan, the pagan kafir who wrote “revelations” did not think jezer was CO-EQUAL to his dad.
1. Did the pagan Greeks use the term Logos for God that influenced Christians (hint yes)
Philo used the term Logos to mean an intermediary divine being, or demiurge.[13] Philo followed the Platonic distinction between imperfect matter and perfect Form, and therefore intermediary beings were necessary to bridge the enormous gap between God and the material world.[14] The Logos was the highest of these intermediary beings, and was called by Philo “the first-born of God.”[14]
The Logos is also designated as “high priest”, in reference to the exalted position which the high priest occupied after the Exile as the real center of the Jewish state. The Logos, like the high priest, is the expiator of sins, and the mediator and advocate for men: į¼±ĪŗĪĻĪ·Ļ,[19] and ĻĪ±ĻĪ¬ĪŗĪ»Ī·ĻĪæĻ.[20]
2. More importantly, they say its not idol worship and you are the one misunderstanding the verse. Therefore you are ignorant of their beliefs because they are not worshipping the Saints or Mary they are merely venerating them. So go and venerate with the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. They are much earlier than your sect that only got traction because a king wanted to remarry so I think their understanding is much better.
we are earlier in first centuries, especially first century.
The Roman Catholic Church did not really come about until after the 500s when it started adding Papal things, Purgatory, over-exalting Mary, 800s – 1215 – Transubstantiation.
earlier smaller man-made traditions like mono-epicopasy, priests, sacrificial language in the Eucharist, infant baptism and baptismal regeneration – those do not make it full fledged Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy until 600 AD and onward.
Philo was a Jew.
The God-breathed text of John 1:1-5 and 1:14 and Revelation chapter 19 and I John chapter 1 and other passages that harmonize with the Deity of Christ are not pagan at all and there is no “Demiurge” in the 27 books of NT.
By a show of hands, does anyone here still take little Kenny seriously anymore? Anyone?
Philo was a Hellenized Jew who believed that there was an intermediary. The logos was the demiurge. Jesus too is presented as an intermediary by Paul, another Hellenized Jew. This is your demiurge.
The fact of the matter is in Islamic theology to treat something like a god, other than God, is considered worship to said thing as a god. Now you can disagree with that notion but to derive from that, ignorance on the part of quran…well its odd to me to say the least. A good example in my opinion would be magic. Magic isn’t just considered a sin in Islam but outright shirk. The reason being because they interact with demons in way that they should only do with God(via rituals, obeying them, calling upon them,ect)It doesn’t matter if a person doesn’t actually think that said demon is God or a god.
To be honest I’m surprised you’re taking such a critical role against the quranic text since the bible is far looser with the term god. Using it to refer to men and idols without the presumption of divinity or powers of any kind for example. Anything else i could say i feel has been already been said by everyone else.
Oh, here you go trying to undermine the Popeās authority again. Simple question Ken does the earlier sects then yours of Catholics and Eastern Orthodox worship the saints and commit idolatry with their “veneration”, yes or no?
But your claim for Islam and the Qur’an is a different category, because it shows the author of the Qur’an is ignorant of the doctrine that was around, both in the NT and church history for 600 years. The doctrines of the eternal Sonship of Christ and the Deity of Christ and the Trinity all affirm Monotheism, so this proves the Qur’an is wrong and therefore, not inspired by the living God, the creator, the God of Genesis 1-2 and the law of Moses, Psalms, Prophets, and who inspired the NT.
But we Protestants know the RC claims and how they justify their idolatry, which is at best, the appearance of idolatry. The question is, why does God command John, the apostle, who is a true believer, to not do that? (calls it worship – Rev. 19:10; 22:8-9)
I don’t know why it is giving the wrong link. Trying again. If it does not work, look up: “Debate on Veneration of Saints and Images” Dr. White vs. Patrick Madrid
Hopefully, this one will work. so sorry for the wrong link – it appears it automatically links to the top You Tube one in a playlist series, not the one specifically wanted.
“But your claim for Islam and the Qurāan is a different category, because it shows the author of the Qurāan is ignorant of the doctrine that was around, both in the NT and church history for 600 years.”
I don’t feel you’ve shown sufficient evidence to prove that to be the case. Rather the deciding factor seems to be your own interpretation and opinion.
“Wow. none of last 3 links worked”
As someone who has had issues with linking and mis-linking on blogs before, I feel your pain!
“The doctrines of the eternal Sonship of Christ and the Deity of Christ and the Trinity all affirm Monotheism, so this proves the Qurāan is wrong and therefore,”
why should the quran start with the pagan assumption of “eternal sonship and diety of krist” ?
” not inspired by the living God, the creator, the God of Genesis 1-2 and the law of Moses, Psalms, Prophets, and who inspired the NT.””
the jews say :
Deuteronomy 4 teaches clearly that one should not associate God with any form. This lesson was to be learned from Sinai, where the people saw no form for God. Though this should be obvious to even a casual reader of the Torah, it has not been obvious to the Church
1. G-d is explicitly commanding Israel not to worship Him in any form. (Deut 4:16)
2. G-d is explicitly commanding Israel to teach this to their children and their childrenās children, even after they come to the land of Israel. (Deut 4:9-14)
comment : so can we agree that jesus could not be inspired because he lacked understanding of the very basic fact that yhwh has no form?
“Did I say take Me and mother as two gods besides Allah?ā (5:116) ”
This is talking about beings who walked the earth and eat food. You guys call to them, while jesus called to 1 person.
your own nt says that jesus called out to one person.
“and then later āJesus and his mother both ate foodā”
creatures who walk the earth need food to live
”
(ie, they are not gods) and āworship only one godā and
”
dont set up partners.
āsay not threeā
Addressing all versions of trinity
”
and āGod cannot have a son because there is no wife for Himā. ”
creator and originator of heavens and the earth even pagans aknowledged this so why they give him wife and children?
quote:
but there were groups who saw the Holy Spirit as female (it is grammatically feminine in Hebrew) and there was an early Jewish-Christian Gospel (Gospel According to the Hebrews, now lost but described by several Church fathers inckuding Origen and Jerome) in which Jesus calls the Holy Spirit “my mother.”
The Holy Spirit as feminine: Early Christian testimonies and their interpretation
“Sonship of Christ, and that the early Muslims wrongly thought that the Christians were saying God had sex with Mary ā Estaqfrāallah !
Ų§Ų³ŲŖŲŗŁŲ±Ų§ŁŁŁ”
since you like reading about dicks in ezekiel , i am not surprised that your porn filled mind has “dicking” in their.
SHOW ME IN THE VERSE THAT SEX IS IMPLIED
there is nothing in the verse about penis and vagina BUT YOUR god Does exit vagina as “fully god and fully man”
OUT OF curiosity why is sex a sin and why would it be sinful for a man god to have sex with holy spirit in the form of jessica?
“2. We do not have a license to do anything necessary to implement Shariah we actually have a lot of constraints.”
But you can’t tell me where these constraints are in the Koran. I wonder why? Maybe because they are not there?
Until you bring some evidence that constraints are given in the Koran I will have to rightly assume that they are not there and that it is an amoral book giving license to Muslims to harm non-Muslims until they are dhimmified.
“Jesus(as), Moses(as), Aaron(as), Elijah(as), David(as), Solomon(as) and Samuel(as)”
Were they killing for a pagan shrine so they could run around it and kiss a black stone?
Did Abraham go around the Kaaba and kiss the black stone?
Why didn’t Mohammed just rebuild the Kaaba in Medina and save a lot of bloodshed?
Well I guess we can rightfully conclude you are a homosexual and a rapist. The burden is on you to prove your claim and this has been shown several times you being too stupid to understand a basic concept is not everyone else’s fault.
No they were killing for a piece of real estate according to your text (more on this in a sec). You are moving the goal post yet again after being refuted about your “divine punishment blah, blah, blah”. Now that I have disproven your claim will you be humble enough to admit you were wrong?
Moving on, there really weren’t that many casualties in Muhammad’s(saw) wars but using your poor logic skills why didn’t Joshua(as) go to another land build the Temple there and save a lot of bloodshed? (Literal genocides of surrendering women and children) See now why everyone calls you an idiot?
“4. He was given the option to destroy them through supernatural means but asked for an extension (as they are still his family at the end of the day) ”
Thats a good excuse for not delivering on the supernatural means. The greatest “prophet” that ever lived.
What was their crime anyway for which they should be destroyed en masse? Don’t you realize how ridiculous and irrational that was and still is?
I guess that leaves a multitude in our world that your Allah wants to destroy. Should keep you busy for a while.
So Abraham was a stone circler but not a kisser, lol. I guess if Allah exists he must be laughing his sides off when he sees what he can make Muslims do. Some gods need strange entertainment I guess.
Iggy keeps making a fool of himself. He asks what people did to deserve being destroyed, and yet Yahweh ordered the…drum roll please…destruction of entire cities for being on land that was promised to the Israelites. Were crosstians like this moron born as blithering idiots or did it take years of brainwashing?
As for delivering on the supernatural means, let’s see…
1. Muslims had support from angels during their battles. This is attested by multiple people in the Hadith literature. The Quran mentions it.
2. The Muslims received a well-timed storm that drove the pagans away from Medina during the battle of the Trench. This is again mentioned in the Quran.
So it seems the supernatural means we’re delivered after all and Iggy is just an ignorant moron. š
I have to ask a serious question do you actually believe in your text or is it just cultural passage. I’m saying this because some stuff you say is just bizarre and you have to either not believe or be completely ignorant about your texts.
1. Rituals
For example, the end comment. Why did God ask for Abraham(as) to sacrifice his son? Why did God want elaborate rituals to be performed? Why did He want the Temple to be built in that specific spot? Why did He ordain the Sabbath and choose that specific day instead of Monday or Wednesday? This is the first problem it is NOT your place to laugh at what God wants for His worship.
2. Destruction
Generally, until a prophet curses a nation is it destroyed through supernatural means. If you look at any nation destroyed the Prophet(s) there asked for it to fall on them. If God wanted to destroy the world nobody could prevent it. Everything has been given a deadline by Him and it will all eventually come before Him. It’s not that He wants to destroy He wants us to be with Him hence why He sent Messengers in the first place and revealed Scripture.
3. Crimes
Rejecting God’s Message, attacking His Messengers (both are enough to do the job), torture, cutting family ties, murder, theft and blocking people from God’s path. Again using your logic Sodom and Gommorah shouldn’t have been destroyed all they wanted to do was have sex with who they wanted to.
Again man I just don’t think you really believe in God as these answers are easily understood by anyone with basic understanding.
“Why did God ask for Abraham(as) to sacrifice his son? Why did God want elaborate rituals to be performed? Why did He want the Temple to be built in that specific spot? Why did He ordain the Sabbath and choose that specific day instead of Monday or Wednesday?”
The temple was built there because Abraham offering his son is symbolic of God offering his Son. As far as the Sabbath goes he did not choose a particular day but ordained a cycle of activity. Six day work and one day rest. When these days fall in the calendar is secondary.
Walking in a circle round a pile of stones or praying to this stone simply has no rational basis but is based on pagan superstition.
“Generally, until a prophet curses a nation is it destroyed through supernatural means.”
Islam is the only religion that destroys civilizations based solely on their religious worldview. God never does this in the OT. This is an islamic innovation that lays the religious foundation for an imperialistic expansionist strategy of war or jihad.
“Rejecting Godās Message, attacking His Messengers (both are enough to do the job), torture, cutting family ties, murder, theft and blocking people from Godās path. Again using your logic Sodom and Gommorah shouldnāt have been destroyed all they wanted to do was have sex with who they wanted to.”
Doesn’t justice seek to single out the perpetrators of crimes and punish only them?
What does Sodom and Gomorrah have to do with it? Are you throwing in a red herring for good measure?
Sodom and Gomorrah were punished for their immorality. Not because of their pagan beliefs.
Hmm, let’s see some of the wonderful things Yahweh can make people do. He seems to have had an obsession with serpents.
And the Lord said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.
9 And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.
Oh and since Iggy is obsessed with stones, how about this little nugget:
16 And Jacob awaked out of his sleep, and he said, Surely the Lord is in this place; and I knew it not.
17 And he was afraid, and said, How dreadful is this place! this is none other but the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven.
18 And Jacob rose up early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put for his pillows, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it.
19 And he called the name of that place Bethel: but the name of that city was called Luz at the first.
Hmm, pouriing oil on a stone? Perfectly logical, no? š¤
So as we both know this is idolatry right? But in their minds, they arenāt doing anything wrong and you little Ken are simply ignorant of their beliefs. Now: . . .
No; I am not ignorant of their beliefs and I fully understand how they justify the distinctions between “latria” (worship for God alone), and “dulia” (veneration of saints, images, relics, angels) and “hyper-dulia” (for Mary only, in between Latria and “dulia”, etc. )
But the Qur’an is ignorant of the NT and church history, the Doctrines of the Deity of Christ, the eternal Sonship of Christ, and the Trinity.
Perfect you admit they do idolatry and understand what they think they’re doing it in their minds. Well… come on make the connection I believe in you, you can do it!
“””But the Qurāan is ignorant of the NT and…””””
Same old boring Kenny. And the moment you can bring actual proof instead of your pathetic ‘”it’s obvious that blablabla and also obvious that blablabla” we’ll actually start taking you seriously.
Many have already demonstrated this time and time again, and truth never changes.
Here is a good example of demonstrating that the Qur’an cannot be the Word of God, as Islam claims. It is ignorant of the NT and church history and the doctrines of Christianity that was already established for 600 years.
Your tactic of “same old boring Kenny”, etc. just shows you don’t listen to the arguments and use reason and logic and consistency. Truth never changes. No one can change God’s word, that was already established in the OT and NT previously.
The Qur’an and Islam present a real change, and contradicts itself, since it affirms the books that the Jews and Christians have at the time of the Qur’an.
Surah 5:47; 5:68; 10:94; 2:136, etc.
Yes, truth never changes. Kenny was and still is a broken record who mindlessly repeats the same debunked garbage and pretends that everyone else is wrong.
Yes, truth never changes. The Quran criticizes all deviant Christian sects, whether those that worship Mary, Jesus or both. This very nearly covers every pagan Christian in existence.
Yes, truth never changes. The Bible is a confusing, contradictory mess of a book, replete with scientific errors, historical errors, theological errors, and almost every other type of error you can think of.
No Kenny. You NEVER listen.
Every single trash argument you or anyone else has brought up has been bitchslapped to death. You couldn’t show the Qur’an is saying the trinity is Allah, Jesus and Mary. You and others came up with the most lame ass argument any human being can come up with: O it mentions three together so voila it’s the trinity!
Pathetic.
As for your constant lies about the Glorious Qur’an endorsing your comicbook. You have been humialted on this matter to many times. Everytime you bring this up, either me or the other brothers on this blog put you in your place and you can NEVER respond back. You just repeat yourself over and over again.
((((Many have already demonstrated this time and time again))))
Many have demonstrated how retarded they are like you who can never win this debate.
All you do is repeat the same trash arguments over and over again. Trying to find something which isn’t there. You pagans are VERY good at it. You have 2000 years of experience. Like f.e trying to find the trinity in the OT (loool!) and jam that pagan doctrine in there. Now you want to infest the Qur’an with that trash.
The Qur’an is crystal clear on the matter.
Don’t say three PERIOD. Whether it’s Father, Son, Sofia or Father, Son, the Word or your pagan trash Father, Son, holy potato. No three period.
And don’t deify Jesus and Mary. That’s it!
Is it so difficult for you to understand that?
Your deification fetish just cannot allow you to let it go, can it? It’s become pathetic!
((((Truth never changes. No one can change Godās word, that was already established in the OT and NT previously.))))
Lol, but it has been changed countless of time! It’s filled with texts edited by scribes (just like jimmy white your lord and savior will tell you, which fatty shamoun cannot stand jimmy showing the ugly truth of your bible), people lying about their identity (and this is your ‘holy’ word, wooow!), paul teaching lying to convert people to his pagan religion, OT filled with verses which can only be described as soft porn, genocides of men, women, children, infants, animals (ie evrything that breaths), countless of mistakes from cover to cover, made up myths about jesus like Lucky Luke lying about there being a massive return of people to their home from a milenium earlier which is obviously (–>a word that kenny likes to use) a lie, etc etc etc .
This bible is nothing but a mishmash of songs, poems, autobiografies which edit previous ones and have unknown authors, authors lying about their identity, letters, etc.
This is the Word of God???
((((Your tactic of āsame old boring Kennyā, etc. just shows you donāt listen to the arguments and use reason and logic and consistency.))))
This is just sad now. Hellooooooo. You don’t have any arguments! That’s the whole point!
All you bring up are the same old trash arguments for years and whenever you are challenged on them you just duck and run.
A xtian who talks about logic and consistency is just hilarious. You pagans don’t even know what those words mean since you have to CONSTANTLY invent new bullshit terms and wordings and self-contradicting statements to jam your idolatry into your own texts to justify it.
‘O o o o it’s the natures and and and they are 100% and and also the persons baby, yes the persons are in the being and and also the being is one you see and the godman with his hypostatic union is not idolatry at all.’
It’s pathetic Ken. When will you wake up and just see the obvious. You have been lied to. Your history is a lie. People lying about their identities on your own so called holy book, ‘gospel’ authors lying about previous ‘gospel’ authors by changing what they wrote and on and on the list goes.
So again: NO ONE here cares about your pathetic wishful thinking when it comes to the Qur’an. You were asked to show where it teaches your selfcontradicting pagan trinity is Allah, Jesus and Mary. You douldn’t.
You came up with a childish way of trying to jam that into the Qur’an just like you do with the OT without any shame or guilt.
No one here cares about your idiotic: O it meantions that jesus says that he and Mary aren’t God and so voila!!!!
We shall say “three” as in Trinity, Trinitas Unitas & Unitas Trinitas (Three in One and One in Three). As the knights who say, “Nih”, we also say “three in one”
And that right there folks is Kenny the lil pagan raisng his white flag in the form of a desperate video post to use humor to save face after getting bitchslapped.
“But the Qurāan is ignorant of the NT and church history, the Doctrines of the Deity of Christ, the eternal Sonship of Christ, and the Trinity.”
ken temple believes that a beginingless being experienced a beginning and was born to a woman.
ken temple is a pagan who does not know what he worships. sometimes “three in one” and sometimes 3 IS one. if you are such a confused pagan, why does the quran need to ADDRESS things FROM your christian paganism ?
what the sad part is that when i said that you believe that god came out of a private part and wore testicles, you talked about my “credibility” and your lover burhanudin liked your comment.
you know, i don’t give two monkey shit about my credibility, i am asking you to think about the FILTH you BELIEVE ABOUT YOUR CREATOR.
forget my “credibility” what is your credibility in your CREATORS eye?
what is said was 100 % correct, you believe your CREATOR EXISTED AS A MAN. AS A MAN.
You seem to think sex and sexualy is evil and filthy in itself. But God created sex and males and females and marriage, etc. children, etc.
Which Islam also approves of, within marriage, etc. agreeing with basically what Genesis 1-2 teaches us about God as creator and Adam and Eve and marriage.
That God the eternal Son became a man and lived among us is not something that is beyond His power.
You limit God’s power and love and ability to enter into His creation.
Lol, actually it’s your Bible that gives the impression that sex is filthy and should be avoided. After all, it’s what led Paul to advise his followers not to get married because it just wasn’t important since the end of the world was on the horizon.
No. The Song of Solomon is an entire book on the joys of married, romantic, sexual love; an extended commentary on Genesis 2:24. See also Proverbs 5:15-21.
1 Corinthians 7:25-40 cannot be isolated from what Paul said in 1 Cor. 7:2-24, especially verse 7, which speaks of the special spiritual grace gift (charismata) of being able to be single or not, and also verse 9 – “if they do not have self-control, let them marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with lust”
š Jumping to the Tanakh when stuck…Christian apologetics 101…but then jump back when the Tanakh becomes inconvenient as well.
As for the Song of Songs, there’s an awkward family Bible session. š±
Paul was convinced the end was near. To him, worrying about marriage and sex just didn’t make sense. It was better not to get married. That’s what he said. Stop lying like he did.
What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not; those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.ā (1 Corinthians 7:29-31)
Paul is making an extended argument from 1 Corinthians 7:1-40
for you to isolate those verses from the larger context is irresponsible and unjust.
the whole argument is that some people are called and gifted to singleness – “it can be good for a man not to touch a woman, ie. not to get married, – meaning, “don’t touch a woman before you get married” – don’t have premarital sex.
Explain why he says verse 7 and verse 9 and also verse 39 – someone can get married, “only in the Lord” – only to a Christian.
You keep lying through your teeth, just like Paul. Why did he say the “time is short”? Why did he say “from now on those who have wives should live as if they do not”?
What does that mean? Having wives but act like you don’t?
He is saying “be ready” at any time for Christ’s return – same thing Jesus said in Matthew 24-25, Mark 13, Luke 21
He is not contradicting earlier teaching in 1 Cor. 7, nor Ephesians 5:21-33 (husbands, love your wives) – he is just saying put spiritual concerns first in priority, that is all.
“as if” – like “hate” your father and mother, wife, etc. does not mean literally hate them, rather it means love Christ more than them. (Luke 14:26 = Matthew 10:37
37 āHe who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.”
Against, you’re lying. He said “the time is short” and that if someone has a wife, he should act as if he does not. How exactly were Christians supposed to heed this advice…2000 years?
What he was saying was that the end was right around the corner and that material concerns no longer mattered. Get over it and get over yourself.
You are the one lying by not reading the whole context of verses 1-40; and those are in the context of all 16 chapters. Paul gives many practical guidance as to keep living in this world; in the church, in relationships with one another, etc.
Song of Solomon is meant for mature, married couples, not for children, obviously.
The Jews even had Rabbinic sayings that only a married man should read it.
There goes the broken record again. Both the Tanakh and NT are confusing, contradictory messes. If that’s “God-breathed” then I’m the queen of England.
But you are a broken record in all your arguments also. The Qur’an is a contradictory mess. A human book. Not inspired. full of legends, apocryphal stories, Jewish Midrash.
Blah, blah, blah. The Bible copied from pagan myths, whereas the Quran corrected the errors of the Bible, e.g., referring to the king of Egypt in Joseph’s time as “pharoah” when such a term would not have been used for the king. The Bible got this wrong. The Quran did not.
The Bible describes God as an old man, just like Cannanite pagans. The Quran does not.
The Bible a mythical beast called Leviathan, just like Canaanite pagans who believed in Lotan. The Quran does not.
Obviously we agree with each other that God cannot do anything that contradicts His nature, like sin or “be stupid”, etc. –
But the virgin birth of Jesus, which Islam affirms, proves that God chose to become a human being, for our salvation – God the Son, the second person of the Trinity. God the Father sent Him.
John 1:1-5
John 1:14
Philippians 2:5-8
proves this truth
Nope. you cannot escape the truth of John 1:1-5 and 1:14 and Philippians 2:5-8 and Luke 1:34-35 – the virgin birth, incarnation, pre-existence of Jesus as eternal Word and eternal Son – John 17:5
Moron, your logic is absurd. If you’re arguing that your god “chose” to limit himself and be born in this world through vaginal birth, then it is equally possible for your god to also make himself “stupid”. You cannot escape this so you’re falling back on your broken record tactic.
”
You seem to think sex and sexualy is evil and filthy in itself. But God created sex and males and females and marriage, etc. children, etc.”
so then you should not have a problem if in a possible universe “man-god” decides to “pork”
holy spirit in the form of jessica?
why would your god create a penis and attach it to himself?
would he do that with a vagina too?
“Which Islam also approves of, within marriage, etc. agreeing with basically what Genesis 1-2 teaches us about God as creator and Adam and Eve and marriage.”
God creating penis and vagina does not mean God has urges like humans or TEMPTATIONS like humans. examine the FEELINGS. how could such feelings EXIST in the one God?
“That God the eternal Son became a man and lived among us is not something that is beyond His power.”
but you are relating to a CREATED object who has sexual temptations, not ALMIGHTY. DISSECT the FEELINGS and ask HOW THEY APPLY TO EVERLIVING ONE .
YOU are saying that GOD IS THE CREATOR OF EVERYTHING, THEN is he A CREATOR OF his EARTHLY MOVEMENTS AND his EARTHLY BODY, then HOW ARE YOU RELATING TO GOD?
”
You limit Godās power and love and ability to enter into His creation.”
if gods “power” is defined by CREATING a body and CREATING its urges, temptations, toilet, blowing wind, stinking …..then what is great about this? the pagans HAVE their gods coming down as a penis, cow, monkey…….
“becoming man” is saying that GOD STOPPED BEING GOD….BUT IF HE IS STILL GOD, HOW DID HE BECOME MAN LOL?
thats like saying god became man and DIDN’T become man lol
you guys created a RETARDED religion
EXAMINE THE FEELINGS OF BEING HUMAN AND ASK HOW THEY APPLY TO AN EVER LIVING BEGININGLESS BEING SINCE THE FEELINGS OF BEING HUMAN HAVE A BEGINING.
gods “power” is defined by COMING INTO THIS world THROUGH A VAGINA
then BREAST FEEDING
then going to the toilet
then getting DRILLED to a cross
then giving himself life even though he has “eternal life”
YOUR RELIGION is pagan nonsense.
YOU WORSHIP THREE GODS
father
son
“god-man”
+ 4TH
holy spirit
becoming man IS A CHANGE IN GOD, why can’t kafir filth bag like you see this?
“But the virgin birth of Jesus, which Islam affirms, proves that God chose to become a human being, ”
”
for our salvation ā God the Son, the second person of the Trinity. God the Father sent Him.”
the pagan kafir assumes that god must CREATE himself just to FORGIVE human beings.
i say to you that God never has these pagan thoughts about “choosing to become human”
BECAUSE GOD KNOWS WHO HE IS
WHAT HIS NATURE IS
WHAT HE IS NOT
WHAT HE CREATES
WHATEVER IS CREATED IS NOT HE, HE KNOWS THIS
GOD DOES NOT SEPARATE FROM HIS POWER AND BECOME SUBJECT TO HIS OWN POWER ASTAGHFIRULLAH
and choose your terms correctly you filthy kafir.
“god” did not become man. ONE person who is NOT IDENTICAL to triune being became man. the father has ABSOLUTELY no experience of leaving vaginas, the son AS created human being has full experience.
JUST BASED on experience we see that you kuffar worship TWO gods
Except revelation (God’s word in OT and NT) tells us that God is holy and just and pure – and has holy and just wrath against sin; so if He poured out His justice, we would all go to hell; but out of His love and mercy, He planned from eternity His own way to save us – by becoming human and being the once for all sacrifice / atonement. Because of the nature of God – both His justice / holiness against sin and wrong; and His love for mankind from all nations – the incarnation and atonement and resurrection prove His justice against sin and His love for sinners.
Islam denies those basic realities of God Himself.
Therefore, the doctrines of Christ, the atonement, the resurrection, the Trinity do not limit God’s power and love, but actually prove the fulness of both His love and justice and power and wisdom.
Your sins make you condemned under the wrath of God, the justice of God. (Romans 1:18; John 3:18: 3:36; Romans 5:8-11) Only the atonement of Christ as the incarnation of God can save you, since He both takes all the wrath against sin and loves sinners from all nations. (John 1:29; Revelation 5:9; 7:9)
“Except revelation (Godās word in OT and NT) tells us that God is holy and just and pure”
except that god never says in the torah that if he punishes x , he must completely destroy x.
except that god never says in the torah that the judge came down and got raped by sins from past, present and future because he could only transfer and not forgive.
gods “justice” as defined by torah is not how it is defined by christianity.
god says he forgives those who repent.
in christianity there is no point in repenting, james white said “even my repentance is not good enough”
” ā and has holy and just wrath against sin; ”
so the father is holy and just and punishing one while the son is dying one. two different pagan gods. who punished the father?
