Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Andalusi vs. Wood:
The Concept of God in Islam and Christianity

This debate was quite interesting - Abdullah launched on the usual diatribe against the Trinity while conceding that the Muslim god is limited in His presence, justice, mercy, and love. David showed that God is infinite in these and all His qualities, arguing that the Islamic view is incoherent. But don't take my word for it, check out the videos! (For those of you who are keeping track, I'm posting the debates out of order simply because of hard drive/storage space issues. No need to worry - they'll all be up :-)

Opening Statements



Rebuttals



Crossfire, Audience Questions, and Conclusions

108 comments:

Haecceitas said...

One debate in three videos. Fits quite well, given the debate topic. ;-)

Dragostea said...

good point haecceitas

every morning i was checking the blog to see if new videos from london were uploaded and i was very excited to see them on this morning...after i watched the first video, i went on yahya channel and i was refreshing every now and then and i got to be the first one on youtube to see the second video and now i hardly wait to see the third one...there is some good quality stuff in there.

What i noticed was that andalusi didnt come with verses almost at all, maybe also because he doesnt have a laptop to help him...he even asked the moderator of the debate for something that he didnt know. so much of a moderator...

anyway...i think that wood's strategy of showing how limited god is according to qu'ran was brilliant.

The Fat Man said...

Wow, so far David has hit this one out of the park.

Favorite Quote so far
David Wood: "Excuse me Omar, but what are you doing talking to a rock, after you just kissed it"

Charlie said...

David made a very strong presentation, and now I'm eagerly awaiting to see how Andalusi responds to the way David presented the dilemma of Allah helping the disciples spread the "false" religion of Christianity. I am sure this will not be answered directly but will be deflected.
Looking forward to parts 2 and 3

Fernando said...

Wille Andalusi also writte some comments onn this thread? I really hope so: I woulde like to ask him were he got thate star wars costume...

on the other hande, so far, withe the 2 videos I saw, teh only "star" there was the GREAT Doctor Wood... ounce again: a good presentation thate placed islam's god in its true placce: in the same pantheon as all false gods...

May God help you, your wiffe and, now thate I know it, both your 3 childrens.

shafsha said...

Dragostea said:

"What i noticed was that andalusi didnt come with verses almost at all, maybe also because he doesnt have a laptop to help him...he even asked the moderator of the debate for something that he didnt know. so much of a moderator..."

I think muslims always claim they have great memory and quran recitation, so do y think this proves the opposite ?


:-)

shafsha said...

God cocept in Islam is

Allah Has 99 names islam.
Now after 1400, they changed many of these names accoriding to a recent study.
so in islam , God changes with tie and enviromental factors, and human being sets the concept of God.

be It was funny to see Abdulsi , to use old testment to explain to us cocept of god in islam:
a- because according to them this is a corrupted book
b- this is our book, so it is our definition
c- where is the islamic concept of god in quran.
d- the verse that u used that God Cant lie in old testment, u have the absolute opposite in islam
a- islam allows you to lie, so if your allah allows u to lie , he is a lier too !
b: read quran 8:30 Anfal 30, specially in its arabic word:
it says literally
الله خير الماكرين
unfortunately they translated as best planner. but the true translation is : the best one to Fraud / decieve / False / wicked / malice .. etc

u can refer to this dictionary for the meaning of the word مكر

http://books.google.ca/books?id=3JXQh09i2JwC&dq=arabic+english+dictionary&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=iJZzxVh1sD&sig=vdHpcojHA9tX4ZJbT5DpobdnDdM&hl=en&ei=1X9nSsTkH-O_tgep6ZmyAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5

The Fat Man said...

I have been listing to this debate off and on all day while smoking a brisket. Although I have not listened intently. (Who would of thought cooking a piece of meat would be a all day event)I did notice something different from this debate and all the others with muslims. There was no shouts of ALAH OOOO AKBAR. Did anyone else notice this?

Side note I wish I could say that my brisket was as good as Davids Performance. :) Well done Dr Wood. I cant wait to really study the debate.

Abdullah said...

Hi everyone,

Nice to see that the debates are being put up in earnest.

As to the people who ask "how can your God not be infinitely just in his dealing with sinners?". My answer: "Does God create infinitely?" (i.e. Does God exert his ability to create, to the infinite degree?). If Yes, then there exists an infinite creation, which would say there is an infinity additional to God himself, that God had created? If your answer to the first question is no, then you agree, like us, that God possesses infinite power, but he does not exert it to the infinite degree in his relationship with us (why does he need to anyways).

LouisJ-B said...

Contrasting the Judeo-Christian' God omni-attributes vs the very select omni' of Allah was lost on most(muslims)in the audience.

Had it been combined with an healthy exposure of the sinful human/paganistic belief of Unitarianism, the crossfire and QA would've been less of a routine.

Did i forget someth...?

...THat deBate was BRILLIANT MaTE.;-)

shafsha said...

Again and again we hear why do God In the Old testment Killed children:

1: Firstt be consitent as u have similar stories in the quran.

2: Let me explain to u some facts:
a-As a rule God hates sin
b- He always tried to protect his people from approaching sin, specially idoltry throw many several ways not just killing like:
- council them through prophets
- Miracles like passing through the red see
- warning them
- patience
- punishment, even to his people

So in the od testment, look at any story where God ordered by removing the sin from a certain tribe, and see what happened. He tried to keep his people away. Warned the everyone many many several times, he was very patient for many several hundreds of years even. Then comes the decision.

shafsha said...

and that shows us now, how much our Lord hates the sin. and How his punishment in judgment day wil be if we didnt listen to him.

If he didnt do this, noone will ever trusted him. And if he didnt show us how much he hates the sin, that he wanted to kill even the children of sins, so it wouldnt grow again in our lives, how else would we understand such concepts.

Having that lesson being talready taught, so we now understand it.

So Jesus, even went after the roots of sins, to take it out, like hatred, evil eyes, ..etc, as he want us so pure no sin within ourlives

shafsha said...

The lady that asked questio near the end: said that in islam everyone is equal

What Islam are you talking about ?! is that another islam that was invented by muhammed ?!

Havent u heard about the humilation of women in Islam ?!

Havent u heard Muhammed discriminating againt colour ?!

Havent u heard that muhammed had servants, even he had one for his shoes ?!

havent u knew that muhammed had and allowed to have sex with female slaves ?!

havent muhammed expelled jews and christians from arabia ?! haven he discriminated all people according to their religions ?!

What version of islam is this ?!


....................


BTW Abdulla, u say Allah is Merciful and he forgive those who repents, so why did muhamed Havent did so ?!

didnt muhamed Kill people who repented to him ?!

havent Allah order by cutting the hands of thieves ?!

is this merciful or just ?! or just a wishy wishy version of allah ?!!!

shafsha said...

Abdula Said in his conclusion:

If u see conradiction in the quran then look at your bible !!!

1st: by this u admit u admits u have contradictor issues in the qurab, and u didn even try to explain, but u say that u just accept them

2bd: on the other side , let us reply, we dont have any contradicts in the BIBLE, may be somethings appear contadictoy to the reader, just reading any other book, things is, it has a meaning and we can explain it to u

Btw we are monthesit, have u heard any one told u we believe in more than one God ?! can u get me any christian on earth who says so ?! no ..

Abdulla: are u three persons sitting on the chair ?! i think u have a brain, body and mind ?! who is speaking ?! I can only see you body particulary the mouth speaking , so u are only body !!and u dont have mind, right ?!

Conclusion is that we have a limited ALLAH in islam !!
I am sure that christians are far better than you allah, in the Sense that they love others even pray for their enemies, while allah dont.
Allah, is not just, while we will find that Judges are better than Allah in Justice.

Abdulla I think I have seen u the other day wearing another clothes, have u changed ur identity , I guess u do ?!

Allah opened the door for sins, by not punishing people. So muslims will repeatedly make sins over and over cause Allah is merciful !!

David Great Job, GBU

Paul: Good control and moderation of the debate, thanks

GBU all

shafsha711 said...

To :the Lady who asked How do we each our kids the trinity:

U said u have 5 children, so I wonder how u u dont understand, the psychology of children.

1: Young Children easy understand and believe in the most unbelievable things... for instance they believe cartoon is true

2:trinity is easy to understand, and we use examples to make it close for them to accept it, common exmples are sun, air, burning coal, melted iron ... all these things in nature makes the picture get close and overcome logical obstacles

3: usually for children, we would like to teach them things suitable for age and mentality. Like why dont u start by teaching them sex , specially r prophet did so ?! for us, we respect their mentalities. so kids love srories, we teach them biblical characters and stories, oe stories of saints and martyrs. Through these stories, they know about God, How to live with him, how to pray ...etc

So in short we start with ABC , then teach them science, and then go to chemistry... not the opposite way.

...............

Has any one noticed that in the rebuttals , Andalusi, always tried to use tu quoque fallacy, poitning finger to chrisitanity, to escape answers. Like when he mentioned How does the son say he doesnt know the hour... as if this answers the question he was asked !!! weird mentality!!

shafsha711 said...

Abdualla Andalusi:

You made a mistake when u tried to use the Jews, to interpret the old testment your way.

Would u like me to go to ahmadyiia or Shia and use them as a reference against u, claiming that since they have the same quran, and so u r the one who is having poor undersanding of the passages ?!

Let me tell u, such method doesnt make a point.

Semper Paratus said...

Okay, since the Fatman is playing favorite quotes, here's mine so far:

David Wood: As it turns out we can't simply blame Paul for corrupting Christianity...because Allah played a crucial role in corrupting the message as well.

Sallu said...

David Woods is a Jew, he is NOT a Christian. Jews have taken on the guise of Christians since the beginning of Christianity in order to infiltrate Christian ranks. They have also used this guise to attack other faiths, in order to cause hatred and dissension in these multi-faith communities. The intention of this animal, is to cause a further drift between Christianity and Islam. The only people who benefit from this are the Jews themselves, they are conniving parasites who feed off the blood of others. You Christians are too gullible to understand this, so it seems you will have to learn the hard way. You will know what that means once they have completed their objectives, you will soon see how the Jews really feel about the followers of Christ.

shafsha711 said...

Folks I have a questions.
as I have noticed in the video:

Why do muslims male like leave their beards, and wearing such weirdo things ?! why women are veiled ?!

don they see themselves odd ?! doesnt that look realy ugly ?!

Why are are bound to a time period of just one era ?! are they against any change in the world ?!
And why are they only bound to the culture of muhamed ?! why not go back to pharoah ?! or may be the chinese customs ?! why should they follow the arabian culture wherever they go ?! especially such culture of customs and traditions are not islamic, they r just arabic; related to people who lived in arabian peninsula. So if islam appeared in this area by chance, should the whole world be bound to this culture , ad destrou the others ?!
If every religion applied the same rule, the world wouldnt have developed. For instance we would have seen christians bound to the culture of jews where Jesus was brought up. And we would have sen them wearing like him till now.

So how in the world this is a religion .. is this a fashion religion ?! it teached u what to wear , and make up , how to shave ur head and leave ur beard ?! what spritual or religious benefits do muslims get from such weird practices ?! They are doing their best to have the feeling that we are living in 7th century arabia !!

The word of our Lord were true when he said: 23:24 [Ye] blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. !!

Semper Paratus said...

I've only heard the opening statements so far, but I agree with Dragostea that the angle David came at this with was sheer genius.

Irenaeus of New York said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Irenaeus of New York said...

A few critiques on Abdullah -
I found it very interesting that his strategy was to attack faith as an atheist does. By limiting the corpus of knowledge to that which we can measure against the limits of human experience. He insists on the rationality of Gods revelation but says God is infinite...To say that God is always rational is to say that God can be understood in his totality, which means he is not infinite. To me this is a contradiction. The only truth in it is that God did humble himself and make himself small just so that we might gaze upon him, and have a personal encounter with him, and possibly understand him more intimately. This humble act was the incarnation.


He asked why if God is all loving there would be a hell? Because we have free will. We freely choose to remove ourselves from Gods love. It is our choice... not His.


Rationally and mathematically speaking, what is infinity + 1? What is infinity + infinity + infinity? It is always infinity. Ascribing attributes to God does not diminish nor enhance his essence. To say such is merely a reflection of our limited understanding.


He mentions Malachi, and says God can't change and therefore cannot take on human nature. Yet earlier on, David quoted the sura saying God can come in different shapes.


His argument that God knew Jeremiah before he was born completely works against him. Why? Because the same argument can be used that God always new Christ before he was born since the beginning of time. Remember that Christ was begotten NOT made.


He claims everything about us is finite, and I would agree our intellect is, but what of our soul? How can the soul be finite if it is eternal? Even in us there is that spark of the divine. Our eternal soul united in a body that was created in Gods own image.

shafsha711 said...

Sallu:

1: respect yourself, so that other might respect u.

2: Muslims always have issues with the jews since muhammed till now. and they muslims always attribute all things to jews conspiracy theory. Not because Jews are bad. but because muslims cant get along and love people.
For instance, Jews killed jesus, should we kill them in return ?!

U are giving good example for typical muslims who dont like criticism, or even being questioned (as ordered by quran) , and also the typical muslim who hate the jews and blame them for everybad thing in his life, even if he got a bad wife !!


..........................


Iraneous of New York:

Let me Disagree with you about nature of Jesus:

His divinity is eternal, and that what we refer to in the creed , begotten not created.
When he came to flesh , we dont say created, we say incarnation, which falls within time. (refer to John chapter 1 )

as for differences between churches, I would give much weight in this in a muslim debate. The core christianity is jesus, upon which all things were made. He is the corner stone, so if he is right, christianity in general is right. So it is not helpful to go into details of church diferences in a muslim debate, it wouldnt help anyone, neither christians nor muslims.

thanks

shafsha711 said...

Abdualla,

Welcome to our blog good to see you here.

u said: (i.e. Does God exert his ability to create, to the infinite degree?).

I think yes

Think out of the box:
who created the universe ?! where does this ends ?! do u know if there are other lives on other planets ?!
do u know how many fishes in the seas and ocean ?! where does all this water come from and never ends ?!
why didnt we run out of oxygen , despite it is used everyday by 6 billion people ?!

I can keep going giving u so many examples ...

So MY ANSWERS: definitely YES
I can put him into my logic

afain, nice to have u here

shafsha711 said...

let me explain one more thing:

He creates infinitely, but his creation are not infinite
creation is not like the creator !!

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Hey Abdulla

How’s it going?

You said:

My answer: "Does God create infinitely?" (i.e. Does God exert his ability to create, to the infinite degree?).

I say:


Unlike merciful and just “ability to create” is not an attribute.

I suppose that you might say that it is an aspect of God's attribute “all powerful” but that does not help you. God can choose to not exercise his power and still be all powerful but if he chooses to not punish sin he is not infinitely just.



You see Just and loving and merciful are a different sorts of attributes than all powerful. The later allows for self limitation the former does not.

peace

Fernando said...

Well we were all missing a jew hater arounde her to call Professor Wood an "animal"... This iss utterly amaizing.

About Andalusi reptus one shoulde imediately make and distinction between intrinsec infinity inherent in itself to God (such as justice) and extrinsic infinity not inherent to God Himself (such as creation). In the first case the infinity of the justice is only limited, if we can say so, by God's nature, and being this one infinite, justicce as no limmit; on the second case the infinity off the creation is limited by the proper nature of a creation that is different from God, and being so, in cannot bee infinite.

I was expectingue Andalusi told me were he gott that star wars costume; butt he did not considered my words important enough to pay them the attention they deserved... to sad...

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Here is some more proof that the God of the Christians and the Jews unlike Allah is all just and all merciful and omnipresent.



Deu 32:4 "The Rock, his work is perfect, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and upright is he.


Dan 4:37 Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and extol and honor the King of heaven, for all his works are right and his ways are just; and those who walk in pride he is able to humble.

Mat 5:44-48 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect


Psa 145:9 The LORD is good to all, and his mercy is over all that he has made.



Psa 139:7-10 Where shall I go from your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from your presence? If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there! If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me.

The Muslim God seems to be more like the limited god of the pagans that the infinite god of scripture.

peace

Haecceitas said...

Abdullah wrote:
"As to the people who ask "how can your God not be infinitely just in his dealing with sinners?". My answer: "Does God create infinitely?""

Unlike justice or love, being creator is not an essential attribute that God has necessarily. That's the difference. Being creator is a relational attribute that God has contingently.


"If your answer to the first question is no, then you agree, like us, that God possesses infinite power, but he does not exert it to the infinite degree in his relationship with us (why does he need to anyways)."

If I'm understanding you correctly here, I think that this statement is quite revealing. You seem to think that God's acting justly is simply something that he can do, to the extent that he chooses.

Haecceitas said...

Abdullah,

You kept making the point that "God has no substance". This almost sounded like you think of the term "substance" as implying material constitution of some kind. But that's not typically the way that the term is used in philosophy. Substance is simply a bearer of properties. You also said something to the extent that God is simply a will. But how can that be? Will is a faculty of a mind. Since you probably don't deny that God has knowledge (indeed, you want to affirm that he has all knowledge), you do seem to end up with a view of God in which having a will is a property of a substance (in the philosophical sense), namely, the mind of God.

Irenaeus of New York said...

shafsha711 said-
"His divinity is eternal, and that what we refer to in the creed , begotten not created."
His human nature was begotten not made as well.


shafsha711 said-
"When he came to flesh , we dont say created, we say incarnation, which falls within time. (refer to John chapter 1 )"
I dont know why you say WE, David specifically said his human nature was created. This was my point. That is incorrect.


shafsha711 said-
"...as for differences between churches, I would give much weight in this in a muslim debate. The core Christianity is jesus, upon which all things were made. He is the corner stone, so if he is right, christianity in general is right. So it is not helpful to go into details of church diferences in a muslim debate, it wouldnt help anyone, neither christians nor muslims."


I agree that going into those differences during a debate doesn’t help the Christian case. But it does strengthen the Muslim case when their charges against the majority of Christians go unanswered. That is precisely why Muslims force David and Nabeel to either admit they are a minority view in Christianity OR they don’t believe what other Christians believe OR they force themselves to remain silent on a charge.


Anyway you look at it, this is to their disadvantage...


and Muslims are very wise to this. This why they can make unanswered charges against the majority of Christians, and to the audience this will look to be true. My point is that they should broaden their knowledge to the apologetics of all of Christianity to avoid these situations. Again, a good source that is very concise would be http://www.scripturecatholic.com

ben malik said...

Ireneaus says,

David said that Christ's human nature was created. This is false. As is stated in the Nicaene creed, Christ was begotten not made(created).

You are mistaken since the creed is referring to the eternal generation of Jesus' Divinity, NOT his humanity. Do you actually want us to believe that when the creed says that Jesus was begotten before the ages that this refers to his humanity? And how can his humanity NOT be created when it is taken from a blessed creature, and all humans are creatures by definition? As John says the Word BECAME (egeneto) flesh even though he always WAS (en) God even before creation came into being. John uses this same verb, egeneto, in 1:3 when he speaks of all things being made or coming into being through the Logos/Word. Are you going to say that creation really wasn't created but begotten? If not then you need to be consistent and argue that his flesh was also created since the same verb is used in v. 14 that was used in v. 3. There is no way around this.

MuslimPhantom said...

How do you think you can reprehend brother Andalusi on the absolutely correct affirmation that Allah has no substance? Allah is not a chemical element: He’s absolutely unique, beyond any concept humanity can ascribe to Him. Which substance of the periodic table can be said to be the one of Allah? Someone that has not been discovered yet? And you, christians, dare to say we, Muslims, do not follow science? Don’t make me laugh!

You are only a bunch of Muslim-hatred people always ready to attack Islam, its Prophet (saw) and Allah. If you knew your own corrupted scriptures you would be ashamed to walk on the daylight. You are like those zombies in brother Michael Jackson’s Thriller video: a scourge to humankind.

Brother Andalusi: keep up with the good work. Allah knows best.

Yahya Snow said...

Shafsha, you said:

Why do muslims male like leave their beards, and wearing such weirdo things ?! why women are veiled ?!

don they see themselves odd ?! doesnt that look realy ugly ?!

I say: erm excuse me, Jesus had a beard...do you think he was ugly too? if so, why do christians worship him? if not, then why do you think the eard makes one ugly???

You have blasphemed according to christianity.

Fact...Jesus had a beard..you think beards make people ugly...surely that means you think the christian god is ugly!!! unless you are using double-standards.

oh btw...Mary covered herself up too...do you criticise her too?

May Allah guide us all. Ameen

swmya said...

I have a doubt.Would be great if someone could help me out with this.

Just as Christians do get revelations from God.....Does even muslims get any sort of revelation. Or is it only the Quran that probably can speak

The Fat Man said...

Question for the Blog

I seem to recall that when the movie about Alexandar the Great came out. That some muslims were claiming that no way would a Prophet in islam be a homosexual and this was just another attack on islam.

Now muslims are saying that Alexandar was not a prophet. Any hadeeths or tasfirs that say Alexandar the great was a prophet in islam?

shafsha711 said...

Yahya Snow:

Have u ried to read my ost to the end ? did u u nderstanded it ?

GO back and reread it, if it is so complex to understand let me know, and I will try to explain it for u

(WE DONT HAVE TO BE BOUND TO THE TRADITIONS OR CULTURES OF OUR PROPHETS THAT NOT WHY RELIGIONS FOR )

shafsha711 said...

MusimPhantom:

Thats a very failutre trial to try t put God into logic.

So if as a human u classifu things as substance or vaccum, and substance u defined them according to periodic table, so now u r trying to fit Go according to the periodic table i.e into definition that man has made, that doesnt workd sir. Like you have a soul, do u consider your soul as nothing , or a thing (substance) ?! if it is not nonsense, then what is it made from , you don know !! u cant fit this into your own definitionss

shafsha711 said...

MuslimPhantom:

We dont know how to hate. Can u show us any verse that Jesus taught us to hate anyone !!

DO u want me to bring u the hatred verses in Quran and Hadiths?! I think this blog is not enough to occupy them

.........


Corrupted scriptures !! I guess u meant the quran of course

This is a gift to u :

’Ibn Umar al–Khattab: "Let no one of you say that he has acquired the entire Qur’an for how does he know that it is all? Much of the Qur’an has been lost, thus let him say, ‘I have acquired of it what is available
(this is said by Umar Ibn El Khatab, second Khalifa, one of the direct companion og muhammed, and Called Al farouk; meaning very fair and just)

A’isha: "During the time of the prophet, the chapter of the Parties used to be two hundred verses when read. When Uthman edited the copies of the Qur’an, only the current (verses) were recorded
(Muhammed told muslims to learn have of their religion from this little donkey; and he meant Aisha)

Ubay ibn Ka’b: "This famous companion asked one of the Muslims, ‘How many verses in the chapter of the Parties?’ He said, ‘Seventy-two or seventy-three verses.’ He (Ubay) told him, ‘It used to be almost equal to the chapter of the Cow (about 286 verses) and included the verse of the stoning.’ The man asked, ‘What is the verse of the stoning?’ He said, ‘If an old man or woman committed adultery, stone them to death."
(Ubai Ibn Kab is one of the best reciters of the quran according to muhammed)

Go search for those verses and then come back SIR

shafsha711 said...

Fatman:

There are many evidences in the Sunna and islamic history that makes everyone suspicious that Muhammed had homosexual tendencies.

e.g:
1- used Eye shadow !
2- Pee in sitting position
3- Wear Women clothes, like Aisha !!
4- Had hermaphrodites in his house
5- Huged and Kissed Zaher from behind
6- Used to meet people naked or half naked
7- liked perfume as one of the top 3 favorite things in the world !!

u know, I recently found two hadiths, one allows bestiality, the second allows Necrophilia (muuhammed slept with a dead woman in the grave )

so the evidence are so many , that he was not just homosexual or pedophile, he had all sorts of sexual disorders !!

shafsha711 said...

I forgot to mention that he used to shave all his body hair with sweet an sugar , starting from prubic hair !!

shafsha711 said...

In a 1999 Atlantic Monthly article, Gerd Puin is quoted as saying that:

My idea is that the Koran is a kind of cocktail of texts that were not all understood even at the time of Muhammad. Many of them may even be a hundred years older than Islam itself. Even within the Islamic traditions there is a huge body of contradictory information, including a significant Christian substrate; one can derive a whole Islamic anti-history from them if one wants. The Qur’an claims for itself that it is ‘mubeen,’ or clear, but if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn’t make sense. Many Muslims will tell you otherwise, of course, but the fact is that a fifth of the Qur’anic text is just incomprehensible. This is what has caused the traditional anxiety regarding translation. If the Qur’an is not comprehensible, if it can’t even be understood in Arabic, then it’s not translatable into any language. That is why Muslims are afraid. Since the Qur’an claims repeatedly to be clear but is not—there is an obvious and serious contradiction. Something else must be going on.



Lester, Toby (January 1999). "What Is The Koran". The Atlantic Monthly. http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/199901/koran. Retrieved on 2008-12-02.

shafsha711 said...

What is interesting is these details:

1. Narrated Usayd ibn Hudayr: AbdurRahman ibn Abu Layla, quoting Usayd ibn Hudayr, a man of the Ansar, said that while he was given to jesting and was talking to the people and making them laugh, the Prophet poked him under the ribs with a stick