64 replies

  1. I am only 5 mins in and I don’t know who he is but I can completely understand ‘Christian Prince’ wanting to remain anonymous given Ijaz Ahmed and Muhammed Hijabs doxing scandals of 2020.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Dude, you stone kissers are stupider than Muhammad. Anthony humiliated Uthman and your god. God willing I will be going back so I can do to him what Anthony did. In the meantime, maybe you ladies can be more men than Muhammad and debate me live online. Here’s my skype: benny_malik3

    In fact, email me the links to your livestreams and I will come and do to you what Anthony did to your god and profit and his fellow stone kisser.

    Like

    • Sam,
      Why do you always find it necessary in your bombast style to add insults in like “you stone kissers” and “stupider” and “you ladies”, “your god and profit” and “fellow stone kisser”, etc. ?

      why do always boast about winning in the future?

      like “I am going to decimate you”, etc. I will do to you what Anthony did”, etc. ?

      Why not just say something like:

      “IMO, Anthony won the argument, and I invite any of you to come to my live youtube channel and debate me and let’s see who will win the debate. here’s my skye”, etc.

      would that not be better ?

      Liked by 2 people

    • …here is Sam the Antichrist 3 god worshipping polytheist ! Muslims continue to expose your counterfeit tri-god, thank you for doing us a favour in revealing what a misguided polytheist you truly are 👍

      Like

    • Coming from a man who believes God was so stupid and lacking of foreknowledge he created humanity for eternal life then, screwed up and created them will free will and free will= sin & sin=death. Seeing your god was too incompetamt to forgive sin for the ability he gave humanity he had to kill himself because hes too inept to forgive sin without blood shed.

      Call us stone kickers all you want sam. You’re a wife beating unstable person who can’t defend his religion. Anthony rogers embarrassed himself here like how the inerrant divinely guided Bible embarrassed itself by not even being able to get its birth narratives and geneologies straight.

      Yell and scream all you want, muslims are becoming more knowledgeable of your hilarious religion and you guys are on damage control. All you have is insults and lies. Nobody is willing to give you guys the time of day anymore because you lack merit, dignity, self respect, and self control which your ex wife who ditched you can testify to.

      Inshallah I will make a YouTube channel soon utterly humiliating xianity and its claims and you and your bottom of the barrel friends can cope all you want be we all know deep down inside you guys can’t defend your religion. Thats why you lie about islam. The ” mohammed pbuh was in aisha’s clothing” is an old and fallacious argument thats been refuted and showed how dishonest you guys are.

      I dont need to lie about your scriptures when I show that your holy spirit who was supposed to remind the apostles in john 14:26 allowed 2 contradictory birth narratives and genologies, interpolations, and deliberate mistranslations (like what jerome did in his vulgate to john 3:16). So sit in your bubble and isnultt and lie all you want these lies have been refined ad nauseum. The real question is, when will you become men and muster the courage to defend your religion and book?

      Like

    • Dear Sam,

      In all honesty, you are the most unchristlike Christian I have ever encountered (and I have met a vast number of Christians in my life).

      Even Ken Temple with whom I have regular arguments is, overall, a decent human being.

      What gives with you Sam?

      Liked by 2 people

    • Here is the link to the EFdawah streams:
      https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCx420FfPBbEboBvnYjIemzw/videos

      If you’re a man then you’ll show up (after ramadan) during the Arena streams. Let’s see if you virmin can defend your cult and even make dent in Islam. You’ll get humiliated like your two loser friends David ibn Hammer and Anthony crook Rogers. Let’s see if you’re a man or just a fat loser.

      Like

    • Allah will forgive you Sam, all you have to do is ask.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. I watched and listen to the whole thing, and there is going to be a part 2.

    Overall, it was a very good peaceful and yet spirited exchange and I really like this Shaykh Uthman –
    Anthony R. was excited and a little hyped up on caffeine (as David kept saying) [ I am not any better, I could not have done the logic, etc. on the spur of the moment; and I get excited also in discussions and interrupt, so I am not saying I would have done better], but it was a very good exchange so far. David Wood brought a lot of balance in helping the Christian side calm down and also clarifying when needed.

    The thing that I saw missing (correct me if I am wrong) – is that Anthony did not so far clarify that Christian doctrine says God the Son became a human, NOT God the Father. It seems to me that Shaykh Uthman was assuming that Anthony and David were saying God the Father came into the womb of Mary and was born – that is Sabellianism or Modalism and not right. I was surprised that they did not clarify that so far. Maybe they will clarify that in part 2.

    I look forward to part 2.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. When did this event take place?

    Like

  5. As far as it goes, Anthony Rogers (and David helping him for clarification, telling him so slow down, etc.), did a good job in the content and logic, so far . . .

    if he gets to the Son being incarnated in part 2, and clears up what it seems Shaykh Uthman was seemingly thinking Christianity teaches that the Father became flesh.

    I enjoyed the good nature laughing and fist bumping because they were connecting and agreeing and appreciating and respecting each other’s points and that is important for human communication and understanding between 2 views that disagree with each other.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. That part where Anthony had his finger up and the sheik said keep your shahadah finger up… I died

    Liked by 2 people

  7. Paul,
    Be sure to put up Part 2, when it comes out.

    Shamoun is exposing what went on behind the scenes and what the Qur’an says about Allah blowing into the vagina of Mary. I did not know this background until I watched most of his video this morning. If Shamoun is correct, the upcoming videos from the Christian side will confirm this. (it will take time, a few days, because they had to travel back to their states, etc.)

    Except he (Sam S) has his usual bombast and insulting and repetitious prayers, etc. – takes him a long time to actually get to the issue.

    But once he does get to the content and texts, he really exposed how much more graphic the Qur’an is in what is says about Allah blowing His Spirit into the vagina of Mary.

    Surah 21:91 – Mary guarded her chastity (vagina, private part, sex organ) and Allah blew his spirit into Mary (Farj)
    Surah 66:12 – Allah blew into it (the vulva, the vagina) (Farj)

    Surah 38:72 – parallel with Allah blowing into Adam his Spirit

    Surah 23:1-2, 5 – believers guard their private parts (plural forooj)
    Surah 24:30-31 – plural (forooj is plural for farj )

    Muslim commentators admit this is much more graphic.

    I can confirm that this word is in Farsi also (coming from the Arabic), but is used only for women’s private parts. Farj ( I did not know this word, (until I looked it up a couple of years ago from Shamoun’s article) but I found it in Farsi dictionaries that are my own and on line.)

    I only learned the other generic terms for “private area”, “the place of shame” (guarding the private areas)

    Anyway, the main point that Shamoun makes in his recent video (at Shamounian – “Allah, the vagina blower”) is that Shaykh Uthman at the end of part one said that the incarnation is disgusting, because God put Himself into the womb of Mary and then grew for 9 months and then came out through the birth canal and vagina of a woman – he said that is not acceptable (disgusting, illogical, etc.) that God can do that – and yet the Qur’an is much more graphic of how Allah blew His Spirit into the vagina of Maryam, the Islamic Mary, making Isa, the Islamic Jesus.

    Like

    • Lol, blowing into a woman’s private part is equal to being it? Are you mentally ill?

      Like

      • The Spirit of God is invisible and not “wind” or “breath” but is LIKE wind or breath. (Though sometimes the Bible compares the Spirit of God to wind and breath (John 3, Ezekiel 37), they are metaphors and illustrations, not literal, since God is Spirit means no physical substance or molecules or spatial limitation.

        Blowing into a woman’s private part is worse (especially with all the Muslim commentators trying to describe all these things and how they take place)

        – God does not “blow”, etc. like physical wind, or physical breath (movement of air molecules)

        Anthony’s point of logic was great – God is able – the eternal Son of God is able to humble Himself and come into the womb of Mary (without any blowing into her private parts) –

        God is Spirit = non-physical.

        Luke 1:34-35 – the Spirit of God overshadowed Mary and the power of the Most High put the Son of God into the womb of Mary and He became flesh (John 1:1-5; 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8)

        “no man has touched me” includes no breath / wind coming up into her vagina or chemise (blouse).

        The guy “Adam-Seeker” read lots of commentaries (from the Arabic originals) from Muslims and they are indeed graphic and disgusting.

        Like

  8. The Qur’an is much more graphic than the birth narratives in the gospels.

    Mahmoud M. Ayoub contrasts the birth narratives of the Gospel of Luke with that mentioned in the Quran. All bold and capital emphasis is ours:

    “The language of this verse (author- Luke 1:35) is clearly circumspect. It implies no sexual union or divine generation of any kind. Furthermore, while Luke’s description agrees both in form and spirit with the Qur’anic idea of the conception of Christ, the language of the Qur’an IS FAR MORE GRAPHIC AND OPEN TO INTERPRETATION.” (Christian-Muslim Encounters, ed. Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad & Wadi Z. Haddad [University Press of Florida, 1995], p. 67)

    Like

  9. Adam seeker has a video of more of the situation. I have not had time to listen to much of that. Too much other work and life; but everyone should look at both and the other videos that will be coming out later this week. (God willing)

    Like

    • Be sure to watch the whole video above by “Adam-seeker” (a former Muslim) – around the midway point, he is going through the Arabic in the Muslim commentaries, and wow . . . it is devastating to the Muslim’s arguments (and disgusting also) – I can confirm that many of the words he highlights – we have these words in Farsi, & roots of them and I recognize what it is saying. It is amazing how gross the Islamic texts and commentaries are; and filled with a very graphic understanding of mixing the spiritual world of Satan / the devil (Iblis – came from diabolos – Greek) and demons with sexual language.

      Like

  10. Although I am not a Shia but just a Muslim,

    in terms of God and His attributes the Shia Muslims and the Sunni Mutazilites had a more coherent view than the Hanbali-Athari-Salafis

    https://www.al-islam.org/shiite-anthology-sayyid-muhammad-husayn-tabatabai/unity-god

    And this Shia view goes according to their texts back to the Prophet and to Ali and to the descendants of the Prophet (pbuh).

    Also, the Mutazilites predate the Ahl of hadith and predate Shafi-Hanbali, etc.

    According to the Shia, the Prophet, Ali, and Prophet’s descendants have had a Doctrine of Divine Simplicity view.

    Like

  11. Again, I don’t accept the massive exaggerations that Twelver Shia developed over time which they hold for their 12 Imams but please check out the beautiful, wise, and coherent statements attributed to the Prophet and them above!

    Like

  12. If anyone bothers to watch and listen to the other recordings (on Shamounian’s channel), it seems clear that Shaykh Uthman Ibn Farooq did know who David Wood and Sam Sh. (maybe he didn’t know who Anthony Rogers is; but maybe he did know), but it seems clear that he did know about them (from internet and also from his friends who told him they were coming sometime before), and yet pretended like he did not know them.

    More and more recordings are coming out; and it does not look good for the Muslim side of things.

    Where is part 2 at Shaykh Uthman’s You Tube site? (OMF = One Message Foundation)

    Be sure to put Part 2 up, Paul, and also others (on Shamounian’s channel).

    Like

    • “More and more recordings are coming out; and it does not look good for the Muslim side of things.”
      Dude they got owned and you know it. This pathetic attempt to do damage control shows just how pathetic u people are. In just ONE day, Hassamo the wifebeater shamoun posted 7 videos cus he knows they got wrecked and humiliated and put in their place. Talk about desperation! Now they’re just barking from behind computer screens like cowards.

      ‘tHiS dOeS nOT lOoK gOoD fOr MuSlImS’ is just a make-urself-feel-good attempt and no one but you desperate manworshipers are falling for it.
      Now their girlfrind CPuss is making videos (and that’s all he can do, lol) and trying to do damage control for them as well. Loool I am just LOVING this!

      How about these losers go on the dawah streams after Ramadan and present their pathetic arguments there? This will NEVER happen and all the xtians know it cus they got owned and this is just another one of the millionth attempt to conceal the fact these manworshipers can’t defend their faith nor can they make a dent in Islam.

      Like

      • Dude they got owned and you know it.

        not at all. Anthony Rogers did a great job. The only problem (besides the apparent deception that Shaykh Uthman claimed to not know who they were ) so far is that we don’t have part 2 yet. where is Part 2 from Shaykh Uthman (OMF) ?

        we will see . . .

        Like

    • “Anthony Rogers did a great job.”

      You cannot be serious. The “argument” of Qur’an bein Allah and so we can’t criticize the trinity is without a doubt the most reaching and desperate attempt ever. Never mind the fallacies that are committed by making such claims but now you have the losers making video after video to cover up the fact that they couldn’t defend their polytheism.

      Furthermore, they themselves can put up the videos if they want to. They filmed the whole thing didn’t they? So why don’t they put it up and why do we have anthony rogers putting small clips up instead of the whole video? Answer is simple: he got owned.

      Like

      • Remember, they had to travel to other states and it will come out soon, according to Sam Sh. if all goes as planned, Insh’Allah.

        Like

      • others filmed at different angels; it seems.

        Like

      • According to Islam, The Qur’an is uncreated word of Allah.

        There was a bunch of interesting Hadith and Sunnah quoted – especially a statement from Imam Al Bukhari :
        “The Qur’an will appear as a man on the day of resurrection and testify”, etc. and with other Hadith, “will intercede”.

        at 6:15 point:

        The Hadith / narration by Sahih Al Bukhari ( “that the Qur’an will appear as a man on the day of resurrection” ) – in a book called: Khalq Af’aal al-Ibaad, 474. I recognize “Khalq” – خلق = “creation” or “creating” or “creation of people” of the actions افعال of worshippers / servants

        The Qur’an will be like a person / man – intercede or testify for or against people.

        At least, this shows it is not illogical that the eternal Word of God can become incarnated into humanity.

        Islamic arguments against the incarnation are defeated.

        This is parallel with Jesus as the eternal Word, who became flesh / human.

        Like

      • “The Qur’an will be like a person / man – intercede or testify for or against people.
        At least, this shows it is not illogical that the eternal Word of God can become incarnated into humanity.
        Islamic arguments against the incarnation are defeated.
        This is parallel with Jesus as the eternal Word, who became flesh / human.”

        No it’s not. Firstly does it say the etarnal Word will be given life? Or does it just talk about something that’s written on paper or a piece of material? Talk about desperation.
        You haven’t defeated anything. God can reflect his Knowledge onto creation (f.e by a human being writing it on a piece of paper) and it can be given life. This in no way means that it’s God Himself. This is nothing but pseudo philosophy filled with errors to conceal the fact your faith is filled with errors and contradictions which you can’t defend. The Knowledge is eternal, not the material or the sounds or the carvings.

        Like

    • “we will see”

      We already have seen it. He got trashed and so did his back up crossdresser pervy dave.

      Like

    • @Ken Temple

      “At least, this shows it is not illogical that the eternal Word of God can become incarnated into humanity.

      Islamic arguments against the incarnation are defeated.”

      Oh are they now? Let me ask you Ken, how do you interpret the reports which say that fasting will intercede and some that even pair the intercession of the Quran with the intercession of fasting?

      Like

      • I will admit I don’t know about the fasting passages; I am not going by several Hadiths that they gave of the Qur’an appearing as a man on the day of resurrection and testifying and interceding.

        Since, in Islamic thought, the Qur’an is Allah’s eternal (uncreated) word, it is a valid parallel that shows the incarnation is not illogical or crazy or unreasonable.

        The parallel is with Jesus who is the eternal Word.
        John 1:1-5
        John 17:5
        John 1:14
        Philippians 2:5-8

        Like

      • @Ken Temple

        That’s fine. What is your best guess as to what is happening when the hadith describe fasting as interceding for us? By what mechanism or possibility do you think fasting is able to intercede for us when it is a concept and not an entity?

        Like

      • Sorry, major type. not “not”, rather “ONLY”

        I am ONLY going by several Hadiths that they gave of the Qur’an appearing as a man on the day of resurrection and testifying and interceding.

        Like

      • @Ken Temple

        Thank you for the clarification Ken.

        Liked by 1 person

  13. Too much comments from Christians here and there. I want to see if they could come directly to Shaykh Uthman and discuss what they have there. Look at Shamoun, he just talk too much on the video but not at the park. And I’m waiting to see Shamoun vs Shaykh Uthman at the park. And also I want to see Adam Seeker vs Shaykh Uthman at the park if he really thinks he knows about it.

    Like

    • it was good that he (sam Sh.) let Anthony Rogers do the talking and argumentation by himself. (cause Uthman was complaining about “3 vs. 1”, etc.)

      David Wood helped bring balance and good natured fist-bumping.

      Rogers and Wood’s patience was better than Shamoun’s “in your face” methods, bravado and pugnaciousness and insulting. (on his videos)

      Shamoun spent his time talking to 6 or 7 (?) other Muslims. You can see him in the background.

      That was good.

      Like

      • Also Anthony Rogers and David Wood had good manners. (adab)

        Kudos to them.

        Like

      • Lol that’s not true. Anthony couldn’t shut up and let the sheikh speak:

        Like

      • He was excited at times, but they had a good interaction that David Wood helped him get through. When the Shaykh asked him to calm down, he did. It was not that big of a deal. Both sides handled things really well in a spirited, yet very profitable discussion.

        But still waiting for Part 2 from the OMF. (last time I checked)

        Like

  14. others filmed at different angles; it seems.

    Like

  15. I wrote:
    “The Qur’an will be like a person / man – intercede or testify for or against people.
    At least, this shows it is not illogical that the eternal Word of God can become incarnated into humanity.
    Islamic arguments against the incarnation are defeated.

    This is parallel with Jesus as the eternal Word, who became flesh / human.”

    Atlas responded:
    No it’s not. Firstly does it say the etarnal Word will be given life?

    Yes it is.

    According to Islam, the Qur’an is the uncreated Word of God = eternal.
    If it is uncreated, then it is eternal, and is not talking about paper and ink.

    Jesus is the eternal Word / eternal Son (John 1:1-5; 1:14; 17:5) who became a human.

    Since in Islam, the Qur’an will appear as a man and testify and intercede, it is parallel with the incarnation in some sense.

    Not in every sense, but it shows that the idea of the incarnation is not illogical or unreasonable for God, since He can do all things.

    Like

    • You have missed one thing that very very important, according to Islam Quran is not God and Muslims don’t worship Quran but according to Christian Jesus is God and Christians worship Jesus.
      Do you see the difference?

      I don’t know why is Christian still don’t understand the word of God.
      If God wants to create something He just say it and that God’s creation is not God.
      If God wants to create a human, an animal, a tree, a moon, a star, He just say it. That’s it.

      The word of God is not God.
      The creation of God is not God.
      There is no God incarnation whatsoever.

      Like

  16. If you watch the whole thing, Shamoun explains what the issues are with Dar Alsalam publishing house, Salafi scholars, and the islamic scholars who judge Hadith weak or Hassan (good), etc.

    Like

    • Yes, we should go to sam shamoun on the understanding of hadiths and hadith scholarship. You have shown yourself to be a desperate hack and intellectually dishonest.

      A xian is too scared to engage with bart ehrman or scholars who engage with the bible and aplearantly theyre too scared to engage with islamic scholarship as well. You just have to lie about everyone else in order to validate your beliefs

      Like

      • Dan Wallace debated Bart Ehrman 2 or 3 times.

        James White debated Bart Ehrman once.

        Graig Evans debated Bart Ehrman 2 times.

        William Lane Craig debated Bart Ehrman at least one time.

        Why are you saying Christians are too scared to debate with Bart Ehrman?

        James White debated John Dominic Crossan (twice) and Marcus Borg (with James Renihan).

        It is usually these liberal Anti- supernaturalists scholars who don’t want to debate.

        Like

      • Also, it was Yasir Qadhi who did not want to have a formal debate with James White; rather Qadhi said let’s have a dialogue / discussion for better understanding rather than a debate.

        So, James White agreed to that and went from there. (2 meetings of dialogue / discussion for understanding each other)

        Like

      • Xians have debated erhman, yes, and everytime they do they come lut worst then when they entered. I was saying xians dismiss erhman and hisbwork and hes a world renowned scholar in his field. But you want muslimsnto reject our scholars for sham lol. Yasir qadhi isn’t a debater and he stated that zakir hussein, Adnan Rashid, and many othe rmuslimsmhave debated james white. Hes not a threat. Im saying xians plug their ears and hear only what they want to take from xian apologists rather then credible islamic scholars

        Like

      • difficult to understand some of the rough English and mis-spelling.

        Like

      • James White has debated Shabir Ally 6 or 8 times (?)

        Like

    • This was actually better than part 1 since they didn’t get stuck on the Attributes of God, which is, IMO, the only weak part of Uthman’s reply.

      Anthony was unable to address Uthman’s argument regarding Jesus عليه السلام’s soul. Jesus, according to Anthony, is a man, a soul and a divine being. He passes away, his body dies and he returns to being a divine being; what happens to his soul? Does it disappear, go to heaven (since that is where souls go) or does it become part of the divine being?

      Anthony also didn’t address the following argument: God always existed, Jesus came into existence, therefore Jesus is not God. Uthman attempted to show the absurdity of this argument by appealing to the idea that Jesus was born a “natural birth” (lets just be respectful), but it doesn’t matter how he was born. By the virtue that he was born, then he is not God. And in fact, by the virtue that he has a mother, then she is greater than him because she would then be the God’s Mother. She would at least be equal to the father, and we know that Jesus himself that the “father is greater than I.”

      Respectful debate overall, Anthony was obviously a little on edge in the beginning, but, I don’t think anyone who is not part of your congregation could possibly think that he did well here, let alone “won.”

      Like

      • He passes away, his body dies and he returns to being a divine being; what happens to his soul? Does it disappear, go to heaven (since that is where souls go) or does it become part of the divine being?

        Anthony did answer, but the Shaykh does not comprehend Christian Chalcedonian (451 AD, Council of Chalcedon) theology. (which all believing Protestants, RCs and EO accept)

        Jesus rose from the dead on the 3rd day in a glorified body (a body that could pass through walls, eat food, etc.)

        The human soul does not affect or change or adhere to the Divine nature. But Jesus is both 100 % Divine and 100 % man without sin.

        Jesus lives forevermore. He was dead, and then rose from the dead, never to die again. Revelation 1:18

        One of the great debates in history was back in 1981, Josh McDowell vs. Ahmad Deedat.

        Ahmad Deedat was defeated by one verse. Deedat was demanding an exact verse that said, “I was dead and now I am alive” from the lips of Jesus, and McDowell quoted Rev. 1:18. Boom!

        https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2018/07/20/ahmed-deedat-rebuked-by-one-verse/

        Like

      • By the virtue that he was born, then he is not God.

        What part of John 1:1-5; 1:14-18 and Luke 1:34-35

        do you not understand? The eternal Son / Word of God کلمه الله (Kalamat’ Allah) became a human so that He is both God and Man in ONE person.

        The resurrection proved everything He said and did was true and that He is Lord, and Lord over you. Repent and Submit to Him.
        Acts 17:30-31
        Judgement day is coming. Christ is Lord and Judge. The resurrection proves that there will be a judgement day and that Christ Himself, Al Masih المسیح – will be your judge.

        and Acts 1:1-3 – showing them in His resurrection body, “presenting Himself alive after His sufferings (and death), proving with “many convincing proofs”

        Like

      • “Anthony did answer, but the Shaykh does not comprehend Christian Chalcedonian (451 AD, Council of Chalcedon) theology. (which all believing Protestants, RCs and EO accept)”
        Rather, Anthony did answer, but he (and by virtue, you as well) did not understand the question. Look at what the question was:
        “He passes away, his body dies and he returns to being a divine being; what happens to his soul? Does it disappear, go to heaven (since that is where souls go) or does it become part of the divine being?”
        Now look at the answer:
        “Jesus rose from the dead on the 3rd day in a glorified body (a body that could pass through walls, eat food, etc.)”
        So are you saying that Jesus the man is still alive? So… both the divine and the body exist currently? That is worse than what I thought if that’s the case.
        “The human soul does not affect or change or adhere to the Divine nature. But Jesus is both 100 % Divine and 100 % man without sin.”
        Ok, so where did it go after Jesus’ body rose from the dead. Notice, no actual question was answered. All you did was divert because you know that answering would prove the Shaykh’s point. Instead, it seems you actually made things worse, because now, not only do we want to know what hapepend to God’s soul, أعوذ بالله!, but we also need to know what happened to God’s body after he died, أعوذ بالله! So now we have a god that was born, a god who has a soul, and a god who died. His soul either goes to heaven, disappears, or goes back to being divine; when it was never divine before.
        Please, when you respond to this, actually address what is being said to you.
        “Jesus lives forevermore. He was dead, and then rose from the dead, never to die again. Revelation 1:18”
        What happened to his body and soul. We know your belief, now actually defend it instead of quoting scripture.
        “One of the great debates in history was back in 1981, Josh McDowell vs. Ahmad Deedat. Ahmad Deedat was defeated by one verse. Deedat was demanding an exact verse that said, “I was dead and now I am alive” from the lips of Jesus, and McDowell quoted Rev. 1:18. Boom!”
        I understand that Ahmad Deedat رحمه الله lives rent free in your head; but I’m not sure how this is relevant to our discussion. LOL, are you trying to show that there was once a moment in a debate that Ahmad Deedat lost? That’s great. But even in your telling, he asks for a place that Jesus عليه السلام said that, and you quote Revelation 1:18; is that actually something Jesus said?
        “What part of John 1:1-5; 1:14-18 and Luke 1:34-35

        do you not understand? The eternal Son / Word of God کلمه الله (Kalamat’ Allah) became a human so that He is both God and Man in ONE person.”
        First of all its كلمة الله بتاء مربوطة. Second of all, its kalimat Allah, there is a كسرة between the لام and the ميم; but of course, he’ll tell me, “this is how we say it in Persian.” LOL… smh.
        Third of all, the part I don’t understand is how it is possible for a god to be born? How is quoting scripture a response to a criticism of that scripture? Actually defend what you believe instead of just preaching.
        “The resurrection proved everything He said and did was true and that He is Lord, and Lord over you. Repent and Submit to Him.”
        Stop preaching and address one point brought up to you.
        Please address the following points:
        1) Where did Jesus body go after he died?
        2) Where did Jesus’ soul go after he died?
        3) Is Mary, by virtue of being the mother of god, greater than god?
        4) How can a god be born? (please, quoting scripture only goes to show that your scripture is irrational)
        Thank you, but I know you won’t respond, because you can’t. Just like Anthony couldn’t.

        Liked by 1 person

  17. I understand that Ahmad Deedat رحمه الله lives rent free in your head; but I’m not sure how this is relevant to our discussion.

    It is relevant because in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Al Masih المسیح from the dead, His resurrection is a glorified body (see Philippians 3:21; 1 Corinthians 15and humanity – meaning He continues to have His glorified Human body and nature, and after His ascension, Jesus is at the right hand of the Father in His glorified state.

    Ahmad Deedat does not live rent free in my head (LOL), rather that part of the debate is a good illustration of how the resurrection of Jesus from the dead is relevant to the discussion about His human body and human soul and what happened after death – His resurrection from the dead in a glorified body is the answer to your questions.

    First of all its كلمة الله بتاء مربوطة. Second of all, its kalimat Allah, there is a كسرة between the لام and the ميم; but of course, he’ll tell me, “this is how we say it in Persian.” LOL… smh.

    Yes, I have already said many times here for years, that I don’t know Arabic or Arabic grammatical endings, etc. and that that is the way we say it in Farsi. (and the Farsi keyboard does not have those endings). Ok, I agree that the proper exact thing – كلمة الله – is that. since I put the right pronunciation in English phonetics, (Kalamat’ Allah) – your point is moot. ) (see the “t”, the difference is the way other languages pronounce verbal sounds in between consonants. (Kalimat vs. Kalamat) In fact, that construction is written like this in Farsi – کلمت الله . (when combined with the Arabic “Allah”; but when the Farsi word for God is used, it is “Kalameh-ye Khoda” کلمه خدا Many words that come from Arabic are like that in Farsi. Both the Turks and Iranians pronounce many Arabic words differently than the original Arabic, yes.
    Iranians pronounce “Muhammad” as “Mohammad” and the Turks say “Mehmet” for the prophet of Islam.

    We have that word, “Marbouteh”مربوطه and “Marbout” مربوط related root terms for “connection”, “related to” applicable, “apropos, concerned, materials, germane, pertinent, regarding, relative, relevant”

    1) Where did Jesus body go after he died?

    It was in the tomb for those 3 days(part of Friday, all of Saturday, and part of Sunday), and on the 3rd day, He rose from the dead in His glorified body. Then He ascended to heaven after He showed Himself alive for 40 days. (See Acts 1:1-11)

    2) Where did Jesus’ soul go after he died?

    As Anthony said, the human soul does not cease to exist after death (which the Shaykh agreed with; and which you certainly agree with – see also James White’s debate with Abdullah Kunde on this issue); but Jesus’ human soul does not mix or adhere to the Divine nature. Anthony Rogers explained that.

    3) Is Mary, by virtue of being the mother of god, greater than god?

    No, of course not. Even Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox don’t believe that. “The Mother of God” is actually a popular but bad translation of the original idea of “Theotokos” in Greek and the theology of this phrase, from the Council of Ephesus (431 AD) – the original idea and theology was not to exalt Mary, but rather to say something doctrinal about Jesus in the womb of Mary – that Mary was “bearing God” in her womb – it was meant to combat other heresies at the time that said that the Logos / Word came upon Jesus later after His birth or at His baptism, or that Jesus was 2 persons, rather than one unified person. “Theotokos” (God bearing one) meant that Jesus was always God by nature and substance and that also implied that Jesus pre-existed as the eternal Word and Son.

    The problem in history was that that was the time also that Mary began to be over-exalted, prayers to her, icons and statues, and believe in her perpetual virginity began to be more and more the norm and it grew into more exaltation after that over the centuries. This “over-exaltation” of Mary is probably what Muhammad and the original Arab Muslims heard and saw as Islam grew and came into more and more contact with Christians, both nominal and heretical groups.

    4) How can a god be born? (please, quoting scripture only goes to show that your scripture is irrational)
    Thank you, but I know you won’t respond, because you can’t. Just like Anthony couldn’t.

    By Jesus being born of the virgin Mary, and having 2 natures, does not mean that “God came into existence”, which is what the bare statement implies. For centuries Muslims have mis-understood the theology of Christianity. God was not born, if you mean by that that “God came into existence”. The Eternal Word / Son pre-exited in eternity past with the Father. (John 1:1-5; 1:14; 1:18; John 17:5; Philippians 2:5-8) You should read all of those Scriptures and think deeply about them, because they are the foundation for understanding that the Son / Word of God pre-existed. However, the “God-Man” was born, of the virgin Mary in time and space history – that is what the incarnation means – “God became human/flesh”.

    See I did answer you; and Anthony did also. Although I have the opportunity here to flesh it out more.

    Like

  18. It is relevant because in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Al Masih المسیح from the dead, His resurrection is a glorified body (see Philippians 3:21; 1 Corinthians 15:42-58) and humanity . . .

    Like

  19. (see the “t”, and another difference is the way other languages pronounce verbal sounds in between consonants. (Kalimat vs. Kalamat)

    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

%d bloggers like this: