1 Enoch and the “Sons of God”

1 Enoch and the “Sons of God”: Additional Evidence for Angel-Human Copulation in the Bible

Originally posted on the Quran and Bible Blog

بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيْم

“And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto 2 them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them…”

– 1 Enoch, 6:1-2

            In a previous article,[1] we discussed the identity of the “sons of God” in Genesis 6, while considering the internal evidence from the Bible and commentaries from the ante-Nicene church fathers (e.g., Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, etc.). The overall assessment left no doubt as to the identify of these “sons of God”: angels. Thus, it was shown that angels and humans could procreate, at least according to the Bible. This myth has been the cause of great consternation and embarrassment to modern Christians, especially considering heir silly critiques of certain ahadith in Islam about Satan. In this follow-up article, we will consider some additional evidence, using the apocryphal book 1 Enoch (specifically the “Book of the Watchers”), and show how the main argument modern-day Christians, like Ken Temple, use to argue that the “sons of God” were human beings and not angels, backfires. First, we will determine the approximate date of 1 Enoch (it predates both the birth of Jesus and the New Testament books), and then show that the authors of the Gospels were at least familiar with some of the apocryphal Jewish traditions that were widely known at the time and were included in 1 Enoch. As a result, we will see how the last desperate argument of modern-day Christians to avoid the embarrassment of the angel-human myth falls apart, and that the conclusion becomes unavoidable: according to Genesis 6, fallen angels (or some kind of divine beings) had sexual intercourse with humans and produced hybrid children. This, in turn, demonstrates the futility of their critiques of some ahadith in Islam about Satan’s bodily functions.

1 Enoch on the “Sons of God”

            The first part of 1 Enoch, consisting of 36 chapters, is known as the “Book of the Watchers”, the “Watchers” being heavenly beings that had descended to Earth.[2] Starting from chapter 6, these “Watchers” are first introduced:

“And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: ‘Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.”[3]

The allusion to Genesis 6 is, of course, obvious. Indeed, it was commonly believed by Jews from around the time of Jesus’ birth (peace be upon him) that angels had produced children with humans. For example, Philo of Alexandria, a Hellenized Jew, explained that:

“…[Moses] relates that these giants were sprung from a combined procreation of two natures, namely, from angels and mortal women; for the substance of angels is spiritual; but it occurs every now and then that on emergencies occurring they have imitated the appearance of men, and transformed themselves so as to assume the human shape; as they did on this occasion, when forming connexions with women for the production of giants. […] But sometimes Moses styles the angels the sons of God, inasmuch as they were not produced by any mortal, but are incorporeal, as being spirits destitute of any body; or rather that exhorter and teacher of virtue, namely Moses, calls those men who are very excellent and endowed with great virtue the sons of God; and the wicked and depraved men he calls bodies, or flesh.”[4]

Philo mentioned the angels again in On the Giants:

“And when the angels of God saw the daughters of men that they were beautiful, they took unto themselves wives of all of them whom they Chose.” Those beings, whom other philosophers call demons, Moses usually calls angels; and they are souls hovering in the air.”[5]

Similarly, the Jewish historian Josephus commented that angels had copulated with humans:

“For many angels of God accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on account of the confidence they had in their own strength; for the tradition is, that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call giants.”[6]

            It is also certainly true that this was not the only interpretation among Jews. Like later Christians, some Jewish authorities preferred to interpret the “sons of God” as human beings who had abused their power.[7] But this and other alternative interpretations appeared later, whereas the angel interpretation was much earlier. In his doctoral dissertation at the Theological University of the Reformed Churches, Jacob Doedens notes:

“[t]he evidence for this conclusion can be drawn from the reading ‘angels/messengers of God’ in several Septuagint  manuscripts, from traces in Targum Neofiti I and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan reflecting the angels-interpretation, from the works of Philo and Josephus, from the book  of 1 Enoch, Jubilees, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, 2 Baruch, and from several documents uncovered in the Judean desert. This mode of interpretation is demonstrably dominant from the second century B.C.E. on, until the second century C.E., as far as it can be discerned in the extant documents.”[8]

Interestingly, Doedens argues based on exegetical and theological arguments that the “sons of God” were “heavenly beings not otherwise specified”,[9] or as “divine beings”,[10] but not necessarily angels. Nevertheless, he also rejects the argument that they were “pious men” or “Sethites”,[11] an interpretation that has gained prominence among Christians in modern times. Based on his thorough analysis of the textual and lexicographical evidence, Doedens concludes that:

“…the identity of the ‘sons of God’ in Gen. 6:1–4 points to a solution envisaging them as non-human.”[12]

Astonishingly, he prefers the view that these “heavenly beings not otherwise specified” could even have been interpreted by “earlier readers” as “the gods of other nations”. Nevertheless, he notes that:

“[t]he divine beings-interpretation is therefore not so much in opposition to the angels-interpretation. It only tries to specify the expression in a more nuanced way for the time-period of the originally implied audience of the text.”[13]

Dating 1 Enoch

            1 Enoch consists of 7 parts that were attributed to Enoch, the legendary Biblical figure mention in the book of Genesis.  According to Pastor Peter S. Perry (St. John Lutheran Church), these 7 parts are: the Book of the Watchers, the Book of Parables, the Book of the Luminaries, the Dream Visions, the Epistle of Enoch, the Birth of Noah, and an unnamed book which is simply referred to by Perry as “Another Book of Enoch”.[14] The work is considered “pseudepigraphal”, meaning that it was falsely ascribed to Enoch.[15] It is not part of the Jewish, Catholic, or Protestant canons. However, the Ethiopian Orthodox church includes it in its canon.[16]

            As for the approximate date it was composed, the primary evidence comes from the Qumran fragments. The Qumran community was a group of Essenes, a Jewish sect that was separate from the more well-known Pharisees and Sadducees (both of which are mentioned in the New Testament).[17] According to Perry:

“Enochic literature was highly valued by the Essene community at Qumran. Among the scrolls found at Qumran, eleven manuscripts of parts of 1 Enoch were found, along with nine fragments of the Book of Giants, which tells the story of the giant children of the Watchers and human women. There were also eight fragments of the book of Jubilees, which is dependent on traditions in 1 Enoch.”[18]

            One such fragment, known as 4Q201, contains parts of 1 Enoch 7 (the Book of the Watchers):

“[They (the leaders) and all … of them took for themselves] wives from all that they chose and [they began to cohabit with them and to defile themselves with them]; and to teach them sorcery and [spells and the cutting of roots; and to acquaint them with herbs.] And they become pregnant by them and bo[re (great) giants three thousand cubits high …]”[19]

Here is the full version of chapter 7:

“And all the others together with them took unto themselves wives, and each chose for himself one, and they began to go in unto them and to defile themselves with them, and they taught them charms and enchantments, and the cutting of roots, and made them acquainted with plants. And they became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells: Who consumed all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer sustain them, the giants turned against them and devoured mankind. And they began to sin against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and fish, and to devour one another’s flesh, and drink the blood. Then the earth laid accusation against the lawless ones.”

enoch-b

Figure 1 – 4Q201, containing parts of 1 Enoch 7, found among the Qumran scrolls (Source: https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/scrolls/scr3.html)

The date of 4Q201 has been set between 200 to 150 BCE,[20] though proposed dates go as far back as the middle of 3rd century BCE.[21] According to the late Dr. Ada Yardeni, the script of 4Q201 “bears resemblance to a dated Idumean ostracon…dated to 136 of the Seleucid era, corresponding to 176 BCE.”[22] But she also proposed a date as early as the end of the 3rd century BCE.[23] The late Geza Vermes dated all of the Enoch fragments (including 4Q201) “to between 200 BCE and the end of the pre-Christian era.”[24] Similarly, using the Qumran fragments, Doedens dates the “Book of the Watchers” to “pre-Maccabean times”, and adds that:

“…the content of the later compilation as found in the Ethiopic version, must have been present as early as the first century B.C.E….”[25]

On the other hand, Perry dates the “Book of the Watchers” in its complete form to “the middle of the third century B.C.E.” and notes that “seven Aramaic manuscripts have been found at Qumran.”[26] Hence, there is little doubt that 4Q201 was copied around 2 centuries before the birth of Jesus (peace be upon him). The paleographical evidence makes this undeniable and there is a virtual consensus among scholars that the book existed long before the birth of Jesus (peace be upon him) and the rise of Christianity.

Did the New Testament Authors Know and Use 1 Enoch?

            Having determined the early prominence of both the angels-interpretation of Genesis 6 and of 1 Enoch, we can discuss the issue of whether the New Testament writers were dependent upon these older traditions. In general, three passages from the New Testament are widely regarded by scholars as pointing to the angels-interpretation because of their dependency on the story from 1 Enoch, these being 1 Peter 3:19-20, 2 Peter 2:4, and Jude 6-7.[27] Here are the passages:

1 Peter 3:19-20

“After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits—to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.”

2 Peter 2:4

“For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment;”

Jude 6-7

“And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.”

To most modern Christians, the attempt to link these passages to the angels-interpretation might seem unwarranted, but the fact is that even though these passages do not explicitly refer to angel-human intercourse (which was mentioned in 1 Enoch), they do refer to the imprisonment of angels for some sins they had committed. Indeed, 1 Peter 3 links their sin to the time of Noah (peace be upon him), which lines up well with the Genesis account, and Jude 6-7 likens the sins of the angels to “sexual immorality and perversion”, like the people of Sodom and Gomorrah.[28] According to 1 Enoch, 13:1-2, Enoch warned the chief angel Azazel:

“…thou shalt have no peace: a severe sentence has gone forth against thee to put thee in bonds: And thou shalt not have toleration nor request granted to thee…”

Taken together, there is little doubt that the New Testament writers were familiar with the Enoch-story and the imprisonment of the “Watchers” for the sin of cohabitating with human women and teaching mankind all manner of evil deeds. Moreover, they referred to this story in their writings. Doedens notes that since the story from 1 Enoch was so well-known at the time:

“…if Jude would not have wanted to allude to this sin of the angels as reported in this tradition, he should have explicitly emphasised this.”[29]

He notes the same for 2 Peter 2:4–7 as well.[30]

            For 1 Peter 3:18-20, the more “difficult” of the three verses to interpret in Doedens’ view, the word “spirits” is the key. He explains that:

“[i]n the New Testament the plural πνεύματα, ‘spirits’, is usually accompanied by a qualifier which leaves no question as to whom the word refers. In most occurrences, the reference is to non-human beings. The rare use of the word without further qualification refers in most cases to supernatural (malevolent) beings.”[31]

            Perry singles out Jude specifically as a clear reference to 1 Enoch. He makes the following observation:

“[a]lthough filled with references to the Hebrew Bible and Jewish traditions, Jude gives prominence to 1 Enoch by quoting it directly. Enoch continued to be quoted authoritatively by Christians until it was rejected by opponents to millennialism.”[32]

So, contrary to modern Christian interpretations, all three verses consistently point to the angels-interpretation of Genesis 6.

            Scholars have also noted parallels between the Gospel of Matthew and 1 Enoch.[33] For example, we can compare Matthew 22:13 with 1 Enoch 10:4:

Matthew 22:13

“Then the king told the attendants, ‘Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’”

1 Enoch 10:4

“And again the Lord said to Raphael: ‘Bind Azazel hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness: and make an opening…”

Again, to modern Christians, this “parallel” would not necessarily imply that Matthew was using 1 Enoch as a source or that he considered it to be a reliable book. But, as with the passages like Jude 6-7, when we consider that the Enoch-story was very well-known to Jews at the time, they would have immediately recognized the allusion to 1 Enoch 10:4 and the binding of Azazel (the leader of the Watchers). Other such parallels include Matthew’s use of the “Son of Man” concept, which scholars have noted is similar to the way the Book of Parables interprets Daniel 7,[34] and Matthew 24:36-44, which refers to “the days of Noah” and God’s imminent judgement.[35]   

            But there is one more passage (mentioned with variations in the Synoptic gospels) which may have been based on the Enoch-story, and one that has not received as much attention. Readers will remember that the Christian apologist Ken Temple’s main argument against the angels-interpretation was that the gospels indicate that there will be no marriage in heaven (as Mark 12:25, Matthew 22:30, and Luke 20:34-36). However, in the previous article, we discussed a few reasons why this appeal does not refute the claim that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 were angels, foremost among them being that Genesis 6 was referring to marriage and sexual intercourse on earth, and not in heaven. Moreover, the gospels do not state that it will be impossible to get married, only that marriage will not occur. Also, in the Bible, angels were able to act like humans while on earth (e.g., they ate food).

            Doedens also refutes the appeal to the gospels on these grounds. He states:

“[t]he answer implies that angels do not marry but does not state that angels cannot marry. It neither implies that fallen angels never could have had sexual relationships. The Old Testament recounts that angels in earthly appearance are “dressed as men, eat, drink, walk and are subject to being molested (Gen.18:1,2,8; 19:1,5)”, as Van Gemeren formulates. There is, then, no reason to exclude before-hand the possibility of sexual relationships entered into by angels.”[36]

            But there may be another reason why the appeal to the gospels doesn’t work. In fact, it may even backfire. As the passages state, Jesus (peace be upon him) claimed that there is no marriage in heaven. Does that mean that angels could not descend to earth and marry humans? Was Jesus’ alleged claim even unique? As it turns out, it was not. The same idea was already known to Jews and was circulating centuries before Jesus (peace be upon him) was even born. Ironically, it has come to us from one major pre-Christian source, and that is none other than 1 Enoch! In chapter 15 of the “Book of the Watchers”, it states (emphasis ours):

“And though ye were holy, spiritual, living the eternal life, you have defiled yourselves with the blood of women, and have begotten (children) with the blood of flesh, and, as the children of men, have lusted after flesh and blood as those also do who die and perish. Therefore have I given them wives also that they might impregnate them, and beget children by them, that thus nothing might be wanting to them on earth. But you were formerly spiritual, living the eternal life, and immortal for all generations of the world. And therefore I have not appointed wives for you; for as for the spiritual ones of the heaven, in heaven is their dwelling.[37]

We can see a clear parallel between the alleged saying of Jesus (peace be upon him) in the gospels with 1 Enoch. Professor Lee McDonald (Acadia Divinity College) states:

“[t]he similarity here is in the thought that angels do not marry and neither do those who go from this life to the next.”[38]

So what Jesus (allegedly) said was nothing new or unique. It was not a new teaching, but it was certainly not mentioned anywhere in the Tanakh. In fact, the earliest extant source for this teaching, which predates Jesus’ birth by around 200 years, is the same source that also narrated the story of angels having sexual intercourse with humans on earth! Thus, to the author of 1 Enoch, having no wives in the spiritual realm did not mean that the spirits could not descend to earth and take wives and have children. Readers should also recall that Enochic literature was very important to the Essenes, whereas the denial of the resurrection was the belief of their rivals, the Sadducees. In Mark, Matthew, and Luke, Jesus’ response was directed at none other than the Sadducees. This is further evidence to refute the Christian use of Mark 12:25, Matthew 22:30, and Luke 20:34-36 to deny the angels-interpretation for Genesis 6.

Conclusion

            We have seen additional irrefutable evidence that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 were supernatural beings (most likely angels, or perhaps, as in Doedens’ view, the “gods of other nations”), and certainly not human beings. The evidence comes from the Bible and the apocryphal book 1 Enoch. In addition, we have seen indisputable evidence that the New Testament writers not only knew the Enoch-story but referred to it in their writings. The story was well known and the parallels between the New Testament references and 1 Enoch were simply too close for Christians to deny that the former did not mean to refer to the latter. If the story was not accepted by the New Testament writers, they would certainly have clarified it. Instead, their allusions to the story, without any additional explanation implied that they assumed their audiences knew the story. Perhaps the most embarrassing proof, however, undoubtedly comes from the fact that even Jesus (peace be upon) referred to the Enoch-story (allegedly, if we assume hypothetically that the gospels are an accurate representation of his teachings), when he stated that there was no marriage in heaven. This concept was not unique and was well-known centuries before the birth of Christianity and for centuries after, as it was also found in 1 Enoch and was accepted by Jewish groups such as the Essenes. In the final assessment, the revisionist argument of many modern Christians lies in ruins. Their embarrassment of the angel-human legend has led them to contradict their own scriptures in favor of a preposterous and poorly crafted argument. In doing so, they even go against the (alleged) teachings of their savior!

And Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) knows best!


[1] https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2019/10/16/genesis-6-and-the-sons-of-god/

[2] For the text of chapters 1–36, see here: http://wesley.nnu.edu/index.php?id=2126

[3] 1 Enoch, 6:1-3.

[4] Questions and Answers on Genesis, 1:92, http://earlyjewishwritings.com/text/philo/book41.html.

[5] On the Giants, 2:6, http://earlyjewishwritings.com/text/philo/book9.html.

[6] Antiquities of the Jews, 1:3:1.

[7] https://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/1987422/jewish/Nephilim-Fallen-Angels-Giants-or-Men.htm#footnote10a1987422

[8] Jacob Johannes Theodoor Doedens, The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1–4 (ThD diss., Theologische Universiteit Van De Gereformeerde Kerken, 2013), 172, http://theoluniv.ub.rug.nl/32/7/2013Doedens%20Dissertation.pdf.

[9] Ibid., p. 297.

[10] Ibid., p. 298.

[11] Ibid., pp. 251-252.

[12] Ibid., p. 248.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Peter S. Perry, “Disputing Enoch: Reading Matthew 24:36–44 with Enochic Judaism”, Currents in Theology and Mission 37, no. 6 (December 2010): 453.

Of these, the Book of Luminaries is probably the oldest. Perry establishes “its roots in the fourth century B.C.E.” (Ibid.). Except for the Book of Parables and the unnamed seventh book (“Another Book of Enoch”), the other 5 books are attested in the Qumran manuscripts (Ibid.). According to Perry, the Book of Parables is probably the latest part of 1 Enoch, being written somewhere between the late 1st century BCE and early 1st century CE (Ibid.).

[15] https://www.britannica.com/topic/First-Book-of-Enoch

[16] https://www.ethiopianorthodox.org/english/canonical/books.html

[17] Perry, op. cit., 452.

[18] Ibid.

[19] https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/scrolls/trans6.html

[20] https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/scrolls/scr3.html

[21] Perry, op. cit., p. 453.

[22] Ada Yardeni, Palaeography as a Tool in the Reading and Dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls, p.5, http://adayardeni.com/paleo/Palaeography-as-a-Tool.pdf

[23] Ibid.

[24] Geza Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (New York: The Penguin Press, 1997), p. 513.

[25] Doedens, op. cit., pp. 102-103.

[26] Perry, op. cit., p. 453.

[27] Doedens, op. cit., p. 253.

[28] Ibid., p. 119.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Ibid.

[31] Ibid., 120.

Doedens observes that when the Greek word πνεύματα is used for humans in the New Testament, it is clearly linked with a qualifier. For example, 1 Corinthians 14:32 refers to “the spirits of the prophets”, in the same way 1 Enoch 20:3 also refers to “the spirits of men” (p. 121).

[32] Perry, op. cit., p. 454.

[33] Ibid., pp. 455-459.

[34] Ibid., p. 454.

[35] Ibid., p. 455.

Perry explains that:

“[t]o an audience familiar with Enochic Judaism, Jesus is the promised Noah-like figure to lead the righteous remnant.”

He also states:

“[a]n audience familiar with Enochic literature will hear the phrase ‘they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage’ as referring to the sin of the heavenly Watchers and its consequences on humanity. This phrase strengthens the conclusion that Matthew is interacting with Enochic Judaism…”

[36] Doedens, op. cit., p. 189.

[37] 1 Enoch, 15:4-7.

[38] Lee Martin McDonald, The Formation of the Biblical Canon, Volume I: The Old Testament: Its Authority and Canonicity (London: Bloomsbury, 2017), p. 303.

Interestingly, there are numerous such parallels between Jesus’ alleged teachings and 1 Enoch. Examples include 1 Enoch 22:9-10 and Luke 16:26 and 1 Enoch 38:2 and Matthew 26:24. See McDonald’s book for a full list.

 



Categories: Archaeology, Bible, Christianity, God, History, Jesus, Judaism

Tags: , , , , , , ,

89 replies

  1. “Hence, there is little doubt that 4Q201 was copied around 2 centuries before the birth of Jesus (peace be upon him). The paleographical evidence makes this undeniable and there is a virtual consensus among scholars that the book existed long before the birth of Jesus (peace be upon him) and the rise of Christianity.”

    More agenda driven assumptions.

    The paleological evidence makes this undeniable. lol, really.

    I’ll have to google that word.

    Like

  2. “Virtual concensus”

    Another one of Faiz buzz phrase.. Means no hard evidence but the scholars are all agreed.

    Liked by 1 person

    • 🤣🤣🤣 As usual, Iggy presents no evidence for his asinine view and simply rejects scholarly consensus. Manuscripts get dated using paleography, dummy. The paleographical evidence shows that 4Q201 was written in a script very similar to others from the 2nd century BCE. I know this is too much for your simple mind to take in. After all, you’re the kind of moron who believes rabbits chew the cud. 😂

      Like

  3. “and notes that “seven Aramaic manuscripts have been found at Qumran”

    The mere fact of Aramaic doesn’t prove that they were written BC. Aramaic was a spoken language until the conquering (islamic) hordes overran the middle east.

    Like

  4. The homeless crackhead I saw in downtown last night mumbling jibberish to himself while airhumping a fire hydrant is more coherent and logical than the shit Watson is spewing

    Liked by 3 people

  5. Ive been busy tonight chewing on this honey roasted caramel cud 🙂

    Chewing cud like BUGS BUNNY

    Like

  6. What’s interesting about the hadith you’re referring in the article. Is that Muhammad father was a pagan. Since he worships pagan gods. So he won’t know he has to say Bismillaah before sexual intercourse. Even if he knew, he worships some pagan deity. So it won’t work.

    According to Muslims scholars, not saying bismillah. Satan/Jinn wrap around the penis and have a share in the child.

    Therefore, this will make Muhammad a son of pagans and satan/Jinn.

    Not surprising in another hadith it says that satan touched everyone except Mary and her son. Since it’s obvious that satan messed up Muhammad from his mother womb.

    Like

    • Son of satan

      And this is the lowlives xtians are and always will be where they have to say things to try and agitate and lie and deceive to satisfy their wet dreams.

      Which scholars said that such a child would be ‘son of satan’?
      And how does any of this nulify his prophethood 40 years later?

      And the hadith about Mary and Jesus has zero connection with this since it talks about the child after birth. Nothing about satan never being able to touch them. Since you are a xtian pagan loser, you believe Mary was a sinner so to use this hadith is idiotic just like your porn religion.

      Liked by 3 people

      • @ Atlas

        Take it as a good sign that this is the best they can come up with.

        @ Son of Satan
        Simple rebuttals:

        1. God still blesses non-Muslims when they pray to Him or don’t. Otherwise, He would not even cause it to rain on pagans or atheists. For example, when an oppressed Non-Muslim calls out to God He will still answer it regardless we call this “Sunnah tullah” (God’s way). Another example, if people work together or give charity whether a believer or not He still blesses them. God several times in the Quran rebukes the pagans for calling on Him alone during calamities then going and worshipping other gods:

        6:40. Ask them: “When some great disaster befalls you or the Hour were to come to you, would you call out to anyone besides God, if you’re really telling the truth?”
        6:41. “No, it’s on Him alone that you would call. If it were His will, He could remove whatever harm made you call on Him, and then you would forget all of what you now equate with Him.”

        This is because your Lord is so merciful to His creation. And we don’t claim exclusivity to God’s favor or mercy in THIS LIFE.

        2. This is not Muslim scholarS it is A scholar by the name of Mujahid(rh) (if you’re going to bring up an argument at least know the reference) and since he gave no evidence for it, it can be dismissed because how would he know?

        3. Being a pagan’s son is not a bad thing. Abraham’s(as) father was a pagan and worse built the idols that his people worshipped himself.

        Liked by 4 people

      • They’re desperate. These troglodytes cannot engage in a reasoned discussion. As Stew said, it should be taken as a good sign that this is the best they can do. When you got them with facts, they will panic and embarrass themselves.

        Liked by 2 people

      • @ QB

        Very true Watson retardedly answered himself here when I simpy presented the facts:

        https://bloggingtheology.com/2019/11/03/dr-craig-considine-on-why-he-admires-prophet-muhammad-pbuh/comment-page-1/#comment-24795

        This is the problem that people just see their posts and think they’re being genuine while never seeing us defend. I don’t even see how this is a debate about which is the good side.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Is this moron the same one who was arguing about necrophilia in Islam? Except there, he/she called him/herself “Fatima”? Notice the jackass ran away after being exposed. 😂

        Muhammad’s father’s name was Abdullah. Let that sink in for a second for this simpleton. 😂

        Hmm…porn. Just read Song of Solomon. You’ll get all the porn you want. And let’s not forget that Solomon married 12 year old Abishag. Yahweh didn’t condemn that marriage.

        More porn…Numbers 31:18. Keep the little virgins alive for yourself. 😱

        Liked by 4 people

      • @ Son of Satan

        I’ll help you because you’re a retard.
        We follow two things in Islam (now I know this is a big number for you but hang with me):

        1. God which is relayed through the Quran
        2. The Sunnah which is relayed through hadith.

        In one of those two things please show me where it says that. If you can’t produce it retard we don’t have to follow it. Unlike you I’m currently in school and I know how evidence works. It’s got nothing to do with “saving face” it has to do with Mujahid last time I checked can’t see Jinn so where does his evidence come from?

        So what ya got from the above 2 sources?

        Liked by 5 people

      • Son of Satan is probably a descendant of Azazel! 🤣

        Like

      • Son of Satan thinks the Google cut and paste that he/she presents is the views of Islamic scholars. We have seen that the moron simply copies sources like WikiIslam et al., who misquote Islamic scholars.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Retard where does it say that the child is ‘son of satan’? Quote me the source. You were asked to prove your case and yet you can’t do it.
        It (ie the wrapping around the penis) is also nowhere found in any hadith, it’s just a late opinion. If that’s good enough to be considered proof (loool, you have got to be kidding me), then we can talk all day about your pornbook with quotes from xtians scholars.

        As for your pornbook. Yes Aisha was 9 years old. And bring me one source before the 20th century critisizing the prophet for her age.
        You truly are retarded just like your pornbook. Throwing out anachronisms to save face, is that realy the best you can do?
        And yes your bible is a pornbook since it contains pronographic verses and you know this all to well. No wonder why so many countries banned that filth in the past.

        Not being touched by satan at brith = being better than the prophet??? Buahahhahahahhahahaha.
        Where does it say any of that retard?
        Mary is nowhere near the level of the prophet in Islamic thought. So that has nothing to do with superiority. By that reasoning she is better than any other prophet except Jesus which is contradictory to your porn religion.
        The hadith makes you look stupid since not a single phrase leaves your mouth withoutnit contradicting your pornreligion.
        Poor manwhoreshiper. I mean really, poor poor manwhoreshiper.

        Liked by 2 people

      • “Wow, that really triggered you”

        That’s what most people say when they’re losing an argument. All you’re doing is repeating yourself and not engaging with what I said. That’s when you know that this is the best the manworshiping cult has to offer as an ‘offence’: they argue with themselves and pretend it’s a refutation.
        But yea I didnt expect much from a pagan who follows a cult that teaches an almighty god in all his glory and majesty was squeezed out of a woman’s private part and then has the audacity to talk about age difference of a couple 14 centuries ago and thereby comitting the worlds biggest anachronism fallacy ever known to mankind.

        Poor manwhoreshiper.

        Liked by 2 people

      • ”Several Muslim scholars around the world accept it”

        Give us the percentage of the scholars that preach this to the amount of scholars that preach the opposite and let’s see if it’s even higher than 0.01 percent.

        “You’re an internet troll that why we stop responding to you.”
        Coming from an internet troll that keeps changing its account name like trolls do and keep posting trash like trolls do and keeps not stopping with responding when they claim they do like trolls.
        Woow, just woow. The stupidity of that comment is unbelieveble.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Why are you so upset that Allah looks like a man? Your prophet said the difference between Allah and the anti-christ is that Allah is not one-eyed. So the similarities will be they are both short, have curly hair and fat.

        In addition, Allah has shin, foot, two right hands. Maybe he has two left foot as well? I can quote scholars which says they are literal hands. But who cares. Everything embarrassing is probably under 0.01% scholars. Stop being upset you worship a God who looks like a man. It’s ok your prophet was not ashamed to describe Allah like that.

        Go to the conversation, their several quotes from Muslims scholars that they permit sex with the dead. While QB did not quote one to support his position. Sound more like 100% say yes. And 0.00% on the other side.

        After quoting several scholars. But the internet troll still rejects it. It gets boring since his a waste of time. That when the low life keeps sending a message. And though he won an argument 🤣. What actually happens your boring, we moved on from the conversation. Did not even read it. If you have a strong case make it a bit early. After a few messages, it just appears like you don’t have a strong case.

        Faiz: “several real scholars with a qualification says yes. But I’m an internet troll with no qualification. I will reject it. I will keep sending messages until the person gets bored. And then claim I won the debate”

        Go take care of your wife mate. She has photos of her without a hijab on social media. Instead of being a low life on the internet. Why are you teaching Islam when you can’t even get your own wife to wear a hijab lol. Told you you’re an internet troll lol.

        Like

  7. ” Manuscripts get dated using paleography, dummy. The paleographical evidence shows that 4Q201 was written in a script very similar to others from the 2nd century BCE.”

    And how was the benchmark manuscript dated?

    Faiz goes round in circles again.

    Like

    • Hahaha, Iggy still keeps moving the goalpost and yet has not brought an iota of evidence for his skepticism. Amazing! How is it that Iggy seems to know something that trained professionals don’t know? 🤣

      Like

    • The Idumean ostracon from the 2nd century…let’s discuss this.

      Idumea refers to the Edomite kingdom, as Yardeni explains:

      “The Edomites, who penetrated the southern parts of Judah already in the late 7th and early 6th century BCE seem to have become in the 4th century BCE the majority in this region (called Idumea). They used the local Aramaic script and language.

      Well how about that? So we have similar scripts being used in 4Q201 and Edomite documents from before the common era. Oh but Iggy knows better. Without any evidence of his own to discount the scholarly evidence, Iggy thinks the date of 4Q201 to the 2nd century BCE has not been proven. Go figure…

      Crossstian apologists are so stupid. LOL!!

      Like

      • Lets say someone in the 2nd century AD chose to write in whatever style of Aramaic he chose to. Your waffle proves nothing.

        Like

      • Your idiotic hypothetical scenario doesn’t prove anything. Either bring some actual evidence or admit you are just an idiotic troll who places his personal opinions above established facts. Okay, Iggy? ,🙃

        Like

  8. LOL, this nameless troll (could it be the whore of Babylon?) ran away from the necrophilia thread after I exposed the shoddy Google cut and pasting. I also provided actual scholarly sources, including Ibn Hanbal’s Kitab Al-Kafi. The only thing this loser provided was comic relief.

    Now, do you actually have a relevant comment to make about this thread? How your Bible talks about angels having intercourse with humans? Your mangod savior also used this legend in his teachings. What is your response to this? Stop deflecting with your moronic opinions about Islam and misquotes of Islamic scholars. None of that changes the fact that your false book copied from laughable myths from the Jews and pagans.

    Speaking of a god looking like a man…Daniel 7 describes your god as an old man. As it happens, this is also borrowed from pagan mythology. In the Canaanite pantheon, El was the high god of the sky and was an old man.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Son of Satan/Nameless troll

    You didn’t answer my question. Are you a descendant of Azazel?

    Liked by 1 person

  10. “A young virgin. Does it say to keep 9 years old and penetrate her as you prophet did?”

    LOL, here goes the revisionist crosstians, trying to save face from the embarrassing facts about their Bible.

    It says keep them alive “for yourselves” you moron. If it wasn’t for sex, then why were the little boys killed? Why weren’t they spared and “adopted” or taken as “servants”, as you clowns claim happened with the little virgins?

    Now let’s see your own scholars’ views on this.

    Elicott’s Commentary – Keep alive for yourselves.—The Israelites were allowed to make slaves of their captives. Shortly after the capture of these Midianitish women, and, it may be, as arising out of it, the law concerning marriage with captives was enacted. (See Deuteronomy 21:10-14.)

    https://biblehub.com/commentaries/ellicott/numbers/31.htm

    Pulpit Commentary – Verse 18. – Keep alive for yourselves, i.e., for domestic slaves in the first instance. Subsequently no doubt many of them became inferior wives of their masters, or were married to their sons. Infants were probably put to death with their mothers.

    https://biblehub.com/commentaries/pulpit/numbers/31.htm

    Yikes!

    And let’s look at some Jewish commentaries as well.

    Chizkuni – ‘וכל הטף בנשים אשר לא ידעו איש וגו, “but any children among the women who have not had carnal knowledge, etc.” you shall let live for your benefit. This formulation prompted Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai to state that a female convert who has not attained the age of three years and a day, is fit to marry a priest. [as she could not have been contaminated through carnal intercourse] (Sifri on this verse)

    Or HaChaim – “keep alive for yourselves.” The meaning is that those who were allowed to live should convert to Judaism and only when they were Jewish would they qualify for the description חיים, “to be alive,” as then they would be allowed to get married and to remain “alive” by means of the children they would bear.

    https://www.sefaria.org/Numbers.31.18?lang=bi&with=Or%20HaChaim&lang2=en

    Now don’t try to deflect again. This is what your Bible and your scholars say. Of course, some of them were just as embarrassed as you, and tried to twist the text to say something it doesn’t.

    Like

    • @ Son of Satan

      It actually says they were raped in the Bible:

      “When the Lord your God gives you victory in battle and you take prisoners you may see among them a beautiful woman that you like and want to marry. 12 TAKE HER to your home, where she will shave her head, cut her fingernails, 13 and change her clothes. She is to stay in your home and MOURN HER PARENTS FOR A MONTH; after that, you may marry her. Later, if you no longer want her, you are to let her go free. Since YOU FORCED HER TO HAVE INTERCOURSE WITH YOU, you cannot treat her as a slave and sell her.” (Deuteronomy 21:11-14)

      How does it feel for somebody who isn’t your religion to know more about it than you? I imagine it must be both shocking and embarrassing. Anyways you have yet to quote a scholar (you can barely form a coherent English sentence)

      Liked by 2 people

    • Lol, it is you isn’t it Emma, the whore of Babylon, daughter of Satan?

      1. So killing little boys is okay because it was “common practice”? Like how the Pharaoh killed all the Israelite males? Are you really comparing your evil god to the idolatrous Pharaoh? Thank you for showing how evil your religion is! 🤣🤣🤣

      The little boys could be raised as Jews too, dummy. Just like the little girls were to be converted to Judaism. So why not the boys too?

      “Keep alive for yourselves” meant to take them wives. I know it’s embarrassing, whore of Babylon. But that’s what your own scholars say. Funny how you want to ignore that now, while harping about what Islamic scholars say (when you misquote them).

      2. Whore of Babylon, your god allowed rape in Deut 21, as Stew showed.

      3. And before you comment about other people and their religion, follow yours. Your false apostle Paul said you shouldn’t have your own head uncovered. He also said for you to keep your mouth shut and not teach men. So keep your mouth shut. 😁

      4. Hahahaha, so you admit your god is an old man?! Thank you again for proving how stupid your religion is! It is nothing more than repackaged paganism. 🤣🤣

      Like

    • Lol, so you admit that your god allowed the Israelites to marry little virgin girls? 🤯 You’re embarrassing yourself whore of Babylon! 🤣

      It’s rape because the girl doesn’t get a choice in the matter moron. Your Bible acknowledges that.

      There is no rape in Islam moron. Sounds like someone doesn’t know anything about Islam, let alone her own religion. 😁

      Angels curse a woman who rejects her husband for no reason. I already schooled you on this pathetic monkey. That Hadith actually shows that the husband cannot force himself on his wife! So thank you again for proving my point! Keep it up! 😉

      Deut 21 allows rape. Your scholars acknowledge this. And as you admitted, they were little virgin girls too. That is how evil your religion is. Sorry to embarrass you.

      Now shit your mouth, Crosstian woman. Paul said so. Don’t talk in the company of men or try to them. 😅

      Liked by 1 person

    • God knows the heart of the people. Whereas Pharaon doesn’t know. You must be really stupid to make that comparison.
      If that is evil, your prophet also allowed the killing of children. Why he did not raise them up as Muslim. I hope you see your stupidity lol

      Haha, you can raise up as a jew, Christians, Muslims, pagan. That does not mean will stay in the religion all your life. Are you dumb? That why I call you an internet troll lol. You’re no scholar. And you do not have the intellect lol.

      Showing him as old is a representation of him being eternal. What is the symbolism of Allah having two right hands? Lol. This will get even more embarrassing for you if you want to elaborate 😆.

      Tell us how long your whore wife will last without a hijab in some Islamic countries? 10 minutes? lol, I don’t think she will last a day. Lucky for her no sharia on FB. Muslims see her as a whore for not wearing a hijab.

      Like

      • Lol, I’m not the one who made the comparison, moron. You did. Your evil god was a tyrant like Pharaoh.

        Um no, the Prophet didn’t allow the killing of children. And even if he did, that doesn’t absolve your evil god. A tu quo que argument doesn’t solve the problem for you crosstians.

        In contrast to your evil religion, which believes that even children will burn in hell, Islam is a religion of compassion and Allah is a just and compassionate God. See here:
        https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2018/10/04/do-babies-go-to-hell/

        I can see you’re struggling to explain you evil god’s atrocious and barbaric commands. Kill children. Rape little virgins. Commit genocide. Wow. Is this what a compassionate God is supposed to be? 😱

        No moron, showing him old is simply borrowing from pagan mythology. The Canaanites believed this myth, and the Israelites copied it into their Bible. It’s the same with Leviathan (Lotan). What was that a “representation” of? Dinosaurs? 🤣😂🤣

        Whore, stop talking with men. You have no authority to teach men. Be a good Crosstian woman and keep your mouth shut in the company of men. There’s a good daughter of Satan.

        Like

    • I almost forget. Tell your wife to wear a hijab. If she refuses to bring the hadith that women have a deficiency in her intelligence. She better listen and shut up. Or at least don’t put a photo of her if she won’t wear a hijab. Put your house in order before you try to teach others about Islam. What’s wrong you’re not the one who controls the house. Why your wife gets away with not wearing a hijab? She’s the man and your the wife? Lol Be a man before she makes you wear a hijab 🧕

      Like

      • Shamoun, you gotta stop this obsession with other people’s spouses.

        Like

      • The arrogance of this woman. Not only she does not wear a hijab. She put it on social media for every man to see. It’s like her spitting in Faiz face.

        A man that can’t make his wife wear a hijab. Can’t even stop her from posting it on social media. This guy is going to teach Islam? Don’t make me laugh while your wife humiliates you in front of the world. Lol

        She’s the man, Faiz is the wife. Another reason why he is an internet troll. Being a prick on the internet and pu$$y cat at home.

        I’m getting bored with that kid Faiz. Here’s Faiz opportunity to post his so-called ‘refutation’. While I’m gone and won’t even bother reading it. And tell himself he won’t the debate.

        Now I understand why he keeps arguing even when proving wrong. Because at home it does not work when he tells his wife to wear the hijab. He is searching on the internet what he lacks at home. Looking for some control. Internet troll you have a mental disorder. Start by controlling your wife that will cure you.

        Like

      • Oh running away again? Oh I get it. You realized that you can’t teach men, as Paul said so. That’s a good daughter of Satan. Paul’s got you on a tight leash. 😂

        Like

      • Teach your wife to wear a hijab. She might have a deficiency in her intelligence according to Muhammad but that not an excuse not to wear a hijab. As a Muslim you have no shame she is not covered and showed it to the world? What the purpose of a Muslima of not wearing the hijab? for other men to look at her? I wonder why she’s seeking attention from other men. Internet troll spends more time trying to satisfy your wife instead of trying to impress grown men here. That makes your wife looking for grown men. Since she does not want to wear a hijab. To attract the attention of other men. While you’re being an internet troll she’s searching for an alpha male on social media lol. Everything has a context the same Paul allows women to prophesy. But you’re stupid since your the wife in your house, you’re the one with a deficiency in your intelligence. Your wife is the smart one, she dominates you, she’s the man in the marriage. She won’t wear a hijab, she will post it on social media. And nothing you can do about it coward lol.

        The level of disrespect is amazing, she clearly spits right in your face and Islam by her action.

        Talking of running away answer the question. You have no shame your wife without hijab post her photos on social media? Do have any dignity left in you as a Muslim? Let me guess as a coward tail between your lets you will try to divert to Paul or something else.

        Don’t try to teach Islam to strangers. Teach your own wife Islam. She has you an on a tight leash. 😂

        You’re a funny guy, I came back to have another laugh at you. Pray to Allah that I get bored with you because I will tell you the truth and it will be embarrassing for you. Lord have mercy, restraint me from humiliating that fool even more lol.

        If you can’t do it. It’s time for you to wear a hijab and give your wife pants to wear.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Hey whore, are you still talking? You are Paul’s whore, so keep your mouth shut in the presence of men and learn in willing submission. And also, cover your head as well so you have authority over you while you worship your evil old-man god who allowed infanticide and the rape of virgins. 😉

        Like

      • its quite clear in the bible that eve is portrayed as cock tease thats the justification for christian women to cover their hair

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ Emma

        D@mn I must be really hurting your guy’s feelings because multiple people comment on here lol.

        PS

        All these westerners hate you and want you to go back to your country.

        Like

      • destruction of this fat adulterous son of a bitch

        since your ex-wife is adulterous according to jesus and TEMPTRESS like eve, now you need to combine that together and tell her to

        1.shave her hair

        2. Cover her hair

        otherwise she going to continue to be a cock tease .

        Liked by 1 person

      • “When you experience unconditional love from God. Even if the world hates you, his love is enough.”

        do you get fucked by the holy spirit? your god is like one who tells people to abduct him and fuck him non-stop (rape) to demonstrate to his children how much he loves them. Your god is a fuckin retard.

        why would williams need to believe in self abusing rape ?

        Like

      • No, no whore of Babylon. It was your old-man god who allowed rape of war captives and also marrying little virgin girls. Don’t confuse your evil god with the greatest man who ever lived, Muhammad (pbuh).

        Liked by 1 person

  11. @ QB

    In summary,

    1. Nobody is refuting the article so we can conclude that’s a knockout.
    2. Emma’s still can’t speak a lick of English.
    3. The Bible alleges that God ordered little boys to be slaughtered and the rape of virgin (specifically) little girls.

    All in all another good day.

    Liked by 3 people

  12. Sam.

    I have a question for you… do you eat a bucket (or 5) of Popeyes Fried Chicken, while you copy and paste your insane anti Islamic rants on here, you greasy obese bald fat fuck?

    Second question, why do you only target Muslims with your hatred?

    Why not Judaism and their rejection of Jesus Christ? Is it because you know that if you mention anything vile about Jews, the Anti Defamation League will take your ass to court and leave you in South Side Chicago penniless, and shitting on yourself in fear of the Gangsta Disciples sticking you for your buckets of fried chicken?

    Nigga you are NOTHING but an useless, lowlife who has wasted his life trying to disprove Islam since the 90s and you’ve probably only succeeded convincing idiots like Jochen Katz and your butt buddies that you are making any sense.

    You are a pussy Shamoun.

    Take this L and shove it up your ass.

    Liked by 3 people

    • @ Shamu

      Very strong points why don’t these people do this with the Jews who insult Jesus(as) and believe him to be a false prophet? I personally think its because deep down they have an inferiority complex.

      Like

      • Here we go again Stewjo getting involved again. 😆

        Like

      • @ Emma

        Lol ohhh I’m so sad:

        “Hey…uhhh…shut up commenting on a public forum…yeah that’ll show you.”

        Seriously that was the best you all could come up with? Corny broad, why don’t you learn to speak English first then try to come at me? Also, notice you still can’t answer where all this bravery is with the Jews.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lol, is the whore still talking? Listen whore, you have no authority to teach men. So stay in your home and learn with submission. You should concern yourself with being a good Crosstian. Don’t worry about other people. So be good Crosstian, cover your head, and learn quietly how to worship your old-man god in the sky who allows child murder and rape. 😁

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ QB

        Speaking of Christian sexism, let’s bring it back to your article after Paul goes on a misogynistic rant about women he states:

        “For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.” (1 Corinthians 11:10)

        https://biblehub.com/bsb/1_corinthians/11.htm

        Let’s read the commentary:

        “We have already seen that the Apostle in his argument upon the relation of the sexes to each other (1Corinthians 11:7-9), refers to the first three chapters of Genesis as illustrating and enforcing that relationship. What more natural than that his thoughts should have gone on to 1 Corinthians 6 of the same book, where is the record of the angels (in the LXX. the word translated “sons of God” is “the angels”—angeloi) having been enamoured by the beauty of women, and so having fallen from their high estate. This account of “the fall of the angels” is referred to more than once elsewhere in the New Testament (see Jude 1Corinthians 11:1; 2Peter 2:4)”

        Pause. So contrary to Missionary propaganda the LXX (The version of the Torah that the writers of the NT were using and quoting) translate the “sons of God” as Angels!!! So that means:

        A. Early Jewish translators before Christianity understood “sons of God” being angels thus defeating modern interpretations.
        B. Paul uses this point to tell women to cover their head so we can conclude he believed it as well despite this next part.

        Commentary continues:

        “…through Rabbinical interpretations would have been familiar to St. Paul’s converts. Without at all necessarily expressing his belief in the historic accuracy of this legendary view of the fall of the angels, St. Paul might use it as an argument with those who did believe it (as in the case of the Rock. see 1Corinthians 10:4, and Note there). You believe—would be St. Paul’s appeal to these women—that once, through seeing the beauty of the daughters of men, the holy angels themselves fell—even that thought ought to make you feel that it is not seemly for you to be without a veil (of which your “power on your head,” i.e., your hair, is the type) in those assemblies where the angels are present as God’s ministering spirits.” (Elliot’s Commentary)

        https://biblehub.com/commentaries/1_corinthians/11-10.htm

        🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Hey… Paul didn’t believe in it, he was just teaching it to make a theological point about women’s subordination to man. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

        Liked by 2 people

      • Christian apologists are so stupid. 🤣

        Liked by 1 person

      • Good point about the Septuagint. I can’t believe I didn’t think of that. The Doedens doctoral thesis did talk about it.

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ QB

        Don’t worry there are just SO many arguments to make sometimes a couple slip through the cracks.

        So now Kennywise can do the following:

        1. Throw out the LXX and thus throw out pretty much all quotes from the NT writers (so much inter-textuality!!!)

        2. Jump to the Masoretic but then he has to accept all its reading that destroys his theology such as rejecting “they dug my hands” and a variety of other quotes that don’t match the LXX.

        3. Accept that Jesus(as) was wrong

        4. Accept that Paul was wrong

        5. Accept somebody lied about what Jesus(as) said

        6. Accept somebody lied about what Paul said

        Either way, we win as we reject both this story and what was claimed about Jesus(as). So sit back, relax, grab that popcorn and watch the trainwreck known as Christian apologetics about to begin. 🍿🍿🍿

        Liked by 3 people

      • Damn it Stew. Why you gotta rain on my parade? It was my turn to refute Christianity!

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ QB

        Don’t worry you’ll get ’em next time champ as I said so, so many arguments. I gotta catch up as you already did the Bully Beatdown to Shamoun.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Don’t mention the name, Sam Shamoun. That will make Faiz piss in bed again. Scared he will get another challenge for a public debate.

      If Faiz truly believes he won a written debate. I don’t see why he can’t do a public debate. He believes Sam can’t refute him.

      He can take as much time as he wants to do his research. So he is prepared. Just give us a date.

      And Sam can’t overwhelm him as he claims. They will both get an equal amount of time.

      All his excuses fail.

      If a Muslim can’t make his wife wear a hijab. Do you really expect him to man up and do a public debate?

      Paul Williams who claims he is gay. Is more of a man than Faiz. At least he does some public debate. And he admits he is no match for Sam. Paul Williams a homosexual is more manly than Faiz.

      Faiz is a little girl. His wife makes him wear the hijab at home.

      Liked by 1 person

      • ”All his excuses fail.”’
        So does all those of fatty shamoun. You can say anything you want in a written debate just as much you can do when saying it oraly. Just saying oraly doesn’t give the arguments magical powers.
        But all of you manworshipers know this to be true. But you have to deflect, lie and deceive in order to turn this basic fact on its head.
        Read the trashticles of your lord and savior fatty shamoun and then read the bitchslaps from Q&B.

        Oh and btw I’m still waiting: why are you such a filthy pagan who believes that his god who is apperantly so majestic and holy that he was squeezed out of a woman’s private part?
        I love the world’s biggest strawman of deflection of this loser when he started talking about the hands of Allah. Lol!!!

        O boy. When will this ever become a real challenge?

        Liked by 2 people

      • Challenge? Oh Atlas, you’re wrong in the wrong place of you’re looking for a challenge, bro! 🤣

        Liked by 2 people

      • “Ask the spirit of Allah who have to dwueeze his breath in the private part of a woman”

        yhwh gave himself a blow job

        Then, upon ejaculating, Jesus drank his own semen and told Mary, “Thus we must do, that we may live.” Upon hearing this, Mary instantly fainted, to which Jesus responded by helping her up and telling her, “O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?”

        there is no way christians would make this up. there must have been an embarrassing oral tradition going all the way back to first century christians about jesus giving himself a blow job.

        Like

      • so nt jesus likes christians to imagine EATING him, but the REAL story was yhwh GIVING himself a blow job and through it shared his spunk with mary.

        the story was so EMBARRASSING that it got changed to something else. so now christians , INSTEAD of consuming penis, consume and ENTIRE body and instead of consuming spunk, consume blood.

        Like

      • hey ken, remember your “eww” talk ? well tell me , what is the problem with yhwh drinking his own spunk , after all didnt yhwh create spunk ?

        Like

      • “Then, upon ejaculating, Jesus drank his own semen and told Mary, “Thus we must do, that we may live.” Upon hearing this, Mary instantly fainted, to which Jesus responded by helping her up and telling her, “O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?”

        now you will see the hypocrisy of crosstianity. they way say that the WRITING CAME (story DEPENDENT on writing)….but when it comes to the gospels, STORY came before the writing hahahahah lol lol

        now we can DROP “argument from EMBARRASSMENT”

        yes, according to these crosstians, NOT all “embarrassing” stuff is historical.

        ken temple said “eww,”
        a god could think that within his testicle lay “eternal life” and he is to share it with other creatures. there is nothing sexual about this since the “divine mind which is human mind cannot have thoughts of sex” (ken temple).

        so how many christians will drink the ejaculate of their “god-man” ?

        Like

    • Second question, why do you only target Muslims with your hatred?
      It’s a great question!
      It’s a question for the clown David Wood and his pals! What about the jews?
      Those clowns wouldn’t dare to use the same style – that they use with muslims- with jews although they always say this style is out of love! Well, we need this “love” to be projected to jews as well!

      Liked by 3 people

  13. Sam, you are a grown man.. act like a grown man.. For ONCE in your life act like an actual ADULT and stop acting like the 7 year old little boy who used to get his ass kicked at school by Arab Muslims.. We all know that is why you hate Islam.. because of the deep seated subconscious pain you are feeling from getting stuffed in the locker by the bigger strong Muslim guys.. or the time your first crush in school ended up dating a Muslim guy while you were too busy jerking off to Wonder Woman on TV..

    Wait.. how about that one time, you were in gym class, and that BIG STRONG Jordanian Muslim, gave you a wedgie and picked you up and hung you by your shorts from a hook on the wall… Poor Sam shit his diapers that day..

    Too bad you still smell like shit from that day till today…

    Poor poor Sam “Little Dick Big Forehead” Shamoun

    Cry in the corner little bitch…

    Like

    • Not only Jesus, even Sam’s wife couldn’t stand a bum like him. No wonder they divorced.

      Liked by 1 person

      • “Not only Jesus, even Sam’s wife couldn’t stand a bum like him. No wonder they divorced.”

        divorce in jesus’ mind = seeking dick of a man not married to you. So mr temple, is shamouns bitch a spiritual adulterer?

        Like

      • Just a side note Heath. We shouldn’t refer to her in derogatory ways. We don’t know her specific set of circumstances. It’s not fair to drag her into this.

        Liked by 1 person

      • i agree with you faiz.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Faiz is right about treating Shamoun’s ex-wife with respect. The fact that she has left Shamoun clearly shows that she has self-respect and cares about her children. Who wants to raise a family with a guy who has no skills other than making a fool of himself on the internet? Not even the whore of Babylon would marry Shamoun (assuming she is a real person and not one of Shamoun’s retarded alter egos).

        Liked by 2 people

      • this is christianties apologist who has jesus living in him. he has found a cure to hate, lust and anger. ken temple, christianity produces hypocrites. God gave the laws and rituals because he knew the human condition better than nt jesus.

        Like

    • What on Earth are you wanting about? Do you deny that your god allowed raping war captives (Deut 21)? Do you deny that your god allowed little virgin girls to be taken as wives (Numbers 31:18)? And let’s not forget the murder of the little boys either. Your god was like Don Ciccio in the Godfather. Get it? GOD…FATHER? Kill all the boys because they will grow up and get revenge for their families being murdered. 😂

      Like

  14. There is not one place in the bible where jebus krist tells christians to WASH their hands after they took a shit. the filthy stinky “saviour” most likely did not wash his hands after he took a dump in a hole.
    his life style seems clearly unhygenic according to the new testament and he thinks that pharisee ritual of hand washing is not even god revealed. how many disciples of jesus would wash their hands after hearing jesus’ BS claim that “they make TRADITIONS of men into doctrines”

    if there was a DIVINELY REVEALED TRADITION IT WOULD BE HAND WASHING LOL ESPECIALLY BEFORE MEALS

    It is KNOWN fact that without RITUAL washing there would be no washing. they didnt know about germs .

    Liked by 2 people

    • That’s right. I knew you will have to divert and not answer the question. You never realize if you give momo a cup of toilet water. He won’t refuse but say thank you very much lol. Dirty dog answers my question. You’re proving my point by diverting that I muzzle a filthy dog like you lol. Praise the Lord. Scum like you got a muzzle. Your prophet had showers in shit water. Used that shit water before prayer and drink it as well. Only a fool will believe shit does not defile water.😆

      Like

      • Lol, you’ve been diverting since the moment you made your pathetic appearance on this blog. You get refuted, divert and deflect, disappear for a little bit, then reappear after licking your wounds.

        Now, care to explain why your old-man god

        And irony of ironies…notice that you have yet to deal with the topic of the thread? The angel-human sex in your Bible? 🤔🤦‍♂️

        Liked by 3 people

      • “You’re proving my point by diverting that I muzzle a filthy dog like you lol. Praise the Lord. Scum like you got a muzzle. Your prophet had showers in shit water. Used that shit water before prayer and drink it as well”

        your shit got addressed here :

        https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2018/05/26/water-is-pure/

        tell me, if your god told you to suck him off, would you open wide?

        Then, upon ejaculating, Jesus drank his own semen and told Mary, “Thus we must do, that we may live.” Upon hearing this, Mary instantly fainted, to which Jesus responded by helping her up and telling her, “O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?”

        Like

      • This is a legitimate question though: do Christians believe that Jesus’ entire body was holy and sacred? Like every part of it, inside and out?

        Like

      • Sorry, pushed the send button too soon.

        Care to explain why your old-man god allowed such evil things as the above?

        Liked by 1 person

    • Those are the teaching of Muhammad. Don’t embarrass yourself diverting speaking of hygiene and eating lol

      Like

    • Why are you so obsessed with bodily fluids, Shamoun? Looks like the divorce is getting to you.

      Like

  15. faiz has a wife

    shamouns wife is DIVORCED

    jesus said that shamouns wife SOUGHT penis of other men(adultery) because she WILLINGLY DIVORCED/cock seeker of another

    so why didnt any christian condemn shamouns wife for being penish seeker. FAIZ IS MARRIED

    fAiz has a wife

    Faiz is true follower of jesus than a crosstian LOL

    hahah this is funny

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: