534 replies

  1. “no man can die for the sins of another” = no sinful man

    all have sinned except Jesus

    Jesus is sinless. 2 Cor. 5:21; John 8:46; Hebrews 4:15; Hebrews 7:26, 1 John 2:29; 3:5

    Therefore, your meme breaks down and is not correct.

    Like

    • @Ken Temple

      Hi Ken quick question, how can jesus(a.s) human nature be sinless when all humans are supposed to be afflicted by original sin? please reply when you have the time.

      Like

      • The Incarnation and virgin birth demonstrate this. He had no human father. His divine nature protected Him from getting original sin from his mother, Mary, who was a pious and holy woman, but not sinless. Mary was a sinner in need of a Savior – as Luke 1:46 shows. (and other verses; and earliest church fathers admitted Mary was a sinner).

        But also, those texts are clear that Jesus was sinless. (2 Cor. 5:21; John 8:46; 1 John 3:5, Hebrews 4:15, etc.)

        Like

      • There is no incarnation in Matt, Mk or Luke.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Yes there is. Luke 1:26-34-35; Matthew 1:18-25

        The virgin conception and birth is harmonious with the incarnation as clear in John 1:1-5 and 1:14 and Philippians 2:5-8 and other passages.

        Like

      • No Kennywise. There is nothing in the Synoptics about the incarnation of your weird, pagan mangod. Sorry.

        Like

      • “The virgin conception and birth is harmonious with the incarnation as clear in John 1:1-5 and 1:14 and Philippians 2:5-8 and other passages.”

        LOL, in other words, Luke and Matthew themselves don’t say anything about the incarnation, but along come the other two idiots John and Paul, and somehow, now Luke and Matthew are magically talking about the incarnation.

        Like

    • “no man can die for the sins of another” = no sinful man

      all have sinned except Jesus

      Jesus is sinless. 2 Cor. 5:21; John 8:46; Hebrews 4:15; Hebrews 7:26, 1 John 2:29; 3:5

      /////

      To test this conclusion, imagine you are charged with the task of locating a convicted criminal so that punishment might be inflicted on her. The criminal, however, has hid herself in a large crowd of a thousand innocent people who all happen to be perfectly willing to accept the criminal’s liability and undergo her punishment. To get a better view you fly over the crowd in a helicopter. Looking down at the crowd, knowing that all but one of the people below would gladly accept the payment, and that you could swoop down and snatch any of these willing people instead of the criminal, would you not still burn the helicopter’s fuel searching for that one guilty person who actually deserves the punishment? Anyone who would continue the search despite the multitude of would-be lambs of God would seem to believe that punishment is worthwhile only if it’s carried out against the right person, the criminal whose misdeed should be repaid in kind

      /////

      is the paid pagan saying thAT according to the torah , if willing persons who were sinless said “kill me instead of the guilty,” then torah would allow it ?

      Liked by 1 person

    • @Ken Temple

      “His divine nature protected Him from getting original sin from his mother, Mary, who was a pious and holy woman, but not sinless.”

      Doesn’t that basically amount to God forgiving his original sin? And if God protected his human nature from original sin why not do the same for the rest of us? seems to go against the notion that God demands blood for sin if he can protect who he wants from it as he wills.

      Liked by 2 people

      • If he came from a “pious and holy woman” who still was not “sinless”, then how exactly was he protected from getting original sin? And what is this nonsense about “getting original sin”? Is original sin like the Coronavirus? LOL!!

        Liked by 2 people

      • The Jews don’t believe in original sin. This is an invention by Paul and a baseless, stupid concept. This is what happens when you follow philosophy of people and discard the revelations from the prophets.

        Liked by 6 people

    • ““no man can die for the sins of another” = no sinful man”

      LOL, here we see Kennywise twisting his own scripture. How does “no man can die for the sins of another” somehow equal “no sinful man…”? This can only be done in Kennywise’s fantasy world.

      Liked by 5 people

  2. Therefore your meme does not “screw with a Christian’s mind” who knows the word and sound theology.

    Like

    • @Ken Temple

      Hi Ken I have some questions. you said,

      “His divine nature protected Him from getting original sin from his mother, Mary, who was a pious and holy woman, but not sinless.”

      Doesn’t that basically amount to God forgiving his original sin? And if God protected his human nature from original sin why not do the same for the rest of us? seems to go against the notion that God demands blood for sin if he can protect who he wants from it as he wills.

      please answer when you have the time.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Original sin involves two things:
        original corruption of the nature of mankind, (similar to what Muslims say is called the “Nafs Amareh” نفس اماره (the soul or self or flesh that pulls one to sinful desires) which is passed down genetically. We humans sin because we are sinners by nature in the heart, motives, desires, pride, selfishness, jealousy, hatred, etc. – Jesus did not have any of that corruption in His human nature. Mary’s nature into Jesus was kept from corruption / “cleansed” and protected by the Virgin Birth and the Divine nature.
        original guilt – all other humans sinned in Adam – Romans 5:12

        Jesus had neither one.

        That is why He could be the sinless, pure, spotless, sacrifice for the sins of the world.

        Yahya یحیی said, “Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” John 1:29

        The corruption is not passed on to Jesus, therefore it is much more than just “forgiving the original sin”

        Like

      • “We humans sin because we are sinners by nature in the heart, motives, desires, pride, selfishness, jealousy, hatred, etc. – Jesus did not have any of that corruption in His human nature. ”

        so you are saying that god couldnt remove this from adam before he released him from eden?

        Liked by 2 people

      • “LOL

        hardly

        my pawn got your Queen.

        Ha ha”

        enough with the sexual imagery

        “We humans sin because we are sinners by nature in the heart, motives, desires, pride, selfishness, jealousy, hatred, etc. – Jesus did not have any of that corruption in His human nature. ”

        do nursing babies think of adultery ?

        Like

      • @ Ken

        Simple question, did Mary(as) have original sin?

        Like

    • @Ken Temple

      Hi Ken while i appreciate the reply you didn’t answer one of my questions.

      “The corruption is not passed on to Jesus, therefore it is much more than just “forgiving the original sin”

      Doesn’t that make it worse? i’ll ask again If God is willing to do so much in order to protect his human nature from original sin why not do the same for the rest of us? This seems to go against the notion that God demands blood for sin if he can protect who he wants from it as he wills.

      Like

      • why not do the same for the rest of us? Because no else is born of a virgin and has an eternal Divine nature – the Logos / Son was eternal and perfect 2nd person of the Trinity from all eternity past. John 1:1; 17:5; Philippians 2:5-8

        No one else could get a Divine nature or be born of a virgin, that is why.

        In the incarnation, Jesus came to be that sinless perfect sacrifice ransom for sin – shows the true meaning of Genesis 22 and even Surah 37:107 hints at this:
        “We have ransomed him with a mighty sacrifice”

        ransomed – same word in Arabic that has come into Farsi which is used to translate ransom in Mark 10:45 and Matthew 20:28

        “The Son of Man came . . . to give His life a ransom for many.”

        Like

      • “why not do the same for the rest of us?”

        why not for adam?

        ” Because no else is born of a virgin and has an eternal Divine nature”

        so the human nature is part of the divine nature? notice how you are focusing on “virgin birth” and “divine nature”

        yet completely loosing focus of original question?

        “– the Logos / Son was eternal and perfect 2nd person of the Trinity from all eternity past. John 1:1; 17:5; Philippians 2:5-8”

        the human nature was mixed/part of divine nature?

        “No one else could get a Divine nature or be born of a virgin, that is why.”

        the human nature was CREATED u deceived by the devil schum

        Like

    • @Ken Temple

      “No one else could get a Divine nature or be born of a virgin, that is why.”

      I’m a little confused, the divine and human natures don’t mix so what does having a divine nature have to do with being protected from original sin? couldn’t the father have protected the human nature from original sin? furthermore what does the virgin birth have to do with it? you’re not seriously going to argue something like the sin nature is only passed down from the father are you?!

      I guess the core of my argument is this, you claim God needs blood for the original sin and can’t just forgive it. yet at the same time you believe a human nature was created not just without a sin nature but to use you’re own words “protected” from it. That looks like a contradiction to me. God seems perfectly capable of dealing with original sin without blood just fine when it suits him. at worse it looks like God put himself in a kind of sin debt and used the sacrificial Atonement to pay it off.

      Like

      • “I’m a little confused, the divine and human natures don’t mix so what does having a divine nature have to do with being protected from original sin?”

        the devil in him is trying to play trickery by shifting attention to something else. the devil in the cabbage needs to be driven out.

        Liked by 1 person

      • “I guess the core of my argument is this, you claim God needs blood for the original sin and can’t just forgive it. yet at the same time you believe a human nature was created not just without a sin nature but to use you’re own words “protected” from it.”

        EITHER that or he is FORCED to make the human nature part of divine

        Liked by 1 person

    • @Ken Temple

      “No one else could get a Divine nature or be born of a virgin, that is why.”

      I’m a little confused, the divine and human natures don’t mix so what does having a divine nature have to do with being protected from original sin? Couldn’t the father have protected the human nature from original sin? Furthermore what does the virgin birth have to do with it? you’re not seriously trying to argue something like the sin nature is only passed down from the father are you?!

      I guess the core of my argument is this, you claim God needs blood for the original sin and can’t just forgive it. Yet at the same time you believe a human nature was created not just without a sin nature but to use you’re own words “protected” from it. That looks like a contradiction to me. God seems perfectly capable of dealing with original sin without blood just fine when it suits him. At worse it looks like God put himself in a kind of sin debt and used the sacrificial Atonement to pay it off.

      Liked by 2 people

      • @ Vaqas

        Exactly. The “virgin birth” does nothing to protect someone from “original sin”. Mary(as) would still be of the children of Adam(as) and thus he would still be a human with sin.

        Liked by 2 people

      • It is so obvious that Kennywise is blowing hot air. He has no idea how to explain this nonsense, so he’s just coming up with these moronic and contradictory explanations, which only make things worse. the only one who actually believes his garbage is himself and other brainwashed Christians who can’t think for 5 seconds.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things [Incarnation, virgin birth], so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation [blood atonement on the cross; satisfied the wrath / justice of God ] for the sins of the people.
        Hebrews 2:17

        Like

      • sin demands God’s holiness and His wrath / anger / justice against sin is expression of God’s holy standard. atonement / ransom is required. Even Qur’an hints at this – Surah 37:107

        Like

      • @ Kennywise

        1. Irrelevant to the argument

        2. He is not like us according to your theology as none of us are God he is some new hybrid

        Liked by 2 people

      • “sin demands God’s holiness and His wrath / anger / justice against sin is expression of God’s holy standard. atonement / ransom is required. Even Qur’an hints at this – Surah 37:107”

        No, it doesn’t. Our God doesn’t get satiated by blood. There are numerous ways He can forgive sins.

        “It is not their meat nor their blood, that reaches Allah: it is your piety that reaches Him: He has thus made them subject to you, that ye may glorify Allah for His Guidance to you and proclaim the good news to all who do right.” (22:37)

        In his commentary on the verse, Ibn Kathir stated that it is the act of piety that “He will accept and reward for…”[22] Thus, Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) does not forgive sins through blood atonement. Rather, He forgives sins when they are countered with a pious deed (which in this case is an animal sacrifice), as is stated in a hadith of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him):

        “…Have Taqwa of Allah wherever you are, and follow an evil deed with a good one to wipe it out, and treat the people with good behavior.”[23]

        Furthermore, in regards to the Hajj, it is stated in “The Oxford Dictionary of Islam” that:

        “[p]roperly performed, the hajj absolves the pilgrim from all previous sins. […] A valid pilgrimage requires the sincere intention (niyah) of coming closer to God. If the intent is spiritually sound, most breaches of ritual formality can be corrected via additional animal sacrifices in Mecca or special acts of charity and fasting after returning home.”[26]

        There are some important points to note here:

        The Hajj itself absolves a Muslim of all sins. Also, all of the rituals of the Hajj must be performed in order for it to be accepted.
        The Hajj is only acceptable as long as the pilgrim makes a “sincere intention”. Without it, the Hajj is not accepted even if all of the rituals are performed.
        As long as an intention is made, any mistakes or omissions in the Hajj (so long as they are not deliberately made), can be cancelled out by “additional animal sacrifices in Mecca” or “special acts of charity and fasting”.

        In contrast, your pagan god gets turned on by blood.

        Liked by 3 people

      • The Quran also states that:

        “…those who show patience and constancy, and work righteousness; for them is forgiveness (of sins) and a great reward” (Surah Hud, 11:11).

        “Narrated Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri: Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said, “When the believers pass safely over (the bridge across) Hell, they will be stopped at a bridge in between Hell and Paradise where they will retaliate upon each other for the injustices done among them in the world, and when they get purified of all their sins, they will be admitted into Paradise. By Him in Whose Hands the life of Muhammad is everybody will recognize his dwelling in Paradise better than he recognizes his dwelling in this world”” (Sahih Bukhari, 46:1).

        “Narrated Anas: The Prophet (peace be upon him) said, “A Muslim whose three children die before the age of puberty will be granted Paradise by Allah due to his mercy for them”” (Sahih Bukhari, 23:12).

        “Abu Hurairah narrated that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: “Trials will not cease afflicting the believing man and the believing woman in their self, children, and wealth, until they meet Allah without having any sin”” (Jami At-Tirmidhi, 36:97).

        Liked by 2 people

      • Conclusion: In Islam, blood is not needed for forgiveness. Kennywise is a lying scumbag.

        Liked by 1 person

      • “sin demands God’s holiness and His wrath / anger / justice against sin is expression of God’s holy standard. atonement / ransom is required.”

        thats like saying that god created a sinless version of every single one of us and is punishing our sinless bodies in hell, right now.

        you will be like

        “hey yhwh, please forgive me , let me remind u what u are doing to my sinless self in hell right now…..”

        i am asking, its all USELESS. it makes no sense. either the guilty suffer the punishment or he is forgiven. you can’t forgive and punish x at the same time. makes no sense.

        Like

      • “sin demands God’s holiness and His wrath / anger / justice against sin is expression of God’s holy standard. atonement / ransom is required.”

        kennyloggins, will you enter hell in your current sinful corrupt state or in uncorrupt sinless state ?

        if jesus took away your sins, then any sinful staring u did your neighbors wife has already been cleared. are your eyes cleared of this already or you will get a complete baptism of your eyes b4 entering heaven ????

        Like

    • @Ken Temple

      Ken your missing my points.

      “Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things [Incarnation, virgin birth], so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation [blood atonement on the cross; satisfied the wrath / justice of God ] for the sins of the people.”

      Whats you’re evidence that the incarnation and virgin birth were required to protect jesus’s(a.s) human nature from original sin? why couldn’t the father in heaven simply do it?

      “sin demands God’s holiness and His wrath / anger / justice against sin is expression of God’s holy standard. atonement / ransom is required.”

      But again you believe God did the opposite of that when he protected the human nature from original sin. The fact he did that makes a mockery of God’s wrath and justice.

      “Even Qur’an hints at this – Surah 37:107”

      No one except you believes that

      Liked by 1 person

      • You are just beating a dead horse.
        No one else is eternal, Deity who because human, the incarnation, the virgin birth. Jesus Al Masih was unique. History and Revelation tells us this was God’s plan.

        Like

      • Your question is like after the Scriptures are there on the page that tell us He did it; then you rebelling against the clear verses, which are God-breathed. (Luke 1-2; Matthew 1-2; Philippians 2; John 1; John 17:5; Hebrews 1, Colossians 1, gospel of John, etc.

        You are in rebellion asking God, “O God, why did You do it that way? why couldn’t you just do it another way? (my way) Islamic rebellion against God in NT way.

        Like

      • @ Ken

        Its hot nothing to do with “my way” its the potholes and inconsistency. How does being born of a virgin from the human who has sin stop the baby from having it as well? Paul is claiming this so how? How is he “like us” when none of us are gods? Don’t get mad at us because the premise is illogical.

        Liked by 1 person

      • “No one else is eternal,”

        they made zeus eternal diety like crosstian made a farting jew “eternal”

        quote:
        Thor and Zeus are great examples of the Indo-European serpent smashers. What we see is that as the Greek philosophical tradition developed, Zeus was elevated to the status of a transcendent omnipotent being that creates all the works of nature and directs the Universal Word of Reason with the power of his lightning.

        jesus is not “unique”

        anyway, HOW is a CREATED non-divine “human nature”
        “protected” from “original sin?

        FOCUS on the word “created”

        your filthy devil spirit filling you is FOCUSING on OTHER things

        “Deity who because human,”

        thats like saying a man BECAME a woman and was unified in one PERSON “man-woman”

        clearly you are saying that “man-wo” is not IDENTICAL to man

        BUT the “deity” is one thing and “human” ANOTHER. so how come “human” DID not GET INFECTED by original sin ?

        is the deity being a SCUM bag since ADAM was CREATED without “Original sin” yet SELFISH scum bag triune god did not SEE fit to “PROTECT” adam from “original sin”

        ” the incarnation, the virgin birth.”

        let me REMIND u that “virgin birth” and “incarnation” and “CREATED HUMAN being ” are three DIFFERENT things and SHOULD NOT BE CONFLATED .

        “Jesus Al Masih was unique.”

        there was no “jesus” there was a pagan cOMPOSITE being called “fully god and fully man”

        we would like to know why your pagan god rigged the game for the “fully man” part when it was not DIVINE

        “History and Revelation tells us this was God’s plan.”

        the lying spirit FILLING u tells u that it was “god’s plan”

        Like

      • “You are in rebellion asking God, “O God, why did You do it that way?”

        yeah, why did your god come out of a vagina? i don’t understand why the FILTHY horny piece of scum chose this method and why was he sucking off a virgin as a FULLY COMPOSITE being ? sick

        “why couldn’t you just do it another way? (my way) Islamic rebellion against God in NT way.”

        how is “islamic rebelling” when your shitty religion is rebellion against tanakh. tanakh says god is not a man, YOU made god into DYING man. you are in REBELLION to hashem

        Like

    • @Ken Temple

      Well i’m sorry for frustrating you Ken but I’m trying to understand the intricacies of you’re theology and religion. you can’t expect me to consider Christianity without doing so.

      ” You are in rebellion asking God, “O God, why did You do it that way? why couldn’t you just do it another way? (my way) Islamic rebellion against God in NT way.”

      Do you seriously not see the contradiction with God demanding blood for sin but protecting the human nature from that very sin without blood?!

      Liked by 1 person

      • “Do you seriously not see the contradiction with God demanding blood for sin but protecting the human nature from that very sin without blood?!”

        kennyscumbagliarforjesus, do CHILDREN who are born have THOUGHT of adultery and fornication in their minds, yes or no ?

        for example, does a christian woman who nurses her infant think that the infant is born with adultery in his mind? yes or no ?

        Like

    • @Ken Temple

      ”You are in rebellion asking God, “O God, why did You do it that way? why couldn’t you just do it another way? (my way) Islamic rebellion against God in NT way.”

      The thing is Ken, it’s MY way that’s the problem here it’s you’res. You are the one claiming That God demands blood for sin and won’t simply forgive it. You also believe that the human nature of jesus(a.s) was protected by that very sin without blood. The question i ask is this, Do you not see the contradiction with God demanding blood for sin but protecting the human nature of jesus(a.s) from that very sin without blood?

      Apologies again for the repeat questions. please reply when you have the time.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I don’t see a contradiction because the incarnation is not just “forgiving” without an atonement; rather it is God’s choice to enter into creation without sin (incarnation, virgin birth) and then be the sinless sacrifice substitutionary atonement for sin.

        Like

      • Kennywise wants you to jettison your reason and blindly accept the nonsense of his pagan religion just as he has. But we’re not all stupid like Kennywise. We see the contradictions of the blood sacrifice concept. It’s stupid. That’s why we don’t believe it, and why it cannot be from God.

        Liked by 2 people

      • “I don’t see a contradiction because the incarnation is not just “forgiving” without an atonement; rather it is God’s choice to enter into creation without sin (incarnation, virgin birth) and then be the sinless sacrifice substitutionary atonement for sin.”

        The contradiction is in the fact that if your god could do that for Jesus then why not for everyone else. It’s like a really bad and complicated plot in a bad movie. When you’re watching the movie, you realize that the plot makes no sense.

        Liked by 2 people

      • yhwhs loophole for himself.

        Liked by 1 person

      • “I don’t see a contradiction because the incarnation is not just “forgiving” without an atonement; rather it is God’s choice to enter into creation without sin (incarnation, virgin birth) and then be the sinless sacrifice substitutionary atonement for sin.”

        people are asking him to focus on x, he is talking about z and y while knowing that x is 100% created with human experiences and feelings. prick!

        Liked by 1 person

    • @Ken Temple

      “I don’t see a contradiction because the incarnation is not just “forgiving” without an atonement; rather it is God’s choice to enter into creation without sin”

      But that’s exactly my point. In you’re theology God choose for the wages of sin to be death. That there is no other way to satiate his wrath and justice without blood. At the same time choosing a way for a human nature to escape that sin without blood. Thereby making a mockery of his wrath and justice.

      Furthermore you’re explanations as to how the human nature was protected from sin doesn’t make sense to me.

      1.The incarnation. the two natures don’t mix so i don’t see why his having a divine nature protects the human nature from the sin nature. can you explain why?

      2.The virgin birth. Again Mary(a.s) had a sin nature so why wasn’t it passed down?

      Like

  3. The gospel’s Jesus is hardly sinless: he is violent to men and animals and racially abusive.

    Liked by 4 people

    • No.

      His violence in the temple was a holy and righteous violence. Justice.

      He was not racially abusive; rather He was testing the disciple’s Jewish racism vs. the Canaanite woman.

      Like

      • He was violent. He disrespected his mother. He was a racist. He destroyed other people’s property (e.g., the pigs), and he lied.

        Yep…he was a sinner. So, based on your pagan theology, you are still in your sins and will burn in hell for eternity. Bummer.

        Liked by 3 people

      • “His violence in the temple was a holy and righteous violence. Justice.”

        ” The sacrifices were mandatory, not voluntary. The animals had to meet Temple standards and be priest approved. They had to be bought at the Temple. They could not be bought with Roman coins.”

        he is stopping a mandatory torah ritual. his pointless violence would not have stopped the jews from continuing torah MADATORY rituals.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. @Ken Temple

    “His violence in the temple was a holy and righteous violence. Justice.”

    but you admit he was violent yes? this goes against the idea he was the suffering servant in Isaiah 53 “He had done no violence”

    Liked by 5 people

    • Isaiah 53 “He had done no violence”

      and what is interesting is that scholars argue that jesus’ disruption of the temple would have led to immediate arrest.

      Liked by 2 people

    • In context, it means a wrong, sinful violence.

      What He did by cleansing the temple was a good thing, because He knew the motives of the hearts of those that had turned the house of God and prayer into a “robbers den”.

      In context of Isaiah 53, it is talking about not fighting back when they arrested Him, tried Him, spat upon Him, whipped Him, crucified Him – He had so sin, no “fight back” revenge spirit, no hatred, no guile, no deceit in His mouth.

      Some violence is good. Police action against criminals. Just war principles, etc.

      Like

      • More BS. Kennywise keeps twisting the scripture and adding words that are not there. Isaiah 53 simply says “he hath done no violence”. That’s it. Jesus did violence. Therefore, Isaiah 53 cannot apply to him.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Nope. you are just an out of context baloney maker.

        Like

      • “What He did by cleansing the temple was a good thing”,

        ” because He knew the motives of the hearts of those that had turned the house of God and prayer into a “robbers den”.”

        quote:
        I call that terroristic but it doesn’t really matter if you accept that word. The point is that it was, in my view (and I was asked for my view) immoral. Unprovoked violence against innocent people is immoral and even more so during the week of Passover because the city was packed with people from the country, the Romans were greatly outnumbered. The city was a powder keg and the Romans were paranoid about any kinds of riots or disturbances and they reacted swiftly and ruthlessly to stop any potential unrest the second it started. They were big bud-nippers, those Romans. Causing that kind of commotion at the Temple could have gotten hundreds or thousands of innocent people killed. It would be an entirely reckless act which would have engendered great tension or dare I say it, terror among the Jewish crowds.

        quote:
        And this was necessary. People had to get the sacrificial animals somewhere, and it was not practical for them to carry them in from the country. They also had to be animals suitable for sacrifice, which means without blemish. There was absolutely nothing illegal about selling them at the Temple. Some people didn’t like it, but it wasn’t breaking any Jewish law.

        1. unprovoked violence against buyers and sellers.
        2. it says jesus does not like the idea of buying and selling .
        3. so pilgrims from different parts of the world turned temple into “robbers den” ?

        “In context of Isaiah 53, it is talking about not fighting back when they arrested Him, tried Him, spat upon Him, whipped Him, crucified Him – He had so sin, no “fight back” revenge spirit, no hatred, no guile, no deceit in His mouth.”

        but he starts unprovoked violence because he doesn’t like what torah itself allowed?

        show me where in isaiah 53 the servant threatens his people with JUDGEMENT from god.

        quote:
        Literally conceived, that he didn’t “open his mouth” to speak at all may find its first echo in Jesus’ preliminary silence during the sanhedrin trial, in Mark 14:61 and the parallels to this—though he powerfully breaks this silence in Mark 14:62; and see also Jesus’ response in Luke 22:67-69. It may also be evoked in Mark 15:3-5 and Matthew 27:12-14, where Jesus remains totally silent in his questioning by the Jewish leaders and Pilate—though immediately prior to this, he does indeed speak several words to Pilate. Similarly, this silence is also found in Luke 23:9, in Jesus’ questioning by Herod (though, again, recording a brief answer to Pilate earlier).

        This changes somewhat significantly in the gospel of John, where Jesus actually says a few different things in response to Pilate, in 18:34-37 and 19:11.

        So in one sense, in the same way that the gospel authors made no obvious usage of Isaiah 52:14, either—and perhaps also in how John seems somewhat of the odd gospel out here—this leads Eckhard Schnabel to argue that “Jesus was not consistently silent during the trial, and it is therefore not surprising that the Gospel writers make nothing of a possible correspondence between the silence of the Suffering Servant in Isa 53:7 and the silence of Jesus during his trial” (“The Silence of Jesus: The Galilean Rabbi Who was More than a Prophet”).

        It’s not quite as simple as that, though. It’s hard to see Isaiah 53:7 as being focused on a literal silence in and of itself. Rather, as Schnabel describes it, the main gist seems to be that the servant “did not verbally accuse or retaliate, despite physical abuse, but trusted in God for his vindication as his suffering is part of God’s plan.” Or perhaps even more broadly stated, it’s simply that the servant accepts his suffering in equanimity, without protest.

        But seen in this light, there are actually several things in the trial and passion narrative that may give us pause in seeing these events—Jesus’ actions during these events—as a perfect fulfillment of our text from Isaiah. Schnabel suggests, for example, that the servant in Isaiah 53:7 “did not verbally accuse.” But if this is an accurate description, then statements from the trial narrative, like Jesus’ climactic profession in Mark 14:62, doseem to contrast with this: if the Jewish leaders are currently the ones accusing Jesus, he suggests that they themselves will be accused when they see the exaltation of the Son of Man, and his coming in judgment (see Revelation 1:7; Marcus, Mark 8-16, 1016). Further, during the crucifixion itself, in Luke 23:28-31, Jesus starkly announces the judgment on Jerusalem—those who have “done these things” to him.

        Similarly, if Isaiah 53:7 suggests something like the total equanimity and faithfulness of the servant even in suffering, then there are several breaches of this in the gospel narratives, too. First and foremost, there’s Jesus loud cry and the infamous expression of abandonmentin Mark 15:34 and its parallels—a text that’s often the subject of unconvincing apologetic interpretations. Finally, there’s the existential dread of Jesus in the lead-up to his arrest, including the controversial statement in Mark 14:36, suggesting that there was some sense in which Jesus’ and God’s will were at odds. As Davies and Allison, note, “orthodox theology has sometimes hesitated to accept the sincerity of Jesus’ prayer and urged that he prayed not for himself but for others, or to show the weakness of the human nature he bore.”

        Like

      • “In context, it means a wrong, sinful violence.”

        you see how you are adding in “sinful violence” ?
        the text does not say that the servant is sinless or that he never did “sinful violence,” the text is saying

        quote:
        Isaiah 53:9 which tells us that the servant was not violent and had no deception in his mouth is not a general statement about the spiritual state of the servant. Rather, this verse tells us that the servant is innocent of the crimes that his persecutors accuse him of. These are the crimes that the servant’s persecutors use to justify their cruelty toward the servant. The servant is not guiltless, he is innocent of the crimes that his persecutors accuse him of.

        being accused of crimes by your persecutor does not mean that you never did “sinful violence,” in your history of existence.

        the servant is not SINLESS.

        Liked by 1 person

      • “Nope. you are just an out of context baloney maker.”

        Nope, you’re just a lying scumbag.

        Liked by 2 people

      • “Isaiah 53:9 which tells us that the servant was not violent and had no deception in his mouth is not a general statement about the spiritual state of the servant. Rather, this verse tells us that the servant is innocent of the crimes that his persecutors accuse him of. These are the crimes that the servant’s persecutors use to justify their cruelty toward the servant. The servant is not guiltless, he is innocent of the crimes that his persecutors accuse him of.

        being accused of crimes by your persecutor does not mean that you never did “sinful violence,” in your history of existence.

        the servant is not SINLESS.”

        BOOM!

        Like

  5. “The Incarnation and virgin birth demonstrate this. He had no human father. His divine nature protected Him from getting original sin from his mother”

    “protected him”

    i think there are too many unfair advantages which boils down to rigging the game.

    unless the human nature is not divine in some sense, why was it being “protected” and not tested ?

    because of UNFAIR advantage. yhwh is a scum bag cheat.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Deep down, Ken knows Christianity is false. I bet he’d convert to Islam in a heartbeat if it was a white man’s religion.

    Liked by 2 people

    • It has nothing to do with skin color or melanin levels.

      Jesus and the disciples were Middle Eastern Jews of their time.

      It is wrong to make it a “white” issue.

      Revelation 5:9; 7:9

      “some from every tribe, people, nation, and language were purchased / redeemed by the blood of the lamb.”

      Colossians 3:9-11
      Ephesians 2:11-22
      Galatians 3:28
      all are one and equal in Christ

      Jesus broke the barriers by reaching out to the Samaritan Woman at the well.
      John 4

      Like

    • Kmak,
      How do you what is going on “deep down” in the heart of people?

      No way. The NT is clear the final revelation from the living God; and the theology of the Deity of Christ, His two natures, the doctrine of the Trinity, that atonement, etc. are proper theological deductions based on proper exegesis and hermeneutic principles of the NT text, which are fulfillments of the OT text.

      This alone proves Islam is false, a false 600 year late claim of one man in the deserts of Arabia.

      Like

      • “This alone proves Islam is false, a false 600 year late claim of one man in the deserts of Arabia.”

        why jesus’ lying spirit helps u turn ot into a pretzel?

        Like

      • It is your religion that teaches that Allah is the best deceiver خیر المکارین , so who has the lying spirit?

        Like

      • No Kennywise, the best deceiver is Yahweh. It’s no wonder that you are such a lying scumbag. That’s also why Paul was such a liar (to a Jew I became a Jew…).

        Allah (swt) is the best of planners, not the best of deceivers.

        Liked by 2 people

      • you scum bag filth, “planner”

        not “deceiver”

        Like

      • no, مکر has meanings of deception and guile, trickery, scheming, etc.

        “planner” is watering down the force of the word.

        Like

      • LOL like some expert arabic speaker. What a fraud.

        Liked by 1 person

      • You don’t have to be an expert to know this. I have asked Arabic speakers also.
        Everything from Arabic into Farsi is consistent with Islamic doctrine. The meanings don’t change. The Persians were converted by the Arab wars and unjust Jihads / qatals / Harb (physical efforts of killing, slaying, war) from 638 into 900s – unjust aggressive wars. They were Sunni. Most of the Hadith collectors were Persians (Al Bukhari, Termidhi, etc.) The Iranians were Sunni until the 1500s, when a Shah decided by royal decree to make Persia a Shiite nation.

        Like

      • Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj was also a Persian Sunni. Collector of Sahih Muslim Hadith.
        from Nishapour, Iran
        Muslim Nīshāpūrī (Persian: مسلم نیشاپوری‎)

        Like

      • Abu Dawud, was a Persian scholar of prophetic hadith who compiled the third of the six “canonical” hadith collections recognized by Sunni Muslims, the Sunan Abu Dāwūd.

        Like

      • Al Bukhari – Persian

        Abū ‘Abd Allāh Muḥammad ibn Ismā‘īl ibn Ibrāhīm ibn al-Mughīrah ibn Bardizbah al-Ju‘fī al-Bukhārī (Arabic: أبو عبد الله محمد بن إسماعيل بن إبراهيم بن المغيرة بن بردزبه الجعفي البخاري‎‎; 21 July 810 – 1 September 870), or Bukhārī (Persian: بخاری‎), commonly referred to as Imam al-Bukhari or Imam Bukhari, was a Persian Islamic scholar who was born in Bukhara (the capital of the Bukhara Region (viloyat) of what is now Uzbekistan). He authored the hadith collection known as Sahih al-Bukhari, regarded by Sunni Muslims as one of the most authentic (sahih) hadith collections. He also wrote other books such as Al-Adab al-Mufrad.

        Like

      • Abū ʿĪsā Muḥammad ibn ʿĪsā as-Sulamī aḍ-Ḍarīr al-Būghī at-Tirmidhī (Arabic: أبو عيسى محمد بن عيسى السلمي الضرير البوغي الترمذي‎; Persian: ترمذی‎, Termezī; 824 – 9 October 892), often referred to as Imām al-Termezī/Tirmidhī, was a Persian Islamic scholar and collector of hadith from Termez (in present-day Uzbekistan).

        Like

      • Abū ʻAbdillāh Muḥammad ibn Yazīd Ibn Mājah al-Rabʻī al-Qazwīnī (Arabic: ابو عبد الله محمد بن يزيد بن ماجه الربعي القزويني‎; fl. 9th century CE) commonly known as Ibn Mājah, was a medieval scholar of hadith of Persian origin. He compiled the last of Sunni Islam’s six canonical hadith collections, Sunan Ibn Mājah.

        Like

      • “no, مکر has meanings of deception and guile, trickery, scheming, etc.

        “planner” is watering down the force of the word.”

        your jesus is the deceiver mate.

        The notion that Satan is just somehow incapable of casting out demons is odd. If Satan has authority over his demons, surely he can tell them to leave a person’s body.

        Satan wants people to commit idolatry

        In the end, all 2 billion who committed idolatry against God would end up in hell – the ultimate form of enslavement and misery…

        In Mark 3, the teachers of the law accused Jesus of performing exorcisms through demonic powers. Jesus responds by saying “How can Satan cast out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand… If Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand.”

        Jesus seems to be arguing that his exorcisms cannot be the work of Satan because then Satan would be fighting against his own cause. But this isn’t necessarily true. If Satan wanted to lead people astray by causing them to worship a man as the one true God, he might give that man the authority to cast out demons in order to demonstrate his power. And when you think about it, it worked! Billions of people today worship a man as God — one of the worst forms of idolatry.
        So it’s still totally plausible that Jesus was performing exorcisms through the power of Satan.

        :::::::::::

        think about it , devil worshiper.

        Liked by 1 person

      • They watered down the deep meaning of the word. scheme and schemer is closer, but it definitely has meanings of deception and lying and trickery in it.

        Like

      • ken, i have a sincere question, why don’t you share the lying spirit of jesus with barry jones?

        https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/search/label/Jonathan%20McLatchie

        do you not think that barry needs the lying spirit of jesus?

        Like

      • Missionaries always try to latch on misleading arguments because they seek to deceive people. They’re not intellectually honest.

        “it appears to me that the ayat are talking about the arrogance of the disbelievers and their feelings of security i.e that whatever they have their trust in will help from punishment of Allah. The ayat says that the people could be punished anytime and it (punishment) could come surprisingly . Believers who believe in Allah know that Allah could punish anytime . isn’t it silly to say “Allah is deceiving even the believers” ?”

        What you said is correct. The word “makr” in arabic does not necessarily have the same negative connotation as the word “deceive” in english. People use this word as well in war to mean that one army surprised another or use an intelligent scheme. The word is closer to “scheme” maybe.

        Allah here is using this word because his punishment comes surprisingly and unexpectedly. The people who reject the messengers, don’t believe that god would punish them and they feel secure because they mistakenly believe that their actions were righteous and they vilify the prophets of god.

        Liked by 3 people

      • ken temple has the LYING spirit of jesus FILLING him

        proof :

        “cite the word of God if you dare”

        we’ve already been talking about one passage. will more really change your mind? but sure. here’s some more.

        And in that day
        —declares the Lord—
        The mind of the king
        And the mind of the nobles shall fail,
        The priests shall be appalled,
        And the prophets shall stand aghast.
        And I said: Ah, Lord God! Surely You have deceived this people and Jerusalem, saying:
        It shall be well with you—
        Yet the sword threatens the very life!
        (Jeremiah 4:9-10)

        this “deceive” is the same word that the woman accuses the serpent of, btw.

        You enticed me, O Lord, and I was enticed;
        You overpowered me and You prevailed.
        I have become a constant laughingstock,
        Everyone jeers at me.
        (Jeremiah 20:7)

        this “entice” is what evil spirits do, as in:

        The Lord asked, ‘Who will entice Ahab so that he will march and fall at Ramoth-gilead?’ Then one said thus and another said thus, until a certain spirit came forward and stood before the Lord and said, ‘I will entice him.’ ‘How?’ the Lord asked him. And he replied, ‘I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ Then He said, ‘You will entice and you will prevail. Go out and do it.’ So the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these prophets of yours; for the Lord has decreed disaster upon you.” (1 Kings 22:20-23)

        this “lying” is the same word you use for bearing false witness. here, yahweh entices ahab into disaster by directing a spirit to go and lie to him. note that ahab is king of israel, so he is misleading israel here.

        For if any man of the House of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell in Israel, breaks away from Me and turns his thoughts upon his fetishes and sets his mind upon the sins through which he stumbled, and then goes to the prophet to inquire of Me through him, I the Lord will respond to him directly. I will set My face against that man and make him a sign and a byword, and I will cut him off from the midst of My people. Then you shall know that I am the Lord. And if a prophet is seduced and does speak a word [to such a man], it was I the Lord who seduced that prophet; I will stretch out My hand against him and destroy him from among My people Israel. (Ezekiel 14:7-9)

        here, yahweh promises that he will mislead prophets so that their instruction results in the destruction of idolators.

        But the children rebelled against Me: they did not follow My laws and did not faithfully observe My rules, by the pursuit of which man shall live; they profaned My sabbaths. Then I resolved to pour out My fury upon them, to vent all My anger upon them, in the wilderness. But I held back My hand and acted for the sake of My name, that it might not be profaned in the sight of the nations before whose eyes I had led them out. However, I swore to them in the wilderness that I would scatter them among the nations and disperse them through the lands, because they did not obey My rules, but rejected My laws, profaned My sabbaths, and looked with longing to the fetishes of their fathers. Moreover, I gave them laws that were not good and rules by which they could not live: When they set aside every first issue of the womb, I defiled them by their very gifts—that I might render them desolate, that they might know that I am the Lord. (Ezekiel 20:21-26)

        here, yahweh gives bad commandments to the people, apparently commanding child sacrifice, as punishment for idolatry.

        The coming of the lawless one is apparent in the working of Satan, who uses all power, signs, lying wonders, and every kind of wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion, leading them to believe what is false, so that all who have not believed the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness will be condemned. (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12)

        here, god is confirming the deceptions satan uses, to keep is followers deluded.

        so, are passages like this lying? or does god mislead, deceive, give bad commandments, and delude people?

        “for when Eve’s lips utter this about the serpent, it is merely her dubious claim, but when distressed Jeremiah’s lips utter this about Yahweh, suddenly it is to be taken directly.”

        okay, so, the bible lies about god, through god’s chosen prophet that speaks for him, jeremiah. got it.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Ken, why is it befitting of God to inflict kids with cancer but not to characterize Himself as ‘Al Makirin’?

        Liked by 1 person

      • “Ken, why is it befitting of God to inflict kids with cancer but not to characterize Himself as ‘Al Makirin’?”

        ken is brain damaged christian apologist who does not believe god is the creator of everything. you see, he thinks that cancers come about by themselves and yhwh has just put the world on “auto pilot” i.e not maximally perfect or ABSOLUTE in power and control

        judaism DESTROYS this interpretation because ot says God created all things.

        Like

      • Kennywise, the lying scumbag, here is what Lane’s Lexicon says:

        When the word is used for Allah, it means “God recompensed or requited (for practicing deceit)”.

        It also “signifies God’s granting a man respite or delay, and enabling him to accomplish his worldly aims [so as to bring upon himself the punishment due to his evil actions”.

        http://www.tyndalearchive.com/TABS/Lane/

        So your lying spirit is wrong. You don’t know Arabic, so stop pretending like you do.

        In contrast, your god and his false apostle both practiced deceit and lying, as we have seen previously.

        Liked by 3 people

    • Ken: Kmak,
      How do you what is going on “deep down” in the heart of people?

      Because white, Evangelical boomers like you are so easy to read.

      Liked by 3 people

  7. 16 Then the men set out from there, and they looked toward Sodom; and Abraham went with them to set them on their way. 17 The Lord said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do, 18 seeing that Abraham shall become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?[d] 19 No, for I have chosen[e] him, that he may charge his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice; so that the Lord may bring about for Abraham what he has promised him.” 20 Then the Lord said, “How great is the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah and how very grave their sin! 21 I must go down and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me; and if not, I will know.”

    22 So the men turned from there, and went toward Sodom, while Abraham remained standing before the Lord.[f] 23 Then Abraham came near and said, “Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; will you then sweep away the place and not forgive it for the fifty righteous who are in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” 26 And the Lord said, “If I find at Sodom fifty righteous in the city, I will forgive the whole place for their sake.” 27 Abraham answered, “Let me take it upon myself to speak to the Lord, I who am but dust and ashes. 28 Suppose five of the fifty righteous are lacking? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five?” And he said, “I will not destroy it if I find forty-five there.” 29 Again he spoke to him, “Suppose forty are found there.” He answered, “For the sake of forty I will not do it.” 30 Then he said, “Oh do not let the Lord be angry if I speak. Suppose thirty are found there.” He answered, “I will not do it, if I find thirty there.” 31 He said, “Let me take it upon myself to speak to the Lord. Suppose twenty are found there.” He answered, “For the sake of twenty I will not destroy it.”

    why did “god man”

    “prince of peace” make a violence in the temple knowing full well that the zeal and zealousness of yhwhs chosen would go back to performing torah mandated rituals ?

    what happen to “god-man”
    “prince of peace”

    negotiating in his head for sake of torah ?

    Like

  8. חמס = “Hhamas” = violence, wrong, wrong violence (in the standard Hebrew Lexicon (Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius, p. 329)

    It is used in parallel with “corruption” in Genesis 6:11

    So it means the kind of violence that is ethnically wrong, not a good and righteous kind of violence/ justice. (God’s anger is a righteous and just violence)

    Like

    • “So it means the kind of violence that is ethnically wrong, not a good and righteous kind of violence/ justice.”

      the filthy lying spirit in u truly disgusts me.

      Violence is used against people who did not attack jesus and were going about their business peacefully.

      “(God’s anger is a righteous and just violence)”

      scum bag, he was no god, he had NO authority to stop torah mandated practice. u dont do vandalism and violence, you bring out peaceful solution.

      why would the religious authorities have not IMMEDIATELY stonned him for his sacrilegious practice?

      Liked by 1 person

    • @ Ken

      First, you have to establish if something is right:

      1. These exchangers were for the worshipper’s benefit.

      A. You do your sacrifices here. Here are some good animals for sacrifice available as we know it would be cumbersome to bring an animal from long distance (where it could potentially get messed up”

      B. Can’t use those pagan coins. Exchange them here so everything is good

      2. Where in the Hebrew Bible does it state it’s a sin to exchange money at the Temple?

      3. What sin did they engage in?

      Before making claims about “rates”, “shady practices” etc. Here are the two different stories from all 4. Show us using the text-only that it states that:

      https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+11%3A15%E2%80%9319&version=NRSV

      https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+21%3A12%E2%80%9317&version=NRSV

      https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+19%3A45%E2%80%9348&version=NRSV

      https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+2%3A13-22&version=ESV

      Liked by 1 person

      • Jesus said it was sin in the NT passages.

        Like

      • He was teaching and saying, “Is it not written,

        ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’?
        But you have made it a den of robbers.”

        Mark 11:17, quoting from Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah 7:11

        obviously robbery / stealing is sin.
        Very clear.

        Like

      • @ Ken

        Lol I’ll help you out how you feel about Muhammad(saw) is how the Jews feel about Jesus(as) so his declaration of permissibility is irrelevant. It would be the same for me telling you drinking alcohol is impermissible for you because the Quran says so.

        The two passages you quoted (to try and save the MANY misquotes of the NT) do not prove anything either:

        “these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations.” (Isaiah 56:7)

        https://biblehub.com/isaiah/56-7.htm

        Has this house, which bears my Name, become a den of robbers to you? But I have been watching! declares the LORD. (Jeremiah 7:11)

        https://biblehub.com/jeremiah/7-11.htm

        As noted this entire process was in order to make people’s sacrifices acceptable so what sin did they engage in that called for “righteous anger”? There is no passage in the Hebrew Bible that says this is forbidden so an unjust attack is taking place.

        PS

        Plot against God all you like but He is better at making plots. No issue here, it’s the exact same thing as Exodus 9:12 again one of your many inconsistencies.

        Liked by 1 person

      • “Jesus said it was sin in the NT passages.”

        So, in other words, there is no evidence aside from the circular argumentation of clowns like Kennywise the scumbag. Got it.

        Liked by 2 people

  9. “He was teaching and saying, “Is it not written,

    ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’?
    But you have made it a den of robbers.”

    obviously robbery / stealing is sin.
    Very clear.”

    quote:
    A lot of people mistake the “den of things” quotation from Jeremiah to mean that Mark was calling the money changer thieves, but that does not map because thieves don’t steal from their own dens. The quotation refers to a hideout for thieves, a lair, A place they go for refuge, not a place they steal from. If you read the Jeremiah quote in its original context in the book of Jeremiah, it is not a reference to Temple authorities, but to the people themselves. Jeremiah says the people are going out and committing sins, then making sacrifices as a means to make up for them while continuing to sin. He was accusing them of using the Temple cynically. Like making payoffs to God, but without any genuine repentance, remorse or attempt to change their lives.

    the problem with jesus is that he has a PROBLEM with buying and selling. lol

    Liked by 1 person

  10. “Jesus said it was sin in the NT passages.”

    reason give = BUYING AND SELLING

    Like

    • reason – “den of robbers” = thieves, stealing, one of the big sins, one of the 10 commandments.

      You shall not steal.

      Like

      • quote:
        A lot of people mistake the “den of things” quotation from Jeremiah to mean that Mark was calling the money changer thieves, but that does not map because thieves don’t steal from their own dens. The quotation refers to a hideout for thieves, a lair, A place they go for refuge, not a place they steal from

        Like

      • @ Ken

        Where does the text state they were stealing? This is just an accusation. How?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jesus knows their hearts. Obvious.

        Like

      • “Jesus knows their hearts. Obvious.”

        nonsense. Muhammad pbuh knew the hearts of the jews and christians and brought them under Gods judgement. see, i can play too.

        if you are talking about invisible intentions, then why does the text focus on the PHYSICAL trading in john ?

        Liked by 2 people

      • Muhammad did not know hearts. no way. Nothing miraculous about him at all.

        Like

      • @ Ken

        What? The text literally just says he attacked a group of people engaging in a legal transaction. Where in the Hebrew Bible is this deal a sin?

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ mr. Hethcliff

        Exactly.

        Like

      • “Jesus knows their hearts. Obvious.”

        LOL, you must be joking! Jesus didn’t know when the hour would come or when a fig tree was out of season, so how would he know people’s hearts? Kennywise, you are a liar and a joke, just like the false apostle Paul.

        Liked by 2 people

      • John 2:23-25
        Mark 2:6-8
        Matthew 9:4
        And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, “Why are you thinking evil in your hearts?

        Like

      • The apostle Paul – chosen by God to be an apostle, write inspired / God-breathed Scripture (part of the true Injeel = NT); 500 + years before and established long before your false prophet hit the scene.

        Like

      • @ QB

        Also, don’t forget that he couldn’t perform miracles unless people believed in him. I guess it’s a similar set up to Freddy Krueger?

        Mark’s original
        https://biblehub.com/mark/6-5.htm

        Matt’s change
        https://biblehub.com/matthew/13-58.htm

        Also, with this passage does that make Saleh(as) or Musa(as) superior to the “man/god” because they were able to perform their miracles regardless of a kaffir’s beliefs? 🤔🤔🤔

        Liked by 1 person

      • “John 2:23-25
        Mark 2:6-8
        Matthew 9:4
        And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, “Why are you thinking evil in your hearts?”

        Kennywise, you dummy, that doesn’t mean anything. The fact is that your mangod did not know many things, so there is no reason to believe that he could read people’s hearts.

        Like

      • “In Matthew it says that the teachers of the law are speaking out loud, signaled by the verb εἶπαν (“they said”)”

        matthew

        “And behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, “This man is blaspheming.” But Jesus, knowing their thoughts…”

        you got banged heavy again.

        so not even this story is consistent.

        Like

      • “Muhammad did not know hearts. no way. Nothing miraculous about him at all.”

        Actually, he did by God’s permission. There is nothing miraculous about anything that any of the prophets did because they did not do it themselves. They did it with God’s permission. It wasn’t their miracle, it was God’s. The same applies to Jesus (pbuh).

        Liked by 1 person

      • No – he (Muhammad) did not know anything that any other human by human efforts knew. (nothing miraculous or unseen) He was a war-mongering man, giving himself extra revelations to get extra wives and concubines.

        Like

      • No, you are a lying scumbag just like the demon Paul. Muhammad (pbuh) knew many events of the future. Paul couldn’t prophesy 6:00 at 5:30. Paul was a deceitful antiChrist and a fraud.

        Muhammad (pbuh) lived an austere life, forsaking the basic comforts but not prohibiting them for his followers. The piece of crap Paul was a wolf in sheep’s clothing, deceiving people by claiming to have a vision of Jesus.

        other ahadith narrated by the Sahaba (including Aisha) show that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) underwent great hardships that were only required of him and no one else. If he was “faking” revelations, then why not fake one that absolved him of any difficulties? Here are some examples:

        “A’isha reported that when Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) occupied himself in prayer, he observed such a (long) qiyam (posture of standing in prayer) that his feet were swollen. A’isha said: Allah’s Messenger, you do this (in spite of the fact) that your earlier and later sins have been pardoned for you? Thereupon, he said. A’isha should I not prove myself to be a thanksgiving servant (of Allah)?”[1]

        “Al-Mughirah bin Shu’bah narrated: “Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) performed Salat until his feet were swollen, so it was said to him: ‘You burden yourself like this, while your past and future sins have been forgiven?’ He said: ‘Shouldn’t I be a grateful worshipper?’””[2]

        “Ibn ‘Umar (Allah be pleased with both of them) said that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) forbade uninterrupted fasting. They (some of the Companions) said: You yourself fast uninterruptedly, whereupon he said: I am not like you. I am fed and supplied drink (by Allah).”[3]

        “Narrated Aisha: Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) forbade Al-Wisal out of mercy to them. They said to him, “But you practice Al-Wisal?” He said, “I am not similar to you, for my Lord gives me food and drink. “”[4]

        These ahadith demonstrate that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) prayed and fasted for longer periods of time and forbade his followers from doing the same so as not to burden them. Why would a false prophet do that?

                    Another hadith narrated by Umar ibn Al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) demonstrates the austere living standards of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him):

        “I visited Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ), and he was lying on a mat. I sat down and he drew up his lower garment over him and he had nothing (else) over him, and that the mat had left its marks on his sides. I looked with my eyes in the store room of Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ). I found only a handful of barley equal to one sa’ and an equal quantity of the leaves of Mimosa Flava placed in the nook of the cell, and a semi-tanned leather bag hanging (in one side), and I was moved to tears (on seeing this extremely austere living of the Holy Prophet), and he said: Ibn Khattab, what wakes you weep? I said: Apostle of Allah, why should I not shed tears? This mat has left its marks on your sides and I do not see in your store room (except these few things) that I have seen; Caesar and Chosroes are leading their lives in plenty whereas you are Allah’s Messenger. His chosen one, and that is your store! He said: Ibn Khattab, aren’t you satisfied that for us (there should be the prosperity) of the Hereafter, and for them (there should be the prosperity of) this world?”[5]

        Yet these austere standards were not required for other Muslims. In fact, on many occasions, the Sahabah offered to make more comfortable beds for the Prophet, but he always turned them down, saying:

        “What do I have in common with worldly comforts? My example is that of a traveler who after walking, stops under the shadow of a tree for a while to rest, and after sitting a while continues on his way.”[6]

        On one occasion, a woman from the Ansar made a bed with wool and sent it to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), who asked Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) to return it. This incident shows that the luxuries that Muhammad (peace be upon him) did not indulge in himself were not forbidden for his followers.

                    This austerity is further demonstrated in a hadith from Malik bin Dinar (may Allah be pleased with him) mentioned in Shamaa’il Tirmidhi that the Prophet:

        “…never filled his stomach with meat and bread, except at the time of dafaf [eating together with people]…”[7]

        So, while he did occasionally indulge in eating meat and bread together when in the company of other people, he never indulged by himself. Once more, this demonstrates that he placed austere standards of living on himself, but not on his followers. In fact, often times, Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his family would suffer from hunger, to the point that they had to tie stones around their abdomens to alleviate the pangs of hunger. In some cases, he would buy some food with a payment that was to be made at a later time, and would put up something from his belongs as collateral, as shown in the following hadith:

        “It was narrated that Ibn ‘Abbas said: ‘The Messenger of Allah died when his shield was in pledge with a Jew for thirty Sa’s of barley for his family.’”[8]

        Why would a false prophet live in such conditions, especially when he had considerable power?

                    Another example that proves that Muhammad (peace be upon him) was sincere in his claim to be a prophet, and could not possibly have faked revelations, we can consider the following hadith:

        “Narrated Al-Mughira bin Shu`ba: “The sun eclipsed in the lifetime of Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) on the day when (his son) Ibrahim died. So the people said that the sun had eclipsed because of the death of Ibrahim. Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said, “The sun and the moon do not eclipse because of the death or life (i.e. birth) of someone. When you see the eclipse pray and invoke Allah.””[9]

        When his son Ibrahim died, the Prophet was obviously grieving. On the same day, it just so happened that a solar eclipse occurred, leading some people to conclude that this was a sign pertaining to the death of Ibrahim. Now if Muhammad (peace be upon him) was a false prophet and was faking revelations, would this not have been the perfect time to fake a revelation? Why not concoct a fake revelation that says that the sun and moon indeed eclipse when someone important dies? Or that the sun and moon eclipse to honor Muhammad and his family? Why wouldn’t a fake prophet take advantage of the people’s gullibility to elevate his own status?

                    Let us also consider the incident related in Surah Abasa, 80:1–10:

        “The Prophet frowned and turned away

        Because there came to him the blind man, [interrupting].

        But what would make you perceive, [O Muhammad], that perhaps he might be purified

        Or be reminded and the remembrance would benefit him?

        As for he who thinks himself without need,

        To him you give attention.

        And not upon you [is any blame] if he will not be purified.

        But as for he who came to you striving [for knowledge]

        While he fears [Allah],

        From him you are distracted.”

        As indicated, one day, the Prophet was preaching to a non-Muslim (“…he who thinks himself free of need”), when a blind Muslim man, Abd Allah ibn Umm Maktum,[10] came to ask some questions about Islam. In the moment, the Prophet’s attention was directed at the non-Muslim, so he became annoyed at Ibn Umm Maktum. Because of this momentary lapse, Allah (Gloried and Exalted be He) sent down these verses to admonish the Prophet. In later years, the Prophet would greet Ibn Umm Maktum by saying, “welcome to him on whose account my Lord rebuked me”.[11] Even the Christian translator George Sale noted the respect that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) showed to Ibn Umm Maktum after the verses were revealed. He even made him governor of Medina twice![12] But why would a false prophet deliberately concoct some verses admonishing himself? Why not make excuses and admonish Ibn Umm Maktum instead for not having patience or for being rude?

                    Before closing, let us also discuss the Prophet’s marriages. It is known that he had more wives than the maximum number allowed for other Muslims (Surah An-Nisa, 4:3), but this exception made sense as it allowed him to build familial ties. For example, he married Aisha and Hafsa (may Allah be pleased with them both) to ensure strong familial ties between himself and his two closest companions, Abu Bakr and Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both). Indeed, many of his marriages clearly served this purpose. In other cases, he married widows. For example, after the death of Khadijah (may Allah be pleased with her), and around the time the marriage with Aisha was contracted, Muhammad (peace be upon him) married Sawdah bint Zama. According to Taqiuddin an-Nabhani:

        “Sawdah was a widow of al-Sukran bin ‘Amr bin ‘Abd Shams, who was one of the Muslims who had migrated to Abbysinia but died on his return to Makkah. Sawdah had embraced Islam with her husband and she had migrated with him. She had suffered the same difficulties and hardships he suffered and faced the same harm he had faced. After the death of her husband he (saw) married her. It has not been reported that Sawdah was beautiful, or that she possessed wealth or social standing, that would make any of the worldly aspects influence the Prophet’s marriage to her. Since the Prophet (saw) had married her after the death of her husband, the only thing we can deduce from this is that he married her to support her and raise her to the position of the mother of the Believers.”[13]

                    The Prophet also married Zaynab bint Khuzaymah and Umm Salamah (may Allah be pleased with them both) after they became widows. Zaynab’s husband had been martyred during the Battle of Badr, while Umm Salamah’s husband was martyred after being injured at Uhud.[14] Referring to the marriage to Zaynab bint Khuzaymah, An-Nabhani explains:

        “Zaynab was the wife of ‘Ubaydah bin al-Harith bin al-Muttalib who was martyred on the day of Badr: she was not of marked beauty, but she was known for her good nature and kindness, to the extent that she became nicknamed as the ‘mother of the needy.’ She was beyondher youth, but the Messenger of Allah (saw)married her in the second year of the Hijrah, after the battle of Badr and after the martyrdom of her husband.”[15]

        Regarding Umm Salamah, he explains that:

        “…she was the wife of Abu Salamah, who had a number of sons with her. […] Four months after his death, the Messenger proposed to Umm Salamah herself, but she made excuses that she had a big family and that she had passed her youth. The Prophet, however, persisted until he married her, and he himself saw to her children’s upbringing. So it is clear that the Messenger married those two wives to care for the family of two of his companions after their death.”[16]

        These and other examples of his marriages demonstrate that there was a practical reason for the permissibility of marrying more than four wives. In many cases, the reason for marrying was to support widows. In other cases, the marriages served to build strong familial ties.

        https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2020/01/18/hadith-database-hadith-of-aisha-on-allah-fulfilling-the-desires-of-prophet-muhammad/

        Liked by 1 person

      • quote :
        Yes, it is true that the noun τὸ πνεῦμα (“the spirit”) is the same in Mk. 1:10 and 2:8. It seems that Jesus is able to perceive their thoughts in Mark. In Matthew it says that the teachers of the law are speaking out loud, signaled by the verb εἶπαν (“they said”), but in Mark it implies that they are only thinking that Jesus is blasphaming, διαλογιζόμενοι ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις αὐτῶν (“thinking in their hearts”). Perhaps the implication is that the spirit gave Jesus the power of clairvoyance.

        so which version is right ? it doesn’t say “jesus knew” its seems that the possessed jesus gets his information from the same DEVIL which LEAVES him at the cross.

        SAME word PNUEMA is used.

        Like

      • “And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, “Why are you thinking evil in your hearts?”

        speaking LOUDLY one can HEAR what they are saying

        in other words jesus is BASING an INFERENCE based on what they are saying loudly. there is no evidence here that he knows “their inside thoughts”

        Liked by 1 person

      • “The apostle Paul – chosen by God to be an apostle, write inspired / God-breathed Scripture (part of the true Injeel = NT); 500 + years before and established long before your false prophet hit the scene.”

        The false apostle Paul, a lying piece of crap just like Kennywise the clown. A man who claimed to have had a “vision” and then gave contradictory accounts of it. A man who never met Jesus and claimed authority to speak on his behalf. A lying demon who even admitted to lying and who even pretended to perform the temple rituals when pressed by the Jerusalem Council, but could not possibly have believed they still counted. This was the liar Paul.

        Kennywise the lying scumbag, it doesn’t matter for how long your fellow lying scumbag Paul was “established”. God is not bound by time. A false religion can be “established” for a million years, but it is still false. Your childish reasoning is laughable and further shows that Christians has run out of arguments.

        Liked by 1 person

      • 14 “But when you see the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be (let the reader understand), then those in Judea must flee to the mountains; 15 the one on the housetop must not go down or enter the house to take anything away; 16 the one in the field must not turn back to get a coat. 17 Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing infants in those days! 18 Pray that it may not be in winter.

        “pray that it may not be in the winter”

        imagine having god in your midst and he says “pray that it may not be in the winter”

        Like

      • ““The apostle Paul – chosen by God to be an apostle, write inspired / God-breathed Scripture (part of the true Injeel = NT); 500 + years before and established long before your false prophet hit the scene.””

        quote:
        Paul is defending himself in Corinthians against ‘super apostles’ who came ‘from Israel’ (Jerusalem) with ‘letters of recommendation’ to the church in Corinth and told them he was a liar, an apostate, and a false apostle who never knew Jesus. And who does Paul say ran the Jerusalem church? James.

        There is no reason to believe Paul ever had a revelation from Jesus. It’s an obvious bs story. His job, stated as so in Acts and in his own epistles, was to destroy the followers of Jesus, who at that time were only Jews. When he couldn’t do it, he all of a sudden sees Jesus in the sky and began speaking in his behalf around Syria and Asia Minor. His message was the opposite of the actual apostles in Jerusalem, who continued to follow the Law after Jesus’ death and by doing so obviously didnt have any idea that Jesus died to erase the Law and settle all sins. Paul made that up.

        Liked by 2 people

      • they were other false apostles (2 Corinthians 11:1-5; 11:13; 12:11-12), not James. James was in agreement with Paul. Galatians 2:9

        https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2013/08/08/did-paul-preach-a-different-gospel-than-peter-james-and-john/

        Like

      • James D. G. Dunn (Paul Williams favorite NT scholar):

        “Here it becomes obvious that Paul was able to differentiate within the law . He maintains that some laws, here the law of circumcision no longer counted, but in the same breathe he re-asserts the importance of keeping the law of God.

        Does this not remind us of Jesus? . . .

        Paul drew his attitude to the law from Jesus, no other explanation makes such sense of the evidence available to us. It was Jesus’ teaching and example which showed him that in Christ neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision but faith operating effectively through love. [Galatians 5:6] It was no doubt this teaching and that example that Paul had in mind when he speaks of “the law of Christ”.

        Dunn concludes:

        “Should we then speak of a gulf between Jesus and Paul? NO!

        Should we deduce that Paul departed from or corrupted the good news which Jesus brought? No!

        Should we conclude that Paul transformed Jesus’ message into something that Jesus Himself would not recognize? No! . . . ”

        Jesus’ discriminating attitude to the law and the love command . . . ”

        (James D. G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul, and the Gospels. Eerdmans, 2011, pages 114-115)

        Like

      • Ken why are you quoting liberal anti-supernaturalist scholars? You always say we can’t trust them.

        Liked by 2 people

      • So he can rebuke you.
        😉

        Like

      • But you always say he is totally unreliable. So your comments are silly.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Didn’t Paul claim to be a Pharisee? Yet he also was supposedly hunting down Christians at the behest of the temple priests, who were Sadducees? The Pharisees and Sadducees hated each other, didn’t they?

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ Ken

        Paul was “chosen by God”? Tell that to the people of Jerusalem who called him an apostate…

        Liked by 2 people

      • Actually the Jewish leaders and those that sided with them were the ones in rebellion and apostates, because they rejected the Al Masih / The Messiah.

        Like

      • @ Ken

        Actually he hated Paul. Isn’t it weird that no other Apostle is being attacked other than him?

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ Ken

        I wasn’t talking about the Jews. The people of Jerusalem who were followers of Jesus (i.e the people whom he preached to) called him an apostate.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Tovia Singer explains how Paul corrupted the scripture and could not have been a Pharisee:

        Liked by 3 people

  11. Dr. R.C. Sproul writes in his commentary Mark: “The circumstances by which God the Holy Spirit unleashed [Christ’s] power were not available there, because there was a judgment of God on the town of Nazareth. In other words, God mostly withheld His power from the stiff-necked people who held Jesus in contempt.”

    Coram Deo (Before the Face of God) = application:
    Our sovereign Lord heals according to His will. That means faith is not an absolute condition for divine healing. Although God often heals those who trust that He will do so, sometimes He chooses not to heal those who have faith and to heal those who do not believe. We must trust in His sovereign goodness in these matters, knowing that in the new heaven and earth, God’s people will have no more sickness or trials to endure.

    Like

  12. Brother QB, this reminds me of a verse from the Qur’an that I read earlier today:

    “And indeed, there is among them a party who alter the Scripture with their tongues so you may think it is from the Scripture, but it is not from the Scripture. And they say, “This is from Allah,” but it is not from Allah . And they speak untruth about Allah while they know.” 3:78

    Liked by 3 people

    • Indeed! They actually prove with their own mouths that the Quran’s accusation of corrupting the scripture is justified. They STILL do it with their own corrupted scripture. They further corrupt the corrupted scripture!

      • @ Rafah

        Corruptception…

        Liked by 1 person

      • “Christians have always taught that this world is slowly being corrupted and getting worse. Romans 8:18-25 shows the world is corrupt and all creation groans, waiting anxiously for the end time, the second coming of Christ. ”

        quote:
        Those followers had invested SO much time and effort, AND lost life opportunity cost, that they couldn’t accept the emotional devastation of Jesus failure to come back ; think: ‘ jilted bride waiting at the train station for her bridegroom to come ‘

        your dead in ur idolatry temple. u will die soon, time to repent.

        Liked by 1 person

  13. @ Ken

    So new question did God always have this Human Nature or did He have it at the inception?

    Liked by 1 person

    • The 2nd person of the Trinity, the eternal Word (John 1:1), the eternal Son (John 17:5) took on a human nature at conception in the womb of Mary – John 1:14; Luke 1:26-35; Matthew 1:18-25; Philippians 2:5-8.

      Before conception, the Son was only spirit/ Deity, then in time He added a human nature. One person with 2 natures.

      Like

      • Luke and Matthew did not say that Jesus took on a human nature at his conception. It says the Son was CREATED in the womb of Mary. No incarnation in Matt and Lk.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Neither text in Matthew or Luke use the word “created”.
        All the books harmonized with one another – Matthew, Luke, John, Philippians, Colossians, Hebrews, etc.

        Like

      • Dude neither Matt or Lune have an incarnation of Jesus in the nativity narratives. And the bibles book contradict one another – as any school child knows.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Luke 1:34-35
        The power of the Most High = the Father
        The Holy Spirit will overshadow you = the Holy Spirit

        for this reason, “son of God = the same nature / substance with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.

        The Biblical creed says: “conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary . . . ”

        The Son / the Word / logos was eternal – John 1:1, 17:5

        Even the Qur’an could not help but get some things right by calling Jesus the word, His word, the word of Allah – کلمه الله

        Because they were hearing the Christians say “Jesus is the Word” and virgin born.

        Like

      • ‘for this reason, “son of God = the same nature / substance with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.’

        So you think Adam has the same nature/substance as God – Luke calls Adam ‘son of God’ a few chapters later.

        Liked by 1 person

      • “Neither text in Matthew or Luke use the word “created”.
        All the books harmonized with one another – Matthew, Luke, John, Philippians, Colossians, Hebrews, etc. ”

        Typical broken record apologetics by Kennywise the clown. Blindly repeating the same mantra despite all the evidence to the contrary…

        Liked by 3 people

      • Ken is suffering from an advanced case of ridged fundamentalism. It rots the brain and causes him to say silly things.

        Liked by 2 people

      • In Luke, the miraculous birth of Jesus is compared to that of John:

        “The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[b] the Son of God. 36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. 37 For no word from God will ever fail.””

        Why compare the birth of the so-called “eternal son” with “two natures” to that of a mere human like John?

        Liked by 1 person

      • “Luke 1:34-35
        The power of the Most High = the Father
        The Holy Spirit will overshadow you = the Holy Spirit

        for this reason, “son of God = the same nature / substance with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.”

        And there we go again. The deliberate twisting and astonishing leaps of logic!

        Luke says nothing about “the same nature/substance with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit”. This is just more garbage being anachronistically inserted into the text by a desperate crosstian trinitarian. Deception and lies are the only way Christianity can survive.

        Liked by 1 person

      • the science of interpretation – John 1:1-5 and 1:14 and Philippians 2:5-8 fills in the blanks of what is implied by Luke and Matthew and the rest of the NT.

        Like

      • There are no blanks in Matt and Lk. If they had believed in the incarnation of God in Jesus they would have said so. They didn’t believe.

        Like

      • It’s the science of lying. Get over it, dummy. You’re a liar who uses ridiculous leaps of logic. I think it’s more to convince a brainwashed moron like yourself rather than those of us who use ours brains.

        Liked by 1 person

      • the bottom line is you are just putting your human brain power OVER God’s revelation in the NT, the true Injeel, which was written and established 500-600 years before your man-made religion came about.

        Like

      • The NT does not claim to be revelation. For starters it is a library of books written by mostly unknown people. Where does Hebrews claim to be God’s Revelation? Nowhere.

        Liked by 1 person

      • it is self-authenticating with the rest of the NT and early church discernment

        Like

      • Purely subjective feelings.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Christian Truth.
        Even Qur’an affirms previous Scriptures.
        Surah 5:47
        Surah 10:94

        Like

      • Yes, the uncorrupted ones.

        Liked by 2 people

      • At the time of Qur’an, the texts say it was there “in between their hands” – what they had at the time, therefore it unwittingly affirmed the NT as revelation and God-breathed scripture.

        Like

      • Another deflection. Kennywise the clown is getting desperate. 😂

        Liked by 1 person

      • in a similar irony of Paul’s post current top of the page post:
        “Church of England apologizes for temporary lapse into Christianity”

        The Church of England is in apostasy from Christianity if it affirms homosexuality, etc.

        I am defending all of Christianity also – the eternal Son, Deity of Christ, Trinity, incarnation, atonement by substitutionary sacrifice / ransom.

        You have to accept the whole thing and repent of false 600 year late man-made religion.

        Like

      • You are certainly not defending the religion of Jesus! That’s a very different faith. A bit like Islam in fact..

        Liked by 2 people

      • Jesus inspired His apostles and said the Holy Spirit would led them into all the truth and be in them, and bring to remembrance all that He taught them.
        John 14, 15, 16
        So, yes, Christianity is the religion of Jesus.

        Like

      • The bottom line is that I am putting my God-given human brain power to identify stupid, fraudulent ideologies which claim to be from God but are in fact from Satan. Like I said, you would like people to jettison their reason and be stupid like you. Sorry, ain’t gonna happen! Your false religion and it’s childish arguments (600 before etc.) crumble in the face of facts.

        Liked by 3 people

      • It is actually your 600 year late false religion that is an “anti-Christ” religion, therefore, from Satan. We have reason that is godly and holy and submits to revelation. You don’t submit to God, so you are not a true Muslim (one who submits). It is actually true Christians who both submit to God’s will and theology and use our reason in harmony with it.

        So, you are the one who is stupid and a fool. You are a fool to fight against Jesus Al Masih and His apostles, who wrote it all down in the 27 NT books. God-breathed scriptures.

        Like

      • Moron, it doesn’t matter how long after an ideology comes. If it is the truth, then it is irrelevant if it was 600 years or 6000 years (like the age of the earth according to your stupid book). A false, pagan religion like yours will still be a false, pagan religion 1 million years later.

        I use my reason to conclude that your pagan religion is based on lies and deception. Every reasonable person would come to the same conclusion. You are a son of Satan, you lying clown. You will rot in hell along with all the other pagans for your blasphemy. Repent, lying Anti-Christ.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Since Qur’an affirmed previous Scriptures, it is you who is a moron and fool for not using your brain and seeing all the apocryphal and Gnostic and Jewish Midrash stuff that entered into the Qur’an and is obvious false. (Legend of seven sleepers, Jesus speaking from cradle; denial of crucifixion through Gnostic ideas similar to Basiledes that Irenaeus informed us about, etc.)

        Like

      • 🤣🤣🤣 The Quran confirmed the true, uncorrupted scriptures, as Paul said. You have to deflect to this silly argument when you can’t defend your pagan religion from reasoned arguments. Pathetic moron!

        Your idiotic Bible copied from pagan sources, like the Ugaritic texts. It copied from Babylonian mythology. It also copied from apocryphal sources like the book of Enoch. Face the facts Kennywise. You are a dumb piece of crap who is too brainwashed to accept the truth.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Many of the stories in the Quran come from the Jewish Talmud, the Midrash, and many apocryphal works.

        This was pointed out by Abraham Geiger in 1833, and further documented by another Jewish scholar, Dr. Abraham Katsh, of New York University, in 1954.19

        The source of Sura 3:35–37 is the fanciful book called The Protevangelion’s James the Lesser.
        The source of Sura 87:19 is the Testament of Abraham.
        The source of Sura 27:17–44 is the Second Targum of Esther.
        The fantastic tale that God made a man “die for a hundred years” with no ill effects on his food, drink, or donkey was a Jewish fable (Sura 2:259ff.).
        The idea that Moses was resurrected and other material came from the Jewish Talmud (Sura 2:55, 56, 67).
        The story in Sura 5:30, 31 can also be found in pre-Islamic works from Pirke Rabbi Eleazer, the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziah and the Targum of Jerusalem.
        The tale of Abraham being delivered from Nimrod’s fire came from the Midrash Rabbah (see Suras 21:51–71; 29:16, 17; 37:97, 98). It must be also pointed out that Nimrod and Abraham did not live at the same time. Muhammad was always mixing people together in the Quran who did not live at the same time.
        The non-biblical details of the visit of the Queen of Sheba (Saba) in Sura 27:20–44 came from the Second Targum of the Book of Esther.
        The source of Sura 2:102 is no doubt the Midrash Yalkut (chapter 44).
        The story found in Sura 7:171 of God lifting up Mount Sinai and holding it over the heads of the Jews as a threat to squash them if they rejected the law came from the Jewish book Abodah Sarah.
        The story of the making of the golden calf in the wilderness, in which the image jumped out of the fire fully formed and actually mooed (Suras The story of the making of the golden calf in the wilderness, in which the image jumped out of 7:148; 20:88), came from earlier Jewish Midrash commentaries, later reported by Pirke Rabbi Eleazer.
        The seven heavens and hells described in the Quran came from the Zohar and the Hagigah.
        Muhammad utilized the Testament of Abraham to teach that a scale or balance will be used on the day of judgment to weigh good and bad deeds in order to determine whether one goes to heaven or hell (Suras 42:17; 101:6–9). (Ibid., pp. 170-172)

        Like

      • 🤣🤣🤣 Another deflection. Just because something is not in the Bible as you know it doesn’t mean it wasn’t true.

        Liked by 2 people

      • In contrast, your silly Bible copied from pagan and apocryphal Jewish sources, e.g., Jude and Enoch, Leviathan and the Ugaritic texts, etc.

        Liked by 2 people

      • These borrowing ideas are no longer taken seriously by scholars in the field.

        Liked by 3 people

      • “I am defending all of Christianity also – the eternal Son, Deity of Christ, Trinity, incarnation, atonement by substitutionary sacrifice / ransom.

        You have to accept the whole thing and repent of false 600 year late man-made religion.”

        LOL, who care moron? You defending your pagan religion is like a Hindu defending his pagan religion. They are both from Satan. You will rot in hell just like the Hindu idolater

        You have to repent of your false pagan religion, which contradicts not only itself but the primordial monotheistic message of God. You see, moron, Islam has always existed because the central tenet is monotheism and submission to God. All the prophets were Muslims. So, your silly “600 year late” argument is a childish argument, but one that is appropriate for a moron like you to make.

        Liked by 1 person

      • “Jesus inspired His apostles and said the Holy Spirit would led them into all the truth and be in them, and bring to remembrance all that He taught them.
        John 14, 15, 16
        So, yes, Christianity is the religion of Jesus.”

        The same holy spirit apparently had them convinced that the end of the word was nigh. LOL!!

        Liked by 1 person

      • The event of 70 AD and judgment on apostate Israel and destruction of the 2nd temple was not the “end of the world”, (but clearly predicted by Jesus and then the disciples mixed the two issues by asking also about the “end of the age” and “your coming” (Matthew 24:3 ff) but sometimes gets mixed in with future second coming of Christ. Proper science of interpretation helps us discern the two different events. One close and near and prophesied and other still future to us. (which even Islam affirms – the second coming of Al Masih)

        Like

      • Yes, yes, we know the excuse you idiots give. That’s not “proper science”. Thats you idiots having to fix an embarrassing error after the fact.

        The moron Paul the false apostle was so convinced that he told his followers that it was better not to get married because the “time is short” and the present world is “passing away”.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Passed away = the end of the world. He was wrong of course. We are here 2000 years later.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Matthew, Mark and Luke were all written before 1 Timothy. Luke 62 AD, Matthew 50-65; Mark 45-60, etc.

        Like

      • 🤣 Yes, that’s because Timothy wasn’t written by Paul but was a later forgery. Give it up Kennywise. You’re making a fool of yourself!

        Liked by 2 people

      • One wonders why Paul the false apostle wouldn’t have referred to more quotes from Luke or Matthew if he had access to these documents. 🤔

        Liked by 2 people

      • @ Ken

        Perfect. So you said:

        “Before conception, the Son was only spirit/ Deity, then in time He added a human nature…”

        So God changed by adding to Himself which contradicts the Hebrew Bible:

        “I the LORD do not change…(Malachi 3:6)

        And boom goes the dynamite.

        Liked by 2 people

      • The Father and the Spirit did not change, and neither did the Son, since the addition of a human nature does not change the Divine nature of the Son, who existed eternally – John 1:1; 1:14; 17:5

        boom. Proper science of interpetation again.

        Like

      • @ Ken

        Lol. You just said God added a human nature to Himself meaning He changed as He didn’t originally have any human nature. Then to make things worse He changed again after God died.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Boom! Christianity is refuted once again!

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ QB

        As you said bad plotholes in a movie. Like seriously they interpret like heretics.

        Liked by 2 people

      • @ Ken

        You said:
        “…then the disciples mixed the two issues by asking also about the “end of the age” and “your coming” (Matthew 24:3 ff) but sometimes gets mixed in with future second coming of Christ…”

        Uhhhh… aren’t the authors suppossed to be “divinely inspired” and filled with the Holy Ghost? So can we conclude Paul didn’t have that as it didn’t possess his hand and correct it (or however you guys think it works)? Therefore he was just speaking with no evidence?

        Liked by 1 person

      • The written text of the NT is God-breathed, not the person himself. “All Scripture is God-breathed” 2 Tim. 3:16 – the writings, not the person.

        Like

      • “Uhhhh… aren’t the authors suppossed to be “divinely inspired” and filled with the Holy Ghost? So can we conclude Paul didn’t have that as it didn’t possess his hand and correct it (or however you guys think it works)? Therefore he was just speaking with no evidence?”

        LOL yeah, Kennywise just admitted that the NT authors mistakenly thought the end of the world was nigh.

        Liked by 1 person

      • The Disciples did in Matthew 24 / Mark 13, but Jesus’ answer is both 70 AD and then another literal second coming at the end of time. But the writings of Paul don’t say that. They just say that we need to be ready in case Christ comes, because He could come at any time. That He has not yet returned is no reason to doubt the texts of the NT.

        Like

      • 🤣 You are a liar you piece of crap! Paul said “the time is short” and the present world is “passing away” and it was better not to get married. This was the view of the early church. It proves that Christianity and the Bible are false.

        Liked by 1 person

      • this world is still in the process of passing away. We are to live in the light of eternal values. But other places in the same chapter 7, earlier and in other texts, he affirms that most people are going to get married, as it is a creation blessing. (Genesis 1-2)

        Like

      • 🤣🤣🤣 And there it is! Kennywise the idiot turns Paul into an even bigger idiot! The world is still passing away, 2000 years later? 🤦‍♂️ If Paul believed that and still said “the time is short” he was the biggest idiot in history.

        But that’s clearly not what he was saying. It’s just another lie by Christian idiots like Kennywise who are embarrassed by this false prophecy. Paul, like many Christians, believed the world was on the brink. It was ending.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Christians have always taught that this world is slowly being corrupted and getting worse. Romans 8:18-25 shows the world is corrupt and all creation groans, waiting anxiously for the end time, the second coming of Christ. (which you as Muslims also believe, which you got verbally, based on NT revelation.)

        Like

      • Well then Christians are idiots. Moron, get this through your head. To say that the time is short and the the world in its present form is passing away can only mean that the end is nigh. Your denial and moronic excuses will do nothing to change this.

        Paul set the example for all other Christian idiots to follow for the 2000 years. You idiots have always tried to predict when the end will occur and have always been wrong.

        Liked by 1 person

      • You are an idiot. Only an idiot would think that “the time is short” somehow means the world still thousands of years to go. 🤣

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ QB

        Smh. They claim to love the Disciples but then insult them saying that they’re no better than the man with the tin foil hat and an “end is nigh” poster shouting at traffic.

        Liked by 2 people

      • @ Ken

        Yeah that doesn’t solve the issue. The person wrote his misunderstanding into the text. Are you saying God inspired his mistake?

        Like

      • The disciples added an assumption of “and what is the sign of Your coming” and “the end of the age?” to “when will these things be? (the destruction of the temple buildings – verses 1-2, Matthew 24 – see Matthew 23:36-39 for more background – it was a judgment on that generation for rejecting the Messiah. (this generation – 23:36 and 24:34)

        Like

      • “The written text of the NT is God-breathed, not the person himself. “All Scripture is God-breathed” 2 Tim. 3:16 – the writings, not the person.”

        And yet Paul the demonic apostle said in the WRITTEN TEXT:

        “What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not; 30 those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; 31 those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.

        Ergo, Paul the idiot thought the end was near. And if you think he was talking about thousands of years into the future, then you are also an idiot, and you turm Paul into an even bigger idiot.

        Liked by 1 person

      • “And if you think he was talking about thousands of years into the future, then you are also an idiot, ”

        the lying spirit was telling paul to speak deception

        Liked by 1 person

      • “The Disciples did in Matthew 24 / Mark 13, but Jesus’ answer is both 70 AD and THEN another literal second coming at the end of time. ”

        luke
        “When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near”

        is evil christian penny wise saying that jesus used deceptive language and had in mind destruction thousands of yrs in the future?

        in mark why is he grouping second coming with ad 70 ?

        Like

      • “but Jesus’ answer is both 70 AD and THEN another literal second coming at the end of time. ”

        quote:
        What I was pointing to in the post above is that the disciples’ question in Mark 13:4, responding to Jesus’ prophecy of the destruction of the Temple (v. 1-2), does not ask specifically about the coming of the Son of Man and the end of the age.

        Jesus’ answer to the question discusses both the destruction of the Temple and the parousia, with the latter occurring ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις “in those days” (v. 24);

        both are part of the same event.

        Matthew revises the question to specify these eschatological events separately (24:3), and Jesus’ answer no longer has the parousia occurring ἐν “in” those days but εὐθέως μετὰ “immediately after” those days (24:29),

        in both cases after the tribulation, and appended to the discourse are several parables with the theme of apparent delay of the parousia

        ////

        temple , your dead in your idolatry!

        Like

      • 9 “As for yourselves, beware; for they will hand you over to councils; and you will be beaten in synagogues; and you will stand before governors and kings because of me, as a testimony to them. 10 And the good news[b] must first be proclaimed to all nations. 11 When they bring you to trial and hand you over, do not worry beforehand about what you are to say; but say whatever is given you at that time, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit. 12 Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death; 13 and you will be hated by all because of my name. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.

        Now when these things begin to take place, stand up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.

        //////

        For in those days there will be suffering, such as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, no, and never will be. 20 And if the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would be saved; but for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he has cut short those days

        then those in Judea must flee to the mountains;

        And if anyone says to you at that time, ‘Look! Here is the Messiah!’[c] or ‘Look! There he is!’—do not believe it. 22 False messiahs[d] and false prophets will appear and produce signs and omens, to lead astray, if possible, the elect.

        But in those days, after that suffering,

        the sun will be darkened,
        and the moon will not give its light,
        25 and the stars will be falling from heaven,
        and the powers in the heavens will be shaken.

        26 Then they will see ‘the Son of Man coming in clouds’ with great power and glory. 27 Then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.

        ‘you will see the Son of Man
        seated at the right hand of the Power,’
        and ‘coming with the clouds of heaven.’”

        /////

        temple, jesus made false second coming prediction. all you got to do is change his words and add in 2500 plus years to see what a deceptive “christ” he was.

        you are dead in your idolatry.

        Like

  14. zanillamillaQuality Contributor [score hidden] 4 hours ago
    It is a quotation from Jeremiah 7:9-11. In the original context, the people gathering into the Temple to worship are given this warning, which likens the cavernous building of the temple to a cave or hideout of robbers. It indicts the people of Judah in general as criminals (v. 2) who defy the Lord’s commandments. In the gospel narrative, Jesus puts a new spin on this declaration by directing it to the Temple authorities specifically and making it refer to their commerce on the Temple grounds.

    //////

    Liked by 1 person

  15. “No – he (Muhammad) did not know anything that any other human by human efforts knew. (nothing miraculous or unseen”

    ken temple became an atheist when it comes to islam. okay, lets play along.

    https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2020/01/did-jesus-family-ever-see-his-miracles.html?m=1

    Scum bag

    Liked by 2 people

  16. The contradiction is in the fact that if your god could do that for Jesus then why not for everyone else.

    Because there is only One eternal Son/ Word and only one point in history (which even Islam points to the historical reality of the time of Al Masih and His virgin birth and life and ministry, etc.) (even though denying established history of His read death and atonement in history) to do the incarnation and virgin Birth.

    Otherwise everyone else would have to be virgin born and that would be ridiculous.

    it was God’s way of providing the sinless sacrifice / atonement / ransom and demonstrating His love for sinners from all nations.

    Just as the willingness of Abraham to be obedient to God and sacrifice his son; so also God the Father later in history was willing to sacrifice His only son / only one of a kind / monogenes / only son of your love for us sinful humans. Genesis 22 illustrates the Father’s love and the ram illustrates the substitutionary sacrifice.
    Even the Qur’an affirms this. Surah 37:107

    “We have ransomed him with a mighty sacrifice”

    Like

    • “Otherwise everyone else would have to be virgin born and that would be ridiculous.”

      LOL, why would that be “ridiculous”? Surely, God can do all things? If there was a way for everyone to avoid original sin, then why not do it?

      Also, since God can do everything, even being born from a virgin would not be needed. He could simply create everyone in the same manner as Adam. Ding, ding, ding! Problem solved!

      Like I said, your religion is like a bad movie with a needlessly complicated plot that makes absolutely no sense.

      As for your idiotic repetition of the polemic about Surah 37, we can see no indication that the command to sacrifice Ishmael (peace be upon him) was given as a way for Ibrahim (peace be upon him) to atone for his sins. In fact, verse 103 states that both Ibrahim and Ishmael (peace be upon them) had “submitted their wills” to Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He), and verse 105 states that simply by his willing submission to Allah’s command, Ibrahim (peace be upon him) had “already fulfilled the vision”. Commenting on verse 105, the 13th-century exegete Ibn Kathir stated that it means that:

      “…the purpose of your dream has been fulfilled by your laying down your son to sacrifice him.”[13]

      In addition, the commentary in “The Study Quran” explains that it also means that (emphasis ours):

      “[Ibrahim] carried out what he was commanded and that he achieved its goal by demonstrating complete obedience to God.”[14]

      Moreover, verse 106 states clearly that the whole incident was “obviously a trial”. According to Ibn Kathir, this means that (emphasis ours):

      “…it was clearly a test when he was commanded to sacrifice his son, so, he hastened to do it, in submission to the command of Allah and in obedience to Him.”[15]

      According to “The Study Quran”, it also means:

      “…that it was a blessing…as it is through severe trials that God brings His pious servants the best reward in this life and the next, if they are able to faithfully endure them, as did Abraham…”[16]

      Again, we see no indication that there was any relationship between the “trial” and the atonement of sins. Rather, a trial is meant to test whether a person will obey Allah’s commands, regardless of how difficult they are.[17]

      But what about the phrase “…We ransomed him with a momentous sacrifice”? Doesn’t the word “ransomed” indicate that the ram was meant to serve as a sin offering or that, as Temple claims:

      “[t]he substitution of the ram in the place of Abraham’s son proves that it (the ransom) means ‘substitutionary atonement’.”

      As we have seen, the context indicates that this claim is false. There is no proof that the ram was presented for “substitutionary atonement”. The claim made by Temple is simply a non-sequitur. The “ransom” was simply for Ishmael (peace be upon him), since it saved him from being sacrificed.[18]

      Additionally, we can note that (emphasis in the original):

      “[t]his substitution of the ram for Abraham’s son serves as the basis for the ritual of slaughtering an animal that is required as the final rite of the hajj.”[19]

      This is an important point which Temple has ignored or is unaware of, since if we can understand the point of the Hajj ritual, it will explain the true meaning behind the prophet Ibrahim’s trial.[20]

      Islam and Animal Sacrifice

      It is certainly true that animal sacrifices are sometimes required of a Muslim after committing a specific sin. Moreover, an animal sacrifice is an integral part of the Hajj. However, it is important to note from the get-go that it is not the meat or blood that serves to expiate for a sin. Rather, it is the act itself, as stated in the Quran:

      “It is not their meat nor their blood, that reaches Allah: it is your piety that reaches Him: He has thus made them subject to you, that ye may glorify Allah for His Guidance to you and proclaim the good news to all who do right.”[21]

      In his commentary on the verse, Ibn Kathir stated that it is the act of piety that “He will accept and reward for…”[22] Thus, Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) does not forgive sins through blood atonement. Rather, He forgives sins when they are countered with a pious deed (which in this case is an animal sacrifice), as is stated in a hadith of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him):

      “…Have Taqwa of Allah wherever you are, and follow an evil deed with a good one to wipe it out, and treat the people with good behavior.”[23]

      In this regard, the act of making an animal sacrifice is a good deed since the purpose of it is to first, please Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He),[24] and then to eat the meat and distribute a portion of it to the poor, and among one’s family and friends.[25]

      Furthermore, in regards to the Hajj, it is stated in “The Oxford Dictionary of Islam” that (emphasis ours):

      “[p]roperly performed, the hajj absolves the pilgrim from all previous sins. […] A valid pilgrimage requires the sincere intention (niyah) of coming closer to God. If the intent is spiritually sound, most breaches of ritual formality can be corrected via additional animal sacrifices in Mecca or special acts of charity and fasting after returning home.”[26]

      There are some important points to note here:

      The Hajj itself absolves a Muslim of all sins. Also, all of the rituals of the Hajj must be performed in order for it to be accepted.
      The Hajj is only acceptable as long as the pilgrim makes a “sincere intention”. Without it, the Hajj is not accepted even if all of the rituals are performed.
      As long as an intention is made, any mistakes or omissions in the Hajj (so long as they are not deliberately made), can be cancelled out by “additional animal sacrifices in Mecca” or “special acts of charity and fasting”.

      If Islam placed such importance on “substitutionary atonement”, then surely animal sacrifices would play a much more prominent role in atoning for sins. Indeed, in some cases, a Muslim has the choice on how to atone for violating the rules of the Hajj. An example is atoning for hunting land animals during the Hajj. There is complete consensus among the scholars of Islam that hunting animals in a state of Ihram is prohibited.[27] But what is a Muslim to do when he/she violates this rule? While there are minor differences between the various schools of thought, they generally agree that the person can choose between giving meat from his own livestock in charity, giving other food that is worth the same amount of money or, in the case of the Hanafi school, fasting a day for every gram (mudd) of food that must be given away.[28]

      Thus, we can see that animal sacrifices are not a requirement in Islam, and even when they are required, it is the act itself and not the spilling of blood that atones for one’s sins. Even the Christian apologist Thabiti Anyabwile acknowledges this fact. He states:

      “…the Quran denies that animal sacrifice can atone for the sins of men. […] In Islam, piety counts before Allah, not sacrifice.”[29]

      Liked by 4 people

      • The texts in Surah 37 do not say it was Ishmael. I think it was even you (or Stewjo) that admitted that Islamic scholars admit that it could have been Isaac.

        The rest is just added false things to the original. The original is Genesis 22 and then the NT interpretion of it, as a foreshadowing prophesy of the Father’s willingness to sacrifice His Son, and the Son’s substitutionary atonement.

        Even Yahya agreed: “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” John 1:29

        and Mark
        “the son of man came . . . to give His life a ransom for many”
        ransom – when translated into Arabic and Farsi = same roots word as in Surah 37:107
        Fedieh
        فدیه
        فدا

        Like

      • Dummy, whether it was Ishmael or Issac makes no difference (I think it was Ishmael). Don’t deflect to irrelevant issues. Plus, your silly Bible contradicts itself on that issue as well.

        The fact remains that your stupid religion is like a bad movie. It has a complicated plot which makes no sense.

        Liked by 1 person

      • John 1:29 is very unlikely to be historical.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Totally historical, and God-breathed.

        Like

      • Only the last book claims to be revelation.

        Liked by 2 people

      • 1 Timothy 5:17-18 puts the gospels as holy Scripture with the Torah.
        2 Timothy 3:15 = OT
        2 Timothy 3:16 = expands it to the NT, and by principle extends it to other books written later – Hebrews, John, Revelation, 1-3 John, etc.

        Like

      • Another circular argument, dummy. Where does 1 Timothy mention Mark, Matthew and Luke? How could he be referring to them if they weren’t even written yet? 🤣🤣🤣

        Of course, we know that 1 Timothy is most likely a forgery, but even if we assume it’s not, it does not strengthen your silly argument. It actually refutes it.

        Liked by 3 people

      • I’m yes nearly all mainstream scholars now consider 1 Timothy to be a forgery.

        Liked by 3 people

      • the saying “the worker is worthy of his wages” is from both matthew and Luke. Paul puts the gospel on same level as Torah, with the quote from Deuteronomy.
        Christian truth, revealed and established 500-600 years before man-made religion of Muhammad, who got his own “revelations” (pure imaginations) for himself.

        Like

      • lol wrong. There is nothing in the passage that says other yet unwritten texts will be the word of God.

        Liked by 2 people

      • “the saying “the worker is worthy of his wages” is from both matthew and Luke. Paul puts the gospel on same level as Torah, with the quote from Deuteronomy.
        Christian truth, revealed and established 500-600 years before man-made religion of Muhammad, who got his own “revelations” (pure imaginations) for himself.”

        LOL!! That’s Christian logic for you! So based on one similar phrase, which could easily have been known to Paul through oral traditions, Kennywise the moron concludes that Paul “puts the gospel on same level as Torah” even though the gospelS weren’t even written yet!

        Isn’t this typical of Christian morons? Inconsistency? If we can say on the basis of one line that one book knew another book and considered it authoritative, then why don’t Christians accept that Jude knew the book of Enoch and considered it authoritative?

        Whereas the book of Enoch was written well before Jude and was well-known, Luke and Matthew would not have been written before Paul. Moreover, there are allusions to the book of Enoch in other places in the New Testament, which makes it undeniable that the authors knew it and considered it authoritative.

        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.

        https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2019/11/15/1-enoch-and-the-sons-of-god/

        Liked by 3 people

      • @ Ken

        Don’t put that on me. Some scholars took that position but we can conclude they’re wrong from the Surah’s context AND multiple ahadith.

        Liked by 1 person

      • The real confusion is in Genesis and it’s edited final version which creates chronological problems.

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ QB

        Genesis: Take your son…your only son…

        (random Jew) “Ahhhh…I’ll just jam Issac there. You see he was the only one standing there at the moment. Yeah…that’s how people talk…”

        Liked by 2 people

    • @Ken Temple

      you’re explanations as to how the human nature was protected from sin don’t make sense to me.

      1.The incarnation. the two natures don’t mix so i don’t see why his having a divine nature protects the human nature from the sin nature. can you explain why?

      2.The virgin birth. Again Mary(a.s) had a sin nature so why wasn’t it passed down?

      Liked by 2 people

    • “Because there is only One eternal Son/ Word and only one point in history (which even Islam points to the historical reality of the time of Al Masih and His virgin birth and life and ministry, etc.)”

      look you spiritual idolater, you are not answering why your god INVENTED a human nature and kept it from the original sin virus.

      “Otherwise everyone else would have to be virgin born and that would be ridiculous.”

      how does BEING born of a VIRGIN got anything to do with a CREATED OBJECT BEING PROTECTED from the original sin virus?

      “it was God’s way of providing the sinless sacrifice / atonement / ransom and demonstrating His love for sinners from all nations.”

      by CREATING a human jesus and PROTECTING it from original sin virus?

      Like

    • @Ken Temple

      “Otherwise everyone else would have to be virgin born and that would be ridiculous.”

      Why would they have to be virgin born? Ken are you insinuating that the sin nature only comes from the father?

      Liked by 2 people

      • “Why would they have to be virgin born? ”

        They dont

        26 A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will remove from your body the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.

        Liked by 2 people

      • jewish commentary:
        In context, Jeremiah 31 speaks of a new and improved covenant. In addition to not being broken by God, this covenant will no longer be broken by the Jewish people because, in the future messianic age, God will give the Jews a new heart, and they will no longer be tempted to transgress the commandments. (See Ezekiel 36:26-27)

        temple is just creating silly conditions

        Liked by 2 people

  17. typo:

    should be:

    even though denying established history of His real death and atonement in history) to do the incarnation and virgin Birth.

    Like

  18. For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

    John 3:16

    But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

    Romans 5:8

    Like

    • Yes, yes, we know what the other idiots said. But that doesn’t change the fact that the Luke and Matthew didn’t say anything of the sort.

      Liked by 2 people

    • “At the time of Qur’an, the texts say it was there “in between their hands” – what they had at the time, therefore it unwittingly affirmed the NT as revelation and God-breathed scripture.”

      read these tweets scum bag filth.

      2. There are only 7 (maybe 8) NT papyri that have their terminus post quem within the 2nd century, but their terminus ante quem dates to the late 3rd, maybe 4th century CE as demonstrated by Orsini & Nongbri. That means only 0.029% of all NT MSS fall within that early range.

      Trent, what Gospel is the Qur’ān referring to? Can you name a specific medieval codex or roll stay the Qur’ān is referring to, or are you committing eisegesis & equivocation by appealing to the word concept fallacy? That plainly seems to be the case. Can you answer?

      3. Lastly we know that the NT of today is not evidenced within the first 3 centuries, not even the Uncials from the 4th century CE match the text of today, had it only been movable type Ν errors & spelling variations then we would have a diplomatic text and not a critical text.

      We don’t know what all Christians accepted as scripture everywhere, especially in the Hijaz. For example, the finds from Oxyrhynchus from the 2nd to 7th centuries CE show more apocryphal works than canonical being copied. 600 years of evidence to the contrary.

      That we have Uncials from the 4th century, have no bearing on what was read and used outside of Roman Catholicism in the polities of Cairo and Rome, less so on the non-literate societies of Arabia, where heterodoxy dominated for centuries.

      Oxyrhynchus didn’t contain just one heterodox work, neither did the other cities along the Nile only copy works in the current canon. What have you read about MSS from Egypt? The Qur’ān engages with a variety of sects, it’s not a message only to the people you consider Xtians.

      Speculation is to say that the only Christianity in Arabia was Roman Catholicism. It wasn’t. Seems like you need to force an error, otherwise you’d have to acknowledge that there were other Xtians with other literary works, contrary to your idea of orthodoxy.

      The Qur’ān tells which Xtians to judge by which gospel? Beyond committing equivocation (a fallacy) and committing the word concept fallacy, can you actually articulate your argument? What Gospel was used in Yathrib in the 7th century CE. Extant sources needed.

      I’m not going to list on Twitter, mss found in the Nile region. You can read “God’s Library” by Nongbri for detailed info. Your ignorance is not a basis for me to do your homework for you. If you’re going to disagree then do so based on knowledge, instead of begging the question.

      Your claim is false, Eastern Orthodoxy has distinct beliefs from the RC Church. You’re the one making the claim that there was no other Christianity. Can you qualify that claim in contradiction to Paul and the ECFs? PS: MSS means manuscripts. Please pick up a vademecum.

      Your blanket rejection of other gospels as being from the gnostics is the genetic fallacy. Try again.

      Your denial of the fallacy is not a refutation of it. They are contemporaneous to the canonical gospels and at least in Egypt were copied more than the canonical gospels.

      and so he did not consider any appeals to it as sufficient for the topic. This is despite the fact that he himself holds to a form of the New Testament text which is not wholly extant in any manuscript before the mid-medieval period (roughly from the 10th to 15th century CE). He holds to the Byzantine Priority position, a minority view in the world of Christendom.

      /////

      Like

    • “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son”

      what was the point of that when the bible said that yhwh can change hearts without blood sacrifice?

      26 A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will remove from your body the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.

      why when yhwh said that obedience to torah can help with LOVING thy god with all thy heart and all thy soul ?

      why when yhwh said that he is able to forgive sin when jew repents and prays sincerely

      why when king dave said

      and you are near to everyone whose prayers are sincere.

      “, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

      ken temple, like the jews and idol worshippers thinks the fire is not going to touch him. he thinks his association with something even in his corrupt state is going to get him in heaven. god is so just that he will put this lying scum bag in heaven.

      “we only worship them because they are close to God”

      “our ancestors will save us”

      “a human BODY was killed for our sins, lets imagine god as human and bath in his blood”

      you are bringing nothing new on the table.

      Liked by 1 person

  19. “(but clearly predicted by Jesus and then the disciples mixed the two issues by asking also about the “end of the age” and “your coming” (Matthew 24:3 ff) but sometimes gets mixed in with future second coming of Christ. Proper science of interpretation helps us discern the two different events. One close and near and prophesied and other still future to us. (which even Islam affirms – the second coming of Al Masih)”

    quote:

    What I was pointing to in the post above is that the disciples’ question in Mark 13:4, responding to Jesus’ prophecy of the destruction of the Temple (v. 1-2), does not ask specifically about the coming of the Son of Man and the end of the age. Jesus’ answer to the question discusses both the destruction of the Temple and the parousia, with the latter occurring ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις “in those days” (v. 24); both are part of the same event. Matthew revises the question to specify these eschatological events separately (24:3), and Jesus’ answer no longer has the parousia occurring ἐν “in” those days but εὐθέως μετὰ “immediately after” those days (24:29), in both cases after the tribulation, and appended to the discourse are several parables with the theme of apparent delay of the parousia

    WHY DID MATTHEW MAKE THE REVISION ?????????

    WHY ?

    WHY MAKE A SEPARATION FROM “IN THOSE DAYS” AND PORTRAY THEM AS TWO SEPARATE EVENTS?

    Like

  20. 4 “Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign that all these things are about to be accomplished?”

    “But in those days, after that suffering,

    the sun will be darkened,
    and the moon will not give its light,
    25 and the stars will be falling from heaven,
    and the powers in the heavens will be shaken.

    26 Then they will see ‘the Son of Man coming in clouds’ with great power and glory. 27 Then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.

    0 Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place. 31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

    /////

    Note: I use the phrase “imminent apocalypse” because this language is more well-known; but really, what I’m referring to is the entire complex of expectations that developed in Jewish-Christian eschatology leading up to (and in) the first century CE.

    This included things like the literal resurrection of all the dead, the return of Jesus as the “Son of Man” to gather the elect and to initiate the final judgment, and so on. It could also include things like this idea of the destruction and re-creation of the “space-time universe,” but also various other utopian or preternatural developments on earth prior to this — including the dawn of a preternatural “kingdom of God,” etc.

    In any case, the first argument is pretty simple: when modern apocalyptic claimants make a prediction about a catastrophic event that’s to take place within a very short period of time, we usually take these at face value. For example, when they say that within a year, an enormous asteroid will hit the earth or that there will be a catastrophic global earthquake or that the oceans will turn to blood, or whatever it may be, we take them to mean exactly these things.

    And if they try to retroactively smuggle in qualifications to these predictions after the fact, we don’t take too kindly to that. If they try to say that the “earthquake” or impact they had in mind was actually just a spiritual one, or that the predicted date for the catastrophe was only tentative and open to revision, we don’t accept these as any more legitimate. (They usually end up suggesting a different, revised date for when these things will happen — and then, when this date fails to produce the apocalypse, too, they suggest yet another; and so on.)

    As a slightly different variant of the “spiritual fulfillment” explanation, sometimes the original prediction is somewhat vague, or else they try to point to other phenomena as a purported fulfillment of their prediction. Not too long ago, an unfortunately mentally-unwell poster on DebateAnAtheist predicted that “Thirty-three disasters will be spread globally between 12pm EST on Christmas Eve [2018] and 12pm EST on Christmas Day.” He later tried to cherry-pick global events from around that time that he believed qualified as disasters, in an attempt to account for all 33 — eventually including things like general anxiety about the economy (figuratively a “disaster”), etc.

    In short, I think that many of these same sorts of explanations can also be found today, proposed by Christian apologists, in an attempt to explain early Christian predictions of imminent eschatological events, found in the New Testament and elsewhere.

    First and foremost, Christian apologists point to the destruction of Jerusalem at the apex of the Jewish-Roman war as a purported fulfillment of some of the expected catastrophic events. And while it’s more or less demonstrably true that pre-Christian Jewish literature used various elevated, even cosmic figurative language to describe various catastrophic earthly events, there’s good evidence that New Testament language similar to this can’t be understood similarly. (See, among other critiques of this, Dale Allison’s essay “Jesus & the Victory of Apocalyptic.”)

    Similarly, apologists try to understand the prediction of the imminent “coming of the Son of Man” — Jesus’ second coming — as a figurative reference to the “judgment” of Jerusalem in the war; or else they try to understand it not as Jesus’ return to earth, as traditionally understood, but rather his going: “coming” into heaven by ascending after his resurrection.

    Similarly, the prediction of the imminent “kingdom of God” is interpreted not as something that entailed the final judgment and the destruction of all unrighteous forces/persons/nations on earth, as traditionally understood, but instead just as a more subtle phenomenon that involved individual miracles or even just purely social/internal spiritual realities. (See Luke 17:20-21, which may already be a kind of apologetics for the traditional expectation.)

    There are other apologetic approaches which seek to reinterpret the timing of these events. It’s suggested that the originally predicted imminence of the eschaton wasn’t intended to be understood in terms of a human scale of time, but rather a divine scale of time, which is drastically elongated.

    Similarly, some of the other markers for this imminence, chronological or otherwise, are reinterpreted: for example, Jesus’ prediction that “this generation will not pass away before [eschatological events] come to pass” is explained by either reinterpreting the sense of “this” or “generation.”

    There are a number of other lesser-known apologetic explanations that attempt to reinterpret other aspects of this. The main point, however, is that Christian apologists apply a radically different standard in applying these sorts of reinterpretive strategies to the predictions of the founder of their own religion and the New Testament authors, meanwhile rejecting the same strategies when they’re employed by other smaller religions or cults — in fact often scoffing at these as absurd or ad hoc.

    They also use these reinterpretive methods uncritically, when the evidence doesn’t support the legitimate application of these to the Biblical texts in question, etc.

    In any case, I wanted to keep this post a bit shorter than my usual ones, but I’d be happy to expand on how “the evidence doesn’t support the legitimate application of these to the Biblical texts in question” and such in much more detail.

    Liked by 1 person

  21. QUOTE:
    Neither text in Matthew or Luke use the word “created”.

    so how would one know if a child born is created ?

    i mean, how do you know that somewhere in the world today or pre-jebus yhwh wasn’t born to a pagans mother?

    Liked by 1 person

  22. “The Father and the Spirit did not change, and neither did the Son, since the addition of a human nature does not change the Divine nature of the Son, who existed eternally – John 1:1; 1:14; 17:5”

    a pagan like you said that the three share the same essense, now your saying only one of them have a TOTALLY DIFFERENT ESSENCE (human nature)

    father is god
    son is god
    ghost is god

    1 ESSENCE

    son is part of that 1 essence

    son ADD ON ANOTHER ESSENCE

    MEANING TWO DIFFERENT ESSENCES ..

    essence ADD on a different essence. TWO DIFFERENT essences.

    Like

  23. “The Father and the Spirit did not change, and neither did the Son, since the addition of a human nature does not change the Divine nature of the Son”

    has the pagan pauline rendered each of the persons as an ESSENCE or a DESCRIPTOR?

    example.

    apple is red

    apple is green

    green and red = descriptors.

    is the pauline falling into a form of modalism ?

    the triune pagan has to define his terms.

    can you stop being a pagan pauline and explain what you mean by “father is…..”

    Like

  24. Ken does not have the Pneuma but an indoctrinated and fixed mindset. How un-Christian.

    If he was truly one, his spiritual journey should have been less egoistic. Is this how fanatic religious zealots do these days?

    Pater imón…

    Liked by 1 person

    • Carl,
      Are you a Muslim? or Agnostic ? or Atheist?
      I don’t know where you are coming from.

      Do you believe in the Holy Spirit (the Pneuma)?

      The Spirit is the Spirit of Truth – so the Holy Spirit always speaks and acts in ways that are in accordance with Truth – and “Thy Word is Truth” (John 17:17) = when all NT books were written, this means all of Scripture (OT and NT) is Truth.

      How do you know I don’t have the Spirit? the NT and Christian Theology teaches us that all believers in Jesus Christ have the Holy Spirit.

      John 7:37-39
      Romans 8:9
      Ephesians 1:13
      Romans 8:14-16
      Galatians 4:6

      why is holding to the doctrines of the Incarnation, virgin conception and birth of Christ, Deity of Christ, 2 natures of Christ, eternal Sonship, the Trinity, atonement/ ransom/ crucifixion and atoning death of Christ, the Inspiration of Scripture, etc. somehow “egoistic” ??

      these are all basic doctrines that all Christians believe in. Without them, one is not a Christian.

      Like

      • So Luke and Matthew were not Christians. Got it.

        Liked by 1 person

      • The virgin conception and birth of Jesus is clear, as is the sinless life, trials, crucifixion, death of Christ , hence effective atonement – Matthew 20:28
        the Son of Man came . . . to give His life a ransom for many”
        So, yes, they were Christians. Duh.

        Like

      • So someone who believes these things but doesn’t believe in the Incarnation (such as Lk and Matt) is a Christian right?

        Liked by 1 person

      • not mentioning something explicitly is not the same as denying something.

        Like

      • Luke says the son was created in Mary’s womb ergo no incarnation

        Liked by 1 person

      • Already answered that.
        Fully harmonious with the Incarnation and there is no contradiction.

        Like

      • In his birth narrative Luke is more explicit than Matthew in his assertion of Jesus’ divine sonship from birth (1:35, 34-35; 2:49)… it is sufficiently clear that that it is a begetting, a becoming, which is in view, the COMING INTO EXISTENCE of one who will be called and will in fact BE the Son of God – NOT by the transition of a preexistent being to become the soul of a human baby or the metamorphosis of a divine Being into a human foetus… Similarity in Acts there is no sign of any Christology of pre-existence. JDG Dunn.

        Like

      • Yeah, Dunn does not seem to even hold to the virgin birth, per our old debates from 2011-2014 at your old blogs – he is a liberal in disguise and inconsistent with orthodox doctrine. Dunn has some good material for sure – I recently quoted a bunch on this thread – but the material that you use of him is dangerous because of it’s anti-supernatural bias and, and lack of consistency and harmony with orthodox doctrine, etc. (a true Christian scholar should defend ALL of orthodox doctrine, not just some of it, and cause doubt in other areas using nuanced ivory tower terminology.)

        Like

      • Entire chapters of the last 3rd of Luke and Matthew are about His way to the trials and crucifixion and death and resurrection, so your point is gutted in respect to Islam. They have all the basics that demonstrate Islam is false, because of its denial of the Sonship of Jesus Christ with the Father and His Deity and Atoning Death and Resurrection.

        Like

      • I was referring to the absence of the incarnation in Lk and Matt. (Not sure where Isam comes into that). So they cannot be Christians right?

        Like

      • absence of explicitness does not mean it is not true or harmonious with other NT books.
        Anyway, Luke 1:34-35 implies the incarnation.
        John 1:1-5 and 1:14 and Philippians 2:5-8 and John 17:5 fills in with more explicit texts what they don’t mention or explain.

        Like

      • Luke 1:34-35 denies the incarnation by saying the son was created. So Lk is not a Christian by your definition. And it contradicts John.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Luke does not deny the incarnation at all. The Son was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of Mary and Mary provided the human nature of Jesus. It is all fully compatible and harmonious with the other details in John and other NT books. There is no contradiction.

        The human Jesus has 2 natures – Divine from the “Power of the Most High” and “the Holy Spirit will overshadow you”, etc. and the human nature from Mary.

        So Luke is a Christian.

        The virgin conception and birth of Jesus is the historical basis for the theology of the Incarnation. There is no contradiction whatsoever.

        Like

      • In Luke 1:35 ‘Therefore (duo kai)’ expresses a causal connection between the virginal conception and the divine Sonship. It is another indication that Luke does not have a notion of Jesus’ preexistence. (Dr Joseph A. Fitzmyer)

        Liked by 1 person

      • scholars are not infallible in their comments. “for this reason” or “therefore” points to the nature of the Son, the substance, essence, which implies pre-existence of the Deity / logos, as John says. “another indication” is his opinion, but it is wrong, because it contradicts everything else that a Roman Catholic Faithful scholar should comment on. His liberalism shows through and just based on this alone, the Pope at that time should have disciplined him. (according to the RC claims of the Pope being able to walk into the room and be a living voice that can solve problems like this contradiction to orthodox doctrine.

        Like

      • What a rant. I agree with these Christian scholars. They understand the Greek better than you. But you are free to have your own opinions Ken.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I know that Greek also; I can use my brain and the Greek grammar and lexicons, etc.

        Like

      • You are a fundamentalist apologist not a good scholar. My own training in NT Greek is enough to see they are right. You are wrong.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Fundamentalist – if you mean holding to fundamental, basic sound doctrine, then that is a good word.

        You are a “fundamentalist Muslim” since you hold to orthodox Sunni doctrine, right?

        But you have left Islam several times and came back a few days later and deleted several previous blogs, so I wonder sometimes what happens inside you when you want to quit Islam several times.

        Like

      • I quit last year for a short while it is true for what I took to be excellent reasons. Any sane person I hope would do the same in similar circumstances. You should have some sympathy Ken.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I do have sympathy. Although you never explained everything. But deleting everything in at least 2 blogs seems like you left Islam several times. I can see why you would doubt it; it is a harsh and awful system and false and denies real history.

        Like

      • I don’t have to explain anything to Christian missionaries. But I was once a committed trinitarian Christian like you. However, I had the honestly to see the fundamental errors in that religion. Errors Islam is free from. I did not ‘doubt’ Islam I disagreed with it. However it seems I was woefully mislead by a large number of Muslim I know who teach false things about Islam. That lie has now been exposed.

        Liked by 1 person

      • You were never really converted on the inside. Matthew 7:21-23

        Jesus Al Masih said:
        “depart from Me . . . I NEVER KNEW you”

        Since Islam denies the existance of the Holy Spirit and Deity of Christ and eternality of the Son, etc. ie, the Trinity – you could not have been a true Trinitarian – you were deluded with just head knowledge, not heart conversion. John 3:1-21; Ezekiel 36:26-27

        Like

      • Wrong. Jesus did not believe he was God. Neither did his disciples. I blasphemed Jesus by worshiping him. But now I honour him in truth.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I feel for you when either they kicked you out of the Muslim Debate Initiative or you voluntarily left. ( I forgot which one) It must be lonely in Islamic community. It seems that you left Islam for a few days more than once, as I recall. (I have records of 2014 and maybe 2015, so it is not just “last year”) I applaud you and commend you on exposing other Muslims who would not condemn the extremists. (the good, the bad, and the ugly” post and your other posts.) I can see why you have a conflict within your soul. Many Muslims turn against you. Also, what Ijaz did to you was really bad. You were right. I really do feel for you.

        Like

      • They are not Christian if they deny fundamental doctrines. He is denying the faith by his statements.

        Like

      • I agree. Luke and Matthew are not Christians. They deny fundamentals of your faith. As I have shown from the Greek.

        Liked by 1 person

      • no, I am talking about Dunn and Fitzmeyer and other scholars who seem to deny orthodox doctrine.
        Luke and Matthew do NOT deny the incarnation; they just don’t have the explitness that John and Philippians 2:5-8 has. But what they do have is in harmony with the incarnation.

        Like

      • I have already schooled you in the Greek. Luke is very clear. The son was created in the womb. I agree with your own gospel against you!

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jesus the human with 2 natures, the God-man came into existence in the womb of Mary, but His divine nature already existed before entering into history and becoming human. John explains this in John 1:1-18 and John 17:5 and Philippians 2:5-8.

        Like

      • I agree with Luke and Matthew against the others.

        Liked by 1 person

      • then you deny Islam. Matthew 20:28; Luke 22, 23, 24; Matthew 26, 27, 28

        Like

      • You did not “school” me at all. I know that Greek syntax and phrase. You just found a liberal and inconsistent scholar who speculated beyond the grammar and syntax and use it for your agenda to bring doubt on Christianity.

        Like

      • No – you are no scholar. Your Greek is poor.

        Liked by 1 person

      • The massive amount of material relating to Jesus being the Son of God and the trials, crucifixion, death, atoning death, resurrection show that Islam is false, since it comes 600 years later and attempts to skip the powerful truths of the essence of the Christian Faith. (Surah 4:157, 5:72-75; 5:116; 6:101; 112; 19:88-92, etc.)

        In other words, you cannot separate Luke 1-2 and Matthew 1-2 from Luke 22-24 and Matthew 26-28 and atonement, crucifixion, death, resurrection, etc. in order to somehow promote Islam.

        Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument.

        Like

      • I am pointing out that there is no notion of the preexistence of Jesus in Matt and Luke. So the incarnation is not present there either. Islam has nothing to do with this exegesis. John of course disagrees with the two earlier gospels.

        Like

      • lack of explicitness is not the same as denial or unbelief. You are using / twisting things in order to promote Islam.

        Like

      • It is very clear that Luke speaks of the COMING INTO EXISTENCE of the son of God – not by incarnation.

        Liked by 1 person

      • “not mentioning something explicitly is not the same as denying something.”

        LOL!! Kennywise admits that Luke does not “explicitly” mention something as important as the incarnation of his mangod! Ding, ding, ding!

        Liked by 1 person

      • Except John and Philippians and Hebrews and Colossians and other material in his gospel of Luke and Mark and Matthew fill in the gaps. You have to accept the whole thing – the NT is one coherent entity from one mind – God-breathed.

        Like

      • Fill in the gaps! So when Lk says the son of God is created in Mary’s womb John etc correct him. I am not in the least obliged to accept it is God breathed. It doesn’t claim to be.

        Liked by 2 people

      • “The massive amount of material relating to Jesus being the Son of God and the trials, crucifixion, death, atoning death, resurrection show that Islam is false, since it comes 600 years later and attempts to skip the powerful truths of the essence of the Christian Faith. (Surah 4:157, 5:72-75; 5:116; 6:101; 112; 19:88-92, etc.)

        In other words, you cannot separate Luke 1-2 and Matthew 1-2 from Luke 22-24 and Matthew 26-28 and atonement, crucifixion, death, resurrection, etc. in order to somehow promote Islam.

        Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument.”

        Hahahaha, Kennywise the clown is so desperate now! First, he still repeats that stupid “600 years later” argument which is more befitting a 5-year old. The truth is the truth. It doesn’t matter when or how “later” it comes. A false religion, like Christianity, will still be false 1 million years later.

        Second, Kennywise realizes the conundrum he is in. He knows that neither Luke or Matthew mentions the incarnation of the silly mangod. The reason for this is because they didn’t believe in it. Why would such an important concept be absent from the gospels if it was actually believed? Why did it take the last gospel to spell this concept out explicitly?

        Third, to escape the conundrum, Kennywise the moron tries to deflect to the rest of the gospels of Luke and Matthew (i.e., the crucifixion and all the other nonsensical and contradictory stories). But what this moron fails to realize is that Muslims do not believe in the gospels anyway. We are simply pointing out how Kennywise’s pagan religion developed. Matthew and Luke did not believe in the incarnation. That is a fact. But pointing this out is not an endorsement of the gospels themselves, because they are still full of false teachings. This is not “inconsistency”.

        An inconsistency would be how Kennywise the scumbag thinks that Paul mentioning one line that is also mentioned in the gospels somehow proves that he regarded them to be “Scripture” (even though they weren’t even written yet). But this same scumbag would deny that Jude regarded Enoch as scripture because he quoted it nearly verbatim! This is inconsistency. You might as well call the whole religion of Christianity the “church of inconsistency”.

        Liked by 2 people

      • “Except John and Philippians and Hebrews and Colossians and other material in his gospel of Luke and Mark and Matthew fill in the gaps. You have to accept the whole thing – the NT is one coherent entity from one mind – God-breathed.”

        LOL!! But you admit that the earlier gospels do not teach the incarnation. There is a severe gap. Your blind and idiotic mantra may convince a brainwashed idiot such as yourself but not the rest of us who use our God-given reason.

        We don’t have to accept anything, stupid. What the “gaps” in your NT prove is that Christianity was developing over time. Many early “Christians” did not even know about the incarnation, let alone believe it.

        Liked by 2 people

      • “You were never really converted on the inside. Matthew 7:21-23

        Jesus Al Masih said:
        “depart from Me . . . I NEVER KNEW you”

        Since Islam denies the existance of the Holy Spirit and Deity of Christ and eternality of the Son, etc. ie, the Trinity – you could not have been a true Trinitarian – you were deluded with just head knowledge, not heart conversion. John 3:1-21; Ezekiel 36:26-27”

        This is why Christianity cannot stand the weight of scrutiny. Christians appeal to untestable leaps of faith. So when a committed Christian realizes the truth and leaves this religion, nutjobs like Kennywise can just say “oh, you never believed anyway. You didn’t have the holy spirit, blah, blah, blah”.

        As for Matthew 25 (“depart from me…”), Jesus (peace be upon him) was talking about the judgement of the righteous (the “sheep”) and the sinners (the “goats”). But this distinction was not based on which religion people followed, but rather if they fed and clothed the poor, showed hospitality to strangers, and cared for the sick. The “righteous” would be rewarded for being charitable, whereas the sinners would be punished for neglecting their charitable duties.”

        Liked by 2 people

      • “Jesus the human with 2 natures, the God-man came into existence in the womb of Mary, but His divine nature already existed before entering into history and becoming human. John explains this in John 1:1-18 and John 17:5 and Philippians 2:5-8.”

        Your anachronistic reading only further proves that Christianity underwent extensive development. The fact that you have to appeal to the later gospel of “John” or the letters of the demonic apostle Paul, who never met Jesus, shows that the earliest gospels did not know about your weird, bipolar mangod.

        Liked by 1 person

      • “development” is ok is what is meant is progressive revelation during the process of revelation and inscripturation. Islam has the same thing, development from 610 to 632, especially from Meccan Surahs to Medinan Surahs.

        Dan Wallace makes a good case for John being pre- AD 70 at his introduction to the Gospel of John at http://www.bible.org

        Put if “development” means additions that corrupt or change the original message, then that is not right nor true and therefore not acceptable.

        Like

      • 😂😂 How is it “okay” moron? Development over time means that people were addding their own ideas to the pure religion. This is how false religions start, and your false, pagan religion was the result of hundreds of years of development. Your god was so incompetent as to not reveal the most important theological concepts of Crosstianity until decades and centuries went by. That is proof that Crosstianity is devil’s religion.

        Liked by 1 person

      • no, “ok” development is just progressive revelation.

        keep exposing and proving your own religion is false and has no power to make you pious – your name calling is against Surah 29:46 and Islamic Adab. ادب manners. You demonstrate you have no control over your heart and fingers to type wrong and evil manners.

        Thanks.
        Keep exposing yourself.
        you and “mr.heathcliff” are two who expose Islam as powerless to give you self-control.

        But, “the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, humility / gentleness, faithfulness, and self control.” Galatians 5:22-23

        Like

      • 😂😂😂 You are an idiot. Listen carefully jackass. Progressive revelation of things like law and matters pertaining to specific situations is not a bad thing. But there was no progressive revelation about God or other important theological concepts.

        In contrast, your stupid religion and your silly god could not reveal the most important theological concepts until decades and centuries after. What kind of a religion is this?

        And you don’t deserve manners jackass. Stop whining like a little girl. Surah 29:46 doesn’t prohibit putting lying scumbags in their place. This isn’t dawah. This is apologetics. There’s a difference.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thanks for exposing your religion again as powerless to give you piety. You have no صالح و تقوا

        Like

      • Thanks for exposing that you are impotent in the face of facts and can only whine like a little girl when put in your place for being a lying, brainwashed scumbag. You are the liar Saul of Tarsus are cut from the same cloth.

        Liked by 1 person

      • It is you who are whining like a little girl and you mask it with your macho-ism and name calling and lack of power. Impotent

        Like

      • Lol, the hypocrite Paul couldn’t take his own advice when he called his opponents names and said things like “I wish they would emasculate themselves!” Thank you for exposing that demonic liar for who he was. He was a hypocrite and a liar. Unless he repented, his eternal place in hell has been reserved.

        Like

      • Dummy, the Quran’s progressive revelation did not hold the central theological tenets back. That was revealed from the beginning. The progressive revelation was for other issues. But there was no development of the most important theological tenets. In contrast, your stupid religion had to wait for some random demonic authors to magically invent new concepts like the incarnation. That proves that Christianity is the devil’s religion.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Your whole religion of Islam is nothing but an anachronism.

        Like

      • 🤣 No idiot. It’s Crosstianity that is one big anachronism. It anachronistically interprets the Tanakh in pagan trinitarian terms. It anachronistically interprets so-called “prophecies” in the Tanakh to refer to your pagan mangod. It anachronistically inserts later concepts like the incarnation into the earlier texts. This is how stupid your religion is. Just because you are too brainwashed to see Christianity for what it is, doesn’t mean the rest are too.

        Liked by 1 person

      • No, Islam is the anachronistic religion, and therefore false. A man made subjective claim of the guy in the desert in the cave. He thought he was being demon possessed until Khadijeh and Waraqa Ibn Naufal gave him some encouragement.

        Like

      • No, dummy. Christianity is one big anachronism, as I showed. Your moronic opinions don’t mean anything.

        Muhammad (pbuh) was sincere. He was genuinely shocked by the incident in the cave. That is why he sought the advice of his wife and her cousin Waraqah.

        In constrast, the false apostle Paul never met Jesus except for an alleged supernatural encounter for which he gave contradictory accounts. That is proof positive that the was a liar. The stories of liars keep changing.

        Like

      • sincerely wrong and deceived and ignorant. Mixed with warrior and booty motives and motives to get extra wives and getting new revelations when things were not going so well.

        Like

      • Paul, you need to come down on one side of the aisle. When belief in heaven and hell is not present in the Hebrew Bible and scholars say it was not believed by the ancient Jews you disagree and say it was there but was was excised. When pre-existence of Jesus” sonship is not present in Matthew and Luke and scholars concur it was not believed, all of a sudden you agree. Be consistent with the historical sources!

        Liked by 2 people

      • I am consistent. No flip flopping. My standard is the Quran where God gives us true knowledge of the original revelation given to the Jews. This trumps anything fallible scholars might think. Lk and matt clearly have the notion that the son is created. I read Greek. It’s not rocket science.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I agree it is not present in Matthew and Luke. But what is the point, when you simply “invent the required doctrine” when it is not present in a biblical source? You are not letting the source and history speak for itself. That’s fair enough from a faith perspective. But in terms of method and history you are being inconsistent!

        Liked by 1 person

      • Glad you agree it is not in Matt and Lk. But I’m not inventing doctrine. I am citing historical data as given by God himself. I never claimed to be a secularist. And I do not follow their method. But from time to time their conclusions concur with the Truth. As we see in those gospels.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Williams sheikh of flipflop

        Liked by 1 person

      • “He knows that neither Luke or Matthew mentions the incarnation of the silly mangod. The reason for this is because they didn’t believe in it.”

        quote:
        They are basically saying “forget that Jesus is distinguished from god every single step of the way in plain explicit narrative and look at this ambiguous terminology in this out of context prophesy here where it might be able to be used for both Yahweh and Jesus but we have to read it based on the masoretic texts and not on the LXX which the author used and and and…”

        Speaking of Moses, in Acts 3 it quotes another supposed prophesy from Deu 18 which they applied to Jesus:

        “For Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he tells you.”

        Now they won’t use this one of course because Moses says the messiah will be just another human being raised up from the people and not some godman descending from heaven where he has existed from eternity.

        They ignore the consistent reoccurring text indicating Jesus was a man and then cherry pick a few faves ignoring everything else. Jesus isn’t a god in the synoptics ffs just deal with it and move on but nope they constantly come crawling back with this debunked nonsense.

        Like

      • “It is you who are whining like a little girl and you mask it with your macho-ism and name calling and lack of power. Impotent ”

        LOL, your lame come-backs just show that you are a whiny little girl who can’t handle being put in his place. Get over it, dummy. Go back to your sewer, Kennywise the clown.

        Like

      • “sincerely wrong and deceived and ignorant. Mixed with warrior and booty motives and motives to get extra wives and getting new revelations when things were not going so well. ”

        LOL!! Like David, whom God himself gave the wives of Saul?

        Moron, think carefully. Why would Muhammad (pbuh) have to invent a new religion in order to get more wives? It was already a common and accepted institution in Arab society.

        Liked by 1 person

    • It seems your “Pater imon” is this:

      Πάτερ ἡμῶν

      Our Father . . .

      “Pater Heymon” seems to be a closer phonetic . . . (without using the formal whatever it is)

      from Matthew 6:9-10

      We believe this also; so I don’t get your attack.

      Like

      • I googled and found a site that gives the modern Greek pronunciation of ἡμῶν. (imon)

        we learned the Erasmian pronunciation in seminary. Does modern Greek ignore the rough breathing mark at the beginning? (“he” sound)

        So, Carl, are you Greek Orthodox?

        Like

      • I am glad we agree that there is no historical data that backs up this idea, and that it is based on faith.

        The argument of lost material is a non sequitur as even if some material is no longer with us, it does not follow that the specific doctrine of heaven and hell was there.

        Further, the argument itself is, as Agnostic pointed out, contradicted by the facts that this belief is not found in HB, the beliefs actually found were different and that the belief in heaven and hell cannot be traced back to the period in question. So there is no reason or evidence that one should posit they had a belief in heaven and hell. One might argue that they believed in all kinds of doctrines developed later in Jewish and Christian theology, but without contemporary historical evidence for such beliefs, it is simply unsubstantiated speculation.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Fortunately we have reliable historical data in the Quran to supplement the the meagre historical records.

        Like

      • “The argument of lost material is a non sequitur as even if some material is no longer with us, it does not follow that the specific doctrine of heaven and hell was there.”
        How does it then follow that the doctrine didn’t exist? You accept the position that you can’t make a historical claim when there are not texts to support it and then turn around make the claim that the doctrine wasn’t there based on no historical data. We don’t even have a slither of ancient Israel. Like I said there is a thousand year gap between the manuscripts and the time of Moses. What proof do you have of the time of Moses? Nothing. You are the one committing double standards.

        Liked by 1 person

      • @Atlas

        As Agnostic I believe correctly put it this is not supported by current scholarship:

        “1. On the issue of belief in an afterlife no evidence is found for the belief in heaven and hell in the Hebrew Bible as discussed by Ehrman.
        2. The beliefs about afterlife that are attested in the Hebrew Bible are different from the idea of heaven and hell as described by Ehrman.
        3. The concept of heaven and hell is attested only in a period later than the writings of the Hebrew Bible as described by Ehrman and Kyrtatas”.

        In other words, there is no historical evidence or scholarship that would lead one to think there was such a belief to begin with and such a belief cannot be traced back to the relevant time. So the onus is on you to provide the historical evidence or arguments that demonstrates the prior existence of this belief. Until such evidence is given I believe sensible people should accept the historical evidence and the scholarly conclusions, stating there was no such belief at the time or accept it on faith.

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ Stop/ Agnostic/ Whatever you’re now calling yourself

        Can you bring us the Torah where they were able to draw this conclusion from?

        Like

    • ” I am citing historical data as given by God himself.” Come on, Paul. You do follow their method, allbeit only when it does not disagree with your preconceived conclusions, as you have just demonstrated. This is why you are being inconsistent.

      Liked by 1 person

      • @ Stop

        That’s because he’s not claiming to use the historical method in this case. God told us what happened already so we don’t need it to find out what happened.

        Like

      • @stewjo004
        That”s exactly the point. Thete is no qualitative diffetence between the two cases. When the conclusions of the historical method supports his argument he will cheerfully use ot. When it contradicts him it is all of a sudden no good mo more. Hence the double standard.

        Liked by 1 person

      • If the same methodology and argumentation is used to arrive at two outcomes where you only accept one of them and not the other, THEN it’s double standards. Can you please show where he has done so?

        Like

      • @ Atlas
        Certainly. It”s that he accepts the methodology and its conclusion when it agrees with his conclusion but not when it disagrees with his conclusion, when there is no qualitative difference. Not applying the same standard is double standards.

        Liked by 1 person

      • “Certainly. It”s that he accepts the methodology and its conclusion when it agrees with his conclusion but not when it disagrees with his conclusion, when there is no qualitative difference”

        Can you show me the evidence? I’m sure you understand I need a bit more than your say so.

        Like

      • Yes, sure. I already pointed to Paul”s discussion on afterlife.

        https://bloggingtheology.com/2020/01/16/the-afterlife-in-the-old-testament-no-heaven-or-hell/

        Like

      • I’m sorry but I don’t understand. The post you linked is about the OT not having the notion of heaven and hell which he accepts. Where is the double standards?

        Or are you talking about the conjecture of scholars about texts they don’t have?
        I agree with Br stew on that matter and he puts it well:
        “We’re not discussing if something is usual or not. One cannot say the development of belief happened or not due to not having the text period point-blank. Not 50%, not 30% not even 10%. The Jews do not have the Torah anymore and it has gone the way of the Dodo bird. Unless Ehrman or Kyrtatas got it buried in their backyard somewhere they’re just shooting into the dark and making assumptions. The Hebrew Bible is just some 7th-century text they all got together and made up one day (and even then lost most of that). You can quote to eternity but that is the situation and it will not change.”

        Liked by 2 people

      • @ Atlas

        When Mat. and Lk. do not have present the notion of a preexistent Jesus and scholarship agrees, the historical critical method is good for Paul. When it contradicts as with the afterlife it is no longer good any more. There is no qualitative difference. It’s quite simple.

        The conjecture is purely on your part and you need to provide the contemporary historical evidence that such a doctrine was ever present in the Hebrew Bible. The scholars simply point out that it is not there and so reconstruct the beliefs of afterlife on the evidence that its actually present in these texts.

        The facts are as put quite well by Agnostic that the doctrine of heaven and hell are nowhere to be found in the Hebrew Bible and HB shows beliefs of afterlife different to those of heaven and hell and that the concept was a later development as a response to specific circumstances that scholarship traces to a later period. You can take it on faith or provide the historical evidence – but doing one here and one there as Paul does is not being consistent.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I think you misunderstand how double standards work. Agreeing that Mt and Lk don’t have the notion of a preexistent Jesus and talking about texts which you do not have is comparing apples and oranges.
        Talking about Mt/Lk and about what is and what isn’t found in the OT deal with whether a text teaches a certain theology where as talking about whether ancient Israelites had no notion about heaven and hell by CONJECTURING about texts we don’t have is another thing.
        We don’t have a problem with the OT not teaching heaven and hell (the text/manuscripts we have today go nowhere near the time of Moses when the Torah was revealed) but we do have a problem with attributing things to people without historical evidence and then pretending you’re doing historical analysis. I knew you would do this. When I said:
        “If the same methodology and argumentation is used to arrive at two outcomes where you only accept one of them and not the other, THEN it’s double standards.”
        these are different methods. One is talking about what a particular text says, the other about attributing certain teachings to people where there is not a shred of evidence to support it except to say ‘O well we have this text here so we are gonna use it and just smear it all over ancient Israel even though we don’t have vast majority of their texts and call it fact’.

        At this point you’re not even arguing about double standards but about the rejection of the conjecture of texts outside the OT we don’t have acces to.

        Our stance is simple: if you don’t have the texts then you don’t have the right to attribute to it things and call it fact. This is pure arrogance.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Anyways are you new to this blog? Just asking.

        Like

      • “At this point you’re not even arguing about double standards but about the rejection of the conjecture of texts outside the OT we don’t have acces to”.

        That argument has already been correctly rejected by Agnostic: “We can conjecture if a specific belief may or may not have been found or may or may not have been removed or lost from writings that may or may not have survived to our time. This approach is not only unhistorical and unconvincing, speculative as it is, it also lacks any foundation in empirical evidence”.

        “Our stance is simple: if you don’t have the texts then you don’t have the right to attribute to it things and call it fact.”

        But that is exactly your – not my – argument. There is no reason or contemporary historical evidence to suggest or assume that the doctrine of heaven and hell was present in hypothetical material no longer extant. For these and other reasons scholars believe this doctrine could not have been present in those societies. Yet you claim this specific it was present in a text that you don’t have.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Last sentence, made a typo: “Yet you claim this specific it was present in a text that you don’t have. = “Yet you claim this specific doctrine was present in a text that you don’t have.”

        Like

      • “That argument has already been correctly rejected by Agnostic: “We can conjecture if a specific belief may or may not have been found or may or may not have been removed or lost from writings that may or may not have survived to our time. This approach is not only unhistorical and unconvincing, speculative as it is, it also lacks any foundation in empirical evidence”.

        That quote makes no sense. “We can conjecture”? Agnostic just repeats the same babble. He’s been asked to show proof and he couldn’t produce a shred of evidence. All he had is the above quote which is just another way of saying ”Hey there is massive amounts of literature missing from ancient Israel and a huge time period where we don’t have anything of the torah (ie manuscripts) for about 1000 years! But we’re still going falsely attribute this nonsense to them and claim it’s fact and call ourselves historians!”
        Yea sorry. Not gonna work.

        “But that is exactly your – not my – argument. There is no reason or contemporary historical evidence to suggest or assume that the doctrine of heaven and hell was present in hypothetical material no longer extant. For these and other reasons scholars believe this doctrine could not have been present in those societies. Yet you claim this specific it was present in a text that you don’t have.””

        That’s completly untrue. I nor anyone else here claims to have historical data or evidence when it comes to whether the heaven/hell theology existed in ancient Israel. We take this on faith. You on the other hand DO claim to have historical evidence to back you up which you clearly don’t. You have a MASSIVE gap in the timeline where we don’t have a single letter on manuscript regarding the Jewish scripture. You are the ones that attribute teachings to all these people by claiming you have historical evidence which I’ve been arguing this entire time that you don’t.

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ Atlas

        Thank you. Took the words from my mouth. Apparently, it’s “inconsistent” to draw arguments from texts we have vs texts we don’t.

        @ Stop

        I have never argued either way there is or is not historical evidence for heaven or hell. Again why? There is NO text to state the belief system. I argue it is inconclusive and impossible to prove/disprove barring some major archaeological discovery. Agnostic is the one claiming it is FACT, like he has a crystal ball in his hand, that they did not believe in it when there is a 1,000-year gap history and no written record just because some other guys who also don’t have access to a record declare it so. Again the Hebrew Bible is NOT the Torah. If one wants to say:

        “The Jews in the 7th century seem to have no understanding or belief in heaven or Hell”

        That’s different, but even then to show the fallacious nature of the argument all we do is look at Christianity. One Jesus is clearly stated to be a human and prophet that people later started worshipping. The people who he preached to we have no record for other than a few lines from the other side talking about them. There was huge clearly seen development on their exaltation of the Messiah into an idol. Also, Christianity clearly teaches Heaven and Hell but by the 5th century (i.e less than half the time we have have of the gap in the Torah) there were many groups denying it.

        https://www.academia.edu/1123871/_With_Sleep_Comes_a_Fusion_of_Worlds_The_Seven_Sleepers_of_Ephesus_Through_Formation_and_Transformation_2011_._Senior_Capstone_Projects._Paper_3._http_digitalwindow.vassar.edu_senior_capstone_3

        Now imagine if they won out and we had no available writings from before and then over 2,000 years later some j@ck@$$ declares:

        “Yep Christians never believed in a Ressurection.”

        He would be completely and utterly wrong. The same thing is in play here, you cannot claim the development of beliefs without the text, it’s really not that hard.

        Like

  25. Carl,
    If you are Eastern or Greek Orthodox, and have the Holy Spirit of Truth (John chapters 14, 15, 16, 17); then you would defend the truth of Scripture and the Trinity and the atoning death of Christ vs. Islam, since Islam guts content of the previous revelations (especially Surah 4:157 on the crucifixion and death of Christ)
    and then Surah 5:72-75; 5:116; 4:171; 112; 6:101; 19:88-92 on Deity of Christ, Trinity, Sonship of Christ.
    At the same time, Islam affirms the previous Scriptures as true revelation from God (Surah 5:47; 10:94; 5:68, and many more – “between their hands” etc.)

    so it is a massive contradiction and it logically follows that Islam is a false religion.

    We use our brains along with true revelation.

    Like

    • @Ken Temple

      Would you be willing to use that brain of you’res by answering my questions ken?

      1. The incarnation. the two natures don’t mix so i don’t see why his having a divine nature protects the human nature from the sin nature. can you explain why?

      2.The virgin birth. Mary(a.s) had a sin nature so why wasn’t it passed down?

      Liked by 3 people

      • Already answered this before, but here goes again:
        1. Because the eternal logos (John 1:1), the eternal Son (John 17:5) decided to enter into humanity and history by becoming human – adding a human nature and body to His person. This was decided in order to be the sinless perfect sacrifice for our salvation. Hebrews 2:17

        2. The Divine nature protected and filtered out any corruption of nature in Mary’s nature. An innocent / sinless human nature. Human nature, before the fall / rebellion of Adam and Eve, was a sinless nature. The Divine nature protected Jesus from getting a sinful nature from Mary.

        Liked by 1 person

    • @Ken Temple

      Thank you for the reply Ken. Next questions,

      1. could the God the father or spirit have protected the human nature from original sin without incarnating?

      2. Do you believe that the sin nature is inherited from a persons father?

      Like

      • If I don’t answer something immediately, it is because I have other things in life – ministry, work, life, family, etc.

        1. God can do anything that is not contradictory to His nature. God cannot lie nor sin. Titus 1:2 – “God, who cannot lie”; 1 John 1:5 – “God is light and in Him is no darkness at all”. God is holy and pure.
        Isaiah 6

        But the question is, what does revelation and history (both the Bible and history of humanity) tell us about what happened with Adam and Eve and all humanity and nations that come from them? We are all born in sin from Adam (Romans 5:12-21; I Corinthians 15:22; Genesis chapter 3 and the rest of history, etc. The Bible provides the answers as to why we keep sinning and doing wrong even with clear commands and punishments in history.

        2. We all get our sinful natures from both of our parents, but, regarding Jesus the God-man, in the incarnation, the Divine nature protected and filtered out the corruption in the humanity that Jesus got from Mary, so that Jesus’ human nature was a sinless human nature. That is the point of the virgin birth.

        Like

      • @ Ken

        Then it wasn’t a “human nature”. Also, him being “born of a virgin” would be irrelevant. The “divine nature” would still “filter” even if he had a mother and father.

        Liked by 1 person

    • @Ken Temple

      Hi Ken, thanks again for taking the time to entertain my questions.

      1.So if God the father or spirit could protect the human nature from the sin nature without incarnating, isn’t it safe to say then that the incarnation of the son was unnecessary for our salvation?

      2.It seems to me in light of the above, that the question of “why God doesn’t protect the rest of us from original sin without blood?” remains unanswered.

      Liked by 1 person

      • 1. No, because are all human, we all came from Adam and Eve, and we are all sinners with a corrupt sinful nature, so the 2nd person of the Trinity voluntarily came to become human and enter into our humanity, yet without sin, to be that perfect, propitiatory, substitutionary sacrifice.

        Hebrews 2:17
        Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

        This shows the incarnation was necessary for our salvation.

        2. No, because you are basically telling God – I don’t like the way you have sovereignly decreed what happened in history – Adam and Eve, the fall, the entry of sin and evil into the world, the corruption of our natures (original sin = original corruption that is passed down to all in Adam, and original guilt) You are basically whining over why God is sovereign and set everything up that way. Why are we born with a selfish, prideful nature? It is one of basic root problems with Islam – it does not acknowledge the sinful nature within mankind. It cannot help but actually hint and indicate it, but when we have pointed this out, Islam’s dogmatic theology seeks to deny original sin.
        see more on Islam and original sin issue:
        https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2014/01/19/islam-and-original-sin/

        Like

      • John 10:18 is very important in this regard.
        Jesus came voluntarily to be the final sacrifice. God the Father did not force Jesus to pay for our sins.

        No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.”
        John 10:18

        Like

      • @ Ken

        One this statement makes no sense:

        “…He had to be made like His brethren in all things…”

        1. God is not our brethren
        2. If he is given a “pure” nature then he is not like us according to your theology. He basically had a divine “power-up” that if ANYBODY had gotten would have done the same, so nothing special there. Give him what everybody else has then come back and try to impress.
        3. Vaqas is arguing this is illogical to make one born without “original sin” for no reason. Then why add it to humanity in the first place?

        Liked by 3 people

    • @Ken Temple

      Again Ken it’s not MY way that’s the problem here, it’s YOU’RES. You believe in a God with a particular sense of divine wrath and justice that would call humans to account for original sin. you also believe that same God who demands blood for original sin also protected a human nature from that very sin nature without the shedding of blood. Aside from being a contradiction it poses several problems.

      1.God essentially put himself in a kind of “sin debt” and used the sacrificial atonement to pay it off.

      2. You already admitted that God the father or spirit could protect the human nature from original sin without incarnating or a virgin birth. So If God can protect a human from original sin without the shedding of blood why not the rest of us?

      3.It makes the sacrificial atonement pointless. Think about it, why would God send his son to suffer and be sacrificed for original sin when he could, for lack of a better phrase, just snap his fingers and protect us all from original sin? like he JUST DID with his son!

      you’re answers thus far have amounted to “just cause” or “God planned it that way” and i’m saying that the “plan” in regards to sin and atonement has holes and doesn’t make sense. Also again no one here accepts “the original sin in islam” malarkey except you.

      I apologize if it seems we’re talking in circles but this is something i’m not getting in regards to you’re theology and religion. If you want me to be a christian then you’re gonna have to answer my questions, simple as that.

      Liked by 2 people

  26. “There is no incarnation in Matt, Mk or Luke.”

    But the title Son of God implies the incarnation.

    Luke 1:35

    And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

    Like

    • you fukin moron. the invisible parts of yhwh does not mean that jesus was part of that invisible impregnation. do you see that not in one verse luke , mark and matthew IDENTIFY jesus as an invisible spirit?

      Like

      • See, islam is powerless to give mr.heathcliff self-control over his dirty language.

        Like

      • “See, islam is powerless to give mr.heathcliff self-control over his dirty language.”

        its the spirit of yhwh which is powerless you scum bag. jesus , son of Adulterer (david) had no power to master over his LUSTFUL worship of his own desires and then banged bathing sheba.

        fuck u !

        Like

    • Iggy you idiot, you’re even stupider than Kennywise, and that’s saying a lot.
      So all the other times that people are called “son of God”, it meant they were the incarnated god? Go back to elementary school dummy. 🤣

      Liked by 1 person

      • Actually, that is the implication and meaning of the Son of God.

        That is why the Jewish leadership at Jesus’ trial tore their robes and said “blasphemy” and crucified Him.

        Mark 14:60-64

        Mark 1:1 -so it includes everything in between. It is all harmonious with the incarnation.

        Like

      • Actually dummy, son of God was used for many people. Stop lying. Genesis 6 refers to the “sons of God” whom we know to be angels. So “son of God” did not mean that a person was God-incarnate.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Not in context of Jesus’ trials. The Jews knew.

        Like

      • The following is from article on Jack Chick’s comic tract “The Sky Lighter”:

        According to Mark 14:62, Jesus admitted to being “the Christ, the son of the Blessed”, which was a claim of divinity, according to Yusuf. But Yusuf was being quite selective, as this quote is according to the gospel of Mark only. When comparing Mark to Matthew and Luke, the answer given by Jesus (peace be upon him) is quite different:

        Mark 14:62
        ““I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.””

        Matthew 26:64 “You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.””

        Luke 22:70 “They all asked, “Are you then the Son of God?” He replied, “You say that I am.””

        Why are there different answers to the same question? This clear contradiction has led scholars to conclude that the saying in Mark is not authentic. As the late Geza Vermes stated:

        “[t]he plain affirmative reply in Mark…is the odd man out. It conflicts with the general line of reply ascribed to Jesus, which was ‘You have said so’ or ‘You say that I am’. The phrase implies a negative answer according to rabbinic literature. It should also be observed that in conformity with mainstream tradition some manuscripts of Mark’s Gospel read ‘You say that I am’.”[45]

        Liked by 1 person

      • What a silly argument. Jesus was the unique Son of God. The term applied to him in a unique sense. He is THE Son of God, not A son of God.

        Go back to infant school dummy.

        Like

      • “What a silly argument. Jesus was the unique Son of God. The term applied to him in a unique sense. He is THE Son of God, not A son of God.

        Go back to infant school dummy.”

        Bwhahahaha! Another uneducated Crosstian dummy has to make things up and add to the text what is not there. Why do all you idiots have to anachronistically insert your retarded theology into the text?

        Genesis 6:4 also refers to THE sons of God. You are an idiot, Iggy. Go back to kindergarten.

        Liked by 1 person

      • “Not in context of Jesus’ trials. The Jews knew.”

        There is that anachronistic reading again that Crosstians always have to appeal to. How do you know what the Jews knew?

        Liked by 1 person

      • “What a silly argument. Jesus was the unique Son of God.”

        so where do the synoptics says that yhwh was doing infinite regress on himself by begetting himself ?

        Like

      • “Jesus was the unique Son of God. The term applied to him in a unique sense. He is THE Son of God, not A son of God.”

        not in mark 1:1 . “the son of god” not found.
        “the son of god” at baptism. before this, no evidence.

        http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_1:1

        Liked by 1 person

    • “See, islam is powerless to give mr.heathcliff self-control over his dirty language.”

      shut your fat whoring mouth piece of shit.

      luke never identifies your fake “messiah” as SPIRIT or identical to an INVISIBLE being.

      Liked by 1 person

    • “Jesus was the unique Son of God. The term applied to him in a unique sense.”

      And what sense is this, dr. Watson?

      Liked by 3 people

  27. Hey Paul,
    I feel for you when either they kicked you out of the Muslim Debate Initiative or you voluntarily left, being frustrated with certain folks. ( I forgot which reason, voluntary or other.)

    It must be lonely for you in Islamic community.

    It seems that you left Islam for a few days more than once, as I recall. (I have posts of 2014 and 2015, so it is not just “last year” – 2019 – that also ?)

    I applaud you and commend you on exposing other Muslims who would not condemn the extremists. (the good, the bad, and the ugly” post and your other posts.) I can see why you have a conflict within your soul. Many Muslims turn against you. Also, what Ijaz did to you was really bad. You were right. I really do feel for you.

    Like

    • Thanks. Being betrayed by Ijaz Ahmed was a hard knock.

      Liked by 1 person

      • @ Paul

        Why do all these jack@$$e$ keep worrying about what you do faith wise? Alright you had doubts whoopty doo Ibrahim (as) had doubts and he saw WAY more than you (more than likely) ever will.

        Liked by 1 person

      • “why do they care about your faith journey?”
        (my words)

        Because Paul claims to have been a true Trinitarian believer / Evangelical Christian before; but if his (and yours and others) claims of Islam is true, then there is no such thing as a Holy Spirit in the Christian sense of 3rd person of the Trinity, and therefore no born-again conversion experience (real to John 3:1-16; Romans 8:9; Ephesians 1:3-14, etc.) and therefore, the conversion was not a real conversion; it was just a head knowledge without a heart change. (Ezekiel 36:26-27; Acts 16:14; John 6:37-44; Romans chapters 6 & 8)

        Like

      • @ Ken

        No, you were attempting to cause further doubts by using emotional engaging words and events (much like Satan) which is why you said crap like:

        “It must be lonely for you in Islamic community.”

        “I can see why you have a conflict within your soul. Many Muslims turn against you.”

        Also, what Ijaz did to you was really bad. You were right.”

        ” I really do feel for you.”

        It’s a real slimeball move.

        Like

  28. So what have we learned from this important thread?

    1. There is a severe contradiction between the Christian concept of atonement and the one in the Tanakh. No man can die for someone else’s sins, even a supposedly “sinless” one.
    2. Jesus in the Bible was clearly not “sinless” anyway.
    3. The concept of the incarnation, so important to Christianity, is not present in the earlier gospels. Only the letters of Paul and the last canonical gospel mention it.
    4. Saul of Tarsus was a known liar. For example, he claimed to be a pharisee and was persecuting Christians at the behest of the temple authorities. But these authorities were Sadducees and hated the Pharisees. So Paul could not have been a Pharisee.
    5. Paul also gave contradictory accounts of his alleged supernatural encounter with Jesus. Every time it is mentioned in the NT, the details change.
    6. Like many early Christians, Paul mistakenly believed that the end of the world was at hand. He used phrases like “the time is short” and “the present world is passing away” to indicate to his followers that the time for repentance had come and other things like marriage were not as important.

    This is what I can remember from the past few days of conversations. Did I miss anything?

    Liked by 4 people

    • @ QB

      You missed quite a few:

      7. The people of Jerusalem who Jesus(as) preached to hated Paul and called him an apostate aka a kaffir (so did James (rh))

      8. Paul of Tarsus lied (again) about being a Pharisee to try and get more “street cred”

      9. Jesus (as) the alleged man/idol could not perform miracles based on people’s beliefs. (We can also conclude Musa(as) and Sawleh(as) are superior as kuffar’s beliefs were irrelevant)

      10. “Trinitarians” like Sproul split Jesus(as) and Almighty God subconsciously.

      11. Christians have no idea how to interpret a text.

      12. Jews and Christians still continue to corrupt their text in a “Corruptception”

      13. The Christian theology (once again) contradicts the Hebrew Bible (Malachi this time) by saying God changed.

      14. The “inspired” authors wrote their misunderstandings into text

      (Takes a breath)

      15. Fundamentalist like Kenny thinks that the Disciples were incompetent enough not to know the fundamentals of their own religion.

      16. Paul of England knows Koine Greek better than Ken

      17. Being born of a human virgin doesn’t stop someone from being born with “original sin” in Christian theology

      18. Ken has been proven inconsistent (again) by his argument of “quotation means they believe in it” in regards to Enoch

      19. Paul of Tarsus is a disbeliever in Christ according to Ken due to his inability to not insult his opponents

      20. Ken knows nothing about Pre-Islamic history and how they had infinite wives so he makes stupid arguments thinking Islam invented polygyny in the society.

      21. Watson/Erasmus/ Iggy/ Retard doesn’t know the meaning of “Son of God” in Hebrew and doesn’t realize the story of the night trial is an anachronism.

      22. Watson indirectly disproved his own theology by applying Psalm 2 to Jesus(as)

      Slipping in your old age QB.

      Liked by 2 people

  29. none of the synoptics think that jebus is an INVISIBLE spirit.

    how can these cockroaches not see this ?

    they always identify him as a created physical being.

    I will further expose these filthy trinitarians to make my points clearer

    QUOTE :

    It might be a little while before I have time to write about Isaiah 6, but I would like to address one part of your treatment of it. You ask how a God Who cannot be seen, can be seen. You imply that this means different persons of the godhead, that this points to the Trinity. The implication of your understanding is that at least two gods exist. Moreover, you have no way to identify Jesus as any part of the godhead.

    Briefly, one knows that he has two different objects or ideas by the things that differentiate the one from the other. If you write of a being that has quality x, and, later, you write of a being that does not have quality x, even if the beings were never named, it is clear that two different beings are written about. They cannot be one.

    When writing of the Christian Father and Son, you write that the former cannot be seen and the second can. Essentially, you have stated that you have two different beings with either two different qualities or two different abilities. These are two different gods.
    This can be seen, too, from the way in which they relate to humanity. According to you, Jesus must mediate between the other Christian god and humanity. If this is due to the holiness of that other god, as I believe you would say that it is, then you say that Jesus does not have the same holiness as that god, the Christian Father. Jesus is more a demigod than a god. But, in any case, you have two beings having two different relationships with humanity. One of those beings facilitates a relationship between humanity and the other being. That you can see these things shows that this is not one god. Any attempt to call them one is nothing short of a lie.

    But, if one ignored this fact for the sake of argument, you would still have an enormous problem. The claim that any of the supposed theophanies in Tanach are Jesus is mere assertion. You have no way to substantiate the claim that this or that person in Tanach is Jesus. The claim is entirely empty. Indeed, you cannot even say that they are the same as each other. If one grants that the godhead is composed of multiple members, one cannot derive from those visitations that they are all the same member appearing over and over again. One time it might be Jesus. Another time it might be Fred. Another, Sandra. Another, Bing. The godhead might not be a three-in-one but a four-in-one, a ten-in-one, or millions-in-one. It is only the unfounded assertion of the Church that it is a three-in-one, a concept never stated in Tanach. It just cannot be established that any of the theophanies were an appearance by Jesus.

    I know that you would assure us that you only worship one god. But, this is self-evidently false. You worship multiple beings that have different qualities and/or abitilities, who relate to humanity in different ways, one even making a relationship between humanity and the other being possible. To call these one and the same is word play. They are clearly two different beings. They are not one. Any claim to monotheism on your part is empty. It is not merely stating that one worships one god that makes it so, it is the actual worship of only one god. Indeed, you are a polytheist, and you do not even know how many gods are implied by your abuse of scripture. It could be two, three, or legion. One of the gods you worship was only a man, a created being, who needed food, water, and air to live. You claim that he appeared in Tanach, but you cannot demonstrate this from Tanach; it relies upon assumption. This is not worship of the God of Torah; it is the worship of gods of your imagination, and it is vanity.

    //////

    Like

  30. Prophesied in Psalm 2 also:

    I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

    Of which other son can this be said?

    Like

    • You’re getting desperate, dummy. Again, being called “son” does not mean one is the incarnated God. This is your own pagan concept that you are anachronistically inserting into the text. Stop twisting your own scripture just because it does not conform to your idiotic opinions.

      Liked by 3 people

    • “I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.”

      “this day”

      neither of the synoptics identify jesus as an INVISIBLE spirit. show me one place where they do.

      “THIS day have i begotten….”

      this is talking about a PHYSICAL day and physical being, not an INVISIBLE SPIRIT being begotten forever.

      Like

      • “this is talking about a PHYSICAL day and physical being, not an INVISIBLE SPIRIT being begotten forever.”

        Exactly. It refers to the incarnation.

        “not an INVISIBLE SPIRIT being begotten forever.”

        What’s this nonsense? Your strawman.

        Like

      • Dummy, it means that he became the “son” on that day. This refutes the pagan incarnation idea that you morons try to peddle. If you “become” the son at some point, that means you weren’t before.

        Liked by 2 people

      • “this is talking about a PHYSICAL day and physical being, not an INVISIBLE SPIRIT being begotten forever.”

        Exactly. It refers to the incarnation”

        It could easily refer to the flesh of david u idiot.

        but you are blind. U cannot see

        luke never says that jebus IS AN invisible BEING . there is NO “becoming” in luke.

        what was your point to say “exactly” ?

        i am arguing that their is NO INVISIBLE being in luke and you said “exactly” ?

        Like

      • why did the gospel of luke never identify jesus as a spirit?

        Like

      • “Exactly. It refers to the incarnation.”

        so you do not believe that jebus was pre-existant begotten son in luke?

        does luke believe that an INVISIBLE spirit was ALWAYS begotten and then BECAME begotten on a specific day? was luke a retard like u?

        Like

    • @ Watson

      David(as). If you knew you’re text by Jesus (as) saying he is the “son of God” he is claiming to be a descendant of David(as)

      https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-son-of-god-is-the-son-of-david/

      Liked by 1 person

  31. “If you “become” the son at some point, that means you weren’t before.”

    Where does the bible say he was before?

    Like

    • jesus was created . there was no “before ” for him. the synoptics say that jesus WAS born of a woman

      Like

    • can you show in the synoptics where jebus was IDENTIFIED as a spirit?

      Like

    • even in luke he denies being a spirit

      Like

    • The father and his spirit are invisible . one can say spirit is fathers action. jesus is NEVER identified as a spirit and in luke he denies being one.

      Like

    • @ Watson

      Read Psalm 2:7:

      I will proclaim the Lord’s decree: He said to me, “You are my son; TODAY I have become your father.

      Meaning Jesus (as) (if you want to apply this to him) becomes the Son here therefore he was not eternally the Son thus disproving Christianity. Worse still if you go how the baptism actually went this verse was quoted and was later changed by Mark and Matt. But fortunate for us the Ebiniotes recorded it.

      Like

  32. “so you do not believe that jebus was pre-existant begotten son in luke?”

    The Logos was begotten and became the Son.

    This is what the bible means by incarnation as I would understand it.

    There was no Father-Son relation in the Godhead before the incarnation.

    This is clearly what John 1 v 1 is saying, amongst other things.

    Like

    • “There was no father-son relationship”

      in other words one of your pagan godlings had to become physical to create a relationship?

      where do the synoptics say jebus was a spirit?

      Like

    • “There was no Father-Son relation in the Godhead before the incarnation”

      Are you a modalist?
      if there was no “father-son” relationship, then pre-incarnation what were the three known as ? Triplets? brothers? fathers?

      Like

    • “The Logos was begotten and became the Son”

      u mean yhwh did not exist as eternally beggeter and begotten, this happened only after yhwh transition and acquired human experiences?

      does your pagan brother ken temple agree that yhwh became a Family only when
      Yhwh stepped in to human existence?

      Like

  33. “in other words one of your pagan godlings had to become physical to create a relationship?”

    What does the word “relationship” mean in the context of the Godhead?

    Like

  34. “iggy, i think u have become a modalist.”

    No because the Logos is juxtaposed with God in John 1 v 1.

    This rules out modalism.

    Like

    • it doesnt matter you joker.
      if sylvester stallones role play rocky balboa was juxtaposed to stallone, that would be modalism. you said like a heretic that prior to incarnation:

      “There was no Father-Son relation in the Godhead before the incarnation.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I thought that was acting.
        Maybe Mohammed was modalising Allah?
        Looks like a clear case of juxtaposing to me?
        What do you think wuthering wonder?

        Like

    • in other words “father-son relationship” = not necessary and acquired which means u no longer can tell apart the pagan pnuema/essence

      Like

  35. Before the Incarnation, there was an eternal Father to Son relationship.
    John 1:1-5 and John 17:5 demonstrate this. John 17:5 shows the Father and Son relationship and equal share in glory in eternity past, the Father as Father and the Son as the Son.

    A useful quote, followed by link to many more orthodox (sound in doctrine) Protestant theologians.

    J. I. Packer, Knowing God (1973). (Packer is probably the best-known living evangelical theologian, and is sometimes called “the gate-keeper of evangelicalism.”)
    “Part of the revealed mystery of the Godhead is that the three persons stand in a fixed relation to each other….It is the nature of the second person of the Trinity to acknowledge the authority and submit to the good pleasure of the first. That is why He declares Himself to be the Son, and the first person to be His Father. Though co-equal with the Father in eternity, power, and glory, it is natural to Him to play the Son’s part, and find all His joy in doing His Father’s will, just as it is natural to the first person of the Trinity to plan and initiate the works of the Godhead and natural to the third person to proceed from the Father and the Son to do their joint bidding. Thus the obedience of the God-man to the Father while He was on earth was not a new relationship occasioned by the incarnation, but the continuation in time of the eternal relationship between the Son and the Father in heaven.” Knowing God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1973), 54-55.

    https://www.reformation21.org/blogs/another-thirteen-evangelical-t.php

    Like

    • Ken can you explain Isaiah 6:6-7?

      Like

      • I can see where you are going by your question.

        You cannot interpret Isaiah apart from the historical context of 750-701 BC – which includes the context of the temple and animal sacrifices. (2 Kings chapters 15-21 and 2 Chronicles 26-33)

        Isaiah is confessing that he is a sinner and sometimes sins with his speech. He has to be broken with a repentant attitude (vs. prideful) in order to be ready for the ministry of preaching and prophetic warnings to the nation. This example of forgiveness is not a case of “not needing animal sacrifices for atonement” to the extent of contradicting Leviticus and Kings, the temple, etc. rather it an extra encouragement to Isaiah to be able to start his ministry after his brokenness over his sin. It does not mean Isaiah is sinless from that point on. It does not get rid of the sin nature or sinful attitudes. It says nothing about the heart or motives. It is Isaiah’s realization of what a sinner he is, and that God is merciful and forgiving, but it does not obviate all the other commands for animal sacrifice in the temple for atonement. Those are ongoing all the time for the nation of Israel.

        There is no contradiction.

        The science of interpretation also includes harmonization with other passages in Scripture.

        Like

      • “I can see where you are going by your question.”
        Actually where I’m going isn’t even close to what you thought. I wanted you to explain the angel making him kiss a coal/stone and his sins being forgiven and why Christians say that us kissing the stone is paganism.

        Liked by 1 person

      • There is nothing about “kissing” the coal. The angel applied the hot coal to Isaiah’s lips; a symbol of being cleansed from sinful speech. It was not literal – it would have burned him physically. It has nothing to do with kissing something, like black stone at the Kaaba, etc. – the pagan practice of pre-Islam being absorbed into Hadith traditions of what Muhammad and Omar and others did; adn Islamic Hajj practices, etc.

        Like

      • Nice try Kenny.

        Isaiah 6:6-7
        Then one of the seraphim flew to me with a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with tongs from the altar. 7 With it he touched my mouth and said, “See, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for.”

        Even if you want to avoid the ‘kissing’ part, it says that it has touched his lips and his guilt is then taken away and his sin forgiven.
        There is nothing about it being metaphorical. The angel even says “See this has touched your lips”. And your excuse about it burning him is weak as all your excuses are. It only has to touch his lips, not hold the coal on them for seconds.
        This is such unbelieveble twisting that you people do to fit your imagination.

        Liked by 3 people

      • @ Ken

        Sooooo…you accept prophets can sin yet attack Islam for things that aren’t even sins…got it.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Since Kennywise is repeating the same old “kissing the black stone is paganism” nonsense…there’s this:

        “Early the next morning Jacob took the stone he had placed under his head and set it up as a pillar and poured oil on top of it.” (Genesis 28:18)

        “Jacob set up a stone pillar at the place where God had talked with him, and he poured out a drink offering on it; he also poured oil on it.” (Genesis 35:14).

        Christians are so stupid.

        Liked by 1 person

  36. @Stewjo004

    I don’t understand what you mean by this.

    Sooooo…you accept prophets can sin yet attack Islam for things that aren’t even sins…got it.

    Like

    • Yes, all prophets sinned, except Jesus, who was both a prophet and more than a prophet (God-man, God in the flesh, 2nd person of the Trinity.

      But I don’t get the “attack Islam . . . “, etc.

      You as a Muslim will automatically feel that I am attacking Islam – because from a NT Christian perspective, it is a false religion, of course. – it is just logic and reason.

      Just as all of what you and QB and mr.heathcliff do is an “attack” on Christian truth.

      Like

      • @ Ken

        ” both a prophet and more than a prophet…”

        Alright makes sense.

        Anyways, I’ll simplify. You believe prophets are for the most part the worst of the creation so therefore you should never make a character argument against Muhammad(saw) as character is not a factor according to you all when it comes to prophets.

        Liked by 1 person

      • where do you get that “part of the worst of the creation” ? Christianity does not speak in those terms, so it is not true.

        All humans are sinners by nature (except for Christ) and Christ came to redeem us.

        Because God created us and also has provided a way to be saved from sin and hell, it demonstrates God’s love for sinners for people from all nations/ethnicities.

        Revelation 5:9; 7:9
        Romans 5:8

        Like

      • @ Ken

        Also PS I do not “attack” anything I simply refute lies and then you get frustrated.

        Liked by 2 people

      • @ Ken

        Oh, that was my personal add on because the biblical prophets are depicted as worse than the evilest of people for the most part.

        “….God’s love for sinners for people from all nations/ethnicities….”

        Other than those millions (possibly billions) of people outside of Israel who never received a warner.

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ Paul

        I was being optimistic.

        Liked by 1 person

  37. @ stewjo004

    So far, you have not refuted anything (neither has QB nor mr.heathcliff) regarding Christian truth. And difference of opinion as to what is the truth (that NT Christianity is true, therefore Islam is false) is not lying, nor is it telling lies.

    Sincere belief in the revelation of the NT and Trinitarian Protestant Evangelical Christianity as Truth is not lying.

    It is actually speaking the truth in love . . . Ephesians 4:15-16

    Like

    • Kennywise, no one cares what a brainwashed buffoon thinks. We don’t expect you to come to the realization that your religion has been refuted multiple times and from many angles. We have torn your pagan religion apart and many people are realizing the truth about this religion, which is why it is projected that nearly 100 million Christians will apostasize by 2050. Rational people will know that Christianity is a false religion. Brainwashed clowns like you are only here for comedic relief.

      Like

      • You have not refuted anything so far.

        It does not matter how many people become Christians – truth is not established by popularity.

        Rational people will know Islam is a false system, when they have the freedom to question it and criticize it. When it is locked down before the internet in Saudi and Afghanistan, etc. – it held everyone under by fear . . . but not more.

        Like

      • Again Kennywise, no one cares what you think. You are a brainwashed buffoon who mindlessly repeats idiotic arguments over and over again.

        Rational people leave Christianity everywhere because Christianity is undoubtedly false. I never said that truth is established by popularity, moron. I merely said that people are not buying the lies of Christianity anymore and are leaving in it unprecedented numbers.

        Liked by 1 person

      • No one cares what you think either. I am glad that everyone can see that Islam has no power to give you piety or self-control or obedience to your own claims of manners. ادب

        Like

      • 🤣🤣 Actually, I think many people care what I think as we can see from this blog. I have turned you into a laughing stock and so have others. But it’s all your own fault. If you weren’t such a lying, hypocritical scumbag, you would be shown respect. But since you are a lying, hypocritical scumbag, you get what you deserve. So stop whining.

        Liked by 3 people

      • . . . which is why it is projected that nearly 100 million Christians will apostasize by 2050.

        Are you saying that this group can do supernatural prophecy of the future?

        whatever group, whether Barna or Pew research or CNN or whatever . . . they are not God and they don’t have the gift of prophecy.

        Any kind of thing like is based on population statistics and estimates of children, etc.

        and it is mixed with judging current “christians” as true Christians, and not just cultural / nominal Christians.

        Like

      • 😂😂 Oh Kennywise you absolute sack of crap! No one said this is a prophecy from God. These predictions are based on statistics. Current trends show that Christianity is hemorraghing. The study took the current trends and made a projection. Obviously, these projections can change.

        But I would trust the Pew Forum much more than Paul the dummy apostle. He couldn’t predict 6:00 at 5:30. 🤣

        Like

      • @ Ken

        Demographics and population are pretty easy to predict, hence why fairly certain estimates can be guessed with reasonable accuracy if trends stay the same…

        Liked by 1 person

    • @ Ken

      Oh I was just saying lying in general as you (and a lot of your fellow disbelievers on the blog) make an abundance of false statements intentionally or not whether about religion, politics, history, the weather etc.

      Oh Christianity was done at the ending of Mark and the lady taken in adultery. At this point its more a study of “how bad is it”?

      Liked by 1 person

  38. Rational people will know Islam is a false system, when they have the freedom to question it and criticize it. When it was locked down before the internet in Saudi and Afghanistan, etc. – it held everyone under by fear . . . but no more.

    Like

  39. Ken likes to show off his little Persian thinking we will be impressed.

    It is not really “showing off”; rather I use the words that come from Arabic and have a relevancy to the issue, whatever it is.

    For example,

    Jesus as the word of God. (Logos) = “word of God” = کلمه الله
    This is very relevant because it is clear that the Qur’an got it’s idea that Jesus is the Word of God from John 1:1 and 1:14, though it denies the incarnation – a contradiction.

    or Islamic manners – manners = ادب
    (something QB and mr.heathcliff don’t have. Ha!)

    40 % of the words today in Farsi are from Arabic.

    Like book = کتاب
    light = نور
    world = دنیا
    spirit = روح
    flesh / soul / selfishness/ sinful nature = نفس اماره
    Spider = عنکبوت
    Al Masih / The Messiah = المسیح
    This is the Arabic form, as Farsi / Persian does not have the definite article ال , so Persian for the Messiah is مسیح
    Jesus = عیسی
    John the Baptist = یحیی

    etc.

    I usually only use the words I notice that are from Arabic and that we also have in Farsi / Persian.

    Like

    • Well, it just makes you look like an idiot, especially when in your attempts to impress, you screw up and butcher the language, as in the case of when you called me “kuffaar” even though that word is plural. Ha! 😂😂

      Liked by 1 person

      • that was only because I did not learn the words in English letters and phonetics, rather I learned them in the Farsi script which is the same as the Arabic script.

        کفر

        Like

      • Yeah, it’s because you’re an idiot who tries to pretend he knows what he’s talking about.

        Like

      • You have no intellectual rebuttal, so you resort to lying and complaining.

        Liked by 1 person

      • 🤣🤣 “Intellectual rebuttal” he says. I’ve torn your religion into pieces on this thread so many times, it’s not even funny! You’re the dummy who goes on irrelevant rants and tries so hard to appear like a know-it-all. But because we know what you are and how you operate, we can see your pathetic tactics. You’re the lying scumbag, remember?

        Like

      • You have never rebutted anything.

        Like

      • Everyone on the blog knows otherwise. No one cares what a moron like you thinks. Hey Kennywise, the time is short. Do you think people should get married? 😉

        Like

      • I Corinthians 7 – you have to read and study the whole chapter and context, etc. which you don’t do by your cherrypicking.
        verse 28 – “but if you do marry, you have not sinned”;
        verse 36 – “let them marry – it is no sin”

        verse 6 – “each one has his own gift (charismata – grace gift – the power and gift of singleness) – but, verse 9 – most people will marry.

        See also Ephesians 5:21-33 – a powerful passage on marriage.

        So, you are wrong on your cherry picked “exegesis”, which is actually eis-egesis.

        Like

      • 🤣🤣🤣 Dummy, I know what Paul said. He said it was okay to get married BUT the main point he was making was that the TIME IS SHORT so if you are NOT married, then it was better to stay that way. His point was that you shouldn’t be concerned with changing your present status. Since the world is ending, everything else is secondary and not as important.

        You’re embarrassed of this short-sighted approach by the dummy Paul, so you choose to ignore what he actually said and instead twist it.

        Like

    • Ken showing off again. And who cares about the Persian? lol No one!

      Liked by 1 person

  40. Uzbekistan as a country was created by the Soviet union .
    the southern part of Uzbekistan is actually Tajik ethnically which they are more related to the Tajiks which is also a Persian dialect.
    the cities of Samarkand and Bukhara, Bukhara, where Al-Bukhari is from, is Tajik,
    not Uzbek, the northern part of Uzbekistan is where The Turkic people are is Uzbek.
    The Russians / Soviets deliberately did this to divide up the ethnicities in order to control them.

    Your other points are good points.

    All I am saying is that the meaning of words that are relevant in Islamic theology and meaning from the Quran and Hadith , are recognizable in Persian and I recognize the words that come from Arabic.

    Like

    • Pretentious. Just showing off. As always.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Kennywise: Hey look, I’m pretending to be knowledgeable, even though all I did was Google Uzbekistan!

        Everyone else: No one cares. Get a life, loser.

        Liked by 1 person

      • He has never been to Iran! Anyway, who cares?

        Like

      • No, I have actually been to Uzbekistan and Tajikistan – in 1994. I learned about them from them and other books – I did not have a computer nor email back then – the internet and email was just starting.
        So, you are both wrong.

        I spend time with people.
        I spent a lot of time with Arabs in the USA from 1983-1992, Iranians from 1993 to today in USA and other places outside of Iran; and Tajiks in 1994. And I met some Uzbeks in Tashkent – we had lunch & dinner in their homes – their language is a mixture of Turkish and Persian – it was very interesting.

        Like

      • Stop bragging Ken. As a missionary you are a failure. No Muslim in their right mind would convert to your brand of American evangelical fundamentalism.

        Liked by 1 person

      • This guy’s a joke. He goes on these rants and gives irrelevant details. It’s so transparent, the pathetic attempt to appear knowledgeable.

        Kennywise: ‘I visited in 1994.” “I ate food with them.” “I went to the bathroom with them.” 🤣🤣

        Everyone else: No one cares. Get a life, loser.

        Like

      • Many already have. Ha ha. The Iranians have awakened to the true nature of Islam when it gets power. (though the Shiite version of 12er Imams with the Velayat E Faqih / “Guardianship of Jurist” doctrine.) They have been turning away from it in the last 40 years.

        Like

      • 🤣🤣 Meanwhile, Iran is still a majority Shiite nation. Kennywise has to exaggerate like all lying missionary scumbags. The reality is that of course that Muslim apostasy is no where near as large as Christian apostasy. People ar waking up to the lies of Christianity and MILLIONS leave each year, though most just become atheists or agnostics.

        Like

      • Actually, a Tunisian Sunni Muslim came to faith in Christ in 1986 when I spend a lot of time with him in New York city, USA, showing him the Jesus film in Arabic and then working through the NT and questions he had regarding the Deity of Christ, the incarnation, the cross, atonement, sin, the Bible, the Injeel, faith, and the Trinity.

        I remember your debate vs. your former pastor, Steve Latham – what I remember is that he said basically the same things I would say – I found part 2 of your debate, but cannot find part 1.
        What is the difference between that and what you so call “your brand of American Evangelical fundamentalism”. I am not a Pre-tribulationist, nor am I a Premillennialist.
        I lean more toward an A-Millennial perspective.

        Like

      • Lol, here we go again with the irrelevant details. 🤣

        Everyone else: No one cares. Get a life, loser.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Listening to Part 2 again of Paul Williams debate vs. Steve Latham. Paul quoted Surah 9:72 – I noticed almost every word in this verse, we have in Farsi, with the same meanings:

        وعد = promised, we have this in وعده (a promise) and “the promised one” موعود مؤمنین and مؤمن (believer and believers)

        جنت – جنه from same root word of garden /paradise (Iranians usually use a different word, but we know this word, because of Islamic theology.)

        تجری – flowing, from جری ، جاری
        تحت = underneath

        نهر = river

        مسکن = dwelling
        عدن = the Sahih international says “everlasting bliss”, it is used for “Eden”, the garden of Eden- same idea of eternal paradise and happiness.

        ورضون – from رضا، رضایت ، راضی = “to be satisfied, pleased” – same roots

        اکبر = “greatest”, “great” – all Muslims know this word and Iranians use it some in everyday speech.

        عظیم = great, large, big

        Like

      • Ken – boring the world for Jesus.

        Like

      • Noticing Abdullah Al Andalusi mediated your debate . . .

        what happened to him and Sammy Zaatari ?

        Just wondering – how they are doing?

        Like

      • When you don’t have a good rebuttal, you say “boring”.

        Ha Ha

        Like

      • Kennywise: Some Tunisian dude became a crosstian 30 years ago afte I fed him my church lies.

        Everyone else: No one cares. Meanwhile, in the present day, millions of Christians are leaving the religion after realizing the truth.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I found part 1.
        Planning to re-listen. I remember listening to the whole thing back in 2011.

        Like

  41. Actually, I have been there, in 1994 (flew to Tashkent and then went south by bus to Samarkand, a Tajik city) and also to Tajikistan, at a time when the Soviet Union had fallen and the Russians were getting out and I went to Samarkand ( an ethnic Tajik city) and also 2 cities in Tajikistan. (Khojent and Dushanbe). I learned about the country before the internet. I did not have a computer nor internet at that time – it was just starting. Someone told me about email and internet and I did not want to be interrupted from language learning (learned Farsi in 1993-1995, and continued since that time.) so you are wrong that I just “googled Uzbekistan” – I had already known about the ethnicities and Russia / USSR background since 1994. I was not able to go to Bukhara, but I read about it from books and articles and it was the same basic ethnicity as Samarkand – and I had a great time in Samarkand.

    The Tajiki people are ethnically related to the Persians – Iranians and Afghan Persian (Dari speakers – Dari is also a dialect) – they loved my Iranian accent and thought I was Iranian. (though I have never been to Iran. I learned from Iranians outside of Iran and lived among them and related to them, eating their food, spending lots of time with them – they are very hospitable and gracious people! and they are the most open Muslims to gospel truths – they have been questioning Islam for the last 40 years more than any others.

    Like

    • Also, it was really cool to see all the statues of famous Persian poets that had recently been erected and statues of Stalin and Lenin had been torn down. The replaced them with famous Persian and Sufi poets like Rumi (Jalal a din Rumi, or Molana), Rudaki, Saadi, Hafez, Baba Atar, Omar Khayyam, and Ferdowsi, who wrote the famous Shah Nameh and at the end spoke of how he wrote it without any Arabic words – seeking to write it in pure Persian. (but it was still in the Arabic script)

      Like

  42. @ Ken

    Oh, you converted a bunch of Rafida who believe in 12 gods to 3. Congratulations, I guess it would matter if most scholars didn’t believe it was better for them to become Christians than to be Twelvers. Tell you what why don’t you bring them on the blog for us all to talk to them then?

    Like

    • The don’t believe in 12 gods; but they do seem to have similar practices as Roman Catholics who visit their graves and shrines and treat them as mediators that they can pray to in between themselves and Allah most high.

      I grant you that the visiting graves and shrines and praying to the dead is bad and wrong.

      Like

      • “The don’t believe in 12 gods; but they do seem to have similar practices as Roman Catholics who visit their graves and shrines and treat them as mediators that they can pray to in between themselves and Allah most high.”

        LOL, and meanwhile, you pray to your mangod. Pagans will be pagans, and whether you are praying to saints or to Jesus, it’s all idolatry and the final destination of that is hell.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Why don’t you bring them on this blog? –
      They need to protected from false doctrine, so, no. Plus I know for sure that not one of them is interested anymore in Islam, as they have been freed from it’s bondage and cruelty and lack of peace and lack of love and lack of forgiveness and lack of an actual way to be saved.

      Jesus Al Masih said,

      “the truth will set you free”
      John 8:31-32

      Like

      • ‘Jesus Al Masih’ – no one says this. Apart from pretentious Ken.

        Like

      • Isa Al-Masih.
        how about that?

        I have heard Arab Muslims say that a lot.

        Like

      • neither you or I are arabs. Stop being pretentious.

        Liked by 2 people

      • @ Ken

        I know they like you don’t think they’re worshipping a variety of deities just like the pagans don’t think they’re worshipping stone or wood. But sometimes it’s just easier to call a duck a duck.

        And lol that’s so cowardly. What that means is even you know you fed these alleged “converts to Christ” bs. If they’re “no longer interested in Islam” then what we say means nothing. Heck they would be the BEST people to try and preach to us. It’s alright I know lies have to hide away.

        PS.

        Isa(as) didn’t say that. Just one of your many heretical unknown authors.

        Liked by 1 person

      • “They need to protected from false doctrine, so, no. ”

        LOL!! Here we go again! Remember that time Kennywise the clown talked about “freedom of thought”? Well, that only applies when criticizing Islam. But apparently, these morons who converted to his pagan religion are too stupid to think for themselves, so Kennywise is their guardian who will “protect” them from “false doctrine”.

        And Kennywise still wonders why he is mocked and laughed at…

        It’s because you are a piece of crap, Kennywise. You are a hypocrite and a deceiver. Plus, you don’t really know how to write English that well, with your run-on sentences (“and..and…and”).

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ QB

        Very true.

        Liked by 1 person

    • The Trinity is not 3 “gods”. One God in three persons. You still don’t even know the doctrine of the Trinity. Shame, given all the opportunity to study and find the proper resources, books, web-sites, etc.
      Very ignorant.

      Like

      • @Ken Temple

        At a minimum its 2 gods. i’ll explain, Christians always say they don’t worship 3 whats but 1 what in 3 who’s. But one of those who’s is a what on his own. The son while being a member of the trinity also added to himself a human nature. so by you’re own standards you worship 2 God’s or 2 whats. with the trinity as one what and the son simultaneously as another.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Since the human nature does not change the Divine Essence, the argument is wrong.

        Like

      • @ Vaqas

        Agreed. I say 3 officially 2 in practicality as they never throw up the Holy Spirit in prayer like:

        “Oh Holy Spirit give me so and so”

        It’s kinda just there.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Vaqas, the trinity slayer back at it!

        Liked by 3 people

      • “Trinity slayer” – no, but . . .
        Well, at least he has proper manners.
        unlike you . . .

        Like

      • “Trinity Slayer” – yes, we’ve all seen you struggle to answer his questions…🤣

        And don’t worry. While I can’t speak for him, he probably doesn’t think very highly of you. No one on this blog does. That’s because you are a piece of crap. Oh, I’m sorry. How rude of me and my bad manners. 😂

        Liked by 1 person

      • @Ken Temple

        “Since the human nature does not change the Divine Essence, the argument is wrong.”

        1. I made no mention of a change to the divine essence. but since you brought it up i’ll use a past comment i made during a discussion with you. It was concerning the very same topic.

        -while we both agree in principle that the divine nature of God doesn’t change, often Christians like yourself talk about the divine nature as if it has undergone a change. such as

        ” because while Jesus was on earth, although He was the “God-man” always, He voluntarily laid aside the privilege of using all His divine attributes for a season”

        And

        ” but once Jesus rose from the dead and was glorified and ascended into heaven, He knows that and has no limitations as to power and knowledge.”

        while you would argue that the divine nature has not changed on account of the human nature in principle, in actual theology clearly the divine nature has been lessened or “veiled/ set aside” to accommodate the incarnation. And then changed again when it got its full powers back.-

        2.Regardless if the divine nature nature changed or not a human nature is still added to one of the persons. The point i was making was Christians like yourself justify the trinity by saying you worship a plurality of persons not natures. By you’re own criteria the trinity is polytheism due to worshiping the son who has a plurality of natures.

        3.And before you even argue it, no, it doesn’t matter if you worship the human nature or not in this paradigm. The reason being that the human nature is still attached to the person of the son regardless if its worshiped or not. Although I would love to continue discussing whether the human nature is worshiped or not and what that means for the hypostatic union its not relevant to the problem i initially posed.

        Liked by 1 person

      • @Ken Temple

        So Ken have you mulled over my points in response to you’re comment?

        Also i’ve been meaning to ask,in the past you kept suggesting that the two natures were not truly unified on earth but only after the resurrection. Is this only your interpretation or do you have some sort of creedal backing?

        please reply when you have the time.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I never suggested that
        ” the two nature were not truly unified on earth”

        They are unified in one person, Jesus Christ, but the power of the Divine Nature filtered out the sin from Mary, so that Jesus’ human nature was a sinless nature.

        Jesus voluntarily veiled His divine nature in some areas while He walked on the earth – knowledge about the day of the second coming – Matthew 24:36. That was only temporary – obviously the eternal Son at the right hand of the Father knows the time of His second coming – Revelation chapters 4-5, etc.

        Like

      • while you would argue that the divine nature has not changed on account of the human nature in principle, in actual theology clearly the divine nature has been lessened or “veiled/ set aside” to accommodate the incarnation. And then changed again when it got its full powers back.-

        The divine nature was not “lessened” – the veiling or laid aside was a voluntary act of the Son by the temporary nature of the limitations of the human nature and entering into time and history and space. It did nothing ontologically to the Divine nature.

        Like

      • The point i was making was Christians like yourself justify the trinity by saying you worship a plurality of persons not natures.

        The nature of God is the substance and being of God – since there is only One God, then the oneness / Monotheism is firm and true and there is no threat to Monotheism by the second person taking on an additional nature.

        By you’re own criteria the trinity is polytheism due to worshiping the son who has a plurality of natures.

        No, because the worship due the Son is not based on His having a human nature also, but based on His being Deity, ie, eternal, Word (John 1:1-5 – eternal, mind of God into eternity past, communication of God, life, light, power over darkness, and eternally with God the Father, as the eternal Son, see also John 17:5 – “the glory I had with You before the world was created”, etc.

        Like

      • @Ken Temple

        Hi Ken thank you for the replies.

        “I never suggested that
        ” the two nature were not truly unified on earth”

        on the blogging theology post

        https://bloggingtheology.com/2019/11/13/peter-do-you-think-the-historical-jesus-uttered-the-i-am-sayings-in-john

        you, as part of our discussion on the topic wrote-

        “A unified person does not mean the wills are totally unified WHILE ON EARTH for 33 years.

        After the resurrection and glorification, the wills are in unity with no struggle.

        Jesus is one unified person.

        While on earth, He modeled submission for us as a perfect human being. He never rebelled or disobeyed God’s will. (the Father, and His own Divine Will)

        His struggle in the garden to ask that the cup of suffering of the wrath of God upon Him was not sin or disobedience. It was human struggle as a model for us to surrender, because He fully submitted.”

        I certainty took that to mean that you believed the that the two natures were not unified on earth.

        Like

      • Ok, I see what you mean now. even my statement says “A unified person does not mean the wills are totally unified While on earth for 33 years.”, etc. – All we have are the text that tell us that in His human nature, there was a struggle in His human will before going to the cross (in the garden), but He was modeling submission / surrender to God’s will for us.

        Like

      • Unified natures are not the same as unified wills, although the will is one aspect of both the Divine nature and the human nature.

        Like

      • @Ken Temple

        “The divine nature was not “lessened” – the veiling or laid aside was a voluntary act of the Son by the temporary nature of the limitations of the human nature and entering into time and history and space. It did nothing ontologically to the Divine nature.”

        You can use whatever words you want “veiled” or “voluntary set aside” it doesn’t change the fact that the son is executing less of his divine power on account of the incarnation. thus making him less God.

        Liked by 1 person

      • And yet at the same time, claiming to be God in the flesh. Mark 1:11; 2:1-12; Mark 2:28; John 5:17-18; 8:12; 8:56-58; 8:24; 10:30; 18:1-6; 19:1-7

        So, the incarnation did not make Him less than God.

        Like

      • @Ken Temple

        “No, because the worship due the Son is not based on His having a human nature also, but based on His being Deity, ie, eternal, Word (John 1:1-5 – eternal, mind of God into eternity past, communication of God, life, light, power over darkness, and eternally with God the Father, as the eternal Son, see also John 17:5 – “the glory I had with You before the world was created”, etc.”

        1. This goes back to the issue of you separating the natures when you worship the son. in our past discussions I asked you if attempting to talk to one of the natures would be separating the hypostatic union. you seemed to indicate that it would be. Why then is you’re worship of only one nature of the hypostatic union not the same thing? i.e isn’t you’re worship of only one nature of the hypostatic union separating the natures?

        2.Actually i did some digging and some Christians are of the opinion that you don’t worship the natures, you worship the persons themselves. you’re thoughts on that Ken?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Worship for God alone; the Holy Trinity, One God in three persons. One Being / substance / nature / essence.

        Like

      • @Ken Temple

        “Unified natures are not the same as unified wills, although the will is one aspect of both the Divine nature and the human nature.”

        Then i’ll ask, what does the two natures being unified mean?

        Like

      • unified in one Divine Person, with the aspect that He voluntarily put Himself in the space-time continuum while on earth for 33 years.

        Like

      • @Ken Temple

        “And yet at the same time, claiming to be God in the flesh. Mark 1:11; 2:1-12; Mark 2:28; John 5:17-18; 8:12; 8:56-58; 8:24; 10:30; 18:1-6; 19:1-7

        So, the incarnation did not make Him less than God.”

        Ken simple question, can God still be worthy of worship if he doesn’t have all knowledge?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Yes, because we understand that was just a temporary voluntary veiling while in the time-space continuum of the incarnation while on earth, before the glorified resurrected Christ, the eternal Son.

        Like

      • @Ken Temple

        “Yes, because we understand that was just a temporary voluntary veiling while in the time-space continuum of the incarnation while on earth, before the glorified resurrected Christ, the eternal Son.”

        Ezekiel 28 doesn’t agree with you. It clearly states that God must be all knowing.

        1The word of the LORD came to me:2″Son of man, say to the ruler of Tyre, ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: “‘In the pride of your heart you say, “I am a god; I sit on the throne of a god in the heart of the seas.” But you are a mere mortal and not a god, though you think you are as wise as a god.3Are you wiser than Daniel? Is no secret hidden from you?

        Like

      • @Ken Temple

        “Worship for God alone; the Holy Trinity, One God in three persons. One Being / substance / nature / essence.”

        …yeah that doesn’t really answer my questions so i’ll post them again.

        1. isn’t you’re worship of only one nature of the hypostatic union separating the natures?

        2.Actually i did some digging and some Christians are of the opinion that you don’t worship the natures, you worship the persons themselves. you’re thoughts on that Ken?

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ Ken

        So that the people can hear it in the back you’re saying there was a time when the “All-Knowing” did not know something? Regardless if he “veiled”, “set aside”, “forgot”, “left it at his baby mama’s” there was a time when He did not know something thus can no longer claim this title.

        Also again humans cannot take Jesus(as) as an example allow me to repost:

        “If he is given a “pure” nature then he is not like us according to your theology. He basically had a divine “power-up” that if ANYBODY had gotten would have done the same, so nothing special there. Give him what everybody else has then come back and try to impress.”

        Liked by 1 person

  43. Another old rebuttal to Paul Williams’ arguments against Matthew 18:23-35. (gets back to the issue in his debate and this post, and meme, “how to screw with a Christian’s mind”)

    https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2012/04/10/muslim-distorts-the-parable-of-the-unmerciful-servant-of-matthew-1823-35/

    Like

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