New on Blogging Theology YouTube By Paul Williams on January 26, 2021 • ( 29 ) Like this:Like Loading... Related ‹ I didn’t notice him sitting there!Is it hypocritical for Christians to point out non-canonical sources in the Qur’an? ›Categories: Blogging Theology Youtube, Dr Bart Ehrman, Jesus
Professor Adrian Thatcher wrote:
“There is scarcely a single competent New Testament scholar who is prepared to defend the view that the four instances of the absolute use of “I am” in John, or indeed most of the other uses, can be historically attributed to Jesus.”
Dr Adrian Thatcher, Truly a Person, Truly God (London: SPCK, 1990) p.77
Hey Sam you trinitarian polytheist … you know Jesus never uttered the absolute use of “I am” in John, or indeed most of the other uses, can be historically attributed to Jesus.”? Right? Lol
I am going to end up humiliating you even further in my next video. Enjoy this snippet from Eusebius:
10. Concerning the translation of the inspired Scriptures by the Seventy, hear the very words which he writes:
God in truth became man, and the Lord himself saved us, giving the sign of the virgin; but not as some say, who now venture to translate the Scripture, ‘Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bring forth a son,’ as Theodotion of Ephesus and Aquila of Pontus, both of them Jewish proselytes, interpreted; following whom, the Ebionites say THAT HE WAS BEGOTTEN BY JOSEPH. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250105.htm
Enjoy this as well:
Chapter 27. The Heresy of the Ebionites.
1. The evil demon, however, being unable to tear certain others from their allegiance to the Christ of God, yet found them susceptible in a different direction, and so brought them over to his own purposes. The ancients quite properly called these men Ebionites, because they held poor and mean opinions concerning Christ.
2. For they considered him a plain and common man, who was justified only because of his superior virtue, AND WHO WAS THE FRUIT OF THE INTERCOURSE OF A MAN WITH MARY. In their opinion the observance of the ceremonial law was altogether necessary, on the ground that they could not be saved by faith in Christ alone and by a corresponding life.
3. There were others, however, besides them, that were of the same name, but avoided the strange and absurd beliefs of the former, and did not deny that the Lord was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit. But nevertheless, inasmuch as they also refused to acknowledge that he pre-existed, being God, Word, and Wisdom, they turned aside into the impiety of the former, especially when they, like them, endeavored to observe strictly the bodily worship of the law.
4. These men, moreover, thought that it was necessary to reject all the epistles of the apostle, whom they called an apostate from the law; and they used only the so-called Gospel according to the Hebrews and made small account of the rest.
5. The Sabbath and the rest of the discipline of the Jews they observed just like them, but at the same time, like us, they celebrated the Lord’s days AS A MEMORIAL OF THE RESURRECTION OF THE SAVIOR.
6. Wherefore, in consequence of such a course they received the name of Ebionites, which signified the poverty of their understanding. For this is the name by which a poor man is called among the Hebrews.
WHY HAVE YOU BLOCKED ME FROM YOUR CHANNEL SAM YOU POLYTHEIST 3 GOD WORSHIPPING ANTI-CHRIST????
UNBLOCK ME – username – PURPLE RAIN and allow me to expose you as an anti- christ who worships 3 gods …
Hahaha you’re wrong Sam …. LOl.. you anti- christ 3 god worshiping polytheist LOl…. in your latest video you ended up humiliating yourself since Paul was specifically addressing the issue of the VIRGIN BIRTH between sects of Ebionites …. You as a crazy lost polytheist who went off on some hilarious irrelevant rant …What Paul was noting still holds .. that a sect of the Ebionites believed in the virgin birth and rejected the notion of Jesus pre-existing as God LOl…. YOU HAVE LOST THE PLOT SAMMY LOL….
STONE LICKER, ENJOY YOUR PROPHET’S DECIMATION WHICH I JUST FINISHED: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AVFx24fGzM
There is no debate to be had the historical record is clear: according to Eusebius a number of Ebionites accepted the virgin birth of Jesus.
End of story.
Sam Shamoun is just a coward big mouth, he deleted/blocked some comments from muslims that he can’t defend it on his you tube channel, and his shamounian’s fans so proud about him. What a COWARD big mouth.
Sam you 3 god worshipping polytheist LOl I did watch your comedy act live you fool lol….. and again you idiot Paul Williams’ DID NOT Lie About the Ebionites !
Paul verified as he stated from the outset of his video that a sect of the Ebionites DID AFFIRM THE VIRGIN BIRTH AND ..” refused to acknowledge that he pre-existed, being God, Word, and Wisdom, they turned aside into the impiety of the former, especially when they, like them, endeavored to observe strictly the bodily worship of the law”
SO SAM YOU ANTI-CHRIST TRINITARIAN POLYTHEIST … WHERE DID PAUL LIE ABOUT SOME EBIONITES BELIEVED IN THE VIRGIN BIRTH??? LOL…. DO YOU SEE WHY YOU’RE A CONFUSED MISGUIDED TRINITARIAN?? LOL
Your video exposed your stupidity by going on a demonic rant that did not expose Paul as a Liar HHAHAHAHA LOL….
Sam Shamoun completely nuked your arguments, Paul Williams, in his video.
Good job Sam – it was good content – on Eusebius & the Ebionites, Irenaeus, Qur’an 3:50 (some = بعض – we have this word in Farsi and I can confirm.) Qur’an 3:183, Razi, Qurtabi, Ibn Kathir, and many other Islamic commentators.
All of you should listen to it and read his links; although he constantly has to repeat his ad hominem insults peppered all through, if you can bear with those, the content is good.
I didn’t make an argument so much as quote Eusebius. There is no debate to be had Ken the historical record is clear: a number of Ebionites accepted the virgin birth of Jesus.
Your dragging in Islam (totally irrelevant to the subject) all the time shows you are both fanatics who have only one agenda: Islamophobia. Just weird.
Get a life Ken.
Hhahah Oh dear what persistent fools! .. Both Sam and Kenny the misguided polytheists still dont get Paul Lol….
There is no debate or LIE lol…. the historical record is clear as per quote from Eusebius: a number of Ebionites ACCEPTED the virgin birth of Jesus. FULL STOP! lol….
Both Sam and Ken have nuked themselves with disgrace and humiliation exposing themselves as polytheists irrelevantly ranting on wondering in a maze of error and confusion LOL….
You miss the point completely. The second group of Ebionites that did believe in the virgin birth of Christ also accepted His death on the cross and the resurrection from the death and celebrated the Lord’s day on Sunday. (according to Eusebius – see above) It’s like you did not even read the passage nor listen to Shamoun’s video.
It is you who have for years (since 2011) keep bringing Islam into this, you and many other Muslims, claiming that the Ebionites are some kind of “proto-Muslims”, or the orginal Jewish followers of Jesus who were Torah observant (claiming that the original Peter and James were “proto-Muslims” / earliest “Christians” that were hijacked by the apostle Paul.) It is you and other Muslims who are constantly doing this. Eusebius’ distinctions between the two groups defeats your arguments. Your whole purpose to cast doubt upon orthodox Christianity and the Bible and to imply that the Ebionites were the original true disciples of Jesus and proto-Muslim. Don’t tell me this is totally irrelevant to the subject – it is actually at the core and root of your whole argumentations that you have been making since I first started debating you at mine and your various blogs since 2011 – using James D. G. Dunn, Raymond Brown, Bart Ehrman, Christopher Tuckett, homosexual Dale Martin, James Tabor, parts of Richard Bauckham to cast doubt on the Gospel of John, and using (abusing) Dunn to separate Peter & James vs. Paul, etc. Using liberal scholarship to seek to separate historical Jesus from theological Jesus – No! The theological and creedal Jesus IS the historical Jesus.
Every video you make is an attempt to use liberal scholarship to undermine orthodox Christian belief and indirectly imply that Islam recovered the true historical Jesus.
Moreover, the earliest extant writing on the life of Muhammad cites John’s Gospel as the written account of the very Gospel which God gave Jesus to pass on to his followers:
“Among the things which have reached me about what Jesus the Son of Mary stated in the Gospel which he received from God for the followers of the Gospel, in applying a term to describe the apostle of God, is the following. It is extracted FROM WHAT JOHN THE APOSTLE SET DOWN FOR THEM WHEN HE WROTE THE GOSPEL FOR THEM FROM THE TESTAMENT OF JESUS SON OF MARY: ‘He that hateth me hateth the Lord. And if I had not done in their presence works which none other before me did, they had not sin: but from now they are puffed up with pride and think that they will overcome me and also the Lord. But the word that is in the law must be fulfilled, “They hated me without a cause” (i.e. without reason). But when the Comforter has come whom God will send to you from the Lord’s presence, and the spirit of truth which will have gone forth from the Lord’s presence he (shall bear) witness of me and ye also, because ye have been with me from the beginning. I have spoken unto you about this that ye should not be in doubt.’
“The Munahhemana (God bless and preserve him!) in Syriac is Muhammad; in Greek he is the paraclete. (The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, with introduction and notes by Alfred Guillaume [Oxford University Press, Karachi, Tenth impression 1995], pp. 103-104; bold and capital emphasis ours)
Ibn Ishaq quotes John 15:23-16:1 and unhesitatingly identifies this as the Gospel of Christ which John recorded for Jesus’ followers! Notice that Ibn Ishaq never hints at this particular Gospel being corrupted or unreliable, which is rather ironic since this happens to be the same Gospel that Muslim polemicists are constantly attacking, even shamefully citing liberal critics to cast doubt on its historical veracity.
Hence, Islam’s most authoritative sources confirm beyond any reasonable doubt that the Gospel of Jesus is that which has been preserved in the fourfold Gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, since these are the only writings that the Christians of Muhammad’s day read and classified as the Gospel.
Lol… ahahaha Kenny you’re a lost astray sheep that takes everything from the polytheist anti-christ Sam as “gospel truth’ that exposes your stupidity for our entertainment
Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasoul Allah (The Life of Messenger of Allah) may be one of many of the early accounts of Muhmmad life however Ibn Ishaq’s work has been critically analyzed and is widely known and considered by early and contemporary Islamic Scholars and non Muslims as one of the most unreliable, seriously flawed accounts of the life of Muhammad, containing blatantly false narratives about his life and events, etc….
and moreover, you have also falsely and dubiously made an erroneous claim that according to your realm of your deluded fantasy Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat is classed as “Islam’s most authoritative sources confirm beyond any reasonable doubt the fourfold Gospel accounts!!? lol….have you lost your mind Kenny!!? lol..
given Ibn Ishaq personally chose to include a quote (which is actually problematic for trinitarians by the way lol…) from John’s gospel to interpret it as a supposed prophecy about Muhammad in no way, shape of form confirms the fourfold Gospel accounts Lol… That’s Ibn Ishaq’s personal interpretation, no where is the quote of John referenced by Muhammad or his companions as evidence to support prophecy lol… Go back to sleep Kenny Lol..
All Christians have always affirmed the Deity of Christ and the Trinity. That God is ONE God is part of the doctrine.
This was established centuries before Islam.
The evidence is on our side.
Calling Jesus “the Word of Allah”, a spirit from Allah, virgin Born, and the Messiah, demonstrates they got some truths from NT Christianity.
Yes, Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham confirm that the gospel of John is true and historical Jesus.
along with all the theology of the gospel of John.
You lost the argument.
Nonsense Kenny, you are deluded and misinformed …. not all Christians affirmed the Deity of Christ and the Trinity lol only misguided trinitarian polytheist christians like you adhere to these counterfeit beliefs about Jesus and God Almighty.
Sorry Kenny the evidence is against you, the truth of Jewish Biblical monotheism was established many millenniums before the counterfeit trinitarian god myth appeared centuries after Jesus
Jesus did not worship a false tri-god idol like you do, neither did his Disciples kenny lol.. they worshipped God as expressed in the Shema proclaimed in Deuteronomy and supported elsewhere in Deuteronomy:
“Fear the LORD your God, serve HIM ONLY and take your oaths in HIS name” Deuteronomy 6:13
“And now, Israel, what does the LORD your God ask of you but to fear the LORD your God, to walk in obedience to HIM, to love HIM, to serve the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul” Deuteronomy 10:12
“Fear the LORD your God and serve HIM. Hold fast to HIM and take your oaths in HIM name” Deuteronomy 10:20
“So if you faithfully obey the commands I am giving you today—to love the LORD your God and to serve HIM with all your heart and with all your soul” Deuteronomy 11:13
Furthermore, according to a pericopes by Jesus worshipped the One God alone … “it is written and FOREVER REMAINS written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and SERVE HIM ONLY ’” and Jesus also affirmed the Lord Thy God “is One and there is no other but HIM”
any post easter myths and beliefs about a tri-god idol is a counterfeit god unknown to Jewish biblical monotheism
Calling Jesus “the Word of Allah”, a spirit from Allah, virgin Born, and the Messiah, demonstrates they adhered to a Christology that directly refutes/denies your beliefs kenny and some of the many falsehoods from NT counterfeit Christianity.
False Kenny lol.. neither Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham accept the theology of the gospel of John lol…
… and as mentioned earlier given Ibn Ishaq personally chose to include a quote from John’s gospel to interpret it as a supposed prophecy about Muhammad in no way, shape of form confirms the fourfold Gospel accounts Lol… That’s Ibn Ishaq’s personal interpretation, no where is the quote of John referenced by Muhammad or his companions as evidence to support prophecy or the historicity of Jesus in John lol… Go back to sleep Kenny Lol..
Not only have you lost the argument, but you have also lot your mind kenny lol 🙂
Earliest Biography of Muhammad’s life affirms that John the Apostle and eyewitness of crucifixion and resurrection was the human writer of the 4th Gospel – The Gospel According to John.
The ‘Earliest Biography’ got in wrong in my view.
A lot of your arguments against the Gospel according to John are based on the prevailing scholarship that the gospel according to Mark is the earliest (and closest to the human, historical Jesus).
so, you are inconsistent to reject the earliest Biographer of Muhammad, Ibn Ishaq.
So you are inconsistent and wrong and most scholarship is against you on this.
Correct Paul Lol bn Ishaq was totally wrong 🙂
Also, the group of Ebionites that affirmed the virgin birth also denied Jesus is “the Word”. This contradicts the Qur’an at 3:39; 3:45; and 4:171 – Jesus is the Word of Allah.
word of Allah
So your argument goes down in flames again.
You are wrong and totally embarrassing yourself Kenny Lol…. Ebionites were not denying or rejecting the Quranic Christological understanding of Jesus who was A word of Allah as proclaimed in the Quran ….. Comprehende Kenny? lol….
the group of Ebionites that affirmed the virgin birth actually and rightly rejected/denied the false Christological, theological conceptualization of Jesus as the eternal pre-existing Word of God subsisting as a divine distinct person along-side God, just as as erroneously adhered to by polytheistic Trinitarians today. Lol …. 🙂
get it kenny!!?? lol 🙂
Also, Ibn Hisham (who took out some offensive and controversial parts of Ibn Ishaq)
kept that part in of Ibn Ishaq’s “Life of Muhammad” (Sira)
did you get that?
KEPT THAT PART IN – the part about the Gospel according to John as by the Disciple and Apostle of Jesus, quoting from John 15-16.
Does not that Gospel have John 1:1 – 5, 14; 20:28 in it?
Qur’an confirms ( مصدق، تصدیق، صدق ) both OT and NT. Qur’an 5:46-47; 10:94
Kenny – “Qur’an confirms ( مصدق، تصدیق، صدق ) both OT and NT. Qur’an 5:46-47; 10:94” only in your realm of deluded fantasy is this true lol…
You cannot escape the truth of that fact.
Kenny it’s you who cannot escape the truth of that fact 🙂