“so if He poured out His justice, we would all go to hell;”
BULLSHIT! ASSUMPTION ALERT. ASSUMPTION ALERT. NO WHERE DOES TORAH SAY THIS.
” but out of His love and mercy,”
if you identify it as “love and mercy” then he will not “pour out his punishment” on the REPENTFUL. contradiction in crosstianity alert.
“He planned from eternity His own way to save us”
because he was UNABLE TO say “i forgive you” he is LIMITED by his “punishment rules”
he BREAKS his own punishment rules and punishes OUTSIDE of his justice.
” ā by becoming human and being the once for all sacrifice / atonement. ”
how does a beginingless being have a beginning lol ?
“Because of the nature of God ā both His justice / holiness”
the nature of god means god becomes a man ?
“against sin and wrong; and His love for mankind from all nations ā the incarnation and atonement and resurrection prove His justice against sin and His love for sinners.”
THE ENTIRE SACRIFICIAL SYSTEM ALLOWS ONE TO GET AWAY WITH SIN.
YOU SIN TODAY YOU KAFIR, YET YOU BELIEVE U WILL ENTER HEAVEN BECAUSE GOD IS “JUST”
jesus was not ETERNALLY BURNING IN HELL
the “just” father SAVED jesus from eternal torture.
the father did not receive divine WHOOPING NEITHER THE SPIRIT
“Therefore, the doctrines of Christ, the atonement, the resurrection, the Trinity do not limit Godās power and love, but actually prove the fulness of both His love and justice and power and wisdom.”
there he goes again with stuff EVEN he doesn’t believe in. man, yhwh is a god of confusion and that spirit in you is confusing you worse than jesus confused peter.
you are saying that god is not limited because the only way he could forgive was by becoming a man and a created body shows his “love power, justice and wisdom”
but then you do a u-turn :
The human nature was created in the womb of Mary
in other words you are agreeing that your god is LIMITED because he can’t become a man. lol
No, the second person of the Trinity, the Word,(John 1:1-5) the Son (John 17:5) entered into humanity by becoming a human in the womb of Mary (Luke 1:34-35; John 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8) – He, the Word, the Son, added to Himself a human nature and body.
That is not limiting God’s power.
Your stuff about the law of God is wrong. God’s principle, after Adam and Eve sinned, is that death entered into the world.
Genesis 2:17 – “in the day you eat of the fruit, you shall surely die”
This principle is repeated throughout – “the soul that sins, it shall die” (Ezekiel 18:20)
God, out of His mercy and love, both fulfilled His own justice by becoming a human and offering Himself up as a sacrifice on the cross, being the innocent and righteous and sinless substitute – like a lamb (like Passover lamb of Exodus 12), sheep (like Leviticus chapters 1-7), (like the 2 goats of Lev. 16-17, fulfilled in Isaiah 53, etc.
His justice / wrath against sin was satisfied; and His love and mercy for sinners from all nations was demonstrated. (Revelation 5:9; 7:9)
God demonstrated perfect justice and perfect love.
“God demonstrates His own love, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” Romans 5:8
There is no limitation on Him. He did this in history and revealed Himself and His plan for salvation in the NT, and the theology of the Deity of christ, the Trinity, the atonement – was all established for 600 years before Islam came around.
Because the doctrine of the Trinity has always within the doctrine itself affirmed Monotheism – that there is only one creator God – sovereign, holy, wise, good, all knowing, etc.
So, the Qur’an saying “say not three” and “Jesus is only a prophet / apostle”, etc. Jesus is not God’s son, etc.
is a contradiction to the NT and history of the doctrine, showing the Qur’an’s own ignorance. Also ignorance of history by Surah 4:157, etc.
What an idiotic circular argument. It doesn’t matter if trinitarians say they are monotheists. The problem is you worship a man. Therefore, you are no different than a polytheist who worships idols. “Three” can be a reference to the trinity (in all its versions) or it can be a reference to tritheism (which many Christians ironically unknowingly affirm when they try to explain the trinity to non-Christians, because they really don’t understand it themselves).
Yeah that entire point made no sense. Then “veneration of the saints” is not idolatry and the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are purely monotheistic. This is the point you seem too not be getting, IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT A PERSON CLAIMS, GOD DOES NOT CARE AND HE CALLS IT WHAT IT IS. Just like when He says the pagans worship stone and wood. In their minds it is not really a piece of rock or wood they are worshipping, they believe God manifests one of His many aspects of Himself into the wood or rock when they pray. It is all the same mentality of creating partners with God, justified in diffrent ways.
Lol how is Q 4;157 ‘ignorant’ of history even by your standards? It even says ‘it was made to appear to them’ hense acknowledging it is aware of your ‘history’.
A convenient empty claim, since all of history agrees.
Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, liberal scholars, all the ones Paul Williams uses here at this sight, etc. – all agree that Jesus was crucified and died on the cross.
Even Reza Aslan agrees.
We were talking about the Qur’an being ‘ignorant of history’. I showed it clearly wasn’t since itself says ‘that it was made appear to them’ which aknwoledges your ‘history’.
Then you run to Ehrman (and even Reza Aslan as if anyone here puts any validity in that clown) but this is futile and simple wrong.
Ehrman does not have your back.
Q 4:157 is a supernatural event. Ehrman himself said multiple times that historical analysis cannot reach into the realm of the supernatural. That’s why he rejects the resurrection and calls it a myth.
But of course you won’t accept that and so you’ll keep repeating yourself and lie about ehrman backing you up which he clearly doesn’t.
Also lol I love that you quoted Aslan like his name means anything. Since were just quoting anybody hey Ken Acharya S doesn’t believe in the Crucifixion either so there:
GOD is the creator and he brings into existence everything He wills. Does GOd , according to them, bring himself into existence on earth ?
John 1:1-5
The Word / the Son (John 17:5) already existed in eternity past. The Son had no body before the virgin birth – Luke 1:34-35; He existed in the form (substance / essence) of God in eternity past – Philippians 2:5-8). The human nature was created in the womb of Mary, when the divine nature conceived – “by the Holy Spirit” – Luke 1:34-35; Matthew 1:18 – “she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit”.
Is he creating himself ?
God already existed as God – unseen, invisible, Spirit, Word from eternity.
The virgin birth of Christ points to His Deity and pre-existence.
GOD is the creator and he brings into existence everything He wills. Does GOd , according to them, bring himself into existence on earth ?
“The human nature was created in the womb of Mary, when the divine nature conceived ā āby the Holy Spiritā ā Luke 1:34-35; Matthew 1:18 ā āshe was found to be with child by the Holy Spiritā.”
“God already existed as God ā unseen, invisible, Spirit, Word from eternity.”
“The virgin birth of Christ points to His Deity and pre-existence.”
i don’t see how any of this waste of words answers the question. did yhwh have FULL EXPERIENCE OF HUMAN EXPERIENCES IN CONSCIOUSNESS ?
if yes, then how did a BEGININGLESS BEING have these EXPERIENCES WHEN THESE EXPERIENCES ARE CREATED?
“The human nature was created in the womb of Mary”
god was in the womb of mary or not? if yes, what was he doing in the womb of mary? was he forming himself ? was he going through transition ?
transition
/tranĖzÉŖŹ(É)n,trÉĖnĖzÉŖŹ(É)n,tranĖsÉŖŹ(É)n,trÉĖnĖsÉŖŹ(É)n/
Learn to pronounce
noun
the process or a period of changing from one state or condition to another.
if no process took place and god has no “experience” of “human nature,”
then what does it mean “yhwh was in womb of mary” ?
is womb of mary HOLDING yhwh “almighty” ?
if yes, then is mary worthy of worship because she HOLDS yhwh?
i’ll ask you again, hopefully this time i will not get an answer.
QUOTE:
That God the eternal Son became a man and lived among us is not something that is beyond His power.
says GOD BECAME A MAN AND LIVED AS A MAN
quote :
verb (used without object), beĀ·came, beĀ·come, beĀ·comĀ·ing.
to come, change, or grow to be (as specified):
He became tired.
to come into being.
new existence. new experience. new .
then he says :
The human nature was created in the womb of Mary
so what did yhwh become ? if the INVISIBLE BEING DOES NOT CREATE himself and does not have NEW experiences because he is UNCHANGING , why did you say “beginingless being” BECAME human being ?
WAS yhwh REALLY A human or was it an ILLUSION in a womb? is yhwh an ILLUSION?
ken temple so far is agreeing that the visiible being does not transform into VISIBLE CREATED being.
nothing in that “invisibleness” CHANGES.
so why did you LIE and say “god existed as a man” ?
Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
John 17:5
Shows the Son eternally existed in the past with the Father.
John 1:1-5
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.
5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
John 1:14
Philippians 2:5-8
Luke 1:34-35
The eternal Son/Word became a human through the virgin birth.
John 3:18-21
18 He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.ā
Judgment is upon you because you don’t come to the light or believe in the light.
Just a minor comment. Nobody really knows what time period Joseph was in Egypt and the book of Genesis does not provide us with an absolute date. Many archaeologists, Egyptologists and Biblical scholars do not consider the Biblical narratives as reflecting history. Indeed, many scholars question the historicity of the Joseph and the Israeliteās presence in Egypt and Exodus therefrom, one reason being the lack of historical and archaeological evidence. The hypothesis that āJosephās pharaohā is an anachronism, assumes that Joseph was in Egypt prior to the New Kingdom beginning in the 16 century BCE, though there is no historical evidence that would confirm or deny such a theory.
With the lack of any historical evidence to securely anchor our chronology of the Joseph narrative it would seem imprudent to take this as an example of anachronism on which the Quran corrects the Genesis narrative.
Even if we can’t figure out the exact time period for Joseph in Egypt, we can certainly place his ancestor Abraham (pbut) to well before the New Kingdom. Genesis also refers to the king of Egypt in Abraham’s time as “pharaoh”.
In any case, it is highly unlikely that Joseph was in Egypt sometime during or after the beginning of the New Kingdom.
So in either case, the anachronism cannot be dismissed. The Bible erroneously uses the term “pharaoh” because that it was the authors were familiar with in their time. Genesis was most probably given it final form sometime around the 5th century BCE.
Yes, you are right, most scholars consider the Pharaoh of Abrahams time an anachronism. But this is not an instance where the Quran corrects the Bible.
I do not know how you came to believe it highly unlikely that Joseph was in Egypt during the New Kingdom. We possess no evidence for known historical events or figures we can correlate with the Bible to get at an absolute chronology in the second millennium BCE. I do know, however, that many of the scholars who accept the historicity of the Joseph story consider the setting to be that of the New Kingdom
āThis enthusiastic endorsement [expressed by G. Coats] is not shared by Kitchen, Rendsburg, Quaegebur, Herrmann, and myself who believe a New Kingdom date is preferable.ā (James, K Hoffmeier: Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition, New York 1997, p. 98).
When looking through the lens of historical and archaeological evidence the claim that the Quran in the Joseph story corrects the Biblical version cannot verified and to draw such a conclusion would not seem very cautious.
“Yes, you are right, most scholars consider the Pharaoh of Abrahams time an anachronism. But this is not an instance where the Quran corrects the Bible.”
True, but it shows that the Bible still uses the term anachronistically. Also, the Quran doesn’t mention Abraham being in Egypt, so it never came up, but given the clear distinction it makes between the “king” in Joseph’s time and the “pharaoh” in Moses’ time, I should think the Quran would not have made the same error as the Bible if it had mentioned Abraham being in Egypt.
“I do not know how you came to believe it highly unlikely that Joseph was in Egypt during the New Kingdom. We possess no evidence for known historical events or figures we can correlate with the Bible to get at an absolute chronology in the second millennium BCE. I do know, however, that many of the scholars who accept the historicity of the Joseph story consider the setting to be that of the New Kingdom”
I am going by the Biblical account. The Bible provides genealogies which can allow us to create a timeline. From Adam to Abraham, the time would be approximately 2,000 years. That would fall to around the 1900s BCE for Abraham (https://raykliu.wordpress.com/tag/bible-genealogy/). The time period between Abraham and Joseph is said to be around 300 years or so. That would place Joseph in Egypt in the 1600c BCE, which is a little earlier than the New Kingdom. So like I said, it is unlikely that Joseph would have been present during the New Kingdom period.
“When looking through the lens of historical and archaeological evidence the claim that the Quran in the Joseph story corrects the Biblical version cannot verified and to draw such a conclusion would not seem very cautious.”
It can if we follow the Biblical timeline. When we do that, the Bible places Joseph in the wrong period. Hence, the anachronism remains and the Quran corrects it.
Furthermore, the views of Kitchen et al. cannot be verified either. As you pointed out, there is no known historical record of Joseph, so everything they say about when he lived would be based on conjecture.
“Yes, you are right, most scholars consider the Pharaoh of Abrahams time an anachronism. But this is not an instance where the Quran corrects the Bible.”
It does:
Have you not considered the one who argued with Abraham about his Lord [merely] because Allah had given him kingship? (Q 2:258)
As does the Sunnah:
“Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet (ļ·ŗ) said, “The Prophet (ļ·ŗ) Abraham emigrated with Sarah and entered a village where there was a king…
…the king sent for Abraham and asked, ‘O Abraham! Who is this lady accompanying you?’ Abraham replied, ‘She is my sister…
…Then Abraham sent her to the king. When the king got to her…
Stew, isn’t the verse most likely referring to the king in Abraham’s (pbuh) home city (i.e., Nimrud)?
I was unaware of the Hadith though. Good find! So it proves that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) somehow knew that the term “pharaoh” was only used after a certain time period. SubhanAllah!
Yep forgot that is referring to Nimrood so scratch that. But we still got a hadith that is the same story with the correction. This also serves as a refutation of “certain folk on the blog” who doubt hadith.
The way scholars such as Hoffmeier work is to analyze information contained in the narratives and compare them to extrabiblical sources and then to date them (you can see the varying items he considers for Joseph in the book, specifically pp. 83-98).
Let me me summarize the way I perceive the situation.
Genesis does not provide us with absolute dates and the archaeological and historical record is silent or mute on the issue. For these, among other reasons, the few scholars who accept the historicity of Josephās sojourn, are divided as to its setting.
On the above uncertain background, to make specific historical claims about the setting of Josephās sojourn and later correction does not appear to be methodologically sound and thus the claim you made has not been substantiated.
On the above uncertain background, your claim cannot be verified. Thus, your claim about the anachronistic setting of Josephās sojourn and later correction does not appear to be methodologically sound and has not been substantiated.
“The way scholars such as Hoffmeier work is to analyze information contained in the narratives and compare them to extrabiblical sources and then to date them (you can see the varying items he considers for Joseph in the book, specifically pp. 83-98).”
Again, have misinterpreted what Hoffmeier et al. were saying. They were referring to the NK period as the actual setting for Joseph’s story. They were referring to the DATE OF COMPOSITION. Hoffmeier writes:
“The date of composition of the Joseph story also remains in dispute. Redford’s study has convinced a number of Old Testament scholars of the lateness of the composition in the seventh or sixth century BC. George Coats opines: ‘With this contribution in view, it is now impossible to consider seriously any suggestions about a direct historical line from the story to the Egyptian court of the Rameside period.’ This enthusiastic endorsement is not shared by Kitchen, Rendsburg, Quaegebeur, Herrman, and myself, who believe a New Kingdom date is preferable.” (pp. 97-98)
“Genesis does not provide us with absolute dates and the archaeological and historical record is silent or mute on the issue. For these, among other reasons, the few scholars who accept the historicity of Josephās sojourn, are divided as to its setting. ”
I don’t think so. Hoffmeier cites Kitchen as positing a setting date from the Middle Kingdom to the Second Intermediate period. This was before the New Kingdom period. They prefer an NK date for the COMPOSITION of the story only. So, the anachronism remains and so does the Quran’s correction of it.
Yes, I can see that the Hoffmeier quote can be a source of confusion. I am sorry, I should have quoted a more unambiguous source.
That is because Hoffmeier, in the quote I gave, focuses on the composition of the story. So in the quote you find both the opinion that Joseph lived prior to the New Kingdom and the opinion that the events of the Joseph story actually belong to the New Kingdom period. Whatever the case may be, let me quote a more unambiguous statement from Rendsburg himself, the second scholar mentioned by Hoffmeier:
āThe references to the land of Ramses fits in perfectly, for it is during the Nineteenth Dynasty that we first encounter the royal name Ramses. However, if we had to select a particular pharaoh whom Joseph served, our choice would be Seti I (1308-1291).ā, Cyrus H. Gordon and Gary A. Rendsburg: āThe Bible and the Ancient Near East, fourth edition, London 1997, p. 138.
Vergote, an Egyptologist, also quoted on the same page by Hoffmeier (but not among the scholars in the quote I gave, perhaps because he did not engage with Redfordās study) places Joseph in the New Kingdom era (see Jozef Vergote, “Joseph en Egypte”, Louvan 1959). H. H. Rowley, a Biblical Scholar, also places Joseph in the New Kingdom period (see “From Joseph to Joshua. Biblical Traditions in the Light of Archaeology”, London 1950).
But the point is really rather more simple. I feel you do not appreciate that the lack of direct chronological, historical, archaeological and textual evidence does not allow us to correlate the period of Joseph with an absolute date.
I also feel that you do not appreciate that it is exactly this lack of evidence that has given rise to the many scholarly interpretations of the Joseph story and itās place in history, if any.
In sum, you have not securely anchored the Joseph story in history on any sound empirical, historical and methodological basis.
I think I will not add any more comments on this issue now.
Sorry, a paragraph slipped out. It belongs after paragraph 3 ending with āp. 138ā, and should read:
āSiegfried Hermann, on Hoffmeiers own admission, in endnote 214 to p. 98 (referenced on p. 106), places Joseph in a āRamsside settingā, i.e., the within the New Kingdom period. I cannot recall having seen Quaegebeur actually dating Joseph himself, though I could be wrong. He did however note, that the word hartumim (āmagiciansā) appearing in Gen. 41:8 could be borrowed into Hebrew as early as the 14th century BCE, onwards contra Redford. However this may be, the quote from Hoffmeier contains both opinionsā. .
I am just beginning to reread a bit in Hoffmeierās book and he states that Vergote did in fact later defend his position against Redford.
“He, the Word, the Son, added to Himself a human nature and body.ā
add on add on add on
So you tried to use “sexy” language by saying how much your god loves u by BECOMING a man, now you reduce it to “add on”
if the invisible non- add on have no EXPERIENCE of “add-on” then yhwh and add on r two. Two separate things with their own experiences.
not much of love is it? Mean invisible trumps add on like how i trump condom and throw it away. so much for your lies how much god loves u when in reality it is just an “add on”
Your empty threats mean nothing when it’s clear you follow a false, pagan religion. Someone who worships a man should be worried about eternal hellfire for himself.
Jesus the Messiah is the Word Of God.
John 1:1-5
āIn the beginningā =
Eternal – existed in eternity past – John 17:5
Creator
Life
Light
Overpowers darkness
Why are you not scared of making partners with Him?
Because Trinitarian Monotheism is not violation of Godās revelation. There is only one God.
āWhoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also. ā 1 John 2:23
ā Jesus *said to him, āI am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.ā John 14:6
1. To paraphrase a quote from the prophet Abraham(saw) when his people tried to threaten him with their idols:
Nobody is scared of the partners you make with God. Why are you not scared of making partners with Him?
Which side has more right to feel safe? Itās those who have faith, and do not mix their faith with things that are wrong, who will have peace and safety. (6:81-82)
2. Saying Jesus Christ, al Masih is literally saying Jesus Christ Christ.
3. We do know him and only what he claimed of himself. He is a be a prophet of God who submitted to the Lord’s will (aka a Muslim) and he was not one of the people who made partners with God.
Uhhh… it absolutely does to anyone who is monotheistic. You can quote all the verses in the world to try and justify making partners with God but it holds no sway. If Jesus prayed to God he cannot be God. This is basic common sense. Even though he is a mighty prophet he is a weak pathetic god on this point alone. He was dependent on others and couldn’t save himself so how the heck is he supposed to save me?
“Eternal ā existed in eternity past ā John 17:5”
his “word” says again and again he has a god and his god gives him things (matthew, mark, luke)
his “word” says “i am COMMANDED what to say”
so jesus does not even have permission to say “i am”
LOL
“Creator”
no, his was was USED like how the sun is used to give light and heat. NOTHING about him being “creator”
“Life”
i have of my OWNSELF NO power
“Light”
CREATED
ken temple worship, word, person, light
“Overpowers darkness”
yhwh was taken over by darkness
paul CLEARLY IN his letters says death had MASTERY over jesus
jesus says that his god GAVE him something to “battle” death, not that jesus had AN INHERENT quality in him.
ken temple worships
father (is not)
ghost (is not)
son (is not)
word
add-on
flesh
human nature
RELATIONSHIP
fully god has fully god thoughts
fully human has FULLY human thoughts (sexual temptations etc )
“Jesus the Messiah is the Word Of God.
John 1:1-5
āIn the beginningā =
Eternal ā existed in eternity past ā John 17:5
Creator
Life
Light
Overpowers darkness”
think about what this kafir is saying. he wants you to believe god exists as x (lists qualities) and then the SAME x exists as something else (think human being )
think about this. they have a DISTANT god which they give qualities to, then they at the same time believe this god is EXISTING as created being.
now ken is sharing communual toilet with his “god-man” and ken notices his god has constipation, ken tell himself “thats yhwh the eternal being”
this is what these kuffar are asking you people to fear.
quote :
Trusting in God means first and foremost not claiming to be God yourself and not claiming to be sinless
ken temple worships a god as a human being and thinks it is sinless.
idolatry according to torah
quote:
Quote:
But it is not only ancient pagans who believe that Israel suffersbecause her God is powerless. Modern Christians like Dr. Brown believethe same thing today. According to Dr. Brown, God without Jesus cannotforgive sin, cannot redeem His people and cannot have a meaningful relationship with His own creations. Judaism worships God without Jesus,and according to Christianity, this is a powerless God. Christians havebeen telling Jews that if they would but worship Jesus together withGod, their troubles would end. And the Jewish response has always beenand will always remain; āOur God is all-powerful and does not need yourJesus to help Him in any way shape or form. We are suffering because ofour sins and when we repent He will restore us as He promised throughHis prophets.ā
//////
and we agree with the jews here, OUR CREATOR OF THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH DOES NOT NEED jesus TO FORGIVE OR GIVE HIS MERCY , HE IS POWERFUL ENOUGH!
“Your god took human form like pagan gods. Your god is no different from Zeus. Therefore, you should be scared of hellfire for your shameless paganism.”
faiz is right.
and for thousands of years the message has not changed.
they are using all filthy apologetics to keep the PAGAN message ALIVE AND well.
quote:
In response, an anonymous poet wrote a hymn celebrating the actions and character of Demetrius, associating him with the great goddess of Greece, Demeter. Here is an extract of his hymn:
The greatest among the gods have drawn close to our cityā¦
Both Demeter and Demetriusā¦
Hail to you, O Son of the mighty god Poseidon and of Aphrodite.
The other gods dwell so far away,
or else they have no ears,
or they do not exist, or do not care at all about us
We see you in our midst,
not a wooden or stone presence, but bodily
And so we pray to youā¦ bring about peace
for you are the Lord (ĪŗĻĻĪ¹ĪæĻ)
Notice what is said of Demetrius. He is one of the āgreatest gods,ā the son of Godā (specifically of the gods Poseidon and Aphrodite), one who is ānearā his own people ā not remote, off on Mount Olympus, the one who ābrings peace,ā who can be called āLord.ā
These ascriptions to Demetrius should sound familiar to anyone who knows about early Christianity, where Jesus too was known as the incarnation of a divine being, the Son of God, the bringer of peace, the Lord, and God in the flesh. My ultimate point: Jesus was not the first to be called such things, or thought to be a kind of incarnation of the divine. He had predecessors.
+ The gods in Greek and Roman thought were considered to be superhuman. Unlike, say, the (animal-shaped) gods of Egypt, the Greek and Roman gods were literally in human form. When they appeared here on earth to humans they were often ābigger than life,ā but they could assume regular human form when they wanted to and they were human-shaped even when attending to their heavenly duties. In the Greek and Roman myths, they acted in human ways, they experienced the range of human emotions, they manifested human foibles, and so on.
:::::::::::
Jeremiah 2:5New International Version (NIV)
5 This is what the Lord says:
āWhat fault did your ancestors find in me,
that they strayed so far from me?
They followed worthless idols
and became worthless themselves.
I do not know whether it is meaningful to continue this discussion as we seem to far from each other in terms of historical methodology.
But let me ask you then, do you believe that Adam, the first human, was created ca 4000 BCE (i.e., 2000 years before Adam) and died ca 3000 BCE? Also, do you believe that the chronological information in Genesis is historically accurate?
In addition, could you please, provide hard historical evidence, from the first millennium BCE that allows us to date Josephās stay in Egypt?
The answer to your questions is no, I don’t believe in the accuracy of the Genesis version. That was the whole point from the get-go. We seem to be in agreement that the Genesis account is unreliable. Do you agree?
There is no “hard historical evidence” for Joseph, let alone for his presence in Egypt, so that is a moot point. However, there is evidence for migrations to Egypt from Canaan during periods of drought and there is evidence for the presence of the Israelites in Egypt (e.g., the presence of Egyptian names among the Israelites).
That is the whole point. There is no historical or archaeological evidence establishing the time of Joseph’s sojourn in Egypt. Thus your claim of an anachronism which was later corrected in the Quran, has, so far, not been substantiated.
I answered your questions. You didn’t answer mine. Are we in agreement that Genesis is not accurate.
By the way, you haven’t presented any evidence to suggest Joseph was present during the New Kingdom, only conjecture. I was basing my assertion based on the Biblical timeline, because there is no extrabiblical record for Joseph.
And as Stew demonstrated, the hadiths do not repeat the Biblical anachronism from Abraham’s time either. So the correction of Biblical errors has been proven.
Yes, most scholars do not consider the timeline useful for dating purposes. Just as many scholars do not consider the patriarchs historical figures. I do not have to present evidence of Joseph sojourn in Egypt during the Middle Kingdom. My very simple point all along has been lack of historical and archaeological evidence for the claim you made.
Your claim was, however, not the hadith and not the story of Abraham. I responded to the claim actually made namely concerning Joseph and the Quran which until now have not been substantiated.
Actually, it has been substantiated. If we use the Bible’s given timeline, that would place Joseph before the New Kingdom period. Thus, the use of the word “pharaoh” would be inaccurate.
Your only argument is that since we cannot reliably determine when Joseph lived (if he even lived at all) using historical evidence, therefore, we cannot say the Quran corrected the Bible. But if we use the Biblical timeline ( in the absence of actual historical evidence), then it is clear that the Quran does correct the Bible.
Also, regardless, it is also clear that the Quran differentiates between “king” and “pharaoh”, a minor detail about Egyptian history and culture that one would not expect a 7th century Arab merchant to know.
And by the way, Muslims believe in both the Quran and Ahadith, so if one corrects the Bible, it’s all the same to us. š
Even with your conjecturing using certain scholars, you simply moved the time period a few decades forward to place Joseph in the New Kingdom period. So, you’re actually not that far off from the Biblical timeline.
āActually, it has been substantiated. If we use the Bibleās given timeline, that would place Joseph before the New Kingdom period. Thus, the use of the word āpharaohā would be inaccurateā.
I do not think you have substantiated the claim as you have not provided historical or archaeological evidence that can securely anchor our chronology to, say the patriarchs in Genesis. In other words, you have not linked your ca. 2000 Anno Mundi to an absolute date. If you can do that, you have substantiated your claim.
To be clear my position is simply that we have no historical or archaeological evidence that substantiates your claim. I am not here supporting any particular understanding of Genesis that, say, has Joseph in the New Kingdom or an understanding that places him earlier than that. I am not taking sides on the issue of the scholars I quoted. I quoted Hoffmeier simply to show that of those ā I suppose by now ā few scholars who accept the historicity of the patriarchs many opt for a New Kingdom setting.
It is a fair point for you if you believe in the Ahadith and in the patriarchs and so forth ā I have no problem with that. But, I am not concerned here with beliefs, but the historical and archaeological record.
“I do not think you have substantiated the claim as you have not provided historical or archaeological evidence that can securely anchor our chronology to, say the patriarchs in Genesis. In other words, you have not linked your ca. 2000 Anno Mundi to an absolute date. If you can do that, you have substantiated your claim.”
I don’t know why you keep talking about “historical or archaeological evidence” when the Bible is basically the only source to mention Joseph (other than the Quran of course). So using the Biblical timeline seems perfectly reasonable. The timeline used by the Bible places Joseph before the New Kingdom period. Unless you can give some other timeline, other than vague references to some scholars, you have not made a valid point.
“To be clear my position is simply that we have no historical or archaeological evidence that substantiates your claim. I am not here supporting any particular understanding of Genesis that, say, has Joseph in the New Kingdom or an understanding that places him earlier than that. I am not taking sides on the issue of the scholars I quoted. I quoted Hoffmeier simply to show that of those ā I suppose by now ā few scholars who accept the historicity of the patriarchs many opt for a New Kingdom setting.”
Fair enough, but simply mentioning these scholars doesn’t help us get any closer to an answer. In the absence of extrabiblical sources, I wonder how Hoffmeier et al. came to such a conclusion. The only source they have is the Bible, and the uses a specific timeline which places Joseph before the NK period. I suppose it is possible that, given the proximity of the Biblical timeline for Joseph in Egypt is very close to the NK period, if we finagle the numbers, we could place him with in that period.
“It is a fair point for you if you believe in the Ahadith and in the patriarchs and so forth ā I have no problem with that. But, I am not concerned here with beliefs, but the historical and archaeological record.”
Fair enough. My point with the ahadith was to show that you can’t fall back on the “‘there is no historical evidence” argument for Abraham and the “pharaoh”. There is no chance that Abraham (assuming he existed, which of course I believe he did) would have lived in the NK period. The ahadith do not use the term “firaun”. They simply refer to the ruler as the “king”. The story is very similar to the Genesis version, with obvious differences as well, and yet the ahadith do not repeat the Biblical anachronism. I find that astonishing.
By the way, Hoffmeier cites Kitchen as stating that the setting for Joseph’s story in the Bible is somewhere between the Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period. That would fall before the New Kingdom period. See the same page you cited earlier.
“No, the second person of the Trinity, the Word,(John 1:1-5) the Son (John 17:5) entered into humanity”
Unchangeable became changeable, i see.
“by becoming a human in the womb of Mary (Luke 1:34-35; John 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8) ā”
invisible BECAME limited and visible. so yhwh REALLY REALLY existed as a human being. in other words yhwh is a man, right?
”
He, the Word, the Son, added to Himself a human nature and body.”
from “became” to “added on”
Sorry to use the following example, but i understand “add on” as:
i can add on a condom by wearing it, but my penis has full experience of the condom, in same way does invisible have Full experience of “the flesh” ?
ADDED ON MEANS TO INCREASE
yhwh THEN EXPERIENED ADDITIONS WHICH WERE CREATED, RIGHT?
“That is not limiting Godās power.”
but yhwh has BRAND NEW experiences which are created. Created by definition means LIMITED.
“Your stuff about the law of God is wrong. Godās principle, after Adam and Eve sinned, is that death entered into the world.”
Bs! they were always going to die if they stopped eating the fruit. yhwh says that if they gained knowledge of the tree which gives knowledge, then he was afraid they would aim for tree of life….but “faith” of adam never saved him from”divine punishment” adam was punished even though he repented and believed ….yet he still suffered .
yhwh NEVER SAID TO ADAM that his disobediance meant that yhwh PUNISH himself, u cant derive crosstian nonsense from genesis.
“Genesis 2:17 ā āin the day you eat of the fruit, you shall surely dieā”
this does not mean ETERNAL TORTURE AND SINCE yhwh is love and mercy , then he would not eternally torture a repenting adam. yhwh is not limited , he can forgive without torturing himself lol
”
This principle is repeated throughout ā āthe soul that sins, it shall dieā (Ezekiel 18:20)”
You can quote all the verses in the world to try and justify making partners with God but it holds no sway. If Jesus prayed to God he cannot be God.
Quoting verses from the Qur’an, which is a 600 years late human book, and contradiction to previous revelations, holds no sway.
If Jesus is eternally the Son / the Word (John 1:1-5; 17:5), and He voluntarily came to be a human (John 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8), through the virgin birth (Luke 1:34-35), and on earth modeled dependency on the Father in heaven as an example and model for us, while on earth, then His prayers to His Father in heaven are not contradictory to Monotheism. John 17:1-5 teaches both the humanity of Jesus on earth, praying to the Father, and being sent by the Father and also His eternal nature as God – John 17:5 – “restore unto Me the glory that I had with You before the World was created” = eternity past. Shows Jesus is God by nature/essence – the Word, John 1:1-5 – logos = mind that automatically flows into speech / word – the same nature / essence / substance as God – the same spiritual essence. The oneness of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit = the invisible creator One God, sovereign, holy, good, pure, all-wise, all-knowing, all-powerful.
“Quoting verses from the Qurāan, which is a 600 years late human book, and contradiction to previous revelations, holds no sway.”
how many years after did jesus come after the first available manuscript of the torah ?
how do you know that the animal sacrifices for sins was originally part of torah ? How do you know that sin offerings werent later added? how did jebus know what was added and what was not?
“If Jesus is eternally the Son / the Word (John 1:1-5; 17:5),”
he was a human passing wind among his pals and going toilet. The dirty shitty kristology in john 1 does not equate him to yhwh.
” and He voluntarily came to be a human (John 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8), ”
so he is “became”
“Add on”
AND NOW
EMPTY ?
”
through the virgin birth (Luke 1:34-35)”
Some pagan gods weren’t even born.
They just APPEARED ….bit like how mary APPEARS TO catholics AND NO ONE WITNESSED HER BIRTH
”
, and on earth modeled dependency on the Father in heaven as an example and model for us, ”
how does having sexual thought, calling woman a BITCH, farting, taking a SHIT, cursing jews, RUNNING AWAY from stones, show us “model for us”
you STILL have a humAN EVEN IF GOD CREATED A SINLESS HUMAN IT IS STILL HUMAN
“while on earth, then His prayers to His Father in heaven are not contradictory to Monotheism. ”
Yes they r. One conscious being if god CANNOT HAVE A GOD
GOD
”
John 17:1-5 teaches both the humanity of Jesus on earth, praying to the Father, and being sent by the Father and also His eternal nature as God ā John 17:5″
john the pagan kafir was changing the story in mark which said jesus REPEATEDLY begged his god to save him
“ā ārestore unto Me the glory that I had with You before the World was createdā = eternity past. ”
no ,this does not mean GIVE ME ALL your powers. father SHARES his glory WITH NO ONE. the verse must be interpreted to mean that in father mind jebus was “glorified” not that his person pre-exisexisrdd”
“Shows Jesus is God by nature/essence ā the Word, John 1:1-5 ā logos = mind that automatically flows into speech / word ā the same nature / essence / substance as God ā the same spiritual essence.”
polythiest.
three gods
”
The oneness of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit = the invisible creator One God, ”
I simply quoted Abraham’s(saw) argument when his people threated him with their idols. Keep in mind YOU quoted your (literally) man-made book containing both contradictions within itself and to previous revelation coming approx 3,000 years late.
Moving on, yeah, all that word mumbo jumbo made no sense. He physically asked to be saved and notice you can only quote the late book of “John” who tried to spice things up and even then these authors still don’t believe in the Trinity.
So to sum up the nonsense of your last post for normal people you are claiming God prayed to Himself to save Himself? Correct?
and moses appears to peter and others in his body, does that mean a appearance out of no where means one must be god? Moses makes an appearance HUNDREDS of years later and you are OBSESSED with “virgin birth” what a spiritual prostitute prostituting your heart for gods yhwh didnt know
You are going to burn in hell , i am helping u see that your worship of a farting blood god is BASED on ambiguity. Repent of your sins and SEEK YOUR creator. put pauline jesus in hell where it belong. repent. Repent. Repent of this disgusting idolatry. your jesus is failed, u will not see second coming, take guarantee from me. you will not be seeing seconding coming but you will see your soul getting RIPPED the fuck out. Repent before it is too late.
Shame that God is stuck in this world only.
“The Lord descends every night to the lowest heaven when one-third of the night remains…”
Sahee Hadith Bukhari and Muslim
Don’t you have anything intelligent so say?
Here’s a challenge: write something relevant to the article that is constructive. If you can’t, don’t comment.
Let’s see what you do….
Maybe some atheists or agnostics do not rule out some kind of maximally great intelligent Being that does not have a desire to be worshipped or obeyed and has no desire to communicate with the world. And has not intervened in the world it has created.
The concept that you begin with of what “God” is or “great” is seems to dictate what kind of God possibly, and therefore, actually exists, at least for you. It could be a very different “God” to someone else.
So the argument seems to have serious limitations, if not flaws.
The bible supports the idea that there is some intuitive idea of God present in the mind of man. The explanation being that he is made in the image of God.
Romans 1:
20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Just my thoughts on the matter. As an armchair philosopher at best.
in a possible world could your god have been a fully monkey and fully human as well as not fully yhwh?
Allah will come in the shape of a donkey. “…’ Then the Almighty will come to them in a shape other than the one which they saw the first time, and He will say, ‘I am your Lord,’… Sahih al-Bukhari 7439
All arguments of this kind have limitations since they are attempting to deduce the reality of God through our reason without reference to His self revelatory Word whether it be the Qur’an, the Gospel, or the Torah.
The purpose of these arguments, in my opinion, is akin to the ayats of the Qur’an which use the natural world as an example of God’s attributes in which it usually finishes with ‘herein are signs for those who use their reason’. Reason which can be clouded by the fitrah or illuminated by Revelation.
In other words, not everyone is going to see the same thing when looking at the creation whether it be in the form of an argument or meditating on the creation itself. The job is to apply these arguments (if necessary) and hopefully guide a person to the profound conversion of Abraham, to simply see the Reality of God through the movement of the creation, knowing that they cannot fulfill our deepest desire to know and give obeisance to its Originator.
“Allah will come in the shape of a donkey. āā¦”
That is another Erasmus, not me.
Maybe this is a trick to try and get me banned.
I post serious comments. Not this stupid stuff.
@Erasmus
Considering the fact you usually post stupid, asinine and useless shit like your butt buddy Agnostic…it is hard to tell if you made that post or someone else
Btw Agnostic will not be posting comments on BT any more š
“Agnostic will not be posting comments on BT any more”
Whoooooooaaaa!!!
What ever shall we do?
You got rid of the sub-Neanderthal? š¤Æ
you know, a part of me will miss reading agnostics comments. Because if anyone showed that being against religion doesn’t automatically make you a genius, it was defiantly him.
It’s wrong for someone to pretend to be Iggy, but let’s face it…Iggy does not post “serious comments”. I’m still laughing from his “prove hares don’t chew the cud” comment. š
Why can’t you prove it?
Stewpot can’t prove that the Koran doesn’t condone and justify the killing, kidnapping, raping, plundering and enslaving of non-Muslims either.
I wonder why.
Are you taking on a new persona there Iggy? For the 10th time, you made the assertion that the Quran justifies killing dummy. So you have to prove it. Similarly, it’s the Bible that claims hares chew the cud. So, it’s up to Bible-believing zombies such as yourself to prove. Asking someone to prove a negative is only something a brainless moron would do.
So go on. Prove your assertions. We’re waiting.
Speaking of Zombies. Muslim apologists are pushing for the interpretation of Quran-believing zombies. Since it makes more sense to believe in Zombies. https://youtu.be/p2c0sppFIGI
Speaking of zombies. The gospel of Matthew says that the dead rose from their graves and walked around the city. Christians literally believe that zombies were walking around.
I can see what Iggy might say: “Prove that the dead didn’t rise from the grave!”
I could not care less about Matthew, Tom, Dick and Paul. I don’t believe in fairy tale. Since your scholars claim the followers of Isa were scared of zombies. Maybe it’s the same zombies lol. But nice try diverting that Muslim scholars literally believe in Zombies. I believe the walking dead is a tv show. You Muslim believe its real.
Lol, you sound stupider with each comment. Believing in zombies is not a tenet of faith in Islam, dummy.
Did I ever claim it’s a tenet of faith? You’re the stupid using a strawman argument. The first message you tried to divert. This did not work. Second message using strawman and ad hominem. It’s not working as well. Your only embarrassing yourself and your cult. It’s ok I know you’re embarrassed as we have evidence your brothers believe in Zombies lol.
Lol, yeah you did say it stupid. You lied, got called out, then tried to lie again by backtracking. Stop lying.
And why would I be “embarrassed” just because some Muslims suggested that Gog and Magog could be zombies? Even the video you linked to showed a prominent and respected Muslim scholar refuting such a belief! So you only embarrassed yourself! š¤£
@ Saffiyyah
But you’re making it sound as if one person’s opinion us binding upon all Muslims.
“You Muslim believe its real.”
This sentence implies that QB believes in zombies. You are the one who has made the hasty generalization so QB is not stawmanning.
I don’t think you watched the video. He’s encouraging the interpretation of zombies. Zombies are the best interpretation according to the Muslim scholar. It’s too embarrassing you did not even watch the whole thing. You should challenge him for a debate about zombies believing Quran š. Great title for a debate. You’re a waste of time. You got exposed since your brothers in Islam believe in zombies lol.
I don’t think your brain is fully functional. Yasir Qadhi was criticizing that belief dummy. You keep projecting your own stupidity on to me. Every time you say I’m “embarrassed” you actually embarrass yourself! š
@StewJo
If It sounds it’s binding upon all Muslims including QB. If you’re consistent as a result when he wrote Christians. That binding upon all Christians. That would make him a dishonest person since the vast majority of Christians don’t believe the doctrine of resurrection is like zombies.
QB is definitely not honest he is misrepresenting what I wrote and the scholar in the video.
š¤£ It is binding upon Christians dummy because…wait for it…it’s in their scripture! Even if many Christians don’t believe that the dead literally rose, it is irrelevant because it is in their scripture. So it is binding, even though many may not believe the story. But let’s see what evidence you have for your claim that “the vast majority of Christians” don’t believe it. I have a feeling you’ll backtrack on this one as well. š
In contrast, Yasir Qadhi was referring to an interpretation he had heard from some Muslim, which he then proceeded to criticize. Evidently, you have a hard time understanding simple English.
š https://youtu.be/4V90AmXnguw?t=61
Since it was brought up, this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cTGFmtBSlU
from 1:04:51 onward is where he discusses the issue of Ya’juj And Ma’juj by offering two interpretations. one he seriously considers and one another scholar suggested that he prefaces is “embarrassing to mention”
And this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD6Wul6k2Y0&list=PLYO6Oz7uwCSjdlPsyDXgDOf5t2_IfBky3&index=7&t=0s
from 12:20 to 20:20 is where he addresses certain people using the first video’s contents to criticize and mock Islam.
All in all though i highly recommend everyone watch the video series when you have the time as it brings a great understanding of Islamic eschatology.
Exactly, but our resident liar Safiyah claimed the opposite.
My bad the second video with the 12:20 to 20:20 timestamp was meant to be this one
@ Saffiyyah
I’m sorry your English is so terrible it’s hard to understand so I’ll try my best at interpreting.
1. Your hasty generalization fallacy v. QB quoting text
The difference here is the text of Christian Scripture says the saints rose from their graves and walked around. You are making the comparison of a person’s opinion on a text as being the equivalent when its not. Christians MUST accept Matt, we have no obligation to accept this opinion. Big difference here and not that hard to get for anyone with two working brain cells.
2. What Sheikh Yassir Qadhi actually said starting @1:04:47:
As I tell people when talking about Yassir Qadhi he’s the type you can’t “clip” what he’s saying and you have to follow him in his train of thought:
A. There is ONE hadith that mentions them digging every day in the wall and its authenticity has been disputed by many classical and medieval scholars (including the heavyweight legend Ibn Kathir) that this comes from the Bible or Jewish stories.
B. The tribes mentioned in the Quran could have been these people later’s ancestors
C. He says that the wall coming down and their descendants being mentioned is a position he prefers.
D, He clearly says at 1:08:15 that he does not believe in the zombie interpretation he is relaying a conversation he had in private (he emphasis TWICE at 1:08:46 this is NOT his opinion and don’t say he believes this) He even makes a joke about it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snGjDv9woOc
E. All he said was that by dropping this disputed hadith his friend’s joking interpretation makes more sense then something we are not required to believe in.
F. Stewjo is going to solve the problem right now…
Wall’s down. Descendants are walking around. Ta-dah, not that hard to believe.
G. What does any of this have to do with you disbelieving in your Lord?
Information overload for Safiyah!
You just prove my point. Zombies are not in the text, as a result, it’s not binding on them. Since you make the claim, bring the evidence the text say zombies. ” I have a feeling youāll backtrack on this one as well. š” That your interpretation of the text, the text never said zombies. Do you consider resuscitation turn people into zombies as well? You’re so dumb you probably say yes lol.
Zombies according to Muslim scholar:
@ 17.00 It makes MORE sense
@ 17.50 My laughter turned into SERIOUS contemplation
@ 18:06 But the laughter will slowly turn to contemplation and deep down inside you’ll realize the makes a lot MORE sense than anything ELSE out there.
All your ‘lol’ and laughing emoji will turn into SERIOUS contemplation. And it will make MORE sense to you according to the Muslim scholars.
Um moron, the text says the dead rose from their graves. I can see you trying backtrack now. You know you have no evidence for your claim so now you are trying to avoid answering the question. š
You’re the one who brought zombies into the discussion dummy. And each time you were refuted, you moved the goal post. Looks like your brain definitely is not fully functional. Maybe you should eat some brains. Get it? š
@ Saffiyah
I’m sorry this is level of thinking is hurting. I’m going to simplify things with pretty pictures:
Matt:
“and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life.” (Matt 27:52)
So what the text is saying is when this happened š
This happened ā°ļø+ š =š§
They must explain the dead rising
Yassir Qadhi:
Hey, guys here’s this funny thing my one friend said, I laughed at first while obviously not zombies in monster movies it does make a little sense they may share some of those qualities.
1. Never said zombies himself
2. He’s obviously playing and exploring the concept
3. It does NOT make sense as it doesn’t explain the Gog and Magog during Dhul Qarfnain’s time.
These are vastly different statements,
The problem is the dumb kaffir you listened too (who put words into Yassir’s mouth btw) is influencing you to say dumb things. Let’s now contemplate on the Quran together and see if we can apply this to our lives:
“…There were evil ones from both humans and demons. They would inspire each other with propaganda but had your Lord wanted they would not have done that, so leave them and what they make up alone. I allowed this only so that those who donāt believe in a life to come, will have their hearts incline towards that and become obsessed with it, so that they can earn these sins theyāre constantly committing… If you were to follow most of whoever is on the earth they will misguide from Godās path, because theyāre following nothing but assumptions and are doing nothing but making things up.” (6:112-116)
Mhmm mmm. Powerful words right there.
You’re the first who wrote zombies, not me. You had too much camel urine you’re losing your memory. Bring your evidence that the text say zombies. I don’t care about your interpretation of the text lol. StewJo already brought the evidence for me, the text does not say Zombies. Are you blind?
For the last time, where does the text use the word “zombies”?
And do you consider resuscitation as people becoming zombies?
You should go to sleep with dead people like your prophet. That dead woman got a shock in the grave that probably resuscitates her lol.
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
We were (in the funeral procession) of one of the daughters of the Prophet (ļ·ŗ) and he was sitting by the side of the grave (Ų¬ŁŲ§ŁŁŲ³Ł Ų¹ŁŁŁŁ Ų§ŁŁŁŁŲØŁŲ±Ł – literally “sitting on the grave”). I saw his eyes shedding tears. He said, “Is there anyone among you who did not have sexual relations with his wife last night?” Abu Talha replied in the affirmative (Ų£ŁŁŁŲ§ā – literally “me!”). And so the Prophet told him to get down in the grave. And so he got down (ŁŁŁŁŲ²ŁŁŁ) in her grave.
Sahih Bukhari 2:23:374
āI (Muhammad) put on her my shirt that she may wear the clothes of heaven, and I SLEPT with her (ŁŲ§Ų¶Ų·Ų¬Ų¹ Ł Ų¹ŁŲ§) in her coffin (grave) that I may lessen the pressure of the grave. She was the best of Allahās creatures to me after Abu Talibāā¦
Kanz al-`UmmĆ¢l
š Apparently you are stupider than you seem. You were the one who started talking about zombies. I merely referred to Erasmus as a “zombie”. Obviously, I was not saying he is literal zombie from Night of the Living Dead. Do you enjoy embarrassing yourself? š
The gospel of Matthew says the dead rose from their graves. The dead came to life. You really are stupid if you think the word “zombie” existed back then, or the concept as we understand it in popular culture. The text states the graves opened up and the dead started the walking around. Ergo, corpses were literally walking around.
So I’ll ask you again dummy
What is your evidence that the “vast majority” of Christians don’t believe in the story?
@StewJo
No point using ad hominems like QB after losing an argument. I know you’re getting emotional because it’s embarrassing. You’re using words like “dumb kaffir” when other Muslims came on this blog called you a “dumb” and a “kaffir. That must hurt especially when it comes from your own people.
šš¤£ Hey Stew, apparently you have another secret admirer! But notice how this liar avoided responding. It’s information overload for the zombie, as I said. She needs some… brains. š
I can’t believe you just prove my point again. Put down the camel urine and think before you write. You’re making it too easy for me. Since your losing memory from too much camel urine. That what you wrote: “the word āzombieā existed back then, or the concept as we understand it in popular culture.” Heeelllooo, you just prove the concept did not exist. If they believe in “Zombies” the concept would be the same. Even if they used a different word or did not have a word for it. What evidence you need when both of you are stupid enough to help me prove my case. You can’t prove it’s the same concept. If that the best you can give it means resuscitation makes people into zombies. lol
You seem to forget to answer this one over and over again. Does resuscitation mean people turn into zombies? Your whole argument falls apart that why you can’t answer.
Wake up stop being stupid before you wake up next to a dead woman like your prophet lol.
š¤¦āāļø Lol, you really are a dunce aren’t you? I said the concept as it is understood in pop culture…i.e., the horror fantasy of corpses rising to eat the living. This is what the word “zombie” implies. That concept was not know in that time. However, the gospel says that the graves opened and the dead walked around Jerusalem. Ergo, the dead came to life again. How would you refer to that in modern parlance? Come on, say it with me…z-o-m-b-i-e-s.
Still waiting for your evidence. And now youve dug yourself into an bigger hole. Where does the text say anything about resuscitation? Why do you keep lying? Is it do hard to tell the truth?
You need some brains, silly zombie. š
Were those dead people given CPR? š¤£
“the horror fantasy of corpses rising to eat the living” where do you see that in the text? You’re exposing yourself again.
I never said resuscitation is in the text. But based on your stupidity modern day resuscitation would mean turning a person into a zombie. We need to warn all the doctors around the world lol. Can you answer the question coward, does resuscitation turn someone into a zombie?
I don’t think I will get an answer from you. Better I listen to Yasir on his lecture of Zombie in Islam lol.
Still no evidence for you claims? Why do you keep running little zombie?
Again, the text says the dead came out of their graves. What word do we use in modern parlance to describe? Come on. You know it. Say it. There’s a good girl.
Dummy, the text describes a supernatural incident. The graves literally opened and their occupants came out. It was a literal resurrection. There was no resuscitation. It was an alleged miracle. This is a far cry from when a doctor resuscitates a patient using CPR.
Now can you answer my question little zombie coward? I’m waiting. Once you answer, we’ll get you some brains for you to munch on.
If “resuscitation” is not in the text, then why bring it up? You whine about QB and Stew, saying the text doesn’t mention ‘zombies’ but then turn around and mention “resuscitation” which has absolutly NOTHING to do with the whole issue.
As for camel urine (of course you’ll be a filthy/nasty person and throw it out like that) there is nothing wrong with a 7th century bedouin/prophet telling a group of people who were ill to cure themselves by mixing camel mil with some urine. They didn’t have the luxury of modern medicin and care. Hence they had to use what was available to them. We make medicin from urine and dung even today. The difference is that we use highly sophisticated technics based on modern technology to get the required ingredient from them which of course was not availeble to the 7th century bedouins and hence there is no error or blame on them for using urine in raw form.
These clowns are obsessed with the camel urine Hadith and they actually think that Muslims are embarrassed by it.
No, no you silly kaffir. What’s embarrassing is your silly obsession with that Hadith even though:
1. It was a mixture of urine and milk.
2. The people got better.
3. They were told to drink it as a medicine, not as a religious practice.
Your claim it’s in the text. But you can’t show it in the text. Based on what StewJo quoted it does not prove zombies (or a concept of zombies) or else modern day resuscitation would mean zombies as well. Your simple definition of zombies will backfire since you won’t admit modern day resuscitation means zombies. He will have to use a more complex description which is not found in the text. I’m not making the claim that resuscitation is in the text. You’re the one who making a claim whats in the text. Get it now stupid. Stop with the camel urine. Drink some Zamzam water, give you brain a rest from camel urine lol. I’m using resuscitation as an example since your argument is stupid.
Sharia-Medicine: Egyptian Clinic Treats People with Camel Urine Per Prophetās Advice
A recent Egyptian TV program showed how Islamic Sharia lawās many prescriptions do not merely clash with modern-day concepts like free speech and religious freedom, but even with medicine and science.
https://www.algemeiner.com/2012/10/05/sharia-medicine-egyptian-clinic-treats-people-with-camel-urine-per-prophets-advice/
Naturally you show your ignorance with a quick google search to try and save face as well as your ugly face.
Firstly “resuscitation” has NOTHING to do with the text. Nothing!
Resuscitation implies people that are ALIVE and not dead. The ones that come out of the grave in Matthew are DEAD. You bring up “resuscitation” to try and achieve a gotchya moment but this is a false equivalence and you know it. Now you claim that you didn’t say it’s in the text which even if that’s true it’s still irrelevant. Your ‘argument’ still fails bigtime.
Secondly what is the purpose of the link you threw forward? It doesn’t adress my points. You couln’t refute what I said so you went and quickly did a google search (most likely didn’t even properly read it all) in an attempt to save face. I clearly and explicitly said:
(((((there is nothing wrong with a 7th century bedouin/prophet telling a group of people who were ill to cure themselves by mixing camel mil with some urine. They didnāt have the luxury of modern medicin and care. Hence they had to use what was available to them. We make medicin from urine and dung even today. The difference is that we use highly sophisticated technics based on modern technology to get the required ingredient from them which of course was not availeble to the 7th century bedouins and hence there is no error or blame on them for using urine in raw form.))))
The article backs me up! Have you even read it?
It’s written by some retard kafir that’s clearly foaming at the mouth since he too can’t refute what I said.
And not to be mentioned the classic retarded lies like that were mentioned like:
(((canonical hadiths, or traditions and sayings of Muhammadāwhich is where both urine-drinking ideas appearāas sacred and not to be questioned.)))
I guess he missed the thousands of pages of critical analysis from scholars on the hadith.
I couldn’t care less if half of Egypt is drinking raw camel urine since even that wouldn’t scratch my arguments.
You’re making an argument for camel urine and you call other stupid. Hahahahaha. Ofc you don’t care Egyptian follow the stupid teaching of Muhammad who kills many of them. You don’t care if Muhammad talks bullshit and this cause the death of many people. If you cared about people you would tell others to stop following the stupidity of Muhammad. But you don’t give a shit about other Muslim life. You prefer to defend the nonsense of Muhammad.
It’s called clinically dead you retard. Based on your nonsense it should be called clinically alive. Your as smart as your prophet lol. No wonder he convince you camel urine is medication. Dumb shit. Did you also have you fly-wing medcine as well? ššš
Muslims are the stupid not the kaffir. We tell you to stop drinking this shit.
But, according to the World Health Organization, it could be deadly.
You see, there’s a bit of a MERS situation. MERS ā officially called Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus ā leads to fevers, breathing problems, pneumonia, kidney failure and other deadly complications.
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/06/10/stop-drinking-camel-urine-world-health-organization-says
Start to care to save Muslims from the stupidity of Muhammad. Stop being a retard like your prophet lol.
And this is what you’ll always do: divert and weasel you’re way out.
Your rant did nothing to refute what I said about camel urine. You can post links as much as you like and pretend that refutes me since that gives you the illusion of having “won”.
Firstly when I said I don’t care I meant IN REGARDS TO MY ARGUMENTS. If you’re so stupid that I have to explain this to you then you’re among the most stupid kafirs.
All you can say is ‘this muslim here says this or does that’ and that’s ALL you’ll ever say and pretend it’s proof. You’re not debating me or QB or Stew. You’re just talking to yourself since a debate would imply you engage with the other sides arguments.
I said clearly that in 7th century Arabia there is nothing wrong with this since they don’t have the luxury of modern technology to get the necessary ingedrients out of urine like we do today. Hence we can’t hold them responsible for not having the capabilities to pure medicin.
We use horse urinie in medicin which is first gone through a proces of extraction. But again: the bedouins 14 centuries ago didn’t have that luxury and hence cannot be held accountable.
I know raw urine has negative effects on the body you retard. I never said that I approve of using it like that today with the technology that is available to us. People that have cancer get cured with radiation!
Is radiation healthy? To make it easier for your monkey brain: If you had to choose between radiation and some camel piss mixed with milk, then not only would you choose camel urine but you would stick your fitlhy toung up that camel’s ass out of gratitude that you can pick that instead of radiation. So no radiation is EXTREMELY unhealthy for the body. But it gets rid of cancer and that’s why it exists today. If a thousand years from now people come up with a better way to cure it than use radiation and has barely any negative effects, then obviously radiation would not be used anymore. Now, would it be logical for the people a thousand years from now to start bitching, whining and yapping about how stupid we are today to use radiation? Well if you don’t count retards like you, then no.
But it won’t matter. You’ll keep talking to yourself like a complete retarded kafir since that’s all you insignificant maggots can do.
As for your pathetitc attempt at saving face with the “clinically dead” approach. Amusing! Trying to play verbal gymnasitics. You sure you ain’t a xtian?
The term used is “clinically”. Dumbass it’s just a medical term. It does not mean they are dead.
If they were dead then it wouldn’t say “clinically” but just “dead”.
A mere search for the term “resuscitation” shows the following:
The act or an instance of reviving someone from APPARENT death or from unconsciousness.
They are not really dead. They come close to dying but are NOT dead. It’s used for people that are very close to dying. If to much time passes (and we’re talking about seconds here!) then resuscitation is meaningless.
The saints coming out of the graves didn’t come close to dying. They were dead for a LONG time with maggots eating their bodies. For you to use this as an attempt to desperatly defend (lol, for someone who ‘doesn’t care’ what Matthew says, you sure are desperatly trying to defend this so called gospel) the matthew narrative is just pahtetic.
This is the best she got. Woow, just woow. She is just an insect making little noises and can’t handle the bitchslaps she’s receiving. Poor biatch. Don’t worry, it wasn’t the first and from the looks of you trying to save face, it won’t be the last.
Trying to save face only leads to you shooting yourself in the ass. Keep talking.
@atlas š
Many countries don’t have the medical luxury. They don’t advice even those countries to drink that bullshit. They just want people to stop following the bullshit teaching of Muhammad.
You don’t even realise the flaws of your argument. You refute yourself. Even modern medicine can’t save them. That bullshit can be deadly. That show how much more retarded it was in the 7th century for an idiot to say drink that crap. Do I really need to refute you. Your stupid your going to make stupid arguments.
Clinically dead mean dead. That why it says DEAD lol. No wonder your prophet went to sleep with a dead woman. He probably thought dead mean alive lol. You are as dumb as your prophet.
Don’t rant about cancer. Camel urine, dates and black seed oil can fix almost everything according to Dr. Muhammad š. What kind of idiot would say that kind of crap.
Speaking of b*tch slap. Let see according to Aisha if Muslims get b*tchslap more than unbelievers. ššš
Aisha said, āI have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!ā Sahih al-Bukhari 5825
ššš
Aisha would know about bitch slap she bend over at the age of 9 like a whore.
i meant definitely but honestly defiantly works pretty well too.
LOLOL
Just to let everyone know that now that Agnostic is gone from BT, I will still post as Agnostic is an idiot because well he is š
LOLOL
LOLOL
“…you know, a part of me will miss reading agnostics comments. ”
Yeah, his borderline Tourettes will be hard to replace…
But on the other hand, screw em.
Hi I am Ignoramus and I finally graduated from the ferst grade ! I am a big boy now! No more peeing in my pants at the circus!!!!!!
Jesus loves me because the Father Pedo The Sanctified Creep told me so!
Agnostic is an idiot…have you…transformed?
@stewjo
Haha yes. I had to try something new
Censorship does nothing for your credibility
@ Burhanuddin1
I don’t really think it’s “censorship” a lot of these guys spam and troll, a that would get you banned in a lot of forums.
@ Watson
“Stewpot canāt prove that the Koran doesnāt condone and justify the killing, kidnapping, raping, plundering and enslaving of non-Muslims either.”
So Watson your still a homosexual rapist, I see. Prove your not.
@stewpot,
Theoretically the easiest way to prove that Allah doesn’t want you to harm the kuffar in any of these ways would be to find a command, or commands, in the Koran against these things. But there is none because, guess what, Allah does want Muslims to do these things to non-Muslims. Until they pay the jizya and feel themselves subdued.
Can you quote any scripture from the Koran that would make the killing, kidnapping, raping, enslaving and plundering of the kuffar unlawful stewpot?
@ Watson
You are making the claim so the burden is on you. If you disagree prove to everyone you are not a homosexual rapist. This should be easy Watson just give us something.
The koranic paradigm is that the prophet or warner goes to the unbelieving people and summons them to submit to Islam. This is never portrayed as a peaceful process in the Koran but as a judgement with violence inflicted as part of the judgement in the form of punishment. Allah has not constrained this punishment by any rules or regulations. It could take any shape or form. From a koranic point of view this confrontation is the perennial duty of the Ummah. This is a license for any kind of action that achieves the objective of removing all obstacles to the implementation of Sharia.
It is interesting that Mohammed himself failed to meet the criteria that he himself set up in the Koran by the historical examples of judgement that he gave. There were no miracles involved in his confrontation with the Meccans contrary to the confrontations of the earlier prophets or warners cited in the Koran and Mohammed depended solely on human power to engage with and oppose the unbelievers. If God was with him his judgement upon the Meccan polytheists should have been quick, decisive and supernatural by necessity because there was no other force available to him. Instead he was begging for years for the pagans in Mecca to change their ways without success. This proves that he was not a prophet according to the koranic examples of previous warners and destroyers of non-islamic civilizations.
Amazing.
Every word of what you just said was wrong.
@ Watson
Jesus (as) conquered Jerusalem riding a purple elephant while shooting fireballs from his eyes. See how easy it is to make claims? What are your sources?
Regarding your other arguments, as Paul noted there are just so many wrong things its hard to know where to start:
1. Prophets act as warners. Disbelievers such as yourself not listening are not the fault of the prophet. This point presented is actually a proof FOR Islam as prophets are not accepted by their people when they first arrive. The purpose of this is simply to establish proof against the people. Using your poor understanding, Moses(as) begged the Pharaoh and Jesus(as) begged the Jews.
2. We do not have a license to do anything necessary to implement Shariah we actually have a lot of constraints.
3. Muhammad(saw) did perform miracles they were mocking and weren’t really sincere so they rejected.
4. He was given the option to destroy them through supernatural means but asked for an extension (as they are still his family at the end of the day)
5. There are many prophets that did not use supernatural means to establish the Message on disbelievers and this is even referenced in the Quran:
How many Prophets have FOUGHT, with religious people at their side who never gave up? When they suffered in God’s Cause, they did not waver or degrade themselves because God loves those who remain patient and continue to persevere. (3:146)
Besides these many prophets not listed, other prophets who did not have supernatural destruction on evil nations but had fighting include:
Jesus(as), Moses(as), Aaron(as), Elijah(as), David(as), Solomon(as) and Samuel(as)
So this observation you made not reading the Quran is just plain incorrect.
6. Muhammad(saw) was not just sent to Arabia but humanity so these small insignificant disbelievers are nothing in the grand scheme. God doing completely supernatural means would not give an example for the rest of humanity for all time.
“Jesus (as) conquered Jerusalem riding a purple elephant while shooting fireballs from his eyes. See how easy it is to make claims? What are your sources?”
there is a reason why his name is erASSmus.
There is a verse which mentions angelic military force, can you recall, stew?
cant remember the ayah.
@ Mr. Heathcliff
Yes several:
Imran:
3:123. God had already given you victory at Badr when you were a weak little force. Therefore be god-fearing so that you can become thankful.
3:124. (Like) when you said to the believers: “Is it still not enough for you, if your Lord reinforces you by sending down three thousand angels?ā
3:125. If you remain patient and are god fearing, when the enemy comes down on top of you, yes, your Lord will reinforce you with five thousand angels with distinct marks.
3:126. Help only comes from God, the Almighty and Wise. God arranged this solely to make it good news for you, and to put your hearts at rest,
3:127. in order that He could cut down a side of the disbelievers or humiliate them, sending them away frustrated.
3:128. They are doing wrong, Ė¹butĖŗ whether God forgives or punishes them is not for you to decide.
3:129. Everything in the heavens and earth is Godās. He forgives whoever He wishes and punishes whoever He wishes; and God is Most Forgiving and forever merciful….
Iggy keeps proving why he is rightly called Ignoramus. Facts don’t matter to this specimen.
The Ontological argument is a good one, and Anslem made it from a Christian viewpoint – the most perfect is the Holy Trinity of the Bible – One God in essence, three in person, eternal existing in a pure and holy and love relationship.
God is Love. Islam cannot say that. The most perfect being is both Sovereign, the Creator of all things, Holy, Good, All Wise and All knowing, Pure and Love.
Since we have conceived of this most perfect being, through the revelation of the Scriptures, – it means that there had to be something outside of us that revealed this perfection to us – which points to the perfect revelation, the Bible, revealed to man – way before Islam.
@ Ken
How can you determine what we can and cannot say lol? Literally every attribute you mamed we posses in Islam.
Next, the Biblical text is far from perfect (even ignoring agreed corruptions) you still have issues of morality, practicaloty, contradictions and major theological issues.
Finally your sect is just a bunch of heretical Jews and thet can (and do) argue they “perfect revelation” before the NT.
Even Paul Williams had articles up on one of his websites over the years (there have been I think up to 4 different “blogging theologies” over the years where he deleted the whole web-site and started over, twice before the one that Ijaz took over by stealth.)
-even Paul had articles that showed that Islam cannot say “God is Love”. I have seen quotes from Islamic theologians that agree that they cannot say “God is Love”.
Therefore, the Allah of Islam is not a perfect being.
Only the Trinity of the Bible is a perfect being.
So, the Ontological argument points to the Holy Trinity as the true God.
Temple: -even Paul had articles that showed that Islam cannot say āGod is Loveā. I have seen quotes from Islamic theologians that agree that they cannot say āGod is Loveā. Therefore, the Allah of Islam is not a perfect being.
If God is unconditionally loving then he cannot be perfect since an unconditionally loving being must love evil unconditionally, and to love evil is immoral.
Actually Rabbinic and Pharisee Judaism that rejected Jesus as Messiah is the heretical sect of Jews. The true Jews are the Messianic ones. (Romans 2:28-29; Philippians 3:3)
Given the textual variants, the Bible is still perfect, essentially for “everything we need for life and godliness” (salvation, power for living life, power for holy living) (2 Peter 1:3-4; “all Scripture is God-breathed . . . to be equipped for every good work” – 2 Tim. 3:16-17), since no textual variant affects essential doctrine, since other verses combine to preserve the truth.
“I have seen quotes from Islamic theologians that agree that they cannot say āGod is Loveā.
Therefore, the Allah of Islam is not a perfect being.
Only the Trinity of the Bible is a perfect being.
So, the Ontological argument points to the Holy Trinity as the true God.”
the pagan triplets you worship are single entities, is each love?
@ Ken
Without seeing these articles in context I assume they are saying He is not “love” in the generic sense. For example, we understand God has the attribute of anger but it is inappropriate to say:
“God is anger”
God clearly refrences Himself in Islam as Al Wadood (The Loving)
https://youtu.be/TbOad0Cppw0
And so this defeats your entire premise. But you should already know this as this has been explained to you before.
Moving on, the Trinity is a contradicting hot mess made by pagans to justify worshipping a human. Also quoting the NT to defend your heresy is not evidence it would be like how you don’t accept me quoting the Quran it is the same for the Jews towards the NT. You’re all heretics to me but the childish argument you have attempted to use of “who came first” can EASILY be applied to your sect and as far as the Jews are concerned they have everything they need (which as a neutral observer is true) Your heresy really added nothing new to the Jewish faith accept more overt paganism.
Finally as I didn’t want to go on tangents the variants do affect major doctrine and show a clear attempt to strengthen said heresy. Couple this with the fact that the Jews (who you blindly follow) ADMIT they changed their text this is a slam dunk for us. But again this is irrelevant because as I said earlier you still have issues of morality, contradictions, practicality and major theological plot holes that your textual corruption is in reality just icing on the cake.
āGod is Loveā.”
is the father love?
“God is Love. Islam cannot say that.”
is the father love?
The concept of a “godman” falls into the category of married bachelor.
Not when you understand the doctrine of the Trinity and the incarnation properly.
The eternal Son became a human.
John 17:5 – the Son was always with the Father in eternity past. John 1:1 also.
The Father did not become human.
Even the Qur’an calls Jesus “the Word” – kalimat allah
Ś©ŁŁ Ł Ų§ŁŁŁ
“The eternal Son became a human.
John 17:5 ā the Son was always with the Father in eternity past. John 1:1 also.
The Father did not become human.”
your god exists as is….is not….is…..is not….is sent…..is not sent…..
is parent….is parented….is….is not…..is…..is not…….is three…….is not the other…..is is not….
“Even the Qurāan calls Jesus āthe Wordā ā kalimat allah”
so you worship words as well?
āit is a plurality of persons not beingsā
they do worship beings though.
the son does not have all the properties of the triune being, yet he is “fully god”
so he is a BEING which is not IDENTICAL to the triune being.
“One God in essence, ”
what is that? same ingredients? u worship “one ingredient” ?
“three in person, ”
the father exists as father, he does not knw how it is to be the son and vice versa
the ghost is neutered, he cannot beget more
“eternal existing in a pure and holy and love relationship.”
so ken worships THREE -non-identicals
essence
Relationship
and each is dependant on the love from the other, otherwise trinity collapses.
polytheism
you r a polythiest
No; since there is only one God.
Mark 12:29
1 Cor. 8:6
1 Tim. 2:5-6
Genesis 1-2
Deut. 6:4-6
no, but a polytheist like you believes in 3 who are not each other and have their own job roles, by ALLAH you are a polytheist.
you cannot conflate or confuse 1 with three. you know in your heart you worship three different things who are all aware of each other.
polytheist!
No.
deny all you like, but you worship three gods .
think about it like this.
if your father, you and grandfather were one human being, then that one human being would cause you three to take one action, but in trinity each is different from the other and has co-equal powers. the “one being” cannot “unitarianize” or “singularize” them.
do you see now why you are a polytheist?
even craig understood this, thats why he reduced jesus and the other two to parts.
Your premise is wrong and illogical, since a father and son and grandfather cannot be “one human being” – illogical and goofy argument.
you stepped into it again.
“Your premise is wrong and illogical, since a father and son and grandfather cannot be āone human beingā ā illogical and goofy argument.”
yet father is co-equal to his son and has the same age?
saying that son is one being
and father is same one being
then it is no different than saying
grandfather and father are one being.
why is one illogical, but your belief logical?
@ Ken
“Your premise is wrong and illogical, since a father and son and grandfather cannot be āone human beingā
Agreed.
Just lke how a Father cannot be His own Son. And a Son cannot be his own Dad.
That is why there is a distinction between the categories of essence / being and person.
The Father is not the Son, agreed.
The NT is full of the Father – Son distinction and also of the One, same essence/ nature Ų°Ų§ŲŖ Ų Ų¬ŁŁŲ± of Yahwheh / God.
every time father difers from son, then you pagans change the argument, you say that they “share…..”
because you need to keep that SEPARATION alive, otherwise you make them ONE being like
granfather
father
and son = 1 human being.
so it is a game of changing the argument
how many times have you heard idotic crosstians at hyde park say that they are the “same in every way” is just like saying that the “one human being” merges the THREE persons, father, grandfather and son.
“The NT is full of the Father ā Son distinction and also of the One, same essence/ nature Ų°Ų§ŲŖ Ų Ų¬ŁŁŲ± of Yahwheh / God.”
2 distinct gods which share the same powers.
why don’t you agree that you are a polytheist?
@Ken Temple
The fact of the matter is the trinity is polytheism and idolatry not by our standards but by you’re own. we are often told that the trinity is not polytheism because “it is a plurality of persons not beings” however you believe jesus(a.s) had two natures. now unless i’ve misunderstood something, or you’re somehow able to distinguish nature from being, i’d say this fulfills the requirements of polytheism.
As for Idolatry, because the human and divine natures cannot be separated when you worship the second person of the trinity you HAVE to give worship to the human nature as well. anything less would be separating the natures in your mind.
But it is the Divine nature that is worthy of worship, because in eternity past, the Word (John 1:1-5; John 17:5) was fully God and still is fully God. That He added to Himself a human nature (John 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8) does not mean we also worship a human nature. Estaqfr’allah Ų§Ų³ŲŖŲŗŁŲ±Ų§ŁŁŁ
@Ken Temple
“But it is the Divine nature that is worthy of worship, because in eternity past, the Word (John 1:1-5; John 17:5) was fully God and still is fully God. That He added to Himself a human nature (John 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8) does not mean we also worship a human nature. Estaqfrāallah Ų§Ų³ŲŖŲŗŁŲ±Ų§ŁŁŁ”
Then let me ask you, what does the human nature of the “godman” do when jesus(a.s) receives worship? Also i don’t feel you addressed my other accusation. If jesus(a.s) has two natures that you worship, is the trinitarian formula then no longer “3 persons 1 being” but instead “3 persons 2 natures/beings” and thus polytheism?
No, because the human nature does not receive worship.
The human nature in Jesus does not “do” anything.
@Ken Temple
“No, because the human nature does not receive worship.”
Okay so you separate the human nature from the divine nature when you worship the second person of the trinity. got it.
“The human nature in Jesus does not ādoā anything.”
That’s actually my point and what i’ve been getting at. Since i’m bad at explaining i’ll try being more thorough so you can understand my contentions. The second person of the trinity, the son, has two natures. Fully human and fully divine. These natures are distinct, not mixed, and unified in the person jesus christ(a.s).
These natures cannot be separated. What that should mean is that you cannot pick and choose which nature you want to experience your actions toward the person of jesus christ(a.s). For example,if you were to say hi to the “godman” you could not pick which nature to say hi too. you just say hi to the person and by extension his nature(s). Similarly, if you want to worship jesus you by extension, worship the natures attached to him. saying you pick the divine nature to worship but not the human sounds like to me separating the natures. It’d be like saying the “godman” stops being human when you worship him.
Do you see where i’m coming from now?
“What that should mean is that you cannot pick and choose which nature you want to experience your actions toward the person of jesus christ(a.s). For example,if you were to say hi to the āgodmanā you could not pick which nature to say hi too. you just say hi to the person and by extension his nature(s).”
simple mathematcis
x = y and z
x is ALWAYS divine
what christians do is SEPARATE x from y and plug it into z making y “personless”
my argument is that xy and xz are not two but one CONSCIOUSNESS.
so it is clear that the CONSCIOUSNESS OF THEIR gOD does mix with human consciousness
this is 100 % blasphemy and polytheism
“Your premise is wrong and illogical, since a father and son and grandfather cannot be āone human beingā ā illogical and goofy argument.”
i said
grandfather
father
and son = 1 human being
ken temple said
since a father and son and grandfather cannot be āone human beingā
my question :
do you worship three beings then?
since three DIFFERENT persons cannot be one being.
Stew:
Explain the differences between
wadood
ŁŲÆŁŲÆ
Mohabat / hobb
Ł ŲŲŖŁ Ł ŲŲØ
Eshq
Ų¹Ų“Ł
@ Ken
Explained on the video
Mohabat / hobb
Ł ŲŲŖŁ Ł ŲŲØ
Generic type and can be used for anything. Used frequently in romantic poetry and carries a sexual connotation
Eshq
Ų¹Ų“Ł
Irresistible desire to get the one sought after. It is a passionate love that blinds the person to the faults of the one they want to be with. Obviously carries a sexual connotation and is more akin to lust.
wadood
ŁŲÆŁŲÆ
Special type of love. Often used for a mother with her child. Unlike the previous versions this type of love is selfless. Its a nurturing love in which you want to genuinely benefit and be in the other person’s company. Muhabbat is what is in the heart, wadood is what is shown through action. Al Wadood is loved and shows it back. No sexual nature is involved.
“The NT is full of the Father ā Son distinction and also of the One, same essence/ nature Ų°Ų§ŲŖ Ų Ų¬ŁŁŲ± of Yahwheh / God.”
Yea…no normal human knows what that means.
Simpler answer? People went to the extreme in venerating a righteous person.
If the Son is not the Father cool so they can’t both be God then Ken. Worship the one Jesus(as) worshipped not the creation.
Boom! Kenny gets nuked yet again!
Quick note after thinking about it lust may have been too strong a word. I think infatuation is more appropriate.
There is debate even among Arabic linguistic scholars of the nuances of the words and there is always the principle of depends on the context. The Sufis use Eshq for God’s love, etc. – so it is not “cut and dried” as your explanation indicates.
The pre-existence and Deity of the Word / Son is clear – John 1:1-5; 1:14-18; 17:5; Philippians 2:5-8; Hebrews 1:3, 6, 8; Revelation 5:13-14.
It is His Deity that is worshiped, not His humanity, in Jesus Christ.
That is why Reformed Protestants object to the Roman Catholic and Orthodox views of icons and praying to saints – 2nd Nicean council in 787 AD – they “venerate” holy people / saints / heroes of the faith because of Christ as one Divine Person was and is worshipped; and they wrongly take sanctification and glorification in heaven as “deification”. that is why most Protestant, especially Reformed Protestants, reject icons and statues in the context of worship. It was confusing for early Muslims to see the large icons and statues and emphasis on Mary, etc. That problem even caused the author (s) of the Qur’an to think the Trinity was Father, Son, and Mother (5:72-78; 5:116; 6:101; 112)
@ Ken
And why do I care what ignorant Sufis say? Lets get Jehovah Witness commentary on the Bible then.
Them using the word Eshq in Arabic (idk about Turkish or Urdu) is inappropriate as it has to do with infatuation so they are literally saying they are in love with God n classical Arabic.
These terms are very distinct from one another. Just accept you made a mistake and were incorrect in saying Islam doesn’t have a concept of God being loving like a parent or God having a loving nature. It’s okay to make a mistake its not okay to defend it.
Finally I guess you must think I have never interacted with Christians before:
1. MANY Christian sects accuse Catholics and Roman Catholics as worshipping the Saints. (My grandma was one)
2. As has been established that you are ignorant of the Quran I am now challenging you to show the verse where it says Mary is in the Trinity. Hint its verse 5:115
3. From an Islamic standpoint praying TO someone is worshipping them. Catholics and Roman Catholics pray TO the saints and Mary. (If you would like me to bring you some of their prayers I can) and this is OBVIOUSLY what is being condemned in the verse’s context. Please see Mary as the “Mother of God” or “Co-Redemptrix”
4. Please prove their are multiple authors in the Quran. Just talking from a literary standpoint the author has the same style throughout so what scholarly work do you have to prove your assertion?
https://mobile.twitter.com/KhalilAndani/status/1126866684869058565
ken, why does your belief in jesus make u a hypocrite? you repeat your lies every year. have you no shame?
since the write is an ismaeeli, i asked brother shibli zaman, he.confirmed that
“ITS A VERY INTIMATE TERM linguisticly that suggests more than just mercy but mercy stemming from a deep love”
ken temple, why does blood of jesus make u hypocrite?
Quote:
Thread for #ttquran w/
@islamoyankee
: Metaphysics of āal-Rahmanā; word is from Rahma which means āloving compassionā & not merely āmercyā. Polemicists who say God of Quran doesnāt bestow unconditional love consider this. Prophet likened Rahma to motherly love (quote Shah-Kazemi):
ken temple, why the sickening and disgusting lies?
“That is why there is a distinction between the categories of essence / being and person.
The Father is not the Son, agreed.”
so they are not one being, agree.
“The NT is full of the Father ā Son distinction and also of the One, same essence/ nature Ų°Ų§ŲŖ Ų Ų¬ŁŁŲ± of Yahwheh / God.”
yes, POLYTHEISM!
thanks.
no.
Truth.
three distinct gods. polytheist.
the experience the son has as son, the father does not have. POLYYYYYYTHIEST!!!!!!
No.
One God
in three eternal persons.
“But it is the Divine nature that is worthy of worship, because in eternity past, the Word (John 1:1-5; John 17:5) was fully God and still is fully God”
but the word became “god-man”
“god-man” and “the word” are identical.
you are a polytheist.
okay, are “god-man” and “the word” identical
haha
“One God
in three eternal persons.”
three, three, three. one + one + one = THREE.
each identified as “fully god”
polytheist.
you worship 3 beings who are not each other and perform different roles and when jesus does something, he knows that the father is not doing the same thing. two pagan gods.
“No, because the human nature does not receive worship.
The human nature in Jesus does not ādoā anything.”
but you crosstians relate to the “human nature” and “the word” became “god-man,” they are not two, but one.
“The human nature in Jesus does not ādoā anything.”
the human person is fully conscious that it is a human . the divine person is fully conscious that it shares in the same consciousness as the human person. you WORSHIP BOTH united persons because they are one, not two.
jesus the word = human nature and divine nature
you said “human nature does not do anything”
this means you made jesus into a meat puppet
since you have “jesus the word” THROUGH “divine nature” IN human nature, but “human nature” does nothing, so jesus the man DID NOT REALLY exist.
“It is His Deity that is worshiped, not His humanity, in Jesus Christ.”
dear pagan, “god the word” BECAME “god-man”
BOTH ARE IDENTICAL, unless you believe that “god-man” and “god the word” are TWO different gods.
Al-Ghazali explained love is an Attribute of Allah. He loves everyone in a general sense (i.e. giving them time to repent) and reserves specific love/mercy for believers.
https://mobile.twitter.com/AbuAminaElias/status/1175323958817820672/photo/1
ken temple,
@ Saffiyaah
1. Could care less what a bunch of deviants (who actually are considered kuffar by pretty much any scholar in existence) calls me. We are not the same and they are not “my people” as far as I’m concerned there no different than the rest of you and maybe worst.
2. As QB mentioned you are the one who brought up zombies. Performing CPR is not the same as a miracle of resurrection. As Atlas said there were dead saints in a grave and they rose from the dead and walked around. Also as Atlas said man you sure seem to care a lot about what nonsense “Matt” says happened at Jesus’s(as) alleged resurrection.
3. “Muslims are the stupid not the kaffir”
No, you are the stupid one because “the stupid” is grammatically incorrect and the plural is not “kaffir” its “kuffar”.
4. As we explained to the one atheist, oh Christian zombie quoting what a few people do randomly in the world without knowledge is not evidence. If that’s the case all Christians live with dead corpses in their homes:
“An ethnic group indigeĀnous to the mountainous Pangala region of Indonesiaās South Sulawesi, about 800km northeast of Bali, the Toraja are nominally Christian ā mostly protesĀtant, but also Catholic ā thanks to the influence of Dutch colonial missionaries. But they learn from a young age to accept death as part of lifeās journey, and when a family member passes away, in accordance with their traditional religion ā Aluk To Dolo (āway of the ancestorsā), WHICH SITS SURPRISINGLY COMFORTABLY ALONGSIDE CHRISTIANITYā they are treated as if they are sick (toma kula). Food, water and even cigarettes are offered to the toma kula on a daily basis, because it is believed the spirit remains near the body and craves care.”
https://www.scmp.com/magazines/post-magazine/long-reads/article/2115027/living-corpses-how-indonesias-toraja-people-deal
“In the time between a person’s death and their burial, verses from the Bible are read daily, while the corpse is preserved ā and eventually mummified ā with a solution of formaldehyde and water.”
https://allthatsinteresting.com/toraja-death-ritual
Pretty stupid to say that right? Well, that’s the equivalent of what you just quoted to us.
4. Become a Muslim
safiya,joel, robert , bitch
are you male or she-male or fully b*tch and fully she-male?
quote :
Do you agree that the words SOMA and EGEIRO are indicative that Jesusā resurrection is meant to be literal? If so, then why not say the same of the use of those words in Matthew 27:52-53?
joel,safiya, robert bitch, did dead saints “soma” and “egeiro” ?
Since the Bible clearly says there is only one God, no matter how you try to justify what you donāt like about the doctrine of the Trinity, all your attempts fail because of the fact that within the doctrine of the Trinity is the truth that there is only one God .
After eagerly awaiting your reply to the questions given to you i must say i’m disappointed. your preaching can be easily rewritten to support…well anything. for example-
” Since the Bible clearly says there is only one God, no matter how you try to justify the doctrine of the Trinity, all your attempts fail because of the fact that within the doctrine of the Trinity is the truth that there is more than one God.”
Translation of Temple’s response: I don’t know how to respond to Vaqas’ excellent points but I will still cling to the trinity doctrine despite having no logical or even Biblical evidence for it.
āMr.heathcliffā made so many crazy comments, that clutter the thread, and a couple days gone by, I lost track of your questions.
I meant questions in general not just mine. Because with all due respect Ken, resorting to preaching in response to an argument or question just looks bad.
“only one God”
but this is not true, you clearly worship a list of beings. in other words you worship a list. 3 ones.
3 ones who do their own roles.
three.
relationships
3 ones
role players
idolatry.
And [beware the Day] when Allah will say, “O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, ‘Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah ?'” He will say, “Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen.
Surah 5:116
And surah 5:72-78
They have certainly disbelieved who say, ” Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary” while the Messiah has said, “O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.” Indeed, he who associates others with Allah – Allah has forbidden him Paradise, and his refuge is the Fire. And there are not for the wrongdoers any helpers.
They have certainly disbelieved who say, ” Allah is the third of three.” And there is no god except one God. And if they do not desist from what they are saying, there will surely afflict the disbelievers among them a painful punishment.
So will they not repent to Allah and seek His forgiveness? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food. Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded.
Say, “Do you worship besides Allah that which holds for you no [power of] harm or benefit while it is Allah who is the Hearing, the Knowing?”
Say, “O People of the Scripture, do not exceed limits in your religion beyond the truth and do not follow the inclinations of a people who had gone astray before and misled many and have strayed from the soundness of the way.”
With 4:171
O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, “Three”; desist – it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs.
And 6:101
[He is] Originator of the heavens and the earth. How could He have a son when He does not have a companion and He created all things? And He is, of all things, Knowing.
Clearly show the Quran thought Mary was one of the Trinity.
retarded pagan, i cant see what you are seeing. How does it show that mary was one of….?
Why I donāt interact much with mr.heathcliff
after ur insult “CRAZY COMMENTS”
Dr. White proved my point His debate with Bassam Zawadi
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8pQLzCJDdQs
Then you should go and look up in a dictionary what “to prove” means since you got it backwards.
All jimmy did was whine like you and had NO SHRED of evidence to show that it’s talking about the trinity. You were asked to prove it and you couldn’t just like jimmy couldn’t. Nowhere does it say trinity. Nowhere. When you can actually provide evidence then we’ll talk. But you’ll just come up with the same old boring “arguments”.
Get over yourself.
It does not have to use the word for Trinity to know that is what they were talking about; it is obvious when it says, “Did I say take Me and mother as two gods besides Allah?” (5:116) and then later “Jesus and his mother both ate food” (ie, they are not gods) and “worship only one god” and “say not three” and “God cannot have a son because there is no wife for Him”. The combination of all of it proves that the author of the Qur’an did not understand the doctrine and did not know – He was ignorant. It is just a human book; not inspired at all.
No, Dr. White actually decimated Bassam’s arguments.
You see the lies are just so overwhelming you just can’t help yourself.
I asked you to show me where it says trinity and you didn’t cus you can’t since there is ZERO evidence for it.
All the verses say is “don’t say three, there is only one God” which rejects tri-ism of any kind including your pagan doctrine of the trinity. And when it talkas about Mary and Jesus being deified in other verses, it only denies their deification and NO MENTION of the trinity is made in those verses. NONE. NADA. NETSJIVO. TSHACHOOM. NUL DE BALLEN. NIKS.
Poor kenny. Jimmy got slapped around and all he could say is repeat the same boring trash ‘It says jesus and mary and Allah and bam bam boom that magically proves the Qur’an got the trinity wrong’.
Pathetic.
@ Atlas
Agreed, I mean I find it hilarious how not ONE classical, medieval or modern scholar is quoted to prove their argument. Just what Jimmy “feels” the text is saying. But what do you expect from people who don’t even know how to read their own text?
Exactly!!!
I mean they’ll just look you straight in the face and say jesus is God Almighty, the All Knowing. All the while LYING through their teeth about verses such as those that clearly state he didn’t know the Hour (which also include the HS btw and then) and then come up with some REDICLOUS nonsense about ‘o the human nature blablabla and also blablabla and of course blablablablabla ans do he is still God’ (where they jump to the God ‘nature’ and ignore the human ‘nature’ whenever it’s convenient) and where he denies being good and attributes that ONLY to God. And then these pagans come and try and bring our Qur’an down to that level.
As for his pathetic attempts like little jimmy to argue that some of what is in the Qur’an is found in non-Biblical sources I find just as ridiculous. As if we care whether THEY think their bible is end all, be all scripture and all the other attempts at making up scripture like the apocria and gnostics. Their all corrupt frankenstians. The bible is not much different. It too is a frankenstein made up of fake letters, poems, songs, authobiographies by unknown authors, documents written by those wo lie about their identity, etc etc.
We have no problem with there being similarities with things for example found in the Talmud since the Talmud is not only MASSIVE and talks about religious matters of the pas but comes from a people (ie. the Jews) who were give a scripture before us. This of course doesn’t validate the Talmud as a whole just like it doesn’t validate the Bible as a whole. It only makes sense statistically speaking for a God how gave a scripture to previous people, to have events discribed which are found in later scriptures. What are the chances of NOT finding something similar with that of the Qur’an in the Talmud? Purely from a statistically point of view: next to zero.
There is absolutly no problem there.
And the funny thing is that their comicbook itself has, not just similarities, but downright copy pastes from apocryphal sources. Like Jude quoting Enoch.
@ Atlas
Yea I never understood that argument either. I mean their books are such a joke that ANY of these issues was enough to end the discussion. I mean its funny because he’s complaining about the average Muslim not understanding Christianity litfle does he know the MORE you study it the more appalled Muslims become. The average Muslim thinks Jesus(as) wrote the NT and there was some slight changes not analysis to write VOLUMES of books shredding the fanfiction apart. When I explain what the text is people’s mouths usually drop.
You know that shamoun is CONSTANTLY watching this blog like an eagle. Lol!!!
Br Paul put up a post about Luke’s position: “Jesusā death does not bring atonement for sin.”
And then you see shamoun posting his trashticles on facebook. I make a comment just now about Jesus and HS clearly not being God and like 10-15 min later he posts something about Jesus and HS being God and he is going to answer it on yt or something.
Lol the guy is obsessed!
@ Atlas
Since he’s watching so bad why doesn’t he post a response article to QB’s shredding about the Temple or rabbits not being ruminants since he’s got so much time on his hands.
Cus he can’t take losses very well.
3. From an Islamic standpoint praying TO someone is worshipping them. Catholics and Roman Catholics pray TO the saints and Mary. (If you would like me to bring you some of their prayers I can) and this is OBVIOUSLY what is being condemned in the verseās context. Please see Mary as the āMother of Godā or āCo-redemptrix
Yes, That is one of the primary disagreements that protestants like me have with Roman Catholics and the eastern orthodox , and that is also why we believe that it was the church or churches at the time of Mohammed that started to over exalt Mary that gave mom in the wrong impression of what Maryās role is in the Bible and what the doctor of the Trinity means and why the incarnation means.
they gave a bad witness .
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2009/08/church-converted-into-mosque.html
the church or churches at the time of Mohammed that started to over exalt Mary that gave Mohammad and the Arabs the wrong impression of what Maryās role is in the Bible and what the doctrine of the Trinity means and what the incarnation means.
even if your pagan version of trinity was widespread in 7th century arabia people wpuld have seen it for the polytheism that it is.
surah iqlas clearly is a rebuttal to the pagan trinity
Notice how the quran cleverly says “say not three”
seems like just this sentence is addressing all the VERSIONS of this pagan doctrine
2. When Muslims see Roman Catholics and other eastern Orthodox groups praying to Mary and bowing before statues, that is idolatry to them and they see the Popes also in modern times doing the same think. They donāt care about distinctions. There are some famous pictures of John Paul II bowing before a giant Mary statue and the current Pope Benedict XVI praying with hands spread out in front of a giant Mary statue. There is no difference in the Muslims mind.
Because the Qurāan says the Trinity is Father, Son, and Mother, that is what they think our doctrine of the Trinity is.
Therefore, Roman Catholics and Orthodox should stop the Marian practices of devotion and dulia and hyperdulia and repent of the Marian dogmas, which are false doctrine and ātraditions of menā. (Matthew 15; Mark 7; Colossians 2:8
3. See what Ibn Kathir, one of the most important commentaries on the Quran in all of Muslim history says:
Ismail ibn Kathir (Arabic: Ų§ŲØŁ ŁŲ«ŁŲ±ā) (1301ā1373 AD) was an Islamic scholar and renowned commentator on the Qur’an.
If you study Inb Kathirās commentary (Tafsir) on the Qurāan, (see the link below), he lumps all of the Christian groups together. The Monarchites are the Melkites (meaning those that follow the king, the Monarch, meaning the Byzantine Emperor in Constantinople and the Chalcedonain Creed. He includes the Monophysites (Jacobite Syrians & Coptic church) and the Nestorians (church of the east in Syria and Mesopotamia and which spread out in missionary outreach along the silk road all the way to China. They were pretty much wiped out first by the Seljuk Turks and then completely by the Mongols under Gengis Khan and Timor Lang ( known in the west as Tamerlane.)
Muslims donāt care much about the differences in the Christian groups. It is too much to copy onto this combox, but read through the whole thing and you will see that he talks about the Christians, their monks, their priests, the ascetics who castrated themselves ( Like Origen, and Simon Stylitis, who lived on top of a pillar/column for many years.) The Muslims like their humility when contrasting with the Jews, but think that Monastisim and giving up marriage is ridiculous.
In the commentary, all the passages about Christians, the Chalcedonians (Orthodox/Melchites/Maronites/Monarchites) and the Monophysites and the Nestorians are all lumped together as āChristiansā. There is no doubt that Marian devotion, prayers to her and bowing before statues and icons, and later the Marian dogmas are indications for Muslims that the āChristians worship three godsā.
http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=5&tid=14362
The Disbelief of the Christians; `Isa Only called to Tawhid
Allah states that the Christians such sects as Monarchite, Jacobite and Nestorite are disbelievers, those among them who say that `Isa is Allah. Allah is far holier than what they attribute to Him. They made this claim in spite of the fact that `Isa made it known that he was the servant of Allah and His Messenger. The first words that `Isa uttered when he was still a baby in the cradle were, “I am `Abdullah (the servant of Allah).” He did not say, “I am Allah,” or, “I am the son of Allah.” Rather, he said,
[Ų„ŁŁŁŁŁ Ų¹ŁŲØŁŲÆŁ Ų§ŁŁŁŁŁŁ Ų”ŁŲ§ŲŖŁŲ§ŁŁŁŁ Ų§ŁŁŁŁŲŖŁŁŲØŁ ŁŁŲ¬ŁŲ¹ŁŁŁŁŁŁ ŁŁŲØŁŁŁŲ§Ł]
Later . . .
Allah will also speak to His servant and Messenger, `Isa son of Maryam, peace be upon him, saying to him on the Day of Resurrection in the presence of those who worshipped `Isa and his mother as gods besides Allah,
[ŁŲ¹ŁŁŲ³ŁŁ Ų§ŲØŁŁŁ Ł ŁŲ±ŁŁŁŁ Ł Ų£ŁŲ”ŁŁŲŖŁ ŁŁŁŲŖŁ ŁŁŁŁŁŁŲ§Ų³Ł Ų§ŲŖŁŁŲ®ŁŲ°ŁŁŁŁŁ ŁŁŲ£ŁŁ ŁŁŁŁ Ų„ŁŁŁŁŁŁŁŁŁŁ Ł ŁŁ ŲÆŁŁŁŁ Ų§ŁŁŁŁŁŁ]
(O `Isa, son of Maryam! Did you say unto men: `Worship me and my mother as two gods besides Allah’) This is a threat and a warning to Christians, chastising them in public, as Qatadah and others said, and Qatadah mentioned this Ayah as evidence, . . .
”
Muslims donāt care much about the differences in the Christian groups. I
”
you are all idolatrous pagans including the unitarian pagans who worship a jew.
i dont see any differences in the idolatrous practices of different sects of hinduism and christianity.
@ mr. heathcliff
Basically.
(((Because the Qurāan says the Trinity is Father, Son, and Mother, that is what they think our doctrine of the Trinity is.)))
And once you can show proof we’ll accept it. You don’t have it. It ONLY mentions the deification of mary and jesus.
No one here cares about your whining ‘o but there are three mentioned, so there!’. What kinda proof is this?
A joke.
You guys are basing your argument on the fact that the Qur’an does not use the specific word, “Trinity”. The author of the Qur’an obviously does not know about 600 years of church history. He is saying things ignorantly – they (Mohammad and the Arabs and compilers of the Qur’an, Uthman burning all the older copies, etc. – most of the evidence of earlier texts was destroyed). It is obvious that he did not know what he is talking about. They saw the icons and statues and emphasis on Mary, saw the Christians of that day praying to Mary, etc. and heard a word that has as it’s roots “three” in it (“say not three”; “allah is not the 3rd of 3”, etc.) – it is obvious that the author or compilers (frankenstein book – cobbled together from Legends, apocryphal stories of heretics that were exiled to the deserts of N. Arabia, today’s area of Jordan, areas in Syria and Palestine, etc. – cobbled together with Jewish Midrash – They (Muhammad and the Arabs) were ignorant, both of the Bible and church history and doctrinal history. All of those verses together prove that the Qur’an wrongly thought that the Trinity was Father, Son, and Mother. From Surah 19:88-92, it is obvious that 6:101 and Surah 112 is speaking against the Sonship of Christ, and that the early Muslims wrongly thought that the Christians were saying God had sex with Mary – Estaqfr’allah !
Ų§Ų³ŲŖŲŗŁŲ±Ų§ŁŁŁ
It is obvious that the Qur’an thought the Trinity was God, Son Jesus, and Mary – 5:116; 5:72-78; 6:101; 19:88-92; 112; 4:171
The cumulative effect of all these together is clear.
((((You guys are basing your argument on the fact that the Qurāan does not use the specific word, āTrinityā.)))
Nop. We are also basing it on the fact that there is no attempt to try and define even the concept itself.
((((It is obvious that he did not know what he is talking about.)))
No it’s not. This is just your wishful thinking kicking it cus that’s what you want it to be just so you can find an error. You continu to make up stuff over and over again like ‘o he saw this statue and he got the idea that blablabla’ where is the evidence??? Where does it say ANY of that? Nowhere and you know it. You call that objective analysis? “Liberal” scholars use WAAAAYYYY less wishful thinking than that and when that is presented to rip apart your Frankenstein book made up of unkown authors, authors lying about their identity, authors wripping things out of context from the OT, authors just completly editing from previous documents like ‘Matthew’ editing Mark, etc etc… you reject it by crying “LIBERAL SCHOLARS”.
You whine for much less and here you are making stuff up and all you have to show for it is “O it’s obiously this and obviously that and obviously he saw this statue and obviously he then thought this and obviously yadayadayada”.
The Qur’an is clear on this issue.
The verses talking about ‘three’ reject all your pagan trash including your false pagan Greek/Roman trinity. Get over it. It’s ALL idolatry. ALL of it. You verbal gymnastics with your pathetic “o it’s person, o that is a being and o that is a a a a a nature and and and he has two of them and so aaaam…. well he is god, there!”. And we have to hear from such pagans about what monotheism is??? What a joke.
The Qur’an doesn’t care about what you say the bible is. It is no different then the other so called scriptures that you reject like the apocrophal documents.
Jude quotes from the book of Enoch and yet you swallow that. No problem there, hallelujah!
So let me repeat this again: verses mentioning ‘three’ denies all tri-isms, icluding your pagan trinity.
The verses about Jesus denying himself and his mother to be God are JUST THAT: denial of their divinity.
And no matter how much you try, you’ll never be able to show otherwise since none of the crap you claim is anywhere in the Qur’an.
And you keep showing what kinda wicked, deceptive snake you are by not only repeating this while having no evidence to back it up but also bring up Q 6:101. That’s talking about pagans. Sure xtians are pagans too but this is talking about other pagans. Have xtians gone so low that they even belong to this group which is mentioned in the verse just before it:
Q 6:100 “But they have attributed to Allah partners – the jinn, while He has created them – and have fabricated for Him sons and daughters. Exalted is He and high above what they describe”
So you worship jinn too now? Congrats!
@ Atlas
You are on fire today.
((((are indications for Muslims that the āChristians worship three godsā))))
You DO worship three gods no matter how many times you deny it. The Qur’an doesn’t care in this case about what you think you worship but what you actually worship.
Jesus and mary are deified whether you believe it or not. Trinitarians have deified Jesus when he wasn’t whether YOU think that’s not the case is irrelevant to the what the Qur’an says.
Just like a you won’t change your mind about catholics going overboard with their devotion to Mary even if they think they’re not.
The Qur’an says “don’t say three” period. Whether it’s Father, Son and the Mother or Father, Son and HS or Father, Son and Mary or whatever made up pagan nonsense from the Greek/Roman world. You’re ALL idolaters.
Repent Ken.
I already have repented. Mark 1:15; Acts 17:30-31
you are the one who needs to repent.
“In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.ā Acts 17:30-31
@ Atlas
Couldn’t have summed it up better myself.
@ Ken
Ahhhhhhā¦ so you DO understand then what is being criticized. Do you see why everyone here calls you either a liar or deceitful? You purposely knew what Christians have done for the majority of their existence (sorry to break it to you but your āProtestantā sect are just new deviants on the block) but then STILL made the lame claim that the Quran is saying Mary(as) is in the Trinity. I just like to point these things out so you understand why this happens to you.
Anyways not ONE of these texts say Mary is in the Trinity you have engaged in a fallacy called āreading in between the linesā and as shown previously have poor reading comprehension (which is why you canāt quote ANY scholar saying Mary is supposed to be in the Trinity in these verses mentioned and can ONLY quote Shamoun).
6:101
Not even talking about Christians
4:171
Has nothing to do with Mary being in the Trinity period. God is saying Jesus was a soul created that was placed into Mary, so donāt do to the extreme in worshipping a Messenger and stop saying God is a ātrinityā.
5:72
Again saying stop calling God a Trinity, God praises Jesus saying he was a prophet his mother was righteous
5:116
As noted you are already familiar with Christians over veneration of Mary and this really explains all the other passages.
Since you apparently want some deep philosophical crap about the Trinity Iāll keep this REAL simple is God wrong when He says that pagan idols are gold and wood when they in reality have much more complex systems and theology regarding their religion?
Finally yes you are correct (especially in the Middle Ages) we really donāt care about your deviant sects as they will all be in Hell the gist of idolatry is the same just minor nuances that have no defined methodology of evidence other than this is how I feel the Holy Spirit is guiding me which has always plagued Christendom.
4:171
Has nothing to do with Mary being in the Trinity period.
Yes it does since 5:116 and 5:72-78 and 6:101 and 112 and 19:88-92 indicate so.
God is saying Jesus was a soul created that was placed into Mary, so donāt do to the extreme in worshipping a Messenger and stop saying God is a ātrinityā.
see, you proved my point.
5:72
Again saying stop calling God a Trinity,
see, it is obvious what the Qur’an thought the Trinity was, along with 5:116; 6:101; 112; 19:88-92; 5:72-78 – you proved my point again.
God praises Jesus saying he was a prophet his mother was righteous
5:116
As noted you are already familiar with Christians over veneration of Mary and this really explains all the other passages.
Since the Qur’an nowhere mentions a proper understanding of the Holy Spirit – according to the NT and according to church history, which the Allah of the Qur’an is ignorant of, which proves he did not inspire that book; – and since it puts Mary together with God the Father and Jesus in 5:116; and since the Qur’an nowhere understands the One God in substance / nature/ essence and yet three in persons; it is obvious that it mistakenly thought that Mary was a part of the Trinity. Also the Qur’an is ignorant of what Christians meant by “Jesus is the Son of God” in the NT and 600 years of church history (112; 6:101; 19:88-92) – this also proves the massive ignorance of the Qur’an.
@ Ken
Because you are ignorant not the Quran let’s go one verse at a time I said 6:101 is not talking to Christians, not 4:171. So thank you again for proving my point about your poor reading skills. Besides being a liar and arrogant this is easily your next biggest problem. So once again 6:101 has NOTHING to do with Christianity. Do you agree so we can move on to your next claim?
No; it is the same thing basically as Surah 19:88-92 and Surah 112. It is against their ignorant and misunderstanding of the Christian faith and the Father and the Son, and the virgin birth of Christ.
@ Ken
The only ignorant misunderstanding is you and Jimmy thinking 6:101 has anything to do with Christians. Now letās give your butt a break from talking and read together:
6:99. It is He Who sent water from the sky, and with it I extract the growth of all things. I produce from it greenery and from that I bring out grains riding on top of one another. From the newly sprouting branches of date palms comes batches hanging low. Along with gardens of grapes, olives and pomegranates, that are similar yet different. Look at their fruits as they first come out and after they have fully matured because there are many lessons in that for people that seeks to believe.
6:100. Yet still they would make DEMONS partners with God even though He created them? They tear open their natural instincts and ignorantly attribute SONS AND DAUGHTERS to Him. How perfect and far above is He over elaborate descriptions they give?
6:101. He is the Original Creative Trigger of the heavens and earth. How could He have children when He has no spouse, He created all things and has complete knowledge of everything?
6:102. That is God, your Lord, there is no god but Him. The Creator of everything, so worship only Him because He is taking care of all things.
Now a few questions here Ken:
1.Do you make demons partners with God?
2.Do you attribute sons AND daughters to God?
I donāt think so but hey new Christians sects pop up every 5 min. Also notice God says He is far above the elaborate descriptions given to Him. Who makes up elaborate stories maybe something along what the Greeks, Hindus, etc say?
Anyways, now letās take a look at who is being referred to. In the SAME chapter:
6:1-70 is referring to the pagan Arabs making fun of being warned and that God should have sent an angel instead of a human. God refutes this then moves on to speaking about Abraham(as) and him debating his pagan people and talks about the many prophets He chose from his lineage. He then is clearly transitions again to talking about the pagans:
6:136. The pagans assign to God a portion of the produce and the livestock He created, claiming: “This is for God and this is for our idols…” So their idolās portion doesnāt reach God, but God’s portion reaches their idols? How horrible are their decisions?
6:137. Just like in the same way, their idols have made it attractive to them to kill their own children, bringing themselves to ruin and confusion within their faith? If God had wanted otherwise they wouldnāt have done this, so leave them in the things they make up.
He then proceeds to refute the pagans beliefs they just made up. This entire chapter is talking to the pagan Arabs. So even though your paganism and idolatry isnāt anything new of giving the Creator children this particular verse is not addressed to you nor the Trinity. Are you ready to admit this so we can move on?
P.S.
19:82 is NOT talking to you either. So again thank you for proving your total lack of knowledge of the Quran as it really makes things easier for people following our conversation.
Surah 19:88-92
and
Surah 112
seems to be speaking directly against Christian’s doctrine of Jesus as “the Son of God”
So, although 6:99-100 is speaking directly to the pagan Arabs, by way of application, 6:101 seems to also apply to the Christians in the same way that Surah 112 and 19:88-92 and 4:171 and 5:116 and 5:72-78 is speaking to what they wrongly thought Christians were believing. An ignorant author. Not inspired by God.
I did not write Surah 19:82, rather Surah 19:88-92 – Surah Maryam
SAHIH INTERNATIONAL
But they have attributed to Allah partners – the jinn, while He has created them – and have fabricated for Him sons and daughters. Exalted is He and high above what they describe
Surah 6:100 Sahih International
Seems to make a general statement about Jinn (Ų§ŁŲ¬Ł ) – it does not use the the word, “Shayatin”, usually the word for demons, – and attributing “sons and daughters” could be including all sorts of paganism and misunderstanding of what Christianity is, since those other verses seem to be speaking about Christianity, although ignorantly.
@ Ken
Too long to explain long story short many idols are Jinn who did something for a culture. Moving on:
Please we said we want to give your butt a break so let’s stop talking out of it:
19:88 is about the pagans saying God has children (common mistranslation here is son)
http://tafsir.io/19/88
Now again granted you have the same beliefs as the Pagans:
(.. the Christians have said: “The Messiah is the son of God!” These are the words that have come from their own mouths, plagiarizing and adapting what disbelievers before them have said. 9:30)
but this is not talking about the Trinity directly, only the concept of saying your Lord has a child (also I would suggest you stop calling God stupid). However, the verse we are discussing and you are attempting twist 6:101 has NOTHING to do with modern Christendom’s blasphemy in its immediate context. This entire chapter is talking to the pagans. Shockingly not every verse in the Quran is about Paulism.
While you do have pagan beliefs (and you admit this) this verse cannot be used for your reading in between the lines fallacy. While we can apply this to you as well, it is not about you. For example you said:
“That is why Reformed Protestants object to the Roman Catholic and Orthodox views of icons and praying to saints… they wrongly take sanctification and glorification in heaven as ādeificationā.
and
“Yes, That is one of the primary disagreements that protestants like me have with Roman Catholics and the eastern orthodox…”
So you agree they worship the Saints. Now do THEY think that they’re worshipping the Saints Ken? Let’s read, ahem:
“Often non-Catholics will claim that āCatholics worship saints.ā This statement usually comes from the fact that Catholics often pray to saints, performing various devotions to them. While it may appear to some people that Catholics are worshiping saints, what they are doing is far from it. Catholics firmly believe that adoration and worship is due to God alone. Only God is divine and so only God can be the object of worship.”
https://aleteia.org/2018/06/21/do-catholics-worship-saints/
Also:
“Many people seem to think Catholics worship Mary as the Mother of God. This is wrong. Catholics do not worship Mary as such, but instead, āthe Church commends to the special and filial veneration of Christās faithful the Blessed Mary ever-Virgin, the Mother of God, whom Christ constituted the Mother of allā (Can. 1186). We know this because Jesus Christ said on the Cross, āBehold your motherā (John 19:27). Thus, since Mary is our mother (not just Jesusā mother), we show profound reverence and respect for her, hence the term, āvenerateā… some argue for the verse that comes after the First Commandment, āYou shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.ā (Ex. 20:4), the Churchās Canon Law states that āthe practice of exposing sacred images in churches for the veneration of the faithful is to be retainedā (Can. 1188). This is because, the primary context of Ex 20:4 must be understood in the context of not worshipping false gods or idols instead of the one, true, living, triune God, in the Holy Trinity. Therefore, maintaining that such images are to inspire the faithful to holiness, through veneration of the Saints and Blesseds, Can. 1188 states that the images of such are to be ādisplayed in moderate numbers in suitable fashion, so that the Christian people are not disturbed [not giving rise to a] less appropriate devotionā. Understood simply, God must always be the centre of our lives and the first priority, but we can also, in fostering our own sanctification, as allowed by the Church, venerate the Saints and Blessed and aspire towards holiness, taking them as our examples of how to live a good Christian life. However, we must never, under any circumstances, allow ourselves to become so obsessed over a particular devotion to a Saint or Blessed, thinking they are to be worshipped, in such a way it jeopardizes our relationship with God. So, next time you hear someone talking of āworshippingā Mary or the Saints/Blesseds, stop them for a moment and question them. Ask them, gently, if they understand what they are implying, and if they realize that the Church teaches us that we can venerate Saints/Blesseds, but that we can only truly worship the One True God. Dare to question and respond back to those who think Catholics worship anything other than God, and inform them about the Truth of our faith.”
So as we both know this is idolatry right? But in their minds, they aren’t doing anything wrong and you little Ken are simply ignorant of their beliefs. Now:
THE SAME THING APPLIES WHEN GOD CONDEMNS YOUR PAGANISM CALLED THE TRINITY IN THE QUR’AN!!!
See? Not that difficult to understand.
While you do have pagan beliefs (and you admit this)
No, I do not admit this.
Regarding Roman Catholicism and EO and statues, icons, etc. – Yes, I fully know that that is what they claim, but they are wrong. So I am not ignorant of their official beliefs. But they give the impression of idolatry at best and that is also the misunderstanding that the Qur’an and Arabs had.
Revelation 19:10 and 22:8-9 are clear that they should not bow before angels or statues of Mary or saints, etc. The text says “don’t do that” and that it was “worship” and so it means, “Worship God only” and yet the same book buts the Father and the Lamb together as 2 persons worthy of worship – Revelation chapters 4 & 5. see especially 5:9-14.
One God, three persons (with the Holy Spirit)
“SAHIH INTERNATIONAL
But they have attributed to Allah partners ā the jinn, while He has created them ā and have fabricated for Him sons and daughters. Exalted is He and high above what they describe
Surah 6:100 Sahih International
“Seems to make a general statement about Jinn (Ų§ŁŲ¬Ł ) ā it does not use the the word, āShayatinā, usually the word for demons, ā and attributing āsons and daughtersā could be including all sorts of paganism and misunderstanding of what Christianity is, ”
christianity is paganism. you worship a god who came out from a private part. you identify it as “fully god and fully man”
this is PAGAN shit.
“So, although 6:99-100 is speaking directly to the pagan Arabs, by way of application, 6:101 seems to also apply to the Christians in the same way that Surah 112 and 19:88-92 and 4:171 and 5:116 and 5:72-78 is speaking to what they wrongly thought Christians were believing”
you see, this is what i hate about these pieces of scum. PASTE THE VERSE and make your point.
” and since the Qurāan nowhere understands the One God in substance / nature/ essence and yet three in persons”
is your god ONE or is your one ,THREEE?
he can’t make his mind up. do you worship substance or do you worship father who is not son who is not ghost who is not son who is not who is not….
quote:
Allah (Ų§ŁŁŁ)/Elohim (×Ö±×Ö¹×Ö“××) = Ho Theos (Īæ ĪøĪµĪæĻ) while Huwa (ŁŁ)/Yihweh (××××) = Ho On (į½ į½¤Ī½).
The usage of Ahad as opposed to Wahid (ŁŲ§ŲŲÆ) is intended to confirm the fundamental creedal statement of the Children of Israel (ŲØŁŁ Ų„Ų³Ų±Ų§Ų¦ŁŁ), i.e. the Shema of Deut. 6:4: āHear O Israel! The Lord our God, the Lord is One (Echad)ā (ש×Ö°×Ö·×¢ ×֓ש×Ö°×ØÖø×Öµ× ×Ö°××Öø× ×Ö±×Ö¹×Öµ×× ×Ö¼ ×Ö°××Öø× ×Ö¶×ÖøÖ½×); and confirmed by Christ in Mark 12:29 (į¼ĻĪµĪŗĻį½·ĪøĪ· į½ į¼øĪ·ĻĪæįæ¦Ļ į½ ĻĪ¹ ĻĻį½½ĻĪ· į¼ĻĻį½·Ī½ į¼ĪŗĪæĻ Īµ į¼øĻĻĪ±į½µĪ» Īŗį½»ĻĪ¹ĪæĻ į½ ĪøĪµį½øĻ į¼”Ī¼įæ¶Ī½ Īŗį½»ĻĪ¹ĪæĻ Īµį¼·Ļ į¼ĻĻĪ¹Ī½). Also, while wahid denotes one numerically and thus does not negate the existence of other āones,ā ahad, being also anarthrous, denotes utter uniqueness, one of a genus.
In addition, Ahad negates the henotheism of the pre-Islamic Arabs who certainly affirmed that Allah was Wahid, but also acknowledged the existence of lesser deities
.
With respect to Christianity, the Qurāan repudiates the belief that God has a āSonā (ŁŁŲÆ) in the Trinitarian sense by stating that āAllah is only One (ŁŲ§ŲŲÆ) Godā (Q 4:171.5). Thus while Allah is numerically one (ŁŲ§ŲŲÆ), the term wahid also denotes His āinternal oneness,ā i.e. He is only one person (hypostasis; Arab. nafs; Heb. nefesh); there is no multiplicity in the godhead and He shares His Essence with no one and nothing else.
This is the heart of the Qurāanās critique of Trinitarianism. There are not multiple hypostatic (personal) pre-eternals; the attributes (sifat) of God are not separate and distinct hypostatic entities. The usage of Ahad in this ayah (112:1), however, denotes Godās āexternal onenessā thus not allowing any creature to be the incarnation of that indivisible Essence (ousia) since He is transcendent of space, time, and materiality, contra both Incarnational Modalism (Monarchism) and Trinitarianism. In this vein, Hosea (11:9) says: āIndeed I am God and not manā (×Ö¼Ö“× ×Öµ× ×ÖøÖ½× Ö¹×Ö“× ×Ö°×Ö¹×Ö¾×Ö“×ש×).
“The text says ādonāt do thatā and that it was āworshipā and so it means, āWorship God onlyā and yet the same book buts the Father and the Lamb together as 2 persons worthy of worship ā Revelation chapters 4 & 5. see especially 5:9-14.”
but kafir pagan, the pagan kafir who wrote “revelations” did not think jezer was CO-EQUAL to his dad.
one is identified as slain and receiving stuff.
“One God, three persons (with the Holy Spirit)”
wtf are you saying
“one god”
then
THREE persons
is the three a bloody ADD on to the one?
is it 1 which is really THREE
or is it 1 + 3 ?
what exactly are you worshiping ?
“Revelation 19:10 and 22:8-9 are clear that they should not bow before angels or statues of Mary or saints, etc. The text says ādonāt do thatā ”
then it goes on to do that , like the pagan filth the author was.
@ Ken
1. Did the pagan Greeks use the term Logos for God that influenced Christians (hint yes)
Philo used the term Logos to mean an intermediary divine being, or demiurge.[13] Philo followed the Platonic distinction between imperfect matter and perfect Form, and therefore intermediary beings were necessary to bridge the enormous gap between God and the material world.[14] The Logos was the highest of these intermediary beings, and was called by Philo “the first-born of God.”[14]
The Logos is also designated as “high priest”, in reference to the exalted position which the high priest occupied after the Exile as the real center of the Jewish state. The Logos, like the high priest, is the expiator of sins, and the mediator and advocate for men: į¼±ĪŗĪĻĪ·Ļ,[19] and ĻĪ±ĻĪ¬ĪŗĪ»Ī·ĻĪæĻ.[20]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo%27s_view_of_God
2. More importantly, they say its not idol worship and you are the one misunderstanding the verse. Therefore you are ignorant of their beliefs because they are not worshipping the Saints or Mary they are merely venerating them. So go and venerate with the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. They are much earlier than your sect that only got traction because a king wanted to remarry so I think their understanding is much better.
we are earlier in first centuries, especially first century.
The Roman Catholic Church did not really come about until after the 500s when it started adding Papal things, Purgatory, over-exalting Mary, 800s – 1215 – Transubstantiation.
earlier smaller man-made traditions like mono-epicopasy, priests, sacrificial language in the Eucharist, infant baptism and baptismal regeneration – those do not make it full fledged Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy until 600 AD and onward.
We have the basic truths of first 500 years.
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2012/08/historical-developments-that-led-to.html
Philo was a Jew.
The God-breathed text of John 1:1-5 and 1:14 and Revelation chapter 19 and I John chapter 1 and other passages that harmonize with the Deity of Christ are not pagan at all and there is no “Demiurge” in the 27 books of NT.
By a show of hands, does anyone here still take little Kenny seriously anymore? Anyone?
Philo was a Hellenized Jew who believed that there was an intermediary. The logos was the demiurge. Jesus too is presented as an intermediary by Paul, another Hellenized Jew. This is your demiurge.
quote:
the “yahweh and his asherah” from kuntillet arjud shows figured with penises
end quote
whether you pagans imagine a god with a dick or a dickless pagan god, you are BLASPHEMING WHEN YOU UTTER THE WORDS THAT ALMIGHTY HAS A son.
regardless of your world view.
you totally lost all credibility, “Mr.heathcliff”
yhwh lost credibility for wearing male private part
“you totally lost all credibility, āMr.heathcliffā”
LOL, the pot calling the kettle black.
@Ken Temple
The fact of the matter is in Islamic theology to treat something like a god, other than God, is considered worship to said thing as a god. Now you can disagree with that notion but to derive from that, ignorance on the part of quran…well its odd to me to say the least. A good example in my opinion would be magic. Magic isn’t just considered a sin in Islam but outright shirk. The reason being because they interact with demons in way that they should only do with God(via rituals, obeying them, calling upon them,ect)It doesn’t matter if a person doesn’t actually think that said demon is God or a god.
To be honest I’m surprised you’re taking such a critical role against the quranic text since the bible is far looser with the term god. Using it to refer to men and idols without the presumption of divinity or powers of any kind for example. Anything else i could say i feel has been already been said by everyone else.
@ Ken
Oh, here you go trying to undermine the Popeās authority again. Simple question Ken does the earlier sects then yours of Catholics and Eastern Orthodox worship the saints and commit idolatry with their “veneration”, yes or no?
Yes. I have discussed this many times in the past with Roman Catholics.
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2014/11/15/should-roman-catholics-be-using-statues-to-pray-to-mary-or-dead-saints/
But your claim for Islam and the Qur’an is a different category, because it shows the author of the Qur’an is ignorant of the doctrine that was around, both in the NT and church history for 600 years. The doctrines of the eternal Sonship of Christ and the Deity of Christ and the Trinity all affirm Monotheism, so this proves the Qur’an is wrong and therefore, not inspired by the living God, the creator, the God of Genesis 1-2 and the law of Moses, Psalms, Prophets, and who inspired the NT.
But we Protestants know the RC claims and how they justify their idolatry, which is at best, the appearance of idolatry. The question is, why does God command John, the apostle, who is a true believer, to not do that? (calls it worship – Rev. 19:10; 22:8-9)
Yes, the Pope has no true authority. The whole office and claim of Roman Catholicism is false and a sham, both to the Bible and to history.
See Dr. White’s debates with Mitch Pacwa, Tim Staples, Gerry Matatics, and others.
Dr. White vs. Tim Staples on Papal Infallibility, Part 1
Part 2 of debate about Papal Infallibility. Dr. White vs. Tim Staples.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArP4H0-5Ya0&t=253s
Also, see Dr. White’s debate with Patrick Madrid on the veneration of Mary, the Saints and Angels.
I don’t know why it is giving the wrong link. Trying again. If it does not work, look up: “Debate on Veneration of Saints and Images” Dr. White vs. Patrick Madrid
Hopefully, this one will work. so sorry for the wrong link – it appears it automatically links to the top You Tube one in a playlist series, not the one specifically wanted.
Wow. none of last 3 links worked. Go to sidebar on You Tube and see, “Debate on Veneration of Saints and Images” Dr. White vs. Patrick Madrid
@Ken Temple
“But your claim for Islam and the Qurāan is a different category, because it shows the author of the Qurāan is ignorant of the doctrine that was around, both in the NT and church history for 600 years.”
I don’t feel you’ve shown sufficient evidence to prove that to be the case. Rather the deciding factor seems to be your own interpretation and opinion.
“Wow. none of last 3 links worked”
As someone who has had issues with linking and mis-linking on blogs before, I feel your pain!
“The doctrines of the eternal Sonship of Christ and the Deity of Christ and the Trinity all affirm Monotheism, so this proves the Qurāan is wrong and therefore,”
why should the quran start with the pagan assumption of “eternal sonship and diety of krist” ?
” not inspired by the living God, the creator, the God of Genesis 1-2 and the law of Moses, Psalms, Prophets, and who inspired the NT.””
the jews say :
Deuteronomy 4 teaches clearly that one should not associate God with any form. This lesson was to be learned from Sinai, where the people saw no form for God. Though this should be obvious to even a casual reader of the Torah, it has not been obvious to the Church
1. G-d is explicitly commanding Israel not to worship Him in any form. (Deut 4:16)
2. G-d is explicitly commanding Israel to teach this to their children and their childrenās children, even after they come to the land of Israel. (Deut 4:9-14)
comment : so can we agree that jesus could not be inspired because he lacked understanding of the very basic fact that yhwh has no form?
“Did I say take Me and mother as two gods besides Allah?ā (5:116) ”
This is talking about beings who walked the earth and eat food. You guys call to them, while jesus called to 1 person.
your own nt says that jesus called out to one person.
“and then later āJesus and his mother both ate foodā”
creatures who walk the earth need food to live
”
(ie, they are not gods) and āworship only one godā and
”
dont set up partners.
āsay not threeā
Addressing all versions of trinity
”
and āGod cannot have a son because there is no wife for Himā. ”
creator and originator of heavens and the earth even pagans aknowledged this so why they give him wife and children?
quote:
but there were groups who saw the Holy Spirit as female (it is grammatically feminine in Hebrew) and there was an early Jewish-Christian Gospel (Gospel According to the Hebrews, now lost but described by several Church fathers inckuding Origen and Jerome) in which Jesus calls the Holy Spirit “my mother.”
The Holy Spirit as feminine: Early Christian testimonies and their interpretation
“Sonship of Christ, and that the early Muslims wrongly thought that the Christians were saying God had sex with Mary ā Estaqfrāallah !
Ų§Ų³ŲŖŲŗŁŲ±Ų§ŁŁŁ”
since you like reading about dicks in ezekiel , i am not surprised that your porn filled mind has “dicking” in their.
SHOW ME IN THE VERSE THAT SEX IS IMPLIED
there is nothing in the verse about penis and vagina BUT YOUR god Does exit vagina as “fully god and fully man”
OUT OF curiosity why is sex a sin and why would it be sinful for a man god to have sex with holy spirit in the form of jessica?
these r genuine questions to ken temple
“2. We do not have a license to do anything necessary to implement Shariah we actually have a lot of constraints.”
But you can’t tell me where these constraints are in the Koran. I wonder why? Maybe because they are not there?
Until you bring some evidence that constraints are given in the Koran I will have to rightly assume that they are not there and that it is an amoral book giving license to Muslims to harm non-Muslims until they are dhimmified.
“Jesus(as), Moses(as), Aaron(as), Elijah(as), David(as), Solomon(as) and Samuel(as)”
Were they killing for a pagan shrine so they could run around it and kiss a black stone?
Did Abraham go around the Kaaba and kiss the black stone?
Why didn’t Mohammed just rebuild the Kaaba in Medina and save a lot of bloodshed?
@ Watson
Well I guess we can rightfully conclude you are a homosexual and a rapist. The burden is on you to prove your claim and this has been shown several times you being too stupid to understand a basic concept is not everyone else’s fault.
No they were killing for a piece of real estate according to your text (more on this in a sec). You are moving the goal post yet again after being refuted about your “divine punishment blah, blah, blah”. Now that I have disproven your claim will you be humble enough to admit you were wrong?
Moving on, there really weren’t that many casualties in Muhammad’s(saw) wars but using your poor logic skills why didn’t Joshua(as) go to another land build the Temple there and save a lot of bloodshed? (Literal genocides of surrendering women and children) See now why everyone calls you an idiot?
As for Abraham(as) yes on circling no on kissing.
“4. He was given the option to destroy them through supernatural means but asked for an extension (as they are still his family at the end of the day) ”
Thats a good excuse for not delivering on the supernatural means. The greatest “prophet” that ever lived.
What was their crime anyway for which they should be destroyed en masse? Don’t you realize how ridiculous and irrational that was and still is?
I guess that leaves a multitude in our world that your Allah wants to destroy. Should keep you busy for a while.
So Abraham was a stone circler but not a kisser, lol. I guess if Allah exists he must be laughing his sides off when he sees what he can make Muslims do. Some gods need strange entertainment I guess.
Iggy keeps making a fool of himself. He asks what people did to deserve being destroyed, and yet Yahweh ordered the…drum roll please…destruction of entire cities for being on land that was promised to the Israelites. Were crosstians like this moron born as blithering idiots or did it take years of brainwashing?
As for delivering on the supernatural means, let’s see…
1. Muslims had support from angels during their battles. This is attested by multiple people in the Hadith literature. The Quran mentions it.
2. The Muslims received a well-timed storm that drove the pagans away from Medina during the battle of the Trench. This is again mentioned in the Quran.
So it seems the supernatural means we’re delivered after all and Iggy is just an ignorant moron. š
@ Watson
I have to ask a serious question do you actually believe in your text or is it just cultural passage. I’m saying this because some stuff you say is just bizarre and you have to either not believe or be completely ignorant about your texts.
1. Rituals
For example, the end comment. Why did God ask for Abraham(as) to sacrifice his son? Why did God want elaborate rituals to be performed? Why did He want the Temple to be built in that specific spot? Why did He ordain the Sabbath and choose that specific day instead of Monday or Wednesday? This is the first problem it is NOT your place to laugh at what God wants for His worship.
2. Destruction
Generally, until a prophet curses a nation is it destroyed through supernatural means. If you look at any nation destroyed the Prophet(s) there asked for it to fall on them. If God wanted to destroy the world nobody could prevent it. Everything has been given a deadline by Him and it will all eventually come before Him. It’s not that He wants to destroy He wants us to be with Him hence why He sent Messengers in the first place and revealed Scripture.
3. Crimes
Rejecting God’s Message, attacking His Messengers (both are enough to do the job), torture, cutting family ties, murder, theft and blocking people from God’s path. Again using your logic Sodom and Gommorah shouldn’t have been destroyed all they wanted to do was have sex with who they wanted to.
Again man I just don’t think you really believe in God as these answers are easily understood by anyone with basic understanding.
“Why did God ask for Abraham(as) to sacrifice his son? Why did God want elaborate rituals to be performed? Why did He want the Temple to be built in that specific spot? Why did He ordain the Sabbath and choose that specific day instead of Monday or Wednesday?”
The temple was built there because Abraham offering his son is symbolic of God offering his Son. As far as the Sabbath goes he did not choose a particular day but ordained a cycle of activity. Six day work and one day rest. When these days fall in the calendar is secondary.
Walking in a circle round a pile of stones or praying to this stone simply has no rational basis but is based on pagan superstition.
“Generally, until a prophet curses a nation is it destroyed through supernatural means.”
Islam is the only religion that destroys civilizations based solely on their religious worldview. God never does this in the OT. This is an islamic innovation that lays the religious foundation for an imperialistic expansionist strategy of war or jihad.
“Rejecting Godās Message, attacking His Messengers (both are enough to do the job), torture, cutting family ties, murder, theft and blocking people from Godās path. Again using your logic Sodom and Gommorah shouldnāt have been destroyed all they wanted to do was have sex with who they wanted to.”
Doesn’t justice seek to single out the perpetrators of crimes and punish only them?
What does Sodom and Gomorrah have to do with it? Are you throwing in a red herring for good measure?
Sodom and Gomorrah were punished for their immorality. Not because of their pagan beliefs.
“Thats a good excuse for not delivering on the supernatural means.”
like explaining away jesus failed second coming ?
Hmm, let’s see some of the wonderful things Yahweh can make people do. He seems to have had an obsession with serpents.
And the Lord said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.
9 And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.
Oh and since Iggy is obsessed with stones, how about this little nugget:
16 And Jacob awaked out of his sleep, and he said, Surely the Lord is in this place; and I knew it not.
17 And he was afraid, and said, How dreadful is this place! this is none other but the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven.
18 And Jacob rose up early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put for his pillows, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it.
19 And he called the name of that place Bethel: but the name of that city was called Luz at the first.
Hmm, pouriing oil on a stone? Perfectly logical, no? š¤
we have objects with a ritual association.
And why jews build yhwh seat above ark?
Numbers 21 and Genesis 28 for the above Yahweh-inspired hijinks.
Stew wrote:
So as we both know this is idolatry right? But in their minds, they arenāt doing anything wrong and you little Ken are simply ignorant of their beliefs. Now: . . .
No; I am not ignorant of their beliefs and I fully understand how they justify the distinctions between “latria” (worship for God alone), and “dulia” (veneration of saints, images, relics, angels) and “hyper-dulia” (for Mary only, in between Latria and “dulia”, etc. )
But the Qur’an is ignorant of the NT and church history, the Doctrines of the Deity of Christ, the eternal Sonship of Christ, and the Trinity.
Proves the Qur’an is not from God.
@ Ken
Perfect you admit they do idolatry and understand what they think they’re doing it in their minds. Well… come on make the connection I believe in you, you can do it!
Ooh, I know the connection! [Raises hand] Pick me, pick me!
@ QB
While always the star pupil, if you answer all the questions nobody else gets a chance to learn.
It does not follow for The Trinity.
@ Ken
How so?
“””But the Qurāan is ignorant of the NT and…””””
Same old boring Kenny. And the moment you can bring actual proof instead of your pathetic ‘”it’s obvious that blablabla and also obvious that blablabla” we’ll actually start taking you seriously.
Many have already demonstrated this time and time again, and truth never changes.
Here is a good example of demonstrating that the Qur’an cannot be the Word of God, as Islam claims. It is ignorant of the NT and church history and the doctrines of Christianity that was already established for 600 years.
Your tactic of “same old boring Kenny”, etc. just shows you don’t listen to the arguments and use reason and logic and consistency. Truth never changes. No one can change God’s word, that was already established in the OT and NT previously.
The Qur’an and Islam present a real change, and contradicts itself, since it affirms the books that the Jews and Christians have at the time of the Qur’an.
Surah 5:47; 5:68; 10:94; 2:136, etc.
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2019/06/08/why-the-quran-cannot-be-the-word-of-god/
Yes, truth never changes. Kenny was and still is a broken record who mindlessly repeats the same debunked garbage and pretends that everyone else is wrong.
Yes, truth never changes. The Quran criticizes all deviant Christian sects, whether those that worship Mary, Jesus or both. This very nearly covers every pagan Christian in existence.
Yes, truth never changes. The Bible is a confusing, contradictory mess of a book, replete with scientific errors, historical errors, theological errors, and almost every other type of error you can think of.
Truth never changes. Ain’t that the truth!
No Kenny. You NEVER listen.
Every single trash argument you or anyone else has brought up has been bitchslapped to death. You couldn’t show the Qur’an is saying the trinity is Allah, Jesus and Mary. You and others came up with the most lame ass argument any human being can come up with: O it mentions three together so voila it’s the trinity!
Pathetic.
As for your constant lies about the Glorious Qur’an endorsing your comicbook. You have been humialted on this matter to many times. Everytime you bring this up, either me or the other brothers on this blog put you in your place and you can NEVER respond back. You just repeat yourself over and over again.
((((Many have already demonstrated this time and time again))))
Many have demonstrated how retarded they are like you who can never win this debate.
All you do is repeat the same trash arguments over and over again. Trying to find something which isn’t there. You pagans are VERY good at it. You have 2000 years of experience. Like f.e trying to find the trinity in the OT (loool!) and jam that pagan doctrine in there. Now you want to infest the Qur’an with that trash.
The Qur’an is crystal clear on the matter.
Don’t say three PERIOD. Whether it’s Father, Son, Sofia or Father, Son, the Word or your pagan trash Father, Son, holy potato. No three period.
And don’t deify Jesus and Mary. That’s it!
Is it so difficult for you to understand that?
Your deification fetish just cannot allow you to let it go, can it? It’s become pathetic!
((((Truth never changes. No one can change Godās word, that was already established in the OT and NT previously.))))
Lol, but it has been changed countless of time! It’s filled with texts edited by scribes (just like jimmy white your lord and savior will tell you, which fatty shamoun cannot stand jimmy showing the ugly truth of your bible), people lying about their identity (and this is your ‘holy’ word, wooow!), paul teaching lying to convert people to his pagan religion, OT filled with verses which can only be described as soft porn, genocides of men, women, children, infants, animals (ie evrything that breaths), countless of mistakes from cover to cover, made up myths about jesus like Lucky Luke lying about there being a massive return of people to their home from a milenium earlier which is obviously (–>a word that kenny likes to use) a lie, etc etc etc .
This bible is nothing but a mishmash of songs, poems, autobiografies which edit previous ones and have unknown authors, authors lying about their identity, letters, etc.
This is the Word of God???
((((Your tactic of āsame old boring Kennyā, etc. just shows you donāt listen to the arguments and use reason and logic and consistency.))))
This is just sad now. Hellooooooo. You don’t have any arguments! That’s the whole point!
All you bring up are the same old trash arguments for years and whenever you are challenged on them you just duck and run.
A xtian who talks about logic and consistency is just hilarious. You pagans don’t even know what those words mean since you have to CONSTANTLY invent new bullshit terms and wordings and self-contradicting statements to jam your idolatry into your own texts to justify it.
‘O o o o it’s the natures and and and they are 100% and and also the persons baby, yes the persons are in the being and and also the being is one you see and the godman with his hypostatic union is not idolatry at all.’
It’s pathetic Ken. When will you wake up and just see the obvious. You have been lied to. Your history is a lie. People lying about their identities on your own so called holy book, ‘gospel’ authors lying about previous ‘gospel’ authors by changing what they wrote and on and on the list goes.
So again: NO ONE here cares about your pathetic wishful thinking when it comes to the Qur’an. You were asked to show where it teaches your selfcontradicting pagan trinity is Allah, Jesus and Mary. You douldn’t.
You came up with a childish way of trying to jam that into the Qur’an just like you do with the OT without any shame or guilt.
No one here cares about your idiotic: O it meantions that jesus says that he and Mary aren’t God and so voila!!!!
Weak, just like your made up religion.
Sad Kenny.
We shall say “three” as in Trinity, Trinitas Unitas & Unitas Trinitas (Three in One and One in Three). As the knights who say, “Nih”, we also say “three in one”
Now go get a . . . . shrubbery
And that right there folks is Kenny the lil pagan raisng his white flag in the form of a desperate video post to use humor to save face after getting bitchslapped.
@ Atlas
“Like trying to find the Trinity in the OT”
šššššš
“But the Qurāan is ignorant of the NT and church history, the Doctrines of the Deity of Christ, the eternal Sonship of Christ, and the Trinity.”
ken temple believes that a beginingless being experienced a beginning and was born to a woman.
ken temple is a pagan who does not know what he worships. sometimes “three in one” and sometimes 3 IS one. if you are such a confused pagan, why does the quran need to ADDRESS things FROM your christian paganism ?
what the sad part is that when i said that you believe that god came out of a private part and wore testicles, you talked about my “credibility” and your lover burhanudin liked your comment.
you know, i don’t give two monkey shit about my credibility, i am asking you to think about the FILTH you BELIEVE ABOUT YOUR CREATOR.
forget my “credibility” what is your credibility in your CREATORS eye?
what is said was 100 % correct, you believe your CREATOR EXISTED AS A MAN. AS A MAN.
What’s with Burhanuddin? He used to be a regular contributor.
Dunno. He was a Muslim wasn’t he? I see he liked some comments from pagan xtians (and if I’m not mistaken from atheists too) on this blog.
You seem to think sex and sexualy is evil and filthy in itself. But God created sex and males and females and marriage, etc. children, etc.
Which Islam also approves of, within marriage, etc. agreeing with basically what Genesis 1-2 teaches us about God as creator and Adam and Eve and marriage.
That God the eternal Son became a man and lived among us is not something that is beyond His power.
You limit God’s power and love and ability to enter into His creation.
Lol, actually it’s your Bible that gives the impression that sex is filthy and should be avoided. After all, it’s what led Paul to advise his followers not to get married because it just wasn’t important since the end of the world was on the horizon.
No. The Song of Solomon is an entire book on the joys of married, romantic, sexual love; an extended commentary on Genesis 2:24. See also Proverbs 5:15-21.
1 Corinthians 7:25-40 cannot be isolated from what Paul said in 1 Cor. 7:2-24, especially verse 7, which speaks of the special spiritual grace gift (charismata) of being able to be single or not, and also verse 9 – “if they do not have self-control, let them marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with lust”
so, you interpret 1 Cor. 7:26 and 29 wrongly
š Jumping to the Tanakh when stuck…Christian apologetics 101…but then jump back when the Tanakh becomes inconvenient as well.
As for the Song of Songs, there’s an awkward family Bible session. š±
Paul was convinced the end was near. To him, worrying about marriage and sex just didn’t make sense. It was better not to get married. That’s what he said. Stop lying like he did.
No; he said if one has the gift of singleness. 1 Cor. 7:7-9
Why do you keep lying?
What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not; those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.ā (1 Corinthians 7:29-31)
Paul is making an extended argument from 1 Corinthians 7:1-40
for you to isolate those verses from the larger context is irresponsible and unjust.
the whole argument is that some people are called and gifted to singleness – “it can be good for a man not to touch a woman, ie. not to get married, – meaning, “don’t touch a woman before you get married” – don’t have premarital sex.
Explain why he says verse 7 and verse 9 and also verse 39 – someone can get married, “only in the Lord” – only to a Christian.
You keep lying through your teeth, just like Paul. Why did he say the “time is short”? Why did he say “from now on those who have wives should live as if they do not”?
What does that mean? Having wives but act like you don’t?
He is saying “be ready” at any time for Christ’s return – same thing Jesus said in Matthew 24-25, Mark 13, Luke 21
He is not contradicting earlier teaching in 1 Cor. 7, nor Ephesians 5:21-33 (husbands, love your wives) – he is just saying put spiritual concerns first in priority, that is all.
“as if” – like “hate” your father and mother, wife, etc. does not mean literally hate them, rather it means love Christ more than them. (Luke 14:26 = Matthew 10:37
37 āHe who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.”
Against, you’re lying. He said “the time is short” and that if someone has a wife, he should act as if he does not. How exactly were Christians supposed to heed this advice…2000 years?
What he was saying was that the end was right around the corner and that material concerns no longer mattered. Get over it and get over yourself.
no, you are lying.
Get over it and get over yourself.
Wah, no you’re the liar! Wah, wah! There goes Kenny’s whining.
Time is short Kenny. Get over yourself. š
Faizy is whining. You are a cry-baby.
šš¤£ Kenny the whining clown gets desperate. What’s the matter Kenny? Is your diaper full?
You are the one lying by not reading the whole context of verses 1-40; and those are in the context of all 16 chapters. Paul gives many practical guidance as to keep living in this world; in the church, in relationships with one another, etc.
š It’s clear that you are the liar. Stop acting like a 5 year old and get over yourself.
Song of Solomon is meant for mature, married couples, not for children, obviously.
The Jews even had Rabbinic sayings that only a married man should read it.
Tanakh and Injeel (NT) are all God’s word, God-breathed.
But Qur’an is not.
There goes the broken record again. Both the Tanakh and NT are confusing, contradictory messes. If that’s “God-breathed” then I’m the queen of England.
But you are a broken record in all your arguments also. The Qur’an is a contradictory mess. A human book. Not inspired. full of legends, apocryphal stories, Jewish Midrash.
Blah, blah, blah. The Bible copied from pagan myths, whereas the Quran corrected the errors of the Bible, e.g., referring to the king of Egypt in Joseph’s time as “pharoah” when such a term would not have been used for the king. The Bible got this wrong. The Quran did not.
The Bible describes God as an old man, just like Cannanite pagans. The Quran does not.
The Bible a mythical beast called Leviathan, just like Canaanite pagans who believed in Lotan. The Quran does not.
So yeah, your Bible is a mess. Get over it.
@ Ken
Its not a “limit of God’s poeer” of saying He won’t do things neneath Him. Simple question can God be stupid?
But but your limiting God’s power
Obviously we agree with each other that God cannot do anything that contradicts His nature, like sin or “be stupid”, etc. –
But the virgin birth of Jesus, which Islam affirms, proves that God chose to become a human being, for our salvation – God the Son, the second person of the Trinity. God the Father sent Him.
John 1:1-5
John 1:14
Philippians 2:5-8
proves this truth
š¤¦āāļø Then God can also “choose” to be stupid as well.
Nope. you cannot escape the truth of John 1:1-5 and 1:14 and Philippians 2:5-8 and Luke 1:34-35 – the virgin birth, incarnation, pre-existence of Jesus as eternal Word and eternal Son – John 17:5
Even the Qur’an calls Jesus “the Word of God” Ś©ŁŁ Ł Ų§ŁŁŁ
and “a spirit from Allah”
Ų±ŁŲ Ł Ł Ų§ŁŁŁ
Jesus is the same nature as God = Word, spirit.
Moron, your logic is absurd. If you’re arguing that your god “chose” to limit himself and be born in this world through vaginal birth, then it is equally possible for your god to also make himself “stupid”. You cannot escape this so you’re falling back on your broken record tactic.
”
You seem to think sex and sexualy is evil and filthy in itself. But God created sex and males and females and marriage, etc. children, etc.”
so then you should not have a problem if in a possible universe “man-god” decides to “pork”
holy spirit in the form of jessica?
why would your god create a penis and attach it to himself?
would he do that with a vagina too?
“Which Islam also approves of, within marriage, etc. agreeing with basically what Genesis 1-2 teaches us about God as creator and Adam and Eve and marriage.”
God creating penis and vagina does not mean God has urges like humans or TEMPTATIONS like humans. examine the FEELINGS. how could such feelings EXIST in the one God?
“That God the eternal Son became a man and lived among us is not something that is beyond His power.”
but you are relating to a CREATED object who has sexual temptations, not ALMIGHTY. DISSECT the FEELINGS and ask HOW THEY APPLY TO EVERLIVING ONE .
YOU are saying that GOD IS THE CREATOR OF EVERYTHING, THEN is he A CREATOR OF his EARTHLY MOVEMENTS AND his EARTHLY BODY, then HOW ARE YOU RELATING TO GOD?
”
You limit Godās power and love and ability to enter into His creation.”
if gods “power” is defined by CREATING a body and CREATING its urges, temptations, toilet, blowing wind, stinking …..then what is great about this? the pagans HAVE their gods coming down as a penis, cow, monkey…….
“becoming man” is saying that GOD STOPPED BEING GOD….BUT IF HE IS STILL GOD, HOW DID HE BECOME MAN LOL?
thats like saying god became man and DIDN’T become man lol
you guys created a RETARDED religion
EXAMINE THE FEELINGS OF BEING HUMAN AND ASK HOW THEY APPLY TO AN EVER LIVING BEGININGLESS BEING SINCE THE FEELINGS OF BEING HUMAN HAVE A BEGINING.
gods “power” is defined by COMING INTO THIS world THROUGH A VAGINA
then BREAST FEEDING
then going to the toilet
then getting DRILLED to a cross
then giving himself life even though he has “eternal life”
YOUR RELIGION is pagan nonsense.
YOU WORSHIP THREE GODS
father
son
“god-man”
+ 4TH
holy spirit
becoming man IS A CHANGE IN GOD, why can’t kafir filth bag like you see this?
“But the virgin birth of Jesus, which Islam affirms, proves that God chose to become a human being, ”
”
for our salvation ā God the Son, the second person of the Trinity. God the Father sent Him.”
the pagan kafir assumes that god must CREATE himself just to FORGIVE human beings.
i say to you that God never has these pagan thoughts about “choosing to become human”
BECAUSE GOD KNOWS WHO HE IS
WHAT HIS NATURE IS
WHAT HE IS NOT
WHAT HE CREATES
WHATEVER IS CREATED IS NOT HE, HE KNOWS THIS
GOD DOES NOT SEPARATE FROM HIS POWER AND BECOME SUBJECT TO HIS OWN POWER ASTAGHFIRULLAH
and choose your terms correctly you filthy kafir.
“god” did not become man. ONE person who is NOT IDENTICAL to triune being became man. the father has ABSOLUTELY no experience of leaving vaginas, the son AS created human being has full experience.
JUST BASED on experience we see that you kuffar worship TWO gods
” Then God can also āchooseā to be stupid as well.”
stupid:
having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense.
“I was stupid enough to think she was perfect”
:
quote:
Obviously we agree with each other that God cannot do anything that contradicts His nature, like sin or ābe stupidā, etc. ā
question : you are FORGETTING KAFIR nutjob STUPID, SIN, LACKING KNOWLEDGE, FORGETTING, REMEMBERING ARE ALL CREATED EXPERIENCES
we call this stuff IMPERFECTIONS WHICH DO NOT EXIST IN A BEGININGLESS PERFECT ONE.
EXAMPLE : GOD IS ALL SEEING AND BEGININGLESS. if he exists as a BLIND ONE YOU APPLIED his OWN created action on HIM.
dissect the EXPERIENCES
HOW TO THEY APPLY TO ALMIGHTY ONE?
“You limit Godās power and love and ability to enter into His creation.”
ken temples god:
god the son
And
empty god man
thats two
each having their own EXPERIENCE
your god is a deceiver.
@Ken Temple
You limit God’s power,love, and ability by saying he HAD to enter into his creation and die to forgive sins.
Except revelation (God’s word in OT and NT) tells us that God is holy and just and pure – and has holy and just wrath against sin; so if He poured out His justice, we would all go to hell; but out of His love and mercy, He planned from eternity His own way to save us – by becoming human and being the once for all sacrifice / atonement. Because of the nature of God – both His justice / holiness against sin and wrong; and His love for mankind from all nations – the incarnation and atonement and resurrection prove His justice against sin and His love for sinners.
Islam denies those basic realities of God Himself.
Therefore, the doctrines of Christ, the atonement, the resurrection, the Trinity do not limit God’s power and love, but actually prove the fulness of both His love and justice and power and wisdom.
Your sins make you condemned under the wrath of God, the justice of God. (Romans 1:18; John 3:18: 3:36; Romans 5:8-11) Only the atonement of Christ as the incarnation of God can save you, since He both takes all the wrath against sin and loves sinners from all nations. (John 1:29; Revelation 5:9; 7:9)
“Except revelation (Godās word in OT and NT) tells us that God is holy and just and pure”
except that god never says in the torah that if he punishes x , he must completely destroy x.
except that god never says in the torah that the judge came down and got raped by sins from past, present and future because he could only transfer and not forgive.
gods “justice” as defined by torah is not how it is defined by christianity.
god says he forgives those who repent.
in christianity there is no point in repenting, james white said “even my repentance is not good enough”
” ā and has holy and just wrath against sin; ”
so the father is holy and just and punishing one while the son is dying one. two different pagan gods. who punished the father?
“so if He poured out His justice, we would all go to hell;”
BULLSHIT! ASSUMPTION ALERT. ASSUMPTION ALERT. NO WHERE DOES TORAH SAY THIS.
” but out of His love and mercy,”
if you identify it as “love and mercy” then he will not “pour out his punishment” on the REPENTFUL. contradiction in crosstianity alert.
“He planned from eternity His own way to save us”
because he was UNABLE TO say “i forgive you” he is LIMITED by his “punishment rules”
he BREAKS his own punishment rules and punishes OUTSIDE of his justice.
” ā by becoming human and being the once for all sacrifice / atonement. ”
how does a beginingless being have a beginning lol ?
“Because of the nature of God ā both His justice / holiness”
the nature of god means god becomes a man ?
“against sin and wrong; and His love for mankind from all nations ā the incarnation and atonement and resurrection prove His justice against sin and His love for sinners.”
THE ENTIRE SACRIFICIAL SYSTEM ALLOWS ONE TO GET AWAY WITH SIN.
YOU SIN TODAY YOU KAFIR, YET YOU BELIEVE U WILL ENTER HEAVEN BECAUSE GOD IS “JUST”
jesus was not ETERNALLY BURNING IN HELL
the “just” father SAVED jesus from eternal torture.
the father did not receive divine WHOOPING NEITHER THE SPIRIT
the father TRANSFERS sins
“Therefore, the doctrines of Christ, the atonement, the resurrection, the Trinity do not limit Godās power and love, but actually prove the fulness of both His love and justice and power and wisdom.”
there he goes again with stuff EVEN he doesn’t believe in. man, yhwh is a god of confusion and that spirit in you is confusing you worse than jesus confused peter.
you are saying that god is not limited because the only way he could forgive was by becoming a man and a created body shows his “love power, justice and wisdom”
but then you do a u-turn :
The human nature was created in the womb of Mary
in other words you are agreeing that your god is LIMITED because he can’t become a man. lol
No, the second person of the Trinity, the Word,(John 1:1-5) the Son (John 17:5) entered into humanity by becoming a human in the womb of Mary (Luke 1:34-35; John 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8) – He, the Word, the Son, added to Himself a human nature and body.
That is not limiting God’s power.
Your stuff about the law of God is wrong. God’s principle, after Adam and Eve sinned, is that death entered into the world.
Genesis 2:17 – “in the day you eat of the fruit, you shall surely die”
This principle is repeated throughout – “the soul that sins, it shall die” (Ezekiel 18:20)
God, out of His mercy and love, both fulfilled His own justice by becoming a human and offering Himself up as a sacrifice on the cross, being the innocent and righteous and sinless substitute – like a lamb (like Passover lamb of Exodus 12), sheep (like Leviticus chapters 1-7), (like the 2 goats of Lev. 16-17, fulfilled in Isaiah 53, etc.
His justice / wrath against sin was satisfied; and His love and mercy for sinners from all nations was demonstrated. (Revelation 5:9; 7:9)
God demonstrated perfect justice and perfect love.
“God demonstrates His own love, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” Romans 5:8
There is no limitation on Him. He did this in history and revealed Himself and His plan for salvation in the NT, and the theology of the Deity of christ, the Trinity, the atonement – was all established for 600 years before Islam came around.
@Ken Temple
I was going to comment but mr.heathcliff’s various comments beat me to the punch and more or less sum up my thoughts on the matter.
Stew wrote:
@ Ken
How so?
Because the doctrine of the Trinity has always within the doctrine itself affirmed Monotheism – that there is only one creator God – sovereign, holy, wise, good, all knowing, etc.
So, the Qur’an saying “say not three” and “Jesus is only a prophet / apostle”, etc. Jesus is not God’s son, etc.
is a contradiction to the NT and history of the doctrine, showing the Qur’an’s own ignorance. Also ignorance of history by Surah 4:157, etc.
What an idiotic circular argument. It doesn’t matter if trinitarians say they are monotheists. The problem is you worship a man. Therefore, you are no different than a polytheist who worships idols. “Three” can be a reference to the trinity (in all its versions) or it can be a reference to tritheism (which many Christians ironically unknowingly affirm when they try to explain the trinity to non-Christians, because they really don’t understand it themselves).
@ Ken
Yeah that entire point made no sense. Then “veneration of the saints” is not idolatry and the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are purely monotheistic. This is the point you seem too not be getting, IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT A PERSON CLAIMS, GOD DOES NOT CARE AND HE CALLS IT WHAT IT IS. Just like when He says the pagans worship stone and wood. In their minds it is not really a piece of rock or wood they are worshipping, they believe God manifests one of His many aspects of Himself into the wood or rock when they pray. It is all the same mentality of creating partners with God, justified in diffrent ways.
This is the point you seem too not be getting, . . .
I understand the point you are making, but you are wrong. (which I already explained)
Kenny won’t understand because it is too inconvenient for him. And he will not acknowledge that he was refuted. This broken record cannot be fixed.
Lol how is Q 4;157 ‘ignorant’ of history even by your standards? It even says ‘it was made to appear to them’ hense acknowledging it is aware of your ‘history’.
A convenient empty claim, since all of history agrees.
Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, liberal scholars, all the ones Paul Williams uses here at this sight, etc. – all agree that Jesus was crucified and died on the cross.
Even Reza Aslan agrees.
We were talking about the Qur’an being ‘ignorant of history’. I showed it clearly wasn’t since itself says ‘that it was made appear to them’ which aknwoledges your ‘history’.
Then you run to Ehrman (and even Reza Aslan as if anyone here puts any validity in that clown) but this is futile and simple wrong.
Ehrman does not have your back.
Q 4:157 is a supernatural event. Ehrman himself said multiple times that historical analysis cannot reach into the realm of the supernatural. That’s why he rejects the resurrection and calls it a myth.
But of course you won’t accept that and so you’ll keep repeating yourself and lie about ehrman backing you up which he clearly doesn’t.
Poor Kenny.
@ Ken
All historians do not agree so that is an empty claim. I have a whole series dedicated to this:
https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2018/07/21/top-8-contentions-against-the-crucifixion-part-i/
https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2019/07/02/the-crucifiction-series-part-2-the-other-sources/
Also lol I love that you quoted Aslan like his name means anything. Since were just quoting anybody hey Ken Acharya S doesn’t believe in the Crucifixion either so there:
https://youtu.be/O6CKTqC0-4M
“You limit Godās power,love, and ability by saying he HAD to enter into his creation and die to forgive sins.”
salaam brother vaqas
The thing is that these missionaries dont really give a consistent answer. when they say that god existed as a human what do they mean?
GOD is the creator and he brings into existence everything He wills. Does GOd , according to them, bring himself into existence on earth ?
Is he creating himself ?
does he have new experiences in past, present and future like all humans do?
if the creator and created NEVER mix and every contingent thing is dependant on his will , what does it mean “god entered a birth canal” ?
what does any of this mean?
it suppose to sound nice to the pagans, but when you dig deep, they end up contradicting themselves.
My thoughts exactly!
Read and meditate on:
John 1:1-5
John 1:14-18
Philippians 2:5-8
Hebrews 1:1-3, 6, 8
Revelation chapters 4-5
GOD is the creator and he brings into existence everything He wills. Does GOd , according to them, bring himself into existence on earth ?
John 1:1-5
The Word / the Son (John 17:5) already existed in eternity past. The Son had no body before the virgin birth – Luke 1:34-35; He existed in the form (substance / essence) of God in eternity past – Philippians 2:5-8). The human nature was created in the womb of Mary, when the divine nature conceived – “by the Holy Spirit” – Luke 1:34-35; Matthew 1:18 – “she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit”.
Is he creating himself ?
God already existed as God – unseen, invisible, Spirit, Word from eternity.
The virgin birth of Christ points to His Deity and pre-existence.
GOD is the creator and he brings into existence everything He wills. Does GOd , according to them, bring himself into existence on earth ?
“The human nature was created in the womb of Mary, when the divine nature conceived ā āby the Holy Spiritā ā Luke 1:34-35; Matthew 1:18 ā āshe was found to be with child by the Holy Spiritā.”
“God already existed as God ā unseen, invisible, Spirit, Word from eternity.”
“The virgin birth of Christ points to His Deity and pre-existence.”
i don’t see how any of this waste of words answers the question. did yhwh have FULL EXPERIENCE OF HUMAN EXPERIENCES IN CONSCIOUSNESS ?
if yes, then how did a BEGININGLESS BEING have these EXPERIENCES WHEN THESE EXPERIENCES ARE CREATED?
“The human nature was created in the womb of Mary”
god was in the womb of mary or not? if yes, what was he doing in the womb of mary? was he forming himself ? was he going through transition ?
transition
/tranĖzÉŖŹ(É)n,trÉĖnĖzÉŖŹ(É)n,tranĖsÉŖŹ(É)n,trÉĖnĖsÉŖŹ(É)n/
Learn to pronounce
noun
the process or a period of changing from one state or condition to another.
if no process took place and god has no “experience” of “human nature,”
then what does it mean “yhwh was in womb of mary” ?
is womb of mary HOLDING yhwh “almighty” ?
if yes, then is mary worthy of worship because she HOLDS yhwh?
i’ll ask you again, hopefully this time i will not get an answer.
QUOTE:
That God the eternal Son became a man and lived among us is not something that is beyond His power.
says GOD BECAME A MAN AND LIVED AS A MAN
quote :
verb (used without object), beĀ·came, beĀ·come, beĀ·comĀ·ing.
to come, change, or grow to be (as specified):
He became tired.
to come into being.
new existence. new experience. new .
then he says :
The human nature was created in the womb of Mary
so what did yhwh become ? if the INVISIBLE BEING DOES NOT CREATE himself and does not have NEW experiences because he is UNCHANGING , why did you say “beginingless being” BECAME human being ?
WAS yhwh REALLY A human or was it an ILLUSION in a womb? is yhwh an ILLUSION?
ken temple so far is agreeing that the visiible being does not transform into VISIBLE CREATED being.
nothing in that “invisibleness” CHANGES.
so why did you LIE and say “god existed as a man” ?
QUOTE:
That God the eternal Son became a man and lived among us is not something that is beyond His power.
this is dangerous idolatrous talk.
you must agree then that god could exist as an angel in israel, as jesus in india, as flying monkey in japan, as cow in china.
but then you completely destroy your own definition when you say the following bullshit :
The human nature was created in the womb of Mary
now i don’t know if you believe yhwh EXISTS as a man or CREATED A man
existing and creating THAT EXISTENCE cannot mean god CREATED himself, you agree.
Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
John 17:5
Shows the Son eternally existed in the past with the Father.
John 1:1-5
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.
5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
John 1:14
Philippians 2:5-8
Luke 1:34-35
The eternal Son/Word became a human through the virgin birth.
John 3:18-21
18 He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.ā
Judgment is upon you because you don’t come to the light or believe in the light.
Just a minor comment. Nobody really knows what time period Joseph was in Egypt and the book of Genesis does not provide us with an absolute date. Many archaeologists, Egyptologists and Biblical scholars do not consider the Biblical narratives as reflecting history. Indeed, many scholars question the historicity of the Joseph and the Israeliteās presence in Egypt and Exodus therefrom, one reason being the lack of historical and archaeological evidence. The hypothesis that āJosephās pharaohā is an anachronism, assumes that Joseph was in Egypt prior to the New Kingdom beginning in the 16 century BCE, though there is no historical evidence that would confirm or deny such a theory.
With the lack of any historical evidence to securely anchor our chronology of the Joseph narrative it would seem imprudent to take this as an example of anachronism on which the Quran corrects the Genesis narrative.
Even if we can’t figure out the exact time period for Joseph in Egypt, we can certainly place his ancestor Abraham (pbut) to well before the New Kingdom. Genesis also refers to the king of Egypt in Abraham’s time as “pharaoh”.
In any case, it is highly unlikely that Joseph was in Egypt sometime during or after the beginning of the New Kingdom.
So in either case, the anachronism cannot be dismissed. The Bible erroneously uses the term “pharaoh” because that it was the authors were familiar with in their time. Genesis was most probably given it final form sometime around the 5th century BCE.
Yes, you are right, most scholars consider the Pharaoh of Abrahams time an anachronism. But this is not an instance where the Quran corrects the Bible.
I do not know how you came to believe it highly unlikely that Joseph was in Egypt during the New Kingdom. We possess no evidence for known historical events or figures we can correlate with the Bible to get at an absolute chronology in the second millennium BCE. I do know, however, that many of the scholars who accept the historicity of the Joseph story consider the setting to be that of the New Kingdom
āThis enthusiastic endorsement [expressed by G. Coats] is not shared by Kitchen, Rendsburg, Quaegebur, Herrmann, and myself who believe a New Kingdom date is preferable.ā (James, K Hoffmeier: Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition, New York 1997, p. 98).
When looking through the lens of historical and archaeological evidence the claim that the Quran in the Joseph story corrects the Biblical version cannot verified and to draw such a conclusion would not seem very cautious.
“Yes, you are right, most scholars consider the Pharaoh of Abrahams time an anachronism. But this is not an instance where the Quran corrects the Bible.”
True, but it shows that the Bible still uses the term anachronistically. Also, the Quran doesn’t mention Abraham being in Egypt, so it never came up, but given the clear distinction it makes between the “king” in Joseph’s time and the “pharaoh” in Moses’ time, I should think the Quran would not have made the same error as the Bible if it had mentioned Abraham being in Egypt.
“I do not know how you came to believe it highly unlikely that Joseph was in Egypt during the New Kingdom. We possess no evidence for known historical events or figures we can correlate with the Bible to get at an absolute chronology in the second millennium BCE. I do know, however, that many of the scholars who accept the historicity of the Joseph story consider the setting to be that of the New Kingdom”
I am going by the Biblical account. The Bible provides genealogies which can allow us to create a timeline. From Adam to Abraham, the time would be approximately 2,000 years. That would fall to around the 1900s BCE for Abraham (https://raykliu.wordpress.com/tag/bible-genealogy/). The time period between Abraham and Joseph is said to be around 300 years or so. That would place Joseph in Egypt in the 1600c BCE, which is a little earlier than the New Kingdom. So like I said, it is unlikely that Joseph would have been present during the New Kingdom period.
“When looking through the lens of historical and archaeological evidence the claim that the Quran in the Joseph story corrects the Biblical version cannot verified and to draw such a conclusion would not seem very cautious.”
It can if we follow the Biblical timeline. When we do that, the Bible places Joseph in the wrong period. Hence, the anachronism remains and the Quran corrects it.
Furthermore, the views of Kitchen et al. cannot be verified either. As you pointed out, there is no known historical record of Joseph, so everything they say about when he lived would be based on conjecture.
@ Anonymous
“Yes, you are right, most scholars consider the Pharaoh of Abrahams time an anachronism. But this is not an instance where the Quran corrects the Bible.”
It does:
Have you not considered the one who argued with Abraham about his Lord [merely] because Allah had given him kingship? (Q 2:258)
As does the Sunnah:
“Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet (ļ·ŗ) said, “The Prophet (ļ·ŗ) Abraham emigrated with Sarah and entered a village where there was a king…
…the king sent for Abraham and asked, ‘O Abraham! Who is this lady accompanying you?’ Abraham replied, ‘She is my sister…
…Then Abraham sent her to the king. When the king got to her…
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/34/164
Stew, isn’t the verse most likely referring to the king in Abraham’s (pbuh) home city (i.e., Nimrud)?
I was unaware of the Hadith though. Good find! So it proves that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) somehow knew that the term “pharaoh” was only used after a certain time period. SubhanAllah!
@ QB
Yep forgot that is referring to Nimrood so scratch that. But we still got a hadith that is the same story with the correction. This also serves as a refutation of “certain folk on the blog” who doubt hadith.
The way scholars such as Hoffmeier work is to analyze information contained in the narratives and compare them to extrabiblical sources and then to date them (you can see the varying items he considers for Joseph in the book, specifically pp. 83-98).
Let me me summarize the way I perceive the situation.
Genesis does not provide us with absolute dates and the archaeological and historical record is silent or mute on the issue. For these, among other reasons, the few scholars who accept the historicity of Josephās sojourn, are divided as to its setting.
On the above uncertain background, to make specific historical claims about the setting of Josephās sojourn and later correction does not appear to be methodologically sound and thus the claim you made has not been substantiated.
Sorry the final paragraph should read as follows.
On the above uncertain background, your claim cannot be verified. Thus, your claim about the anachronistic setting of Josephās sojourn and later correction does not appear to be methodologically sound and has not been substantiated.
“The way scholars such as Hoffmeier work is to analyze information contained in the narratives and compare them to extrabiblical sources and then to date them (you can see the varying items he considers for Joseph in the book, specifically pp. 83-98).”
Again, have misinterpreted what Hoffmeier et al. were saying. They were referring to the NK period as the actual setting for Joseph’s story. They were referring to the DATE OF COMPOSITION. Hoffmeier writes:
“The date of composition of the Joseph story also remains in dispute. Redford’s study has convinced a number of Old Testament scholars of the lateness of the composition in the seventh or sixth century BC. George Coats opines: ‘With this contribution in view, it is now impossible to consider seriously any suggestions about a direct historical line from the story to the Egyptian court of the Rameside period.’ This enthusiastic endorsement is not shared by Kitchen, Rendsburg, Quaegebeur, Herrman, and myself, who believe a New Kingdom date is preferable.” (pp. 97-98)
“Genesis does not provide us with absolute dates and the archaeological and historical record is silent or mute on the issue. For these, among other reasons, the few scholars who accept the historicity of Josephās sojourn, are divided as to its setting. ”
I don’t think so. Hoffmeier cites Kitchen as positing a setting date from the Middle Kingdom to the Second Intermediate period. This was before the New Kingdom period. They prefer an NK date for the COMPOSITION of the story only. So, the anachronism remains and so does the Quran’s correction of it.
Yes, I can see that the Hoffmeier quote can be a source of confusion. I am sorry, I should have quoted a more unambiguous source.
That is because Hoffmeier, in the quote I gave, focuses on the composition of the story. So in the quote you find both the opinion that Joseph lived prior to the New Kingdom and the opinion that the events of the Joseph story actually belong to the New Kingdom period. Whatever the case may be, let me quote a more unambiguous statement from Rendsburg himself, the second scholar mentioned by Hoffmeier:
āThe references to the land of Ramses fits in perfectly, for it is during the Nineteenth Dynasty that we first encounter the royal name Ramses. However, if we had to select a particular pharaoh whom Joseph served, our choice would be Seti I (1308-1291).ā, Cyrus H. Gordon and Gary A. Rendsburg: āThe Bible and the Ancient Near East, fourth edition, London 1997, p. 138.
Vergote, an Egyptologist, also quoted on the same page by Hoffmeier (but not among the scholars in the quote I gave, perhaps because he did not engage with Redfordās study) places Joseph in the New Kingdom era (see Jozef Vergote, “Joseph en Egypte”, Louvan 1959). H. H. Rowley, a Biblical Scholar, also places Joseph in the New Kingdom period (see “From Joseph to Joshua. Biblical Traditions in the Light of Archaeology”, London 1950).
But the point is really rather more simple. I feel you do not appreciate that the lack of direct chronological, historical, archaeological and textual evidence does not allow us to correlate the period of Joseph with an absolute date.
I also feel that you do not appreciate that it is exactly this lack of evidence that has given rise to the many scholarly interpretations of the Joseph story and itās place in history, if any.
In sum, you have not securely anchored the Joseph story in history on any sound empirical, historical and methodological basis.
I think I will not add any more comments on this issue now.
Sorry, a paragraph slipped out. It belongs after paragraph 3 ending with āp. 138ā, and should read:
āSiegfried Hermann, on Hoffmeiers own admission, in endnote 214 to p. 98 (referenced on p. 106), places Joseph in a āRamsside settingā, i.e., the within the New Kingdom period. I cannot recall having seen Quaegebeur actually dating Joseph himself, though I could be wrong. He did however note, that the word hartumim (āmagiciansā) appearing in Gen. 41:8 could be borrowed into Hebrew as early as the 14th century BCE, onwards contra Redford. However this may be, the quote from Hoffmeier contains both opinionsā. .
I am just beginning to reread a bit in Hoffmeierās book and he states that Vergote did in fact later defend his position against Redford.
ken temple does not know what he worships
A: becomes
B: human nature
C: add on
D: empty god
E: eternal and at the same time not eternal
Mate, i dont know what the hell you worship
“He, the Word, the Son, added to Himself a human nature and body.ā
add on add on add on
So you tried to use “sexy” language by saying how much your god loves u by BECOMING a man, now you reduce it to “add on”
if the invisible non- add on have no EXPERIENCE of “add-on” then yhwh and add on r two. Two separate things with their own experiences.
not much of love is it? Mean invisible trumps add on like how i trump condom and throw it away. so much for your lies how much god loves u when in reality it is just an “add on”
The most amazing truth is Jesus Christ, Al Masih, and all that He is.
https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/in-the-beginning-was-the-word
Those who know HIm, have received “grace upon grace”
Those who do not, will have to face hell-fire for eternity. Mark 9:47-48; Matthew 5:21-30; Revelation 20:10-15; Hebrews 9:27
https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/from-his-fullness-we-have-all-received-grace-upon-grace–2
Blah, blah, blah. Oh, we’re sooo scared!
Your empty threats mean nothing when it’s clear you follow a false, pagan religion. Someone who worships a man should be worried about eternal hellfire for himself.
Jesus the Messiah is the Word Of God.
John 1:1-5
āIn the beginningā =
Eternal – existed in eternity past – John 17:5
Creator
Life
Light
Overpowers darkness
More blahs. Man-worshipers should be worried about hellfire, not Muslims.
Why are you not scared of making partners with Him?
Because Trinitarian Monotheism is not violation of Godās revelation. There is only one God.
āWhoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also. ā 1 John 2:23
ā Jesus *said to him, āI am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.ā John 14:6
Your god took human form like pagan gods. Your god is no different from Zeus. Therefore, you should be scared of hellfire for your shameless paganism.
@ Ken
Several points:
1. To paraphrase a quote from the prophet Abraham(saw) when his people tried to threaten him with their idols:
Nobody is scared of the partners you make with God. Why are you not scared of making partners with Him?
Which side has more right to feel safe? Itās those who have faith, and do not mix their faith with things that are wrong, who will have peace and safety. (6:81-82)
2. Saying Jesus Christ, al Masih is literally saying Jesus Christ Christ.
3. We do know him and only what he claimed of himself. He is a be a prophet of God who submitted to the Lord’s will (aka a Muslim) and he was not one of the people who made partners with God.
Stew, #2…š
Kenny tries to impress people with his multilingual rants but only embarrassed himself.
@ Ken
Uhhh… it absolutely does to anyone who is monotheistic. You can quote all the verses in the world to try and justify making partners with God but it holds no sway. If Jesus prayed to God he cannot be God. This is basic common sense. Even though he is a mighty prophet he is a weak pathetic god on this point alone. He was dependent on others and couldn’t save himself so how the heck is he supposed to save me?
“Those who do not, will have to face hell-fire for eternity. Mark 9:47-48; Matthew 5:21-30; Revelation 20:10-15; Hebrews 9:27
https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/from-his-fullness-we-have-all-received-grace-upon-graceā2”
i don’t fear your pagan “addon-god” / “god-man”
to me it is just another pagan spirit/idol/flesh god/ creation
“Jesus the Messiah is the Word Of God.”
he worships words.
“John 1:1-5
āIn the beginningā =”
now he worships a SEPARATE consciousness/person
“Eternal ā existed in eternity past ā John 17:5”
his “word” says again and again he has a god and his god gives him things (matthew, mark, luke)
his “word” says “i am COMMANDED what to say”
so jesus does not even have permission to say “i am”
LOL
“Creator”
no, his was was USED like how the sun is used to give light and heat. NOTHING about him being “creator”
“Life”
i have of my OWNSELF NO power
“Light”
CREATED
ken temple worship, word, person, light
“Overpowers darkness”
yhwh was taken over by darkness
paul CLEARLY IN his letters says death had MASTERY over jesus
jesus says that his god GAVE him something to “battle” death, not that jesus had AN INHERENT quality in him.
ken temple worships
father (is not)
ghost (is not)
son (is not)
word
add-on
flesh
human nature
RELATIONSHIP
fully god has fully god thoughts
fully human has FULLY human thoughts (sexual temptations etc )
god is not author of confusion !
“Jesus the Messiah is the Word Of God.
John 1:1-5
āIn the beginningā =
Eternal ā existed in eternity past ā John 17:5
Creator
Life
Light
Overpowers darkness”
think about what this kafir is saying. he wants you to believe god exists as x (lists qualities) and then the SAME x exists as something else (think human being )
think about this. they have a DISTANT god which they give qualities to, then they at the same time believe this god is EXISTING as created being.
now ken is sharing communual toilet with his “god-man” and ken notices his god has constipation, ken tell himself “thats yhwh the eternal being”
this is what these kuffar are asking you people to fear.
quote :
Trusting in God means first and foremost not claiming to be God yourself and not claiming to be sinless
ken temple worships a god as a human being and thinks it is sinless.
idolatry according to torah
quote:
Quote:
But it is not only ancient pagans who believe that Israel suffersbecause her God is powerless. Modern Christians like Dr. Brown believethe same thing today. According to Dr. Brown, God without Jesus cannotforgive sin, cannot redeem His people and cannot have a meaningful relationship with His own creations. Judaism worships God without Jesus,and according to Christianity, this is a powerless God. Christians havebeen telling Jews that if they would but worship Jesus together withGod, their troubles would end. And the Jewish response has always beenand will always remain; āOur God is all-powerful and does not need yourJesus to help Him in any way shape or form. We are suffering because ofour sins and when we repent He will restore us as He promised throughHis prophets.ā
//////
and we agree with the jews here, OUR CREATOR OF THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH DOES NOT NEED jesus TO FORGIVE OR GIVE HIS MERCY , HE IS POWERFUL ENOUGH!
“Your god took human form like pagan gods. Your god is no different from Zeus. Therefore, you should be scared of hellfire for your shameless paganism.”
faiz is right.
and for thousands of years the message has not changed.
they are using all filthy apologetics to keep the PAGAN message ALIVE AND well.
quote:
In response, an anonymous poet wrote a hymn celebrating the actions and character of Demetrius, associating him with the great goddess of Greece, Demeter. Here is an extract of his hymn:
The greatest among the gods have drawn close to our cityā¦
Both Demeter and Demetriusā¦
Hail to you, O Son of the mighty god Poseidon and of Aphrodite.
The other gods dwell so far away,
or else they have no ears,
or they do not exist, or do not care at all about us
We see you in our midst,
not a wooden or stone presence, but bodily
And so we pray to youā¦ bring about peace
for you are the Lord (ĪŗĻĻĪ¹ĪæĻ)
Notice what is said of Demetrius. He is one of the āgreatest gods,ā the son of Godā (specifically of the gods Poseidon and Aphrodite), one who is ānearā his own people ā not remote, off on Mount Olympus, the one who ābrings peace,ā who can be called āLord.ā
These ascriptions to Demetrius should sound familiar to anyone who knows about early Christianity, where Jesus too was known as the incarnation of a divine being, the Son of God, the bringer of peace, the Lord, and God in the flesh. My ultimate point: Jesus was not the first to be called such things, or thought to be a kind of incarnation of the divine. He had predecessors.
+ The gods in Greek and Roman thought were considered to be superhuman. Unlike, say, the (animal-shaped) gods of Egypt, the Greek and Roman gods were literally in human form. When they appeared here on earth to humans they were often ābigger than life,ā but they could assume regular human form when they wanted to and they were human-shaped even when attending to their heavenly duties. In the Greek and Roman myths, they acted in human ways, they experienced the range of human emotions, they manifested human foibles, and so on.
:::::::::::
Jeremiah 2:5New International Version (NIV)
5 This is what the Lord says:
āWhat fault did your ancestors find in me,
that they strayed so far from me?
They followed worthless idols
and became worthless themselves.
//////
I do not know whether it is meaningful to continue this discussion as we seem to far from each other in terms of historical methodology.
But let me ask you then, do you believe that Adam, the first human, was created ca 4000 BCE (i.e., 2000 years before Adam) and died ca 3000 BCE? Also, do you believe that the chronological information in Genesis is historically accurate?
In addition, could you please, provide hard historical evidence, from the first millennium BCE that allows us to date Josephās stay in Egypt?
Sorry not the “first millennium” . Should have been: “…from the second millennium BCE that allows us to date Josephās stay in Egypt?”
The answer to your questions is no, I don’t believe in the accuracy of the Genesis version. That was the whole point from the get-go. We seem to be in agreement that the Genesis account is unreliable. Do you agree?
There is no “hard historical evidence” for Joseph, let alone for his presence in Egypt, so that is a moot point. However, there is evidence for migrations to Egypt from Canaan during periods of drought and there is evidence for the presence of the Israelites in Egypt (e.g., the presence of Egyptian names among the Israelites).
That is the whole point. There is no historical or archaeological evidence establishing the time of Joseph’s sojourn in Egypt. Thus your claim of an anachronism which was later corrected in the Quran, has, so far, not been substantiated.
I answered your questions. You didn’t answer mine. Are we in agreement that Genesis is not accurate.
By the way, you haven’t presented any evidence to suggest Joseph was present during the New Kingdom, only conjecture. I was basing my assertion based on the Biblical timeline, because there is no extrabiblical record for Joseph.
And as Stew demonstrated, the hadiths do not repeat the Biblical anachronism from Abraham’s time either. So the correction of Biblical errors has been proven.
Yes, most scholars do not consider the timeline useful for dating purposes. Just as many scholars do not consider the patriarchs historical figures. I do not have to present evidence of Joseph sojourn in Egypt during the Middle Kingdom. My very simple point all along has been lack of historical and archaeological evidence for the claim you made.
Your claim was, however, not the hadith and not the story of Abraham. I responded to the claim actually made namely concerning Joseph and the Quran which until now have not been substantiated.
Actually, it has been substantiated. If we use the Bible’s given timeline, that would place Joseph before the New Kingdom period. Thus, the use of the word “pharaoh” would be inaccurate.
Your only argument is that since we cannot reliably determine when Joseph lived (if he even lived at all) using historical evidence, therefore, we cannot say the Quran corrected the Bible. But if we use the Biblical timeline ( in the absence of actual historical evidence), then it is clear that the Quran does correct the Bible.
Also, regardless, it is also clear that the Quran differentiates between “king” and “pharaoh”, a minor detail about Egyptian history and culture that one would not expect a 7th century Arab merchant to know.
And by the way, Muslims believe in both the Quran and Ahadith, so if one corrects the Bible, it’s all the same to us. š
And I do not undersand why you base yourself on a timeline you know is not helpful to illuminate the issue.
Even with your conjecturing using certain scholars, you simply moved the time period a few decades forward to place Joseph in the New Kingdom period. So, you’re actually not that far off from the Biblical timeline.
āActually, it has been substantiated. If we use the Bibleās given timeline, that would place Joseph before the New Kingdom period. Thus, the use of the word āpharaohā would be inaccurateā.
I do not think you have substantiated the claim as you have not provided historical or archaeological evidence that can securely anchor our chronology to, say the patriarchs in Genesis. In other words, you have not linked your ca. 2000 Anno Mundi to an absolute date. If you can do that, you have substantiated your claim.
To be clear my position is simply that we have no historical or archaeological evidence that substantiates your claim. I am not here supporting any particular understanding of Genesis that, say, has Joseph in the New Kingdom or an understanding that places him earlier than that. I am not taking sides on the issue of the scholars I quoted. I quoted Hoffmeier simply to show that of those ā I suppose by now ā few scholars who accept the historicity of the patriarchs many opt for a New Kingdom setting.
It is a fair point for you if you believe in the Ahadith and in the patriarchs and so forth ā I have no problem with that. But, I am not concerned here with beliefs, but the historical and archaeological record.
“…many opt for a New Kingdom setting”. I. e. for Joseph.
“I do not think you have substantiated the claim as you have not provided historical or archaeological evidence that can securely anchor our chronology to, say the patriarchs in Genesis. In other words, you have not linked your ca. 2000 Anno Mundi to an absolute date. If you can do that, you have substantiated your claim.”
I don’t know why you keep talking about “historical or archaeological evidence” when the Bible is basically the only source to mention Joseph (other than the Quran of course). So using the Biblical timeline seems perfectly reasonable. The timeline used by the Bible places Joseph before the New Kingdom period. Unless you can give some other timeline, other than vague references to some scholars, you have not made a valid point.
“To be clear my position is simply that we have no historical or archaeological evidence that substantiates your claim. I am not here supporting any particular understanding of Genesis that, say, has Joseph in the New Kingdom or an understanding that places him earlier than that. I am not taking sides on the issue of the scholars I quoted. I quoted Hoffmeier simply to show that of those ā I suppose by now ā few scholars who accept the historicity of the patriarchs many opt for a New Kingdom setting.”
Fair enough, but simply mentioning these scholars doesn’t help us get any closer to an answer. In the absence of extrabiblical sources, I wonder how Hoffmeier et al. came to such a conclusion. The only source they have is the Bible, and the uses a specific timeline which places Joseph before the NK period. I suppose it is possible that, given the proximity of the Biblical timeline for Joseph in Egypt is very close to the NK period, if we finagle the numbers, we could place him with in that period.
“It is a fair point for you if you believe in the Ahadith and in the patriarchs and so forth ā I have no problem with that. But, I am not concerned here with beliefs, but the historical and archaeological record.”
Fair enough. My point with the ahadith was to show that you can’t fall back on the “‘there is no historical evidence” argument for Abraham and the “pharaoh”. There is no chance that Abraham (assuming he existed, which of course I believe he did) would have lived in the NK period. The ahadith do not use the term “firaun”. They simply refer to the ruler as the “king”. The story is very similar to the Genesis version, with obvious differences as well, and yet the ahadith do not repeat the Biblical anachronism. I find that astonishing.
By the way, Hoffmeier cites Kitchen as stating that the setting for Joseph’s story in the Bible is somewhere between the Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period. That would fall before the New Kingdom period. See the same page you cited earlier.
“No, the second person of the Trinity, the Word,(John 1:1-5) the Son (John 17:5) entered into humanity”
Unchangeable became changeable, i see.
“by becoming a human in the womb of Mary (Luke 1:34-35; John 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8) ā”
invisible BECAME limited and visible. so yhwh REALLY REALLY existed as a human being. in other words yhwh is a man, right?
”
He, the Word, the Son, added to Himself a human nature and body.”
from “became” to “added on”
Sorry to use the following example, but i understand “add on” as:
i can add on a condom by wearing it, but my penis has full experience of the condom, in same way does invisible have Full experience of “the flesh” ?
ADDED ON MEANS TO INCREASE
yhwh THEN EXPERIENED ADDITIONS WHICH WERE CREATED, RIGHT?
“That is not limiting Godās power.”
but yhwh has BRAND NEW experiences which are created. Created by definition means LIMITED.
“Your stuff about the law of God is wrong. Godās principle, after Adam and Eve sinned, is that death entered into the world.”
Bs! they were always going to die if they stopped eating the fruit. yhwh says that if they gained knowledge of the tree which gives knowledge, then he was afraid they would aim for tree of life….but “faith” of adam never saved him from”divine punishment” adam was punished even though he repented and believed ….yet he still suffered .
yhwh NEVER SAID TO ADAM that his disobediance meant that yhwh PUNISH himself, u cant derive crosstian nonsense from genesis.
“Genesis 2:17 ā āin the day you eat of the fruit, you shall surely dieā”
this does not mean ETERNAL TORTURE AND SINCE yhwh is love and mercy , then he would not eternally torture a repenting adam. yhwh is not limited , he can forgive without torturing himself lol
”
This principle is repeated throughout ā āthe soul that sins, it shall dieā (Ezekiel 18:20)”
see above
Stewjo004 wrote:
You can quote all the verses in the world to try and justify making partners with God but it holds no sway. If Jesus prayed to God he cannot be God.
Quoting verses from the Qur’an, which is a 600 years late human book, and contradiction to previous revelations, holds no sway.
If Jesus is eternally the Son / the Word (John 1:1-5; 17:5), and He voluntarily came to be a human (John 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8), through the virgin birth (Luke 1:34-35), and on earth modeled dependency on the Father in heaven as an example and model for us, while on earth, then His prayers to His Father in heaven are not contradictory to Monotheism. John 17:1-5 teaches both the humanity of Jesus on earth, praying to the Father, and being sent by the Father and also His eternal nature as God – John 17:5 – “restore unto Me the glory that I had with You before the World was created” = eternity past. Shows Jesus is God by nature/essence – the Word, John 1:1-5 – logos = mind that automatically flows into speech / word – the same nature / essence / substance as God – the same spiritual essence. The oneness of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit = the invisible creator One God, sovereign, holy, good, pure, all-wise, all-knowing, all-powerful.
“Quoting verses from the Qurāan, which is a 600 years late human book, and contradiction to previous revelations, holds no sway.”
how many years after did jesus come after the first available manuscript of the torah ?
how do you know that the animal sacrifices for sins was originally part of torah ? How do you know that sin offerings werent later added? how did jebus know what was added and what was not?
“If Jesus is eternally the Son / the Word (John 1:1-5; 17:5),”
he was a human passing wind among his pals and going toilet. The dirty shitty kristology in john 1 does not equate him to yhwh.
” and He voluntarily came to be a human (John 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8), ”
so he is “became”
“Add on”
AND NOW
EMPTY ?
”
through the virgin birth (Luke 1:34-35)”
Some pagan gods weren’t even born.
They just APPEARED ….bit like how mary APPEARS TO catholics AND NO ONE WITNESSED HER BIRTH
”
, and on earth modeled dependency on the Father in heaven as an example and model for us, ”
how does having sexual thought, calling woman a BITCH, farting, taking a SHIT, cursing jews, RUNNING AWAY from stones, show us “model for us”
you STILL have a humAN EVEN IF GOD CREATED A SINLESS HUMAN IT IS STILL HUMAN
“while on earth, then His prayers to His Father in heaven are not contradictory to Monotheism. ”
Yes they r. One conscious being if god CANNOT HAVE A GOD
GOD
”
John 17:1-5 teaches both the humanity of Jesus on earth, praying to the Father, and being sent by the Father and also His eternal nature as God ā John 17:5″
john the pagan kafir was changing the story in mark which said jesus REPEATEDLY begged his god to save him
“ā ārestore unto Me the glory that I had with You before the World was createdā = eternity past. ”
no ,this does not mean GIVE ME ALL your powers. father SHARES his glory WITH NO ONE. the verse must be interpreted to mean that in father mind jebus was “glorified” not that his person pre-exisexisrdd”
“Shows Jesus is God by nature/essence ā the Word, John 1:1-5 ā logos = mind that automatically flows into speech / word ā the same nature / essence / substance as God ā the same spiritual essence.”
polythiest.
three gods
”
The oneness of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit = the invisible creator One God, ”
u just mentioned three and then said
three and one LOL
”
overeign, holy, good, pure, all-wise, all-knowing, all-powerful.”
I of my ownself cannot do anything
I am COMMANDED WHAT to say
My father is greater than i
no one knows the our only the father
Why do u call me good
STRAIGHT FORWARD VERSES IDETIFYING ur jesus as human and not god , otoh uhave AMBIGUOUS shit which does not equalise jevus to yhwh
@ Ken
I simply quoted Abraham’s(saw) argument when his people threated him with their idols. Keep in mind YOU quoted your (literally) man-made book containing both contradictions within itself and to previous revelation coming approx 3,000 years late.
Moving on, yeah, all that word mumbo jumbo made no sense. He physically asked to be saved and notice you can only quote the late book of “John” who tried to spice things up and even then these authors still don’t believe in the Trinity.
So to sum up the nonsense of your last post for normal people you are claiming God prayed to Himself to save Himself? Correct?
and moses appears to peter and others in his body, does that mean a appearance out of no where means one must be god? Moses makes an appearance HUNDREDS of years later and you are OBSESSED with “virgin birth” what a spiritual prostitute prostituting your heart for gods yhwh didnt know
You are going to burn in hell , i am helping u see that your worship of a farting blood god is BASED on ambiguity. Repent of your sins and SEEK YOUR creator. put pauline jesus in hell where it belong. repent. Repent. Repent of this disgusting idolatry. your jesus is failed, u will not see second coming, take guarantee from me. you will not be seeing seconding coming but you will see your soul getting RIPPED the fuck out. Repent before it is too late.