Brother Vaqas Refutes Christianity in One Post

As Ken Temple would say: BOOM!

The Quran and Bible Blog

Brother Vaqas has joined brother Stew in the one-post wrecking crew that refutes Christianity. Vaqas made the following comment on BloggingTheology (emphasis mine):

“@Ken Temple

Hi Ken since we’re discussing whether the messiah can die for the sins of the world i have some questions for you if thats all right.

first question: are these statements,

“Mankind has sinned against an infinite God, and therefore the sin is infinitely great. It takes an infinite being to atone for infinite sin, and the only infinite being is God. Therefore, since Christ atoned for sin, Christ must be God.”

a correct understanding regarding you’re belief on the matter?”

What followed was a brief exchange between Vaqas and the professional Christian liar Ken Temple, which I assume is still on-going, which exposes a fatal contradiction in the Christian doctrines of Jesus’ divinity and atonement for humanity’s sins. Here is the exchange:

View original post 256 more words



Categories: Islam

120 replies

  1. Jesus the Messiah was a perfect, sinless man (and Deity also), but the power of the sacrifice is in His perfect humanity. (even the Qur’an indicates that Jesus was sinless – Surah 19:19 (innocent, pure, Zakia زکیا ; and some Hadith also say this (the Hadith that says Satan touches every soul in the womb except for Jesus and His mother, Mary) – a higher view of His nature than Muhammad, for the Qur’an at least 3 times says that Muhammad needed forgiveness for his sins.

    The Deity of Christ raised Him from the dead. The power of the Deity of Christ and the power of the resurrection proved that the atonement for sin was a powerful and true atonement.

    The truth that the NT teaches all of this is doctrinal Christianity. The truth that something is true does not negate it as true, when the how it is true is not fully known. Just because we explain exactly how the Deity of Christ’s nature relates to the death of the human nature / body of Jesus does not mean it is not a truth. There is nothing wrong with mystery when our puny minds have exhausted an issue that we have to confess it is beyond answering. But the testimony of Scripture is that Jesus Al Masih was an eternal sacrifice, paid the price for our sins because He was a sinless perfect human being. He was also Deity, and because He was Deity, He rose from the dead, proving that the death / atonement / sacrifice / ransom was indeed a powerful and effective atonement against our sins.

    Like

    • @Ken Temple

      Hi Ken I’m afraid that still doesn’t answer my question. You already agreed that an infinite sin requires an infinite sacrifice. But the human nature is not infinite(God also hates human sacrifice) and the divine nature can’t die. So i’ll ask again, what exactly was sacrificed for you’re salvation?
      Was it the human nature? The divine nature? Both? Neither? I’d like an answer when you have the time please.

      Liked by 2 people

      • It is not an “infinite sin” rather it is sin / rebellion against an infinite being (God) – sin is shaking one’s fist in anger at God, who is the infinite majesty and being.

        God Himself existed from all eternity past as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (The Trinity, Latin: Trinitas Unitas =”Three in One”), but was not fully revealed until the virgin birth of Christ / Incarnation (John 1, Luke 1-2; Matthew 1-2) and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2).

        Jesus is one person with 2 natures. Jesus died on the cross. His Deity provides the power of the effectiveness of the atonement (a real propitiation and satisfaction of justice and the wrath of God against sin) and the resurrection from the dead; and His one personhood in unity of Divine and human – both His Deity and Sinless humanity provide the real atonement.

        The Scriptures say that Christ died for our sins and that He was raised from the dead.

        That is true.

        As to “how?”, beyond what I wrote, I think there are some questions that are not answerable fully. There is lots of mystery in this world and in this life.

        God’s sovereignty over sin and how that works with His ordaining that something will happen but not being the sinner or author of sin.

        The interplay of responsible choices and disobedience and obedience along with mental illness and physical brain problems – there is a lot of mystery in that.

        33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! 34 For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor? 35 Or who has first given to Him that it might be paid back to him again? 36 For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.

        Romans 11:33-36

        Like

      • @Ken Temple

        Hi Ken thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. first by “infinite sin” i meant what was referred in the original post and what you agreed too is “sin that is infinitely great”ect. i hope that clears up that confusion. if it doesn’t please refer back to our conversation in the blog post.

        secondly you wrote-

        “The Scriptures say that Christ died for our sins and that He was raised from the dead.

        That is true.

        As to “how?”, beyond what I wrote, I think there are some questions that are not answerable fully. There is lots of mystery in this world and in this life.”

        so answer to my questions is “i don’t know?” I’m sorry but i don’t think i can accept that.If i could describe Christianity with a metaphor it would be a malfunctioning automaton. outwardly it gives the impression its well made and put together but inside the gears are clashing against each other and the wires are all tangled. those gears and wires are the contradictions and unanswered questions within your faith. when the defining beliefs of your faith that sets it apart from others in the abrahamic tree are tested, by all accounts it seems to fall apart.

        when it comes to the sacrificial atonement from where I’m sitting it looks like human sacrifice is all you have left. The divine can’t die or else it will stop being divine. But as mentioned before that is problematic because,

        God hates human sacrifice

        And if the nature of one man is all you have left as a sacrifice its insufficient to bear the sins of the world. You are still in your sins and you cannot offer an explanation otherwise

        Liked by 1 person

      • A “malfunctioning automaton”…the perfect description for the contradictory mess that is Christianity.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Kennywise: “As to “how?”, beyond what I wrote, I think there are some questions that are not answerable fully. There is lots of mystery in this world and in this life.”

        No, Kennywise. The Bermuda triangle is a mystery. The Mariana trench is a mystery. The contradictions in your religion are not a mystery at all. They are proof that your religion is man-made and thus has many plot holes and contradictions.

        Liked by 2 people

    • The problem for Christianity is that its core claims are easily contradicted by strong proof; additionally, the religion itself has self-inflicted wounds in its theology that makes it subject to the category of false doctrine. Here is an example:

      The need for the Messiah to be sacrificed is contradicted by the OT and the NT itself is refuted by its own christology. An example of the latter is the belief in the Trinity, which contradicts NT and the NT itself is nothing but lost to history the original autographs. Just the tip of the iceberg. Furthermore, Ken Temple missionaries themselves are aware of this but refuse to admit due to pride and arrogance. Prof Dale Tuggy has proven that the Trinity is nonsense and false, whilst Dr Ehrman has given the historical proof that the Trinity was never the original doctrine, something admitted by many evangelicals as well.

      How many established Islamic scholars have compromised on anything remotely comparable to Trinity doctrine etc? None.

      Ken will deny this and death will prove every Christian wrong.

      Liked by 2 people

      • The basics of the Trinity was there in the NT text.

        Matthew 28:19
        2 Corinthians 13:14
        Deity of Christ, incarnation, etc. – John 1, Colossians 1, Hebrews 1, Philippians 2
        etc. Mark 14:60-64 – The Jewish leadership understood the OT taught that the Messiah is also the Son of God.

        Like

      • Matthew 28:19 is not proof of Trinity, nowhere does it mention the Trinity.

        http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/TTD/verses/matthew28_19.html

        John 1, Colossians 1, Hebrews 1, Philippians 2 I have read them and refuted them through reference to numerous commentaries.

        You got nothing, buddy.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Actually, death will prove that the NT is true and Christianity is true – the Trinity, Deity of Christ, salvation by grace alone, justification by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone, it results in fruit and good works. John 14:6; Revelation 20:10-15; John 5:24; Ephesians 2:8-10. James 2:14-26, Hebrews 12:14. Death will prove God is True and Sovereign and Holy and Good and Love; and that both Islam and atheism / marxism / leftism / agnosticism are all wrong.

        Like

      • Also, death will prove Tuggy and Ehrman were wrong.

        Like

      • Also, death will prove that Unitarianism and Arianism and Jehovah’s Witnesses were all wrong. (if you even are any of these systems)

        Like

      • @ Ken
        No, Trinity’s foundations are not. The NT authors thought Jesus(as) was a pre-existent divine being that was subservient to the Father and this is clearly stated by reading the text without any preconceived notions.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Ken, you made a range of claims, through reference to a book of which

        a) no original autographs exist, this premise is supported by fundamentalists as well

        b) written in multiple languages such as Aramaic, Koine Greek and Hebrew of which you are not an expert and the experts themselves struggle to know what certain terms meant to those in its usage (this makes your testimony false precisely because when certain statements are made in the Bible, you are reciting a translation, which is essentially, an interpretation. The Romans would say ”Translation is treason”.)

        c) has suffered numerous additions, deletions, subtractions and editions. Again this point is so well established that it requires no proof but nonetheless, Dr Craig and others have all agreed this makes the Bible less credible, then they come with other reasons to justify their faith.

        ”How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the Torah of the LORD is with us,’ when in fact the lying pen of the scribes has produced a deception?”

        ”So woe to those who write the “scripture” with their own hands, then say, “This is from Allah,” in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn.” 2: 79

        A well established scholarly book supports the self-evident truth of the Qur’an titled : ” The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament”

        In fact, we do not need books, scholars, or even divine revelation to know that the Bible has been corrupted: what we need is the bible itself where translators explain which verses are corruptions like in the Gospel of Mark etc, but the problem is much bigger! What has happened is that research and science has shown how big the corruption really is. The true extent is not needed because the available evidence is enough to disprove the Bible.

        Reverend David Bauscher writes:

        A very egregious example of probable deliberate alteration can be found in the Massoretic Hebrew of Jeremiah.” Rebuking them further, he writes, “To indict one group is to indict all, the Scribes, Prophets and the Priests. What is the major crime of the Scribes? “the false pen of the scribes has turned it into falsehood.” What is “it”? The previous sentence gives the answer: “the law of Jehovah”. The law of Jehovah is the written word of God. The Scribes perverted the written scriptures which they were entrusted to copy and preserve without error. There was a way to do that, according to the rules of the school of the Sopherim, in which every Scribe was carefully trained.”

        Galatians 2: 20 and Titus 3: 6 were completely distorted and changed i.e corrupted to facilitate a higher Christology.

        d) contains statements that prove that evangelicals and Trinitarians are committing great violence to God and His authority, through invention, heresy and distortion. In other words, the Bible condemns Christianity and proves that it is nothing a but a construction in forgery. I used to be a Christian pastor (I am a scientist now) before realizing that if I continued in this path, I would be destroyed.

        It is game over.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Ken, disprove my points and I will admit I was wrong. Do not pretend to not have read what I wrote. I understand you are arrogant beyond belief, full of self-righteous pride and vehement hatred.

        Liked by 2 people

      • “Actually, death will prove that the NT is true and Christianity is true – the Trinity, Deity of Christ, salvation by grace alone, justification by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone, it results in fruit and good works. John 14:6; Revelation 20:10-15; John 5:24; Ephesians 2:8-10. James 2:14-26, Hebrews 12:14. Death will prove God is True and Sovereign and Holy and Good and Love; and that both Islam and atheism / marxism / leftism / agnosticism are all wrong.”

        Oh how convenient! “Death will prove that the NT is true and Christianity is true”. So, in other words, your religion provides no evidence for rational people to use to conclude that it is true. This confirms what I concluded a long time ago: Christianity requires people to jettison their reason and just believe in its ridiculous and idiotic theology.

        Like

      • Dr. Collins said:

        “How many established Islamic scholars have compromised on anything remotely comparable to Trinity doctrine etc? None.”

        Excellent point!

        Liked by 1 person

    • @Ken Temple

      Hi Ken I’ve been doing some research on the topic and i stumbled upon a possible answer to my questions. Can you confirm or deny if it fits with you’re theology?

      “what was sacrificed was the human nature. the human nature alone suffered and died. the human nature was supported by the divine nature so that it could bear the sins of the world”

      Please reply when you have the time.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Do you have an article or orthodox (meaning of “orthodox” = sound doctrine, not “eastern or Greek Orthodoxy) theology book that that is from?

        Like

      • Thank you Vaqas for being respectful and having good manners in your methods/ questions. (unlike Faiz/ QB and mr.heathcliff)

        Like

      • @Ken Temple

        “Do you have an article or orthodox (meaning of “orthodox” = sound doctrine, not “eastern or Greek Orthodoxy) theology book that that is from?”

        The quote is a paraphrase of several christian articles and videos I looked through. Of particular note the phraseology of something like “the human nature was supported by the divine nature so that it could bear the sins of the world” came up in a few different variations. Based on you’re current knowledge does such a statement agree or disagree with you’re theology?

        Like

      • “Thank you Vaqas for being respectful and having good manners in your methods/ questions. (unlike Faiz/ QB and mr.heathcliff)”

        Awww, Kennywise is only respectful when others are respectful (eye for an eye), but his mangod commands him to “turn the other cheek”. Kennywise just flat-out refuses to obey his mangod! What a bad crosstian! LOL!

        Liked by 1 person

      • “Do you have an article or orthodox (meaning of “orthodox” = sound doctrine, not “eastern or Greek Orthodoxy) theology book that that is from?”

        What difference does that make, Kennywise? What is the “orthodox” position, you dingbat? That’s what Vaqas has been asking all this time.

        Liked by 1 person

    • @Ken Temple

      “Do you have an article or orthodox (meaning of “orthodox” = sound doctrine, not “eastern or Greek Orthodoxy) theology book that that is from?”

      The quote is a paraphrase of several christian articles and videos I looked through. Of particular note the phraseology of something like “the human nature was supported by the divine nature so that it could bear the sins of the world” came up in a few different variations. Based on you’re current knowledge does such a statement agree or disagree with you’re theology?

      Liked by 1 person

    • @Ken Temple

      “It needs to be from kind of good Theological textbook, or book, from an orthodox Protestant viewpoint. I have not had time to study the issue deeper than what I already have put into it.”

      I see. do you have any book recommendations that could answer my questions?

      Liked by 1 person

      • I was referring to your summary and quotes – wanting you to supply the references of where you got that from – with your quotes, or summary, etc.

        Otherwise I have not had time to research your specific question / issue.

        Like

    • @Ken Temple

      This is one and seems the most sophisticated.
      https://www.rbap.net/the-doctrine-of-the-incarnation-and-sufferings-of-the-son-of-god-and-the-doctrine-of-divine-impassibility/

      the relevant quote from it is

      “The human nature was “united to the [omniscient] divine [nature], in the person of the Son” (2LCF 8.3a). This means, though our Lord suffered according to his human nature (and only according to his human nature), the human nature remained united to the divine nature and was supported and sustained throughout the sufferings, for this is what God does in relation to that which has been made, which is but the truth of divine providence. The incarnate Son, according to his divine nature, upheld the incarnate Son, according to his human nature (Col. 1:17). The work of mediation is the work of both the human and divine natures of the Son. In fact, the Son’s work of mediation, according to his divine nature, actually predates the incarnation itself (cf. 1 Cor. 10:4; 1 Pet. 1:10-11) and in that sense could only be the work of the divine nature.”

        

      Liked by 1 person

      • To further clarify my question this time ,is the notion that the divine nature supported/sustained the human nature in order that the human nature might bear the sins of the world Orthodox christian theology?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Thank you! I think that is an acceptable source from an orthodox Protestant perspective. Sorry I don’t have time for more discussion on this now, but that was very good. there’s the answer for now. Maybe later, Inshall’Allah انشاء الله , I hopefully would be able to interact more.

        Good job, Vaqas. And thanks for being respectful and having proper manners. ادب و احسن

        Like

      • Lol, good job indeed brother Vaqas for educating Kennywise about his own discombobulated theology. 🤣

        Liked by 3 people

    • @Ken Temple

      ” Sorry I don’t have time for more discussion on this now, but that was very good. there’s the answer for now. Maybe later, Inshall’Allah انشاء الله , I hopefully would be able to interact more.”

      I see well that’s disappointing. I was looking forward to discuss the ramifications and contradictions that answer posed for christian theology… In any event let me know when you’re ready to continue the discussion on this topic.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Brother Vaqas, even though Kennywise is clearly afraid to engage with you on this topic, that doesn’t mean you should let it go. Impart your wisdom so we can all learn, inshaAllah. At this rate, if you keep at it, you will put us all out of a job. There will be nothing left to refute about Christianity!

        Liked by 4 people

      • yes, maybe u can do little write up and post on qb blogs

        Liked by 2 people

      • My brothers you give me too much credit! I’d be nothing without you guys and of course without Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala assistance.

        One of the problems with this notion of divine sustaining the human nature was already shown by mr.heathcliff on QB’s blog. which is that it makes a mockery of God’s justice. i’ll quote the relevant portion here-

        “An analogy will clarify this. Suppose the law requires someone to carry a burden on his own shoulders as punishment for some infraction of the law. If the person indeed has the burden placed on his shoulders but at the same time receives help from another person who comes along and lends assistance, either by bearing some of the weight or by offering support in any way, then satisfaction is not made to the law. Likewise, if the human nature indeed suffered but was at the same time continually sustained by the divine nature so that it could bear the punishment, then satisfaction was not made to the divine law, which determined the penalties to be endured by the human nature. Nor will satisfaction have genuinely been made to the law if the one who should bear the burden is helped extraordinarily by consuming some food or drink that produces superhuman strength, or by any other source introduced from without.”

        The big question is this. If God is willing to manipulate his wrath by sustaining the human nature to endure the sins, why not simply do the same for the rest of us?! Sustain our human natures so that we may bear the pain our own sins. Theres more i could write but i’m feeling a little weak at the moment so i’ll wait to collect my thoughts on a later date.

        Liked by 3 people

  2. Just because we CANNOT explain exactly or FULLY HOW the Deity of Christ’s nature relates to the death of the human nature / body of Jesus does not mean it is not a truth.

    Like

    • @ Ken

      Whoooo, whoooo, whooooo Damage control!!!

      Just to make this more embarrassing for you as one of your other missionaries tried to use Zakia زکیا to prove your idolatry. Using this same logic I guess we Muslims should drop down and worship John the Baptist(as) then as it is also used for him as well AND he receives even MORE praise than Isa(as) in his passage:

      Jesus:
      19:19 He answered: “I am only a messenger from your Lord, coming to announce to you the gift of a pure son.”

      John:
      19:12. …I granted him wisdom, while he was still a boy,
      19:13. along with a yearning tenderness and PURITY that came from Me. And he was very protective of his character.
      19:14. He was good to both his parents and was never disobedient.

      Also, the fact that you can’t explain your beliefs proves it is untrue as the whole point of God sending Scripture is to explain His will to mankind. If it can’t then it’s useless. So back to the million-dollar question, how did Al Masih(as) allegedly “pay” for our sacrifice? (Also if you get the time what how were people (especially children) getting to heaven in the Americas, Africa, Asia, etc before him? All plotholes in the “grand master plan”)

      Liked by 2 people

      • What about the MANY Hadith that says that only Jesus and His mother Mary are protected at birth from the touch of Satan?

        “every son of Adam” is touched by Satan at birth except for Jesus and Mary.

        No. 5838 Sahih Muslim

        Abu Huraira reported Allaah’s Messenger (sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam) as saying: The satan touches every son of Adam on the day when his mother gives birth to him with the exception of Mary and her son.

        Narrated Abu Huraira:

        The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “When any human being is born. Satan touches him at both sides of the body with his two fingers, except Jesus, the son of Mary, whom Satan tried to touch but failed, for he touched the placenta-cover instead.”
        ‏.‏
        Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 3286
        In-book reference : Book 59, Hadith 95
        Vol. 4, Book 54, Hadith 506

        That was just 2 – there are dozens of others.

        Like

      • What about them, idiot? Why are you deflecting from the contradictions in your silly theology?

        These ahadith do not prove that Satan touching someone somehow magically makes them sinners. Satan doesn’t transfer evil by touch. LOL, you Crosstians are pathetic! Non-sequiturs are the best you can do!

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ Ken

        I’m aware of the hadith but thank you:

        1. Doesn’t refute what you said about Zakia.

        2. Key words in your above quote (though this hadith still wouldn’t prove your idolatry) “and Mary” so should we worship her like your fellow Catholics and Eastern Orthodox? Wow you guys are giving God a whole family now, huh?

        3. Did you ever get around to Vaqas and I questions about Christendom?

        Liked by 2 people

      • Kennywise caught red-handed with another lie:

        “(the Hadith that says Satan touches every soul in the WOMB except for Jesus and His mother, Mary)”

        He then presented hadiths that clearly show that it is not in the “womb” but AFTER a child is born that Satan touches them.

        Liked by 1 person

    • LOL, Kennywise is in SERIOUS damage control!

      Like

    • @Ken Temple

      Hi Ken since the answer to my previous question was “I don’t know?” perhaps a new question to entertain your time. when the sacrificial atonement occurred, did the divine nature of Jesus(a.s) suffer?
      yes or no? please reply when you have the time.

      Liked by 2 people

  3. Clearly Jesus is greater than Muhammad.

    The virgin birth and His sinlessness and His being called “The Word” (kalameh کلمه = logos) and a Spirit from God demonstrates this truth.

    Like

    • Clearly, you are an idiot and non-sequiturs don’t prove anything.

      “Say ye: “We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma’il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to Allah (in Islam).” (2:136)

      Clearly, Jesus (pbuh) is a prophet like Muhammad (pbuh), and they are brothers in faith:

      “Narrated Malik bin Sasaa: That the Prophet (ﷺ) talked to them about the night of his Ascension to the Heavens. He said, “(Then Gabriel took me) and ascended up till he reached the second heaven where he asked for the gate to be opened, but it was asked, ‘Who is it?’ Gabriel replied, ‘I am Gabriel.’ It was asked, ‘Who is accompanying you?’ He replied, ‘Muhammad.’ It was asked, ‘Has he been called?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ When we reached over the second heaven, I saw Yahya (i.e. John) and Jesus who were cousins. Gabriel said, ‘These are John (Yahya) and Jesus, so greet them.’ I greeted them and they returned the greeting saying, ‘Welcome, O Pious Brother and Pious Prophet!;'”” (https://sunnah.com/bukhari/60/101).

      Liked by 4 people

      • A mistake about “the womb” from my memory is not the same thing as a deliberate lie. At least I admit my mistakes.

        But you still don’t know the definition of a lie. You are stupid since you don’t know how to argue properly without constantly accusing of lying. A different opinion or interpretation is not lying; and a memory lapse mistake is not a lie.

        I should have looked up the Hadith first before typing, I will admit.

        At least I know how to admit it when I make my mistake.

        Like

      • Good job Kenny! You admitted one of your many mistakes! It has to start somewhere.

        Now, let’s keep going. Do you admit that the Hadiths do not prove anything about Jesus’ “sinlessness” or “superiority” to Muhammad (pbut), as you so foolishly claimed?

        Like

      • Combined with the fact that Muhammad asked for forgiveness for his sins at least 3 times in the Qur’an and more in the Hadith and the fact that “all the sons of Adam are touched by Satan at birth, EXCEPT for Jesus and His mother Mary (a mistake of Islamic tradition, and probably crept in during the 200 + years of collecting Hadiths into the 800s – 900s AD.

        Still shows Jesus is sinless, since the NT ALREADY taught that and was established for 500-600 years pre-Islam.

        Like

      • All it shows is that you’re an idiot and a liar.

        Moreover, the NT actually unwittingly showed that Jesus was a sinner, as we have proven many times.

        Like

      • You still don’t know the meaning of “liar” or “lie”.

        Jesus was sinless. (John 8:46; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15; 7:26)

        These books were written from around 55 AD (I Corinthians) to 68 AD (Hebrews) to 80 AD (John); so the sinless Al Masih was established 500-600 years before Muhammad and about 800 years before Hadith.

        Like

      • 🤣 Obviously, you will keep lying and keep telling yourself that you’re not a liar. That’s a sign of some pathological problem.

        Yeah, I know your silly Bible says that he was sinless but as I said, it unwittingly contradicted itself by showing that he actually sinned on a few occasions. These idiotic books were written by idiotic men who were themselves liars. No wonder they made so many mistakes. 😂

        Like

      • You still don’t know the intellectual definition of a liar / lying / lie; and you also do lots of psychological projection onto your opponents in argument / debate – that is not a good method, not Ahasanu, not ُاحسن
        Surah 29:46

        Like

      • Keep lying dummy. Everyone knows you are a deceitful little twirp. 😁

        Like

      • That Hadith is just a made up man made thing. Muhammad never went to heaven or the heavens.

        Like

      • Yeah, no one cares what you think. The point is that the Ahadith clearly show that Jesus was just a man and a great prophet who is loved and respected by Muslims.

        And what exactly does “made up man made thing” even mean? 🤔

        Like

      • It is not inspired, and neither is the Qur’an. Whatever is true in Islam was hijacked from Jewish and Christian traditions and then changed, twisted, added to, corrupted.

        Like

      • Yeah again, no one cares what you think. The point is that the Ahadith firmly establish that Jesus was just a man, but a great prophet, which refutes your idiotic idolatry in worshiping him like some moron pagan. You’re better off being a Hindu. 🤣

        Liked by 1 person

    • Temple: Clearly Jesus is greater than Muhammad. The virgin birth and His sinlessness and His being called “The Word” (kalameh کلمه = logos) and a Spirit from God demonstrates this truth.

      Muhammad(saw) prevailed over his enemies, after 23 years of hardship and suffering. According to Christianity, Jesus taught for only 3 years before being nailed to a piece of wood by his enemies.

      Liked by 5 people

      • Jesus resurrection proved victory by love for sinners from all nations (Rev. 5:9; 7:9; Romans 5:8; John 3:16) and justice against sin in the propitiation for sin. (appeasement of God’s wrath or satisfaction of justice.)

        A mistake is not the same as a lie. I made a mistake from memory about the womb and had to look up the Hadith references.

        The interesting thing is that took from Christian tradition and some of that tradition was not Biblical (that Mary was kept from sin).

        The clear point is that Jesus is not a sinner – He is the only human being ever in history that was perfect.

        The hadith shows that Muhammad was a sinner – he was touched by Satan at birth, and at least 3 times he had to ask for forgiveness for his sins.

        but Jesus never did – He was and is the sinless Son of God / word of God from all eternity. (John 1:1; 17:5)

        The military victories (after the Hijra era – after 622 AD) were increasingly human aggressive warfare in Jihad, and Qatal and Harb – 9:5; 9:29; 8:39, etc. The conquering of Eastern Byzantine Empire, North Africa, Spain, Persia, etc. – unjust and history knows this.

        Like

      • Jesus’ “resurrection”: a myth

        Muhammad’s success as a prophet after 23 years of struggles: a historical fact

        And alas, we see Kennywise doubling down on his lie. The Ahadith about Satan don’t prove anything about sin. As I said, the mere act of touching does not make one a sinner. This is why Kennywise is such a loser.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Ken Temple: Jesus resurrection proved victory by love for sinners from all nations… The military victories (after the Hijra era – after 622 AD) were increasingly human aggressive warfare in Jihad, and Qatal and Harb…

        These statements don’t make any sense.

        Liked by 1 person

      • “Ken Temple: Jesus resurrection proved victory by love for sinners ”

        deep down u know thats bullshit. “Ressurection” was for selfish jesus to go back living a happy life with daddy in heaven . Daddy in heaven never dies, he needs shedding of a body for appeasement and then daddy rewards jesus with resurrection. what your religion teaches is that ressurection proves daddy COOLED off. and it seems that daddy had no proof for love prior to ressurection. Lol. it seems that his guidance was not about love cause there was no proof in it. The truth is that love has nothing to do with your religion. a ritual sacrifice which u worship has everything to do wit ur religion

        Like

  4. “And if the nature of one man is all you have left as a sacrifice its insufficient to bear the sins of the world.”

    But this is not what the bible teaches according to trinitarian Christians. So its a non-sequitur.

    Like

    • Answer his question. Kennywise tried and he failed miserably.

      Like

    • @Erasmus

      Hello Erasmus you seem to have misunderstood my question and position. It is true that trinitarian Christians believe that the bible teaches that the “godman” died and was sacrificed for the sins of the world. However what exactly was sacrificed? The divine nature can’t die. The human nature is only one man, not sufficient to bear the sins of the world. Ken Temple, who is also a trinitarian Christian, answered the question by saying “I don’t know?”

      Now this is important since christian theology dictates a sacrifice was needed but can’t determine what was sacrificed! By all accounts then Christians should still be in their sins and are not saved. These are the points I was making. That christian theology contradicts itself when you think about it hard enough. If you have a better answer to my questions Erasmus I’d love to hear it.

      Liked by 2 people

      • “Now this is important since christian theology dictates a sacrifice was needed but can’t determine what was sacrificed! ”

        To say that something was sacrificed is just a kind of rough description of what happened is it not? It’s the theological shorthand, using OT imagery, of the NT as to how God made atonement but is it really a precise description of the actual happenings on the cross? How do you sacrifice a nature, whether human nor divine? Is it actually possible? Does it make sense? These are just a few preliminary thoughts.

        Like

      • @Erasmus

        Hello Erasmus thank you for taking the time to write a reply.

        “To say that something was sacrificed is just a kind of rough description of what happened is it not? It’s the theological shorthand, using OT imagery, of the NT as to how God made atonement but is it really a precise description of the actual happenings on the cross?”

        As you said its the theological shorthand. it also referred to as such in various places in the NT such as Hebrews 9:26. If it is not an accurate description of what happened on the cross in christian theology, then what would be? How do you, for example, understand christs death on the cross in relation to atonement?

        ” How do you sacrifice a nature, whether human nor divine? Is it actually possible? Does it make sense?”

        The meaning of the word sacrifice may answer your questions

        sac·ri·fice
        “noun
        an act of slaughtering an animal or person or surrendering a possession as an offering to God or to a divine or supernatural figure.”

        I hope that helped explain things.

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ Erasmus

        Well I’d like to hop in as this seems like a time we can talk without trolling. My understanding is it was a literal sacrifice (somehow) but you seem yo be suggesting that this is not necessarily literal. So then what actually happened then that provided atonement? What was the entire point and why couldn’t the Father then just forgive us since He is the One who placed choice in us and knew we would sin before even creating us?

        Liked by 2 people

      • So the Christians still cannot answer the question. Clearly, this is a major flaw in Christian theology. They cannot even explain what was sacrificed on their behalf.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. “Muhammad’s success as a prophet after 23 years of struggles: a historical fact”

    success in this world does not mean it is truth.

    Do you judge the current state of the Islamic Ummah as “success” ?

    Success = meaning, the Disunity, Shia vs. Sunni, Saudi Arabia, monarchies, no Caliphate since 1924, dictators all over the place since then; liberal Islam in big cities and secular countries, the state of Israel, Iran’s power and spreading Shia Khomeini revolution to Lebanon, Syria, more and more strength in Iraq, Yemen, etc. ?

    Are the military / Empire building successes of the past that held for decades or centuries of successful Empires any indication of ultimate Truth?

    Like

    • 🤣 Dummy, he succeeded in uniting the Arabs and destroyed idolatry among them, despite facing enormous odds. He was successful as a religious leader, as a general, and as a political leader. No other person in history comes close.

      In contrast, your mangod left a legacy of schisms, councils, inquisitions, forged books, competing canons, etc.

      Liked by 1 person

    • @ Ken

      First off everything you just listed regarding disunity, monarchies, liberalism in big cities and secular countries I can apply to Christianity lol. However, this FAVORS us not hurts us as this was predicted by Muhammad(saw) thus making him a true prophet:

      1. monarchies, no Caliphate since 1924, dictators all over the place since then

      “The Prophethood will remain amongst you for as long as Allaah wills it to be. Then Allaah will raise it when He wills to raise it. Then there will be the khilaafah upon the Prophetic methodology. And it will last for as long as Allaah wills it to last. Then Allaah will raise it when He wills to raise it. Then there will be biting kingship, and it will remain for as long as Allaah wills it to remain. Then Allaah will raise it when He wills to raise it. Then there will be tyrannical (forceful) kingship and it will remain for as long as Allaah wills it to remain. Then He will raise it when He wills to raise it. Then there will be a khilaafah upon the Prophetic methodology. Then he (the Prophet) was silent.” (Musnad Ahmad)

      2. the Disunity, Shia vs. Sunni

      Sa‘d b. Abi Waqqâṣ (rA) narrates that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ once visited the mosque of Banu Mu‘âwiya. “He ﷺ entered, performed two units of prayer, which we prayed with him, and then he invoked his Lord for a long time. Then, he ﷺ turned to us and said, ‘I asked my Lord for three things; He granted me two and withheld one. I asked my Lord not to destroy my nation with a widespread famine, and He granted me that, and I asked Him that He not exterminate my nation by drowning, and He granted me that. And I asked Him that He not let their aggression be against one another, but He withheld that from me.’

      3. Are the military / Empire building successes of the past that held for decades or centuries of successful Empires any indication of ultimate Truth?

      According to Daniel 2 (which we are the only nation to fulfill) Yes.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Your answers are better that Faizywise, who cannot help but violate Surah 29:46 and has no control over his keyboard in sinning, but, Daniel 2 has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam.

        Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world” John 18:36

        Christ’s spiritual kingdom of the gospel of the NT spreading into all nations is the rock that crushes all earthly and man-made kingdoms of military force and political sinfulness, etc.

        Christ is ruling and reigning now at the right hand of the Father.

        Revelation chapters 4-5
        I Corinthians 15

        He is making His enemies a footstool for His feet.

        Psalm 110:1

        “I can apply to Christianity lol.”
        Except that we don’t measure success by worldly success – Islam is a totally worldly religion – based on power, force, military conquering, fear, executing people, etc.

        Christianity grows even in persecution and churches grow secretly in house churches in communist and Muslim countries – Christianity does not depend on an empire, like Islam does.

        “despite the current state of the Ummah, Muslims still hold onto their faith”, etc.
        Except true Islam does not even exist today, as you guys have seemed to have indicated in the past with discussions about Saudi Arabia, Taliban in Afghanistan, etc. (since there is not proper Caliphate or proper Sharia law or complete adherence and complete unity)

        Besides, without Caliphate and Sharia law – you guys have said yourself, you cannot have true Islam.

        So, it is based on a physical worldly thing, rather than spiritual truth.

        Like

      • Funny how you guys claimed Daniel is a forgery and has no supernatural inspiration and prophetic character and silly book, and yet use Daniel 2 for somehow applying to Islam.

        right.

        got it.

        Like

      • Kennywise the sewer clown, who misquotes and lies about the Quran, is trying to teach us about what the Quran says. Yeah, no…no one cares what you think.

        “And do not argue with the People of the Scripture except in a way that is best, except for those who commit injustice among them, and say, “We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you. And our God and your God is one; and we are Muslims [in submission] to Him.””

        So you se, little whining clown, this verse doesn’t excuse lying scumbags like you. Stick to quoting your Bible, and even then, only the NT as you routinely lie about the Tanakh. 😁

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lol, so many inaccurate statements in one post by Kennywise!

        Like

      • “Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world” John 18:36”

        Meanwhile, Christians believe that he will come back a second time to set-up an…earthly kingdom. Go figure…

        “Christ is ruling and reigning now at the right hand of the Father.”

        Oh, well he’s doing a fabulous job as most Christian countries hypocritically follow secularism rather than God’s law.

        “Except that we don’t measure success by worldly success – Islam is a totally worldly religion – based on power, force, military conquering, fear, executing people, etc.”

        He says this but then says:

        “Christianity grows even in persecution and churches grow secretly in house churches in communist and Muslim countries – Christianity does not depend on an empire, like Islam does.”

        What was that about “we don’t measure success by worldly success”?

        Meanwhile, Christian pipe-dreams of mass conversions are just another lie. Scientific studies have shown that Christianity loses far more adherents than it gains from conversion. According to the Pew Forum study from a few years ago, 100 MILLION Christians will leave this pagan religion by 2050, compared to 40 million converts, resulting in a net LOSS of 60 MILLION people.

        In addition, Christianity largely spread across the world through European empires. South America was forcibly converted to Catholicism via Spanish conquests. North America became Christian via genocide of the Native Americans. Of course, in modern times, all of these areas are rapidly becoming secularized and the churches are empty.

        “So, it is based on a physical worldly thing, rather than spiritual truth.”

        Not quite, dummy. The absence of a Caliphate does not prevent Muslims from practicing the religion.

        Liked by 1 person

      • “Funny how you guys claimed Daniel is a forgery and has no supernatural inspiration and prophetic character and silly book, and yet use Daniel 2 for somehow applying to Islam.”

        Actually, I agree with Kennywise. Daniel is a forgery, so there is no reason to use it. It may have some truth, but its “prophecies” are what scholars would call “retrospective prophecies”. They already happened beforehand and can be placed in the historical context of the author(s).

        Liked by 2 people

    • Temple: success in this world does not mean it is truth. Do you judge the current state of the Islamic Ummah as “success”?

      Except that Muhammad’s success wasn’t random. As for the current state of the Islamic Ummah, despite it’s shortcomings, Muslims by large continue to hold onto their religion whereas Christianity is on a steep decline. That’s another victory for Islam.

      Liked by 2 people

      • But they cannot really practice true Islam, since there is no Caliphate and no unity and no true adherence to Sharia Islamic law.

        It is a system based on physical and worldly (power, military might, arrogance, force, lack of ability to persuade with kindness and respect) success ideas, rather than spiritual truth.

        Like

      • Dummy, just because the Caliphate is not present or Sharia law is not being applied doesn’t mean Muslims are not practicing true Islam. You exhibit the standard ignorance we have come to expect from morons. First of all, “Sharia” is just a buzzword morons like you use. In reality, Sharia encompasses far more than just criminal law. Praying 5 times a day is part of Sharia. Therefore, any Muslim who does this is practicing Sharia. You see, stupid?

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ Ken

        First off, you are 3 countries more oppressed than us and we have grown under persecution as well (Mongolians and its very inception) Where was the “worldly things” as Muslims were being tortured in Mecca?

        Anyways, I have no idea who told you if we don’t have a Caliphate we can’t be true Muslims. To begin it’s just common sense when Muslims HAD a Caliphate there were some Muslims who lived as minorities in Non Muslim lands (for example Muslims in Abyssinia or prisoners even now) We are not held accountable as regular people for what rulers choose to do or not. They bear the burden of not implementing law not us as God has not placed us in the position to change it.

        Finally, I challenge you to show where I stewjo004 said Daniel 2 is forged. That is Paul and Qb’s opinion (and guess what we don’t even need to be united on the subject but I agree there are forged parts in the text)

        As you all don’t read your text and just make things up it’s about various empires that will come then an empire established by God that destroys the big pagan nations:

        Gold-Babylon
        Silver- Persia
        Bronze Greek
        Iron- Rome
        Iron/Clay- ? (remnants of Rome that splits and won’t unite)
        Rock-God’s Kingdom

        All you have to do is keep following history:

        Iron/Clay- Western Roman and Easter Roman (aka Byzantines)
        Dark ages from the Fall of Rome causes 10 barbarian kingdoms with 3 being destroyed (for 10 toes)

        Islam is the stone that destroys them all as the ONLY nation of this time that is claiming to be established by God.Since you like “intertexuality” now cross refrence:

        The Kingdom is taken from the Jews for their evil and given to a new nation in Matt 23 and that the stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone (That’s us btw)

        1. Muhammad compares himself to a cornerstone/rock
        Narrated Abu Huraira:

        Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said, “My similitude in comparison with the other prophets before me, is that of a man who has built a house nicely and beautifully, except for a place of one brick in a corner. The people go about it and wonder at its beauty, but say: ‘Would that this brick be put in its place!’ So I am that brick, and I am the last of the Prophets.”

        2. Striking the rock and predicting their end
        Muhmmad(saw) again as a true prophet predicts their fall while destroying a rock:

        Jābir b. ‘Abdillāh (rA) reports that while digging the trench outside Madinah to repel an approaching army, a massive boulder obstructed them that no ax would break. With time running out, and with people’s fears and hunger eating away at them, the Prophet ﷺ walked over and picked up the ax. He said, “Bismillah (In God’s name),” and hammered the boulder, reducing a chunk of it to rubble. He said, “Allāhu Akbar (God is Great)! I have been given the keys to Shām; I can see its red palaces at this very moment.” Then he shattered another chunk and said, “Allāhu Akbar (God is Great)! I have been given the keys to Persia; I can see Madain’s white palace.” Then he shattered the last chunk and said, “Allāhu Akbar (God is Great)! I have been given the keys to Yemen. By Allah, I can see the Gates of Sana‘a at this very moment from here.”
        https://sunnah.com/riyadussaliheen/1/520

        Yep…let that sink in….

        Liked by 1 person

      • Temple: worldly (power, military might, arrogance, force, lack of ability to persuade with kindness and respect) success ideas, rather than spiritual truth.

        What’s spiritual truth?

        Like

    • @ Ken

      Also because I’m so tired of the “oh whoa is us persecution card” I literally just got watching a video about Christians (and yes Christians as decreed by the Pope) divided the entire world for Christendom:

      I mean the amount of BS/ nativity out of your mouth is just astonishing.

      Liked by 1 person

      • The Kingdom is taken from the Jews for their evil and given to a new nation in Matt 23 and that the stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone (That’s us btw)

        LOL. That is not you. It is obvious from Matthew’s intention (by the way, it is Matthew 22:33-46) he is claiming that the Rock of Daniel 2 is Jesus and His spiritual kingdom – that he means “God’s Kingdom” is the Son’s Kingdom, “The Kingdom of heaven” throughout the book of Matthew, and he is claiming that Jesus and His church is the new kingdom that replaces Theocratic Israel in Matthew 22:43-45 and that the spiritual kingdom will spread to all nations (24:14; 28:19-20) until the end of the age, and is not worldly or military or physical or political. (Matthew 26:52) notice verse 37 – about the King’s son! (Jesus is the eternal Son of God) Chapter 25 is all about judgement day and entering into the kingdom of heaven by being a true sheep (having your nature changed by being a true follower of Jesus = Christians from all cultures / nations.)

        You are joke to claim that Matthew and Daniel means Islam.

        That’s interesting that you and QB/ Faizywise and Paul disagree on Daniel. Thanks for making that clearer. All 3 of you are wrong. Does not matter to me, since you are all 3 wrong.

        Like

      • “That’s interesting that you and QB/ Faizywise and Paul disagree on Daniel. Thanks for making that clearer. All 3 of you are wrong. Does not matter to me, since you are all 3 wrong.”

        LOL, actually Kennywise, the only who is wrong is you and all other brainwashed crosstians. The book of Daniel is an obvious forgery as can be easily seen in its clear historical context in the 2nd century CE, when the Seleucids ruled Palestine. Like a brainwashed zombies, you always ignore this when mindlessly repeating your usual broken-record propaganda.

        And I have to ask you again Kennywise, why are you disobeying your mangod and not turning the other cheek? Your lame comebacks make you a bad Christian. 😉

        Liked by 2 people

      • “Matthew 22:43-45 and that the spiritual kingdom will spread to all nations (24:14; 28:19-20) until the end of the age, and is not worldly or military or physical or political”

        so u saying that when torah came , jews had no spiritual kingdom or spirituality ? So krister like u is saying that their is no spiritual kingdom or spirituality in a physical kingdom which does gods instructions/rules/rituals?

        Like

      • Preaching about the coming kingdom was central to the synoptics and mentioned 17 times in GMark, starting with Mark 1:15 “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!” (Matthew changes it to “kingdom of heaven”) Matthew and Luke mention “kingdom of heaven/God” and/or “kingdom” 30 times or more, each). But “kingdom of God” only appears twice in the fourth Gospel and “kingdom” two times. That’s because the fourth Gospel is a later creation and has distanced itself from the apocalyptic Jesus and is busy trying to institutionalize Christianity and Christian sacramental views.

        https://ehrmanblog.org/my-memory-book-false-memories-and-the-life-of-jesus/

        Liked by 1 person

      • Kenny, please let go of that ranting ego and look inside yourself for a moment. The Gospel according to Luke says the kingdom (basileus) is within, not found outside. If you don’t understand, I just barged in here to apply the “O People of Scripture, do not commit in excess…” standard.

        Let me know if you’re ready to receive reason and enlightenment.

        Liked by 1 person

  6. Praying 5 times a day is part of Sharia.

    Yes, I know that.

    But you cannot obey ALL of it ALL of the time.

    “except for those that commit injustice”

    We have those roots words for injustice. (oppression, darkness, injustice, wickedness)
    It is you and your violent character and evil heart that exudes that characteristic, not me.

    ظام و ظالم و ظامت

    Like

    • LOL, which part can’t we obey? Stoning an adulterer?

      Lying scumbags commit injustice because they lie and spread falsehood. So yeah, it applies to clowns like you.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Nope; it applies to you since you cannot control your sinful heart and sinful typing out of injustice and wickedness and darkness.

        Like

      • Sure, sure Kennywise. Tell yourself whatever you want while you whine in your sewer. 🙂

        Answer my question. Which part of the Sharia can we not obey since it is not being applied currently?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Is there an agreed upon body of list of what Sharia is? Don’t the Sunnis have 4 different schools of application of Sharia law, and then the Shias have their own versions (12er, 7er, 5er).

        Seems like financial banking laws are a hindrance for Muslims in the west. You cannot legally marry more than one wife in the west. If you work for certain companies, you would have to compromise on issues of alcohol, pork – transporting, selling, etc.

        There are probably lots of others, but if I don’t know, and you desire my ignorance, then you won’t tell me, even if you know.

        You cannot consistently participate in voting, wishing me Merry Christmas, etc.

        You cannot execute / enforce the death penalty on certain crimes –

        There are probably others that I am unaware of.

        Like

      • @ Ken

        As a note one can become angry for the sake of God. That has nothing to do with wickedness or injustice. QB doesn’t know you from the man on the moon he (and pretty much everyone here) hates you solely for that reason.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Plus, it’s not anger. I actually laugh at this moron. It’s mocking, not anger.

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ QB

        Fair enough.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Anyway, shouldn’t Kennywise be turning the other cheek?

        You can’t make lame comebacks Kennywise (i.e. Faizywise; lol, such a pathetic comeback!). Why are you being such a bad Christian and disobeying your mangod? I guess you don’t really have the holy spirit in you. Ouch…

        Liked by 1 person

      • “Is there an agreed upon body of list of what Sharia is? Don’t the Sunnis have 4 different schools of application of Sharia law, and then the Shias have their own versions (12er, 7er, 5er).

        Seems like financial banking laws are a hindrance for Muslims in the west. You cannot legally marry more than one wife in the west. If you work for certain companies, you would have to compromise on issues of alcohol, pork – transporting, selling, etc.

        There are probably lots of others, but if I don’t know, and you desire my ignorance, then you won’t tell me, even if you know.

        You cannot consistently participate in voting, wishing me Merry Christmas, etc.

        You cannot execute / enforce the death penalty on certain crimes –

        There are probably others that I am unaware of.”

        LOL, and Kennywise again shows that he has no idea what he is talking about!

        I asked you how Muslims are not able to obey the tenets of Islam fully. You gave me a list of hindrances that do not answer that question!

        The only one where you came close is with banking. The modern financial system is basically global and it is virtually impossible to avoid some of the pitfalls, especially concerning interest. But here also, Muhammad (pbuh) proved that he was a true prophet, because he prophesied this:

        “It was narrated that Abu Hurairah said: “The Messenger of Allah said: “There will come a time when there will be no one left who does not consume Riba, and whoever does not consume it will nevertheless be affected by residue.” (Sahih)” (https://sunnah.com/nasai/44/7)

        It is also well-known that in Islam, one’s intentions are very important. Even though we know interest is haram, being unable to avoid it despite our best intentions does not take us outside the fold of Islam.

        Everything else you mentioned just shows your idiocy because they are not examples of Muslims being unable to fully obey the tenets of Islam.

        Marriage to four wives – this is not a commandment, stupid. We are allowed to marry up to 4, but it’s not a sin if we don’t.

        Alcohol/pork – only if we live in non-Muslim countries, and only in some cases. But again, this doesn’t affect whether one is a practicing Muslim and there are ways around this.

        Voting – Huh?

        Wishing merry Christmas – Again…huh?

        Enforce/execute for certain crimes – that’s not the job of individual Muslims but the state and does not affect an indidivual’s obedience to the tenets of Islam

        Liked by 2 people

  7. ظلم، ظالم، ظلمت

    (injustice, oppression, wickedness, darkness)

    Like

  8. “Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world” John 18:36”

    hector avalos demolished this in his chapter “the imperialistic jesus”

    did jesus just trash torah imperialism ?

    no, he endorses EXODUS 23

    u said “its all spiritual” while at the same time u believe that all of the stuff jesus FAILED to do will be done in” second coming.” torah does not even HINT that the violence is to be done “next time”

    u failed to mention exodus 15:18 ; 19:6

    Daniel 7:27

    Isai 9:6

    Isai 14:1-2

    The TESTAMENT OF MOSES

    10:1-10

    luke 21:27

    romans 13:1-7

    now imagine pilate heard this? not only did jesus tell his pals to arm themselves, they actually used sword to clip off an ear.

    ““I can apply to Christianity lol.”
    Except that we don’t measure success by worldly success – Islam is a totally worldly religion – based on power, force, military conquering, fear, executing people, etc.””

    u just trashed torah. thanks. Just read the references above.everything u said about islam applies to jesus, his threats, his violence in ot and nt, his behaviour, his failed second coming which i guarantee that u will never see because your jesus is dead and buried like u will be, then u will face the real justice. You will not bitch about islam anymore.

    jesus’ purpose is to bring division and hate (mat 10:34)

    two thousand years of your shit religion has taken mat 10:34 LITERALLY. had it not, u would be an indian worshipping the balls of a cow.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. With all these attempted distractions by Kennywise, let’s not forget the topic of this post, which is the fatal flaw in Christian theology that brother Vaqas brillianly exposed. His question remains unanswered.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. ” Of course, in modern times, all of these areas are rapidly becoming secularized and the churches are empty.”

    they are being turned into restaurants in the uk.

    i have pictures

    Liked by 1 person

  11. “This seems to betray that the motif has been tampered with. On the other hand, the Gospels contain several passages in which the obvious implications of Jesus’ claim are blatantly denied; the most conspicuous example is John 18:36, where these words are put in Jesus’ mouth: “My kingdom is not of this world.”18 The redactional and fctitious character of this sweeping statement hints at the wish of the Gospel’s author to depoliticize and de-historicize Jesus in circumstances in which a po”

    rubio

    Like

  12. So it’s a (mystery)! = I believe because it’s absurd.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. ken temple, you a joke man.

    https://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2020/01/in-gods-we-trust-the-polytheistic-pedigree-of-the-u-s-system-of-law-and-government-guest-post/

    you are a joke man.

    Any number of Christian apologists and nationalists contend—inaccurately—that the Bible is the historical foundation of the U.S. system of law and government. Ex-judge Roy “Not Without the Permission of Her Mother“ Moore recently restated his position that “the Ten Commandments [are] the law upon which our nation is founded.” A few years ago, current Trump courtier Michele Bachmann ended her stint representing/embarrassing my state of Minnesota in Congress with a rambling declaration that “in the United States the Ten Commandments that God gave to Moses is the very foundation of the law that has given the happiness and the rise of the greatest prosperity that any nation has known before.” And pseudo-historian David Barton continues to credit the Bible as the direct source for the key concepts and structures in the federal Constitution; he goes so far as to claim the Bible is “quoted” and “cited” in the Constitution, placing into question his grasp of not only 18th century U.S. political history, but also the meanings of words like “quote” and “cite.” Less extreme formulations of these views include “Judeo-Christian principles” being the basis of our legal system, or the Ten Commandments being the “moral foundation” of our law.

    As a matter of history, arguments of this sort tend to be unduly reductive at best, and deceptive at worst. To be sure, Judeo-Christian learning, theology, ethics, and notions of justice have been consequential in several key respects over the course of time, but the taproots of the legal tradition inherited and renovated by the Founding Generation reach back to the raucous timber mead-halls of northern Germanic tribes and the bustling stoae and fora of ancient Greece and Rome.

    Genesis of the Anglo-American Legal Heritage
    Legal scholars and historians of the early Middle Ages discern the nativity of English law in the kingdoms founded by pagan Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and Frisians (Anglo-Saxons, for short) who invaded or migrated to Great Britain from what is now Denmark and northern Germany and the Netherlands in the fifth to seventh centuries CE.[1] These sea-faring settlers did not find a wholly lawless island, of course. The indigenous Celtic Britons of antiquity relied on an unwritten system of rules memorized and applied by priest-judges known as druids (no half-elves, as far as we know), and the Romans who governed the province of Britannia from roughly 43 to 410 CE brought the civil law of the empire with them. No less a figure than Papinian, a giant of Roman jurisprudence, reportedly adjudicated cases in the forum of York while in the service of Emperor Severus, ca. 200–210. There is no extant evidence, however, that these Celtic and Roman legal cultures directly influenced the land’s increasingly dominant and numerous Germanic occupants, who appear to have imported their own legal customs with them. (As noted below, elements of Roman civil law made their way into English law somewhat later, via different channels.)

    Like the Celts and other “barbarians,” the pre-Christian Anglo-Saxons possessed little in the way of a written tradition, and regulated rights and liabilities with their own oral catalog of penalties for breaching specified norms. The oldest known recorded versions of many of those rules appear in the law code transcribed during the reign of King Æthelberht I of Kent (ca. 560–616). This code consisted of a tariff of monetary damages linked to particular harms and often the aggrieved party’s social rank. “If a man lie with the king’s maiden [i.e., maidservant], let him pay a bot [compensation] of fifty shillings. . . . If a man lie with an eorl’s [nobleman’s] birele [cupbearer], let him make bot with twelve shillings. . . . If a man lie with a ceorl’s [freeman’s] birele, let him make bot with six shillings. . . .”

    There were likewise penalties for killing, theft, and assorted amputations, disfigurements, and other injuries listed with colorful particularity. Crude and gritty as this system might seem to us, it illuminates some of the priorities (or perhaps pastimes) of a warrior society that, at least in principle if not always in practice, had evolved beyond the purely talionic justice of retributive self-help and violent blood-feuds in favor of a more organized, pro-social system of compensatory justice—Teutonic tort reform, in a manner of speaking.

    While these rules (and others) developed in large part among the pagan Anglo-Saxons, we see in this collection the early and unmistakable fingerprints of Christianity, a religion to which Æthelberht was the first Anglo-Saxon royal convert (ca. 600). For one thing, the code begins with protections for the property of the Church. For another, and perhaps more significantly from a historical perspective, these laws were put to parchment by the Gregorian missionaries who brought with them the Roman practices and tools of literacy and codification. (The derivation of modern “clerk” from Old English “cleric” reflects the clergy’s quasi-monopoly on writing skills in early medieval England.) The codes assembled during the reigns of Æthelberht and later Anglo-Saxon kings such as Alfred the Great (ca. 847–899), were the products of Christian hands transcribing rules of largely Teutonic provenance, typically in Old English rendered in the Latin alphabet of Virgil and Livy.
    Evolution of the Law in Christian England
    In the space of this post, the maturation and formalization of English justice over the next several centuries can be described in only the most general and possibly unsatisfactory terms. Temporal authorities, from the crown to shire reeves and other local magistrates, adopted, adapted, and invoked various substantive laws and procedural rules, frequently aided by churchmen serving as scribes, advisors, and specialists involved in the administration of oaths and trials by ordeal in particular. Not long after the Norman conquest of 1066, separate networks of secular/royal and ecclesiastical courts emerged. The former applied what became known as the common law to adjudicate most property, contract, debt, injury, and violent criminal matters, whereas the latter relied on canon law (itself essentially the lovechild of Roman civil law and Christian precepts) in exercising jurisdiction over complaints of clerical misconduct, justiciable sins such as adultery and heresy, disputes involving Church property, defamation, and matrimonial and probate cases.[2] Theologians debated and refined ideas about the relationship between divine, natural, and manmade law—drawing not only on scripture, but also on ideas traceable to admired classical heathens such as Cicero and Aristotle. And durable principles, methodologies, maxims, and terms of art originating in ancient Roman law surfaced in English commentaries and jurisprudence, as well as the formal legal education offered at Church-affiliated universities.[3]

    Without a doubt, Christian institutions, clergy, and ideas had a role shaping the course of English law in certain practical and philosophical respects. But characterizing that law as originally or fundamentally “biblical” would be misleading. The substance of the English legal tradition was “formed in the main from a stock of Teutonic customs, with some additions of matter, and considerable additions or modification of form received directly, or indirectly, from the Roman system; and both the Germanic and Romanic elements have been constituted and reinforced at different times and from different sources.”[4] Christianity was a tributary, rather than the wellspring, of the legal system and doctrines that England passed to its ornery colonies in North America.

    In part two of this piece, we’ll discuss the scant evidence of biblical contributions to the drafting of the U.S. Constitution.

    King Æthelberht [with] the advice of wise persons,
    introduced judicial decrees, after the Roman model;
    which, being written in English,
    are still kept and observed by them.
    —Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation
    (ca. 791 CE)
    [1] Much of the information summarized in this section can be found in Sir John Baker, An Introduction to English Legal History (5th ed., Oxford University Press, 2019); Daniel R. Coquillette, The Anglo-American Legal Heritage (2nd ed., Carolina Academic Press, 2004); Tom Lambert, Law and Order in Anglo-Saxon England (Oxford University Press, 2017); and Sir Frederick Pollock and Frederic William Maitland, The History of English Law Before the Time of Edward I (2nd ed., Liberty Fund, 2010).

    [2] See Charles Sherman, A Brief History of Roman Canon Law in Medieval England, 68 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 233 (1920).

    [3] See Edward D. Re, The Roman Contribution to the Common Law, 29 Fordham Law Review 447 (1961); and Charles Sherman, The Romanization of English Law, 23 Yale Law Journal 318 (1914).

    [4] A.H.F. Lefroy, The Anglo-Saxon Period of English Law, 26 Yale Law Journal 291, 291-292 (1917).

    Like

  14. None of that answers the question.

    What did your Lord God say about punishing homosexuals in the Bible? You conveniently ignore what your God allegedly say and commanded they be punished with.

    What’s okay for Moses, is not okay for Muslims. Cool.

    How does that fix the issue of supporting a pro-LGBT equality candidate? Tony Gurule, you supported a candidate that will not stop their marriage rights, or adoption rights. The Christian family model is being destroyed, and you support it. This is hypocrisy incarnate.

    Poor Tony, he thinks punishing homosexuality with death is a “man made practise”, well your God did mention this though…so you may want to ask him why he included a man made practise in his scripture…

    “If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” (Leviticus 20:13)

    The New Covenant is not independent of the old, it’s why the NT quotes and references it so much. If you want to ignore what God has said allegedly, throughout history and dismantle the canon of scriptural authority, that’s on you.

    That avoids the implications of your argument(s). No one is asking you to follow the civil law of the Old Testament, you claimed punishing homosexuality with death is a man made law, but God commanded it in the Hebrew Testament. What is God’s view of homosexuality?

    Clearly it is a perversion and at one time or another (see Zechariah 14 for the bloodshed to come from God), those who do not obey khrisht will be slaughtered and forced to worship him (a pagan idol). Either way you swing it, saying today you don’t have to punish homosexual acts with death, does not preclude the punishment of God for homosexual acts, either in the past, present or future. It is still morally wrong and to support it, betrays basic Christian theology.

    The sign didn’t say “human being equality”, it said pro-LGBT. That’s lesbians, gay, bisexuals and transgendered folks. The ones who violate the Biblical view of sex and marriage and family. Obfuscating their sexuality from their humanity for your pseudo-theology is silly.

    ::::::::::::::::::::::
    Loving them means instituting their sin as national law? How does that work?:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

    ::::::::::::::::Now, you hypocritically advocate for pro life against pro choice, yet you fail to condemn the act of awarding two same sex partners from this community to adopt children and raise them upon an cursed behavior that God abhors! :::::::::::::::::::::

    This is worse than killing an unborn child! That you allow a young child to be taught and turned away from the pure ways of God!

    Now matter what you say, you are condemned to hypocrisy for any statement you make surrounding trump! It is only for his filthy anti Islamic rhetoric that you hold on to him with the firmest grip!

    Second of all, if Jesus overturned the tables in the synagogues for the small crimes of the people then, can you imagine what he would have said and done had he caught these homosexual priest, pastors, bishops, deacons, ministers, etc in these churches now?

    The same Jesus ACCORDING to your PAGAN TRINITARIAN beliefs also commanded the slaughter of Innocent babies, permitted rape of female captives to satisfy the lust of his followers and wanted a SHARE of the WARBOOTY which included 32 thou YOUNG VIRGIN GIRLS. Christianity is a SATANIC PAGAN BLASPHEMOUS DEATH CULT. You CANNOT preach to anyone!!

    This is why I can’t respect most Christians. They claim that they follow Jesus and yet only half of the Bible applies to them? A religion without law is not a religion. A religion is supposed to tell you how to conduct your life! ‘

    A Christian is not one who claims Christianity and then goes on sinning with all the other sinners. ‘The Laws don’t apply to us anymore?’ Tony says. According to whom?!?! Jesus never said that. Paul, the Liar did!

    The Bible makes it clear that Jesus went to bring the Children of Israel to bring them back to the Law of God instead of following their traditions. Clear evidence that Jesus believed in the Law and expected it to be followed.

    ::::::

    So you never said Prophet Muhammad ﷺ killed innocent people but you did say: “Muhammad ﷺ killed and ordered people to kill”
    Thus it’s clear these people were not innocent by your own admission. i.e. enemies of Muslims or combatants on the battlefield or those who committed treason etc. etc.
    Good! 😊

    Now contrast this to the baby massacres in the bible. Clearly your refusal to condemn this suggests you condone such atrocities against innocent children and infants like in this verse where Jesus sanctions killing of babies at the hands of the Jews (Saul and his army). The reason for this genocide is clearly vengeance for what their forefathers did 4 centuries ago based on the context of the passage below:

    “Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”
    ‭‭1 Samuel‬ ‭15:2-3‬ ‭KJV‬‬

    You say not to question the wisdom of God when your God sanctions killing of infants and suckling babies at the hands of Jewish prophets. However, when Prophet Muhammad ﷺ is commanded by God to kill the oppressors and the wicked, you are full of disgust and condemnation.

    George
    Why the prejudice and double standards

    :::::::::

    Because like all Christians, George is a hypocrite. As the video and the Bible clearly shows, other prophets killed and ordered others to be killed. They were not peaceful either. It’s only wrong when Mohammed(SAW) does it.

    Christians ignore the fact that Mohammed(SAW) preached peace and coexistence for 13 years in Makkah, just as Jesus(AS) would have done.(of course they argue he was being deceptive) In both cases, Mohammed and Jesus were private citizens of the state and not in a position to fight anyone. In Medina, Mohammed was the leader of a community like Moses(AS). Therefore he was charged with the protection of that community and was empowered by the community to take those actions’ to judge and to fight. They attack Mohammed(SAW) for simply doing his job that the Jews and the Muslims empowered him to do! Christians also ignore the fact that according to the Book of Revelation, Jesus will come back and destroy the enemies of Israel. They have no problem with that! It’s just double standards and hypocrisy all around.

    :::

    The killings you allude to were in the context of war and that too was the killing of combatants and their allies who supported them. Islam is not a pacifist religion. It demands mercy for the peaceful and righteous and justice for the tyrants and oppressors

    I challenge you to show me a single innocent person Prophet Muhammad ﷺ killed or a single child that was targeted by him. Contrast this with the biblical God who sanctioned mass massacre of babies in the bible

    ::::::::

    Exactly. Extremist Jews still today use those verses as justification. Also throughout history there have been Christians that have used those battles as Justification for mass murder as well. So for George to claim that it wasn’t opened ended is just reaching for straws. It’s all based upon personal interpretation. Today the church says it doesn’t apply anymore, but 20 years from now any Pope or Protestant Pastor could easily retract that interpretation and say it’s applicable.

    :::::::
    Christianity is a RELIGION BASED on INJUSTICE! and a BLOOD THIRSTY GOD! The Very Foundation of your Faith is VIOLENCE! PUNISHING an INNOCENT MAN for the SINS of the GUILTY! There is NOTHING more EVIL than that
    Like · Reply ·

    Liked by 1 person

  15. ken temple, damn u krister.

    Like

  16. “So then what actually happened then that provided atonement? What was the entire point and why couldn’t the Father then just forgive us since He is the One who placed choice in us and knew we would sin before even creating us?”

    You have the NT. Read it for yourself lazy bones. Am I your slave or something?

    According to your scriptures it was Matrix part one starring the Isa lookalike.

    Like

    • HAHAHAHA, Iggy is getting mad because he cannot answer the question! Thanks Christians for proving that your religion has no answers and is man-made. Christianity is like a bad movie with plot holes and bad acting.

      Liked by 1 person

    • @ Erasmus

      So you can’t answer a basic question (as the NT does not answer this) about your false pagan beliefs and can’t even keep respectful even when not being disrespected. (also there a are no “scriptures that say that dumb@$$)

      Now, where are those crocodile tears from the Christians of “why are the Muslims, such big meanies, on the blog”.

      @ QB

      I’m thinking of adding a new section on the blog where we can link to a collection of incidents like this whenever inmates of the Inferno come with that BS.

      Liked by 2 people

  17. For everyone’s enjoyment let’s watch more how Erasmus doesn’t know his own text, here Vaqas as double whammy we get not one but two ways to disprove Christianity:

    1. God hates sacrifices but sacrifices Himself
    ” The Bible makes it quite clear that God hates human sacrifice. The pagan nations that surrounded the Israelites practiced human sacrifice as part of the worship of false gods. God declared that such “worship” was detestable to Him and that He hates it (Deuteronomy 12:31; 18:10). Furthermore, human sacrifice is associated in the Old Testament with evil practices such as sorcery and divination, which are also detestable to God (2 Kings 21:6). ”

    2. It was a literal sacrifice that required infinity to pay the price:

    “There are several reasons why the sacrifice of Christ on the cross does not violate the prohibition against human sacrifice. First, Jesus wasn’t merely human. If He were, then His sacrifice would have also been a temporary one because one human life couldn’t possibly cover the sins of the multitudes who ever existed. Neither could one finite human life atone for sin against an infinite God. The only viable sacrifice must be an infinite one, which means only God Himself could atone for the sins of mankind. Only God Himself, an infinite Being, could pay the penalty owed to Himself. ”

    https://www.gotquestions.org/human-sacrifice.html

    As noted God can’t die thus nothing was sacrificed.

    Man, I tell ya this circus act here. Let’s add more to the show though, if God sacrificed Himself for humanity’s sins then everyone should go to heaven otherwise He only sacrificed Himself (somehow) for only certain people and sins so Christian cannot say He sacrificed Himself for all humanity as that is not true.

    Liked by 2 people

Trackbacks

  1. Who or What Was Sacrificed for Our Sins? – The Quran and Bible Blog

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: