89 replies

  1. This reminds me to Isaiah 40:1-6.
    The Hebrew word which refers to a place “עֲרָבָ֔ה Arabah” in Isaiah 40:3 is translated to “Desert”, and the word
    “קְרָ֔א Eqra” in Isaiah 40:6 trasnalted to “Cry out”.

    The whole passage in Isaiah 40:1-6 talks about Jerusalem’s mission is done, a voice is coming from the wilderness, from Arabah, prepare the way to YHWH. A voice will say Eqra/Read, and he reply Mah Eqra (What shall I read).

    Liked by 1 person

  2. One of the most common arguments that Christian missionaries pose to Muslims is that the Qur’an allegedly affirms the authenticity and divine nature of the Bible that Christians follow today. They think that Islam teaches that there once was an original Bible and then the Bible got corrupted. This is not what Islam teaches.

    The Qur’an does not say that there was an original Letter to the Romans by St Paul or to the Corinthians, which later on got corrupted. It does not believe that these books are divine in the first place.

    In this episode I cite from two academic books:
    The Bible in Arabic: The Scriptures of the ‘People of the Book’ in the Language of Islam:
    by Sidney H. Griffith .

    The Hebrew Bible in Islam in THE CAMBRIDGE COMPANION TO THE HEBREW BIBLE/OLD TESTAMENT:

    The chapter I quote from can be read free online here

    This is an excellent resource on the subject of the Quran’s alleged endorsement of the Bible: here

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Yes, the Qur’an unwittingly and unknowingly does endorse the Bible – Surah 5:47; 5:68; 10:94; 3:3; 2:136

    Liked by 1 person

    • You have not watched the video. I mention other scholars.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I have now listened to the whole thing.

        There is nothing new here.

        They both even admit that based on Surah 5:47; 68; 10:94; 3:3 – they affirm the earlier Scriptures.

        Their argument is based on Surah 2:79 and 3:78

        3:78 shows it was a smaller party out from the Jews.

        2:75 shows it was a small group – “a party of them”

        Do you covet [the hope, O believers], that they would believe for you while a party of them used to hear the words of Allah and then distort the Torah after they had understood it while they were knowing?

        Neither of them deal with the context of Surah 2:79 or 3:78.

        It does not say “all Jews” corrupted their Scriptures, it says that there was a party of them that went off to the side and did not know the Scriptures and wrote from their own minds and from hearsay.

        One of the main verses Muslims use is Surah 2:79

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

        But they usually fail to note what verses 75 to 78 say, especially verse 75 and 78.

        Do you covet [the hope, O believers], that they would believe for you while a party of them used to hear the words of Allah and then distort the Torah after they had understood it while they were knowing? 2:75

        And among them are unlettered ones who do not know the Scripture except in wishful thinking, but they are only assuming. 2:78

        The immediate context of Surah 2:79 is 2:78:

        2:78 shows that this group is:
        a. Uneducated / illiterate
        b. Don’t know the Scriptures
        c. Only going by what they hear (2:75)

        so this group of 2:79 are uneducated and illiterate and don’t know the Scriptures and only going by what they hear.

        This is seems to be what Muhammad did . . . he is uneducated, just hearing things; and that hearing gets garbled and misunderstood and the result was the Qur’an – a mishmash of oral apocryphal stuff with legends with Jewish Midrash and oral interpretations that are away from a tight textual concentration. No wonder he got the message so so wrong.

        You cannot deal with the context of 2:75 and 2:78 and neither did Basam Zawadi.

        2:75 and 2:78 provide the context for 2:79

        Yes, it is a party, a specific group of Jews that did that. (Surah 2:75)
        Not all Jews. We have copies of the OT long before 600 year late Qur’an. So you are wrong.
        2:75 and 2:78 provide the context for 2:79

        Your arguments are burnt to a crisp and nuked and flayed.

        Surah 2:75 – “a party/sect/group from among them” ( the Jews) ” فریق منهم , who used to hear the words of Allah and distort / change (the Torah) after they had understood it.

        They distorted the meaning orally, verbally, but not textually.

        This goes with Surah 3:78 – منهم لفریقا – “from among them there is a party/group” – a party among them who distort the Scriptures with their tongues. (ie. they give a wrong oral interpretation of the verse, but it does not affect the written text of the Bible.

        https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2019/06/03/context-of-surah-279-is-278-and-275/

        Liked by 1 person

      • I also read the page myself that you were quoting in S. Griffith’s book that you read.

        I also looked at the web-site you linked to for the other scholar.

        So, they did not demonstrate their claims.

        By the way, I noticed the table of contents and the authors, in the first source you cited.

        Kenton Sparks, who wrote one of them (The Ancient Near Eastern Context) , was my room-made in seminary. (I got an M.Div. and he got an M.A) He later went on to get a Phd at University of North Carolina.
        But he went kind of liberal after that – he admitted that he almost lost his faith at UNC – because of liberal presuppositions and worldview.

        He does not talk to me anymore.

        Liked by 1 person

      • From Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī

        Liked by 1 person

  4. Sahih Al Bukhari contradicts the Qur’an, as I showed.

    Like

    • LOL you don’t even know Arabic Ken.

      Ibn Abbas is one of the greatest companions of the Prophet. He holds much authority as a Quranic interpreter, for Muhammad prayed to God to make Ibn Abbas a great commentator of the Qur’an and scholar of Islam in general.

      Like

      • I actually do know some of the words and roots of words, since we have them in Farsi.

        Like

      • lol Farsi! You are far from the fluency required and how language was spoken in 7th century Arabia.

        Ibn `Abbas knew it surpassingly well.

        He said, “Why do you ask the people of the scripture about anything while your Book (Qur’an) which has been revealed to Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) is newer and the latest? You read it pure, undistorted and unchanged, and Allah has told you that the people of the scripture (Jews and Christians) changed their scripture and distorted it, and wrote the scripture with their own hands and said, ‘It is from Allah,’ to sell it for a little gain. Does not the knowledge which has come to you prevent you from asking them about anything? No, by Allah, we have never seen any man from them asking you regarding what has been revealed to you!”

        حَدَّثَنَا مُوسَى بْنُ إِسْمَاعِيلَ، حَدَّثَنَا إِبْرَاهِيمُ، أَخْبَرَنَا ابْنُ شِهَابٍ، عَنْ عُبَيْدِ اللَّهِ، أَنَّ ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ ـ رضى الله عنهما ـ قَالَ كَيْفَ تَسْأَلُونَ أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ عَنْ شَىْءٍ، وَكِتَابُكُمُ الَّذِي أُنْزِلَ عَلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم أَحْدَثُ، تَقْرَءُونَهُ مَحْضًا لَمْ يُشَبْ وَقَدْ حَدَّثَكُمْ أَنَّ أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ بَدَّلُوا كِتَابَ اللَّهِ وَغَيَّرُوهُ وَكَتَبُوا بِأَيْدِيهِمُ الْكِتَابَ وَقَالُوا هُوَ مِنْ عِنْدِ اللَّهِ‏.‏ لِيَشْتَرُوا بِهِ ثَمَنًا قَلِيلاً، أَلاَ يَنْهَاكُمْ مَا جَاءَكُمْ مِنَ الْعِلْمِ عَنْ مَسْأَلَتِهِمْ، لاَ وَاللَّهِ مَا رَأَيْنَا مِنْهُمْ رَجُلاً يَسْأَلُكُمْ عَنِ الَّذِي أُنْزِلَ عَلَيْكُمْ‏.‏
        Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari 7363
        In-book reference : Book 96, Hadith 90
        USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 9, Book 92, Hadith 461

        Liked by 1 person

      • So how do you know anything about it since you also cannot read Arabic, Paul ?

        Like

    • The View of Uthman Ibn ‘Affan (d. 34 A.H.)

      Ibn Kathir reports Uthman Ibn ‘Affan as saying…

      لِأَنَّهُمْ حَرَّفُوا التَّوْرَاة زَادُوا فِيهَا مَا أَحَبُّوا وَمَحَوْا مِنْهَا مَا يَكْرَهُونَ وَمَحَوْا اِسْم مُحَمَّد – صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ – مِنْ التَّوْرَاة وَلِذَلِكَ غَضِبَ اللَّه

      Because they (the Jews) distorted the Torah. They added to it what they liked and erased from it what they hated and they erased the name of Muhammad peace be upon him from the Torah and for that Allah became angry. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Commentary on Surah 2:79, Source)

      Uthman’s position is crystal clear and needs no interpretation. He clearly supported the view that the Jews textually corrupted their scriptures.

      Like

      • Just a bald assertion that contradicts the Qur’anic texts / verses that I showed up in my post.

        On something completely different – relieve the tension with some British humor:

        Like

      • except they did not do that.

        Like

      • Ken you don’t even read arabic!

        The earliest Muslims knew the Quran by heart and were taught by Muhammad himself & knew exactly what the Qur’an teaches. Have some humility.

        You are mistaken.

        Like

      • Not just Ibn Abbas, it was a common view among the Companions that the Bible is distorted. Why else would Hudaifah say to Uthman, ‘O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Qur’an) as Jews and the Christians did before”, which eventually led the third Caliph to standardize the Quran?

        Liked by 1 person

    • @Ken Temple

      You mean it contradicts you’re interpretation of the holy Quran. Moreover you somehow ignore the plain reading of Surah 2:79 which clearly states textual corruption along with the other kinds of corruption mentioned in the other verses. Also honest question Ken, are you even capable of making your point without insulting the Prophet Muhamad Ṣallallāhu ′alayhe wassallam?

      I don’t see how the Quran saying it was only a group or party of them(of which we not know the exact number) somehow means that its wrong and that the bible couldn’t have been corrupted by them. obviously no claims that every Jewish man woman and child had a hand in the changes. But we know from you’re own scriptures that things considered scripture have been lost before. We also know from simply reading your scriptures that things have been added to them, hence the secrets of ibn ezra.

      Liked by 2 people

      • You did not read all the evidence that 2:79 and context and 3:78 is talking about a specific group of Jews that were making things up and interpreting things wrong, etc. – it never says all of the Jews or all of the Christians corrupted the Scriptures so that it was hopelessly lost. We have so many more ancient copies of both NT and OT, before 600s AD that there is simply no other way to understand the issue than realizing Islam was one big mistake and false religion.

        Like

      • @Ken Temple

        Again I don’t see how the Quran saying it was only a group or party of them(of which we not know the exact number) somehow means that its wrong and that the bible couldn’t have been corrupted by them. obviously no one is claiming that every Jewish man woman and child had a hand in the changes. But we know from you’re own scriptures that things considered scripture have been lost before. We also know from simply reading your scriptures that things have been added to them, hence the secrets of ibn ezra.

        Like

      • nope; since we have ancient copies much earlier than Islam, and the originals are all persevered in the manuscript tradition (history with all the textual variants) – we are able to get back to the original, and so, Islam is proven false.

        Like

      • @Ken Temple

        are you denying that things considered scripture have been lost before and that things have been added to them? Your own scriptures testify against you on this. And you still haven’t addressed the secrets of ibn ezra.

        Like

      • Surah 2:75 – “a party/sect/group from among them” ( the Jews) ” فریق منهم , who used to hear the words of Allah and distort / change (the Torah) after they had understood it.

        They distorted the meaning orally, verbally, but not textually.

        This goes with Surah 3:78 – منهم لفریقا – “from among them there is a party/group” – a party among them who distort the Scriptures with their tongues. (ie. they give a wrong oral interpretation of the verse, but it does not affect the written text of the Bible.

        Like

      • @Ken Temple

        your still ignoring the plain reading of Surah 2:79 which clearly states textual corruption along with the other kinds of corruption mentioned in the other verses.

        Like

      • No, because of the context starting in verse 75 and the harmonization with 3:78 (they distort with their tongues – orally, not written) and harmony with 5:47; 5:69; 10:94; 3:3; 2:136, etc.)

        You are refuted.

        Like

      • @Ken Temple

        your STILL ignoring the plain reading of Surah 2:79 which clearly states textual corruption along with the other kinds of corruption mentioned in the other verses.

        You have refuted nothing.

        Like

      • You are still ignoring the context. Shame on you.

        Like

      • @Ken Temple

        The context does nothing to override the verses claims of textual changes.

        Like

      • Ibn Ezra’s opinion about the last 12 verses of Deuteronomy (Moses death) has been well known and does nothing to take away from inspiration or inerrancy. That Joshua added that is not a problem. The book of Joshua is clearly inspired Scripture and God raised up Joshua to take Moses place. (see Joshua chapter 1) This has been well known and does nothing at all to make inspiration or inerrancy of the Scriptures somehow false.
        The “secret of the twelve” is an oblique reference to his (Ibn Ezra’s) opinion that the last twelve verses of the Torah were not written by Moses but by Joshua, because they speak about Moses’ death and the mourning of the Israelites.

        Like

      • @Ken Temple

        The secret of Ibn Ezra was more verses than that. Of which there is no response.

        Like

      • Ok; but a later editor of some details does not preclude Jewish and Christian understanding of inspiration. It seems Muslims think inspiration is a sudden trance like state and some kind of robotic type dictation trance-like experience and no human process at all.

        Like

      • @Ken Temple

        What it means is that later people added to the scriptures and you’re glossing over that.

        Like

      • no; we have known about all this for centuries and it does nothing to diminish inspiration and inerrancy. Jewish scholars, Origen, Jerome, Augustine all knew about these issues.

        Like

      • @Ken Temple

        Okay then Ken since you don’t think it’s a problem let’s let this scenario play out. The verses themselves indicate that they could not have been written by Moses Alayhis Salam. You say this doesn’t interfere with the concept of divine inspiration.

        This means that a prophet hundreds of years after Moses added the words into Moses’ speech in scriptures. This raises a litany of questions: How many Torah scrolls were there at the time? Did he make the change in only one of them or did he get to all of them? How could he have done so? Additionally, how did he convince everybody that it was legitimate for him to add a sentence into the Torah of Moses? Furthermore, ostensibly the text as it was had been considered perfect and holy for hundreds of years. Suddenly, the old text was no longer perfect and holy and only the new text counted?

        If it was possible for these textual changes what about others? What guarantee do you have that your texts have been preserved when the texts themselves clearly indicate they haven’t been?

        Like

      • no; Joshua was Moses immediate successor.
        Ezra may have the one to add final edition for clarification of some things at the time of Ezra, but he was also author of books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and probably the human author of Chronicles (the last book of the TaNakh) – he wrote inspired Scripture also, so whatever other phrases appear to have been edited was under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit through Ezra, a scribe and OT prophet.

        Like

      • @Ken Temple

        You ignored the bulk of questions/reasonings. Maybe this will be easier for you If it was possible for these textual changes what about others? What guarantee do you have that your texts have been preserved when the texts themselves clearly indicate they haven’t been? You ASSUME it was Ezra and that he was prophet but that’s just you’re hope. Moreover what possible reason could a true prophet have had to add these verses?! It’s not like their wisdom filled they actively spread doubt about the text.

        Like

      • No; this is standard Evangelical belief about Moses, Joshua, and Ezra, the inspired Scribe and author of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles.

        Like

      • @Ken Temple

        once again you ignored my questions and reasonings. Like I said you assume it was Ezra or some other inspired author but you have no proof of that. Just hope. Just you’re feelings.

        Liked by 1 person

      • The context has everything to do with it. Amazing that you are making this an argument, when usually, when someone isolates a verse from its context, the proper rebuttal is to point out the context of the passage.

        Like

      • @Ken Temple

        You are misunderstanding me. I am not saying the context doesn’t matter. Rather, the context is not contradicting the verse’s clear statement of textual corruption.

        Like

      • No, the context makes it clear that it is not talking about Tahreef Al Nass of all the TaNaKh and / or with other contexts, of all the Injeel. (which by 600 AD, all the 27 books of the NT = the true Injeel message.)

        Like

      • @Ken Temple

        How? All the context says is that other forms of distortion and corruption exist aside from the textual changes mentioned in this verse.

        Like

      • Because of all the other copies and textual tradition of both OT and NT- and they are much older than Islam, which came 600 years later, (too late, man made) and yet claims that our Scripture is revelation; proves you are wrong.

        Like

      • @Ken Temple

        “Because of all the other copies and textual tradition of both OT and NT-”

        See my comments on the secret of Ibn Ezra.

        “and they are much older than Islam, which came 600 years later, (too late, man made)”

        Not relevant God can reveal what he wants when he wants according to his plan.

        “and yet claims that our Scripture is revelation; proves you are wrong.”

        Revelation, AND has been changed. Both Ken it’s both.

        Like

      • where is the insult to Muhammad?

        Obviously, if he was wrong, then you feel that he is being insulted – but, as Ben Shapiro says, “Facts don’t care about your feelings”.

        Facts and truth automatically make Muslims feel insulted, because the implications of the truth of Christianity and the Bible makes Islam and Muhammad false, by nature and logic and reason.

        If the Bible is true and 500-600 years older and revelation from God, then automatically and logically, Islam and Muhammad are false.

        Like

      • @Ken

        Let see who is the false religion:

        Did Abraham worship Jesus?

        Like

    • @ Ken temple

      “This is seems to be what Muhammad did . . . he is uneducated, just hearing things; and that hearing gets garbled and misunderstood and the result was the Qur’an – a mishmash of oral apocryphal stuff with legends with Jewish Midrash and oral interpretations that are away from a tight textual concentration. No wonder he got the message so so wrong.”

      “Facts and truth automatically make Muslims feel insulted, because the implications of the truth of Christianity and the Bible makes Islam and Muhammad false, by nature and logic and reason.”

      you’re snide remarks on the Prophet Muhamad Ṣallallāhu ′alayhe wassallam and Muslims are not needed for a discussion on this topic.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Yes, it is needed because it is logic and there is nothing snide, etc. As Ben Shapiro says, “Facts don’t care about your feelings.”

        This is not insulting, just logic and reason.

        David Wood just made a great argument here; he devastated ed Islam by a solid argument of intellectual reason; and he demonstrated that Sheikh Yasir Qadhi also unknowingly devastateded Islam:
        “You will know them by their fruits”

        Like

      • Temple: David Wood just made a great argument here; he devastated ed Islam…

        Islam has been devastated because some deranged, cross-dresser on the internet made a silly polemical video. If the Quraysh had someone like Wood among their ranks, Islam would not have existed today.

        Come one Ken, you can’t be that stupid!

        Like

    • Allah will never forgive shirk

      Like

      • Temple: That one time point does not make him a “cross-dresser”. The fact that he was brave enough to even do that demonstrates the truth of his years of videos and refuting Islam,

        Wood’s refutations are true because he was ‘brave’ enough to make a fool of himself on the internet? You are as much of a joke as Wood.

        Like

    • Kmak wrote:
      Islam has been devastated because some deranged, cross-dresser on the internet made a silly polemical video.

      Kmak, you forget that David Wood was converted and healed by Christ and regenerated and admitted his socio-path behavior pre-conversion. The remains of his personality of not caring what anybody thinks today actually make him really bold, brave, and credible; because he gets death threats from Al Qaeda / Isis type Muslims all the time, and even with that real possibility under death threat, he still continues to refute Islam boldly.

      The cross dressing video he made was just a one time event and point – he was showing what the traditions say Muhammad did – by wearing Aisha’s clothing (whether it was a cloth, blanket, or her clothes – does not matter). That one time point does not make him a “cross-dresser”. The fact that he was brave enough to even do that demonstrates the truth of his years of videos and refuting Islam, since you guys keep bringing that up as if that one time thing brings down all the hundreds of other videos he has made.

      Like

      • Temple: That one time point does not make him a “cross-dresser”. The fact that he was brave enough to even do that demonstrates the truth of his years of videos and refuting Islam,

        Wood’s refutations are true because he was ‘brave’ enough to make a fool of himself on the internet? You are as much of a joke as Wood.

        Liked by 1 person

      • @Ken Temple

        “he was showing what the traditions say Muhammad did – by wearing Aisha’s clothing (whether it was a cloth, blanket, or her clothes – does not matter).”

        Excuse me?! It does matter! Ken are you seriously trying to use this bargain bin sad excuse of a LIE against the Prophet Muhamad Ṣallallāhu ′alayhe wassallam? A lie that by the way has been refuted to hell and back and yet you want to cling to it? I expected better from you Ken.

        And no he was not brave for publicizing his sins and making a fool out of himself.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. The level of Bible in Islam is like a very weak Hadith. People who read the Bible has different interpretation about God. Some people say Jesus is God and others say Jesus is not God. The same Holy Book but has different God. How come?

    Liked by 1 person

    • A weak Hadith has a chain of narrating authority, though with some technical deficiency (which can be rectified in some cases). The Bible on the other hand has absolutely no chain of narration or authority. It is not even close to weak Hadith.

      Like

  6. Sam wrote:
    @Ken

    Let see who is the false religion:

    Did Abraham worship Jesus?

    Yes: Jesus said:

    Abraham rejoiced to see My day . . . Before Abraham was, I am.” John 8:56-58

    The Jews picked up stones to stone Him for blasphemy.

    Like

  7. devastateded Islam

    sorry for Typo:

    Yasir Qadhi himself

    devastated Islam

    Like

  8. Jesus said:

    56 Your father Abraham was overjoyed that he would see My day, and he saw it and rejoiced.”
    57 So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and You have seen Abraham?”

    58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.”

    59 Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and left the temple grounds.

    John 8:56-59

    Like

    • @Ken Temple

      You can quote the verse as many times as you want Ken but that won’t change things. He is supposed to be 100% God and man at the same time. So that means naturally that the “I AM” statements apply to the human nature as well since he was also 100% human when he spoke them. Saying the statements imply divinity is essentially saying the 100% human nature mind also considered itself divine.

      Like

      • No, because He is referring to His pre-existence before Abraham was born – confirmed by John 1:1-5; 1:14 and 17:5.

        the fact that Jesus spoke those words while on earth, having both natures does nothing to take away from His Deity, Humanity, and the doctrine of the Trinity. Nothing.

        Like

      • @Ken Temple

        So did the human nature not speak those words then?

        Like

      • The One Divine Unified Person of Jesus Al Masih spoke the words.

        Like

      • @Ken Temple

        But did the human mind and body that you say he also had speak those words?

        Like

      • already answered you on that.

        Like

      • @Ken Temple

        I don’t feel that you did. Did the human mind and body speak the words?

        Like

      • facts don’t care about your feelings

        Like

      • @Ken Temple

        Just answer the question Ken. Did the human mind and body speak the words? Yes? or No? It’s gotta be one or the other and you haven’t clarified that crucial point.

        Like

      • When Jesus spoke He is one Unified Divine Person incarnated on earth, and when He said “I am” – He is claiming He is Yahweh; He is referring to His pre-existence before Abraham was born – confirmed by John 1:1-5; 1:14 and 17:5.

        the fact that Jesus spoke those words while on earth, having both natures does nothing to take away from His Deity, Humanity, and the doctrine of the Trinity. Nothing.

        Like

      • @Ken Temple

        …Okay since you seem to not be getting my point let’s try this another way.

        If Moses Alayhis Salam had said the “I AM” statements would that be him as a human claiming to be God and blasphemy?

        Liked by 1 person

      • No; I got your point and not ignoring and I already answered you.

        Liked by 1 person

      • @Ken Temple

        You keep saying the divine person of the son said it and I’m not arguing for clarification in that regard. Let me put it another way when the “god-man” said these statements did he say them with both natures? Because if he did then the human nature committed blasphemy. And if he didn’t then the that’s separating the natures and making each one it’s own person.

        Liked by 1 person

      • @Ken Temple

        Sorry for the repeat questions btw. Just trying to get you to see the problems I’m seeing with you’re theology.

        Liked by 1 person

    • @Ken

      Nope, you wrong.

      God of Abraham was One God, not two Gods.

      You are referring John 1:1-5, in the beginning there were two Gods.

      Christian agree that:
      The Word = Jesus

      In the beginning was Jesus, and the Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God. 2 Jesus was with God in the beginning.

      There were two separate individual Gods in the beginning, therefore those Gods were not The God of Abraham.

      Liked by 1 person

      • You still don’t know nor understand the Doctrine of the Deity of Christ or the Trinity.

        One God by essence / substance / being. Only One God.
        In three eternal persons, personal relations – from eternity past.

        One God in three persons.

        Liked by 1 person

      • In the beginning there was no doctrine, no trinity, just Jesus and God, two Gods in the beginning.
        You can’t deny that.

        Like

      • Temple: One God by essence / substance / being. Only One God.
        In three eternal persons, personal relations – from eternity past.

        You and I share the same essence/substance. Are we two distinct beings or one being?

        Like

  9. I think David Wood saw our thread here and my 2 posts of Monty Python and the Holy Grail scenes, and cleverly decided to make a video using another Monty Python scene from the same movie – great points and funny classic scene!

    Devastating to Islam.

    Liked by 1 person

    • @Ken Temple

      Literally every point wood raised in this video has already been addressed. His ignoring of the responses a good argument does not make Ken. And if he did really see the threads here then he must have seen you ignoring my arguments/questions/reasonings. And while I’d like to say he would be disappointed after watching the video and seeing how he uses points that already have clear answers I’m sure he’s very impressed by you’re behavior Ken. All in all not devastating to Islam, but rather your own intelligence.

      Like

    • Temple: Devastating to Islam.

      Are there any videos of Wood that, in your opinion, are not ‘devastating to Islam’?

      Like

    • What a rotten garbage, Ken. If you want to be with David’s team, thats’ your choice Ken. But don’t think his videos are “arguments” against Islam. These videos are mainly for lazy christians who have no idea about their bible, let alone about Islam in a comprehensive level. Apparently you need these kind of stuff as anesthesia from the fact that you’re losing the debate with Islam in general. It’s very obvious! Let’s be honest here, Ken.
      Not to mention the fact that according to my experience in engaging with christians, It seems they enjoy being deceived in purpose as long as the one deceiving them tells them what they want to hear. It’s like drugs.

      You may enjoy watching this video by brother Emin. David’s filthiness is bottomless.

      In sum,christians have proven unequivocally that they are not honest.

      Liked by 1 person

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

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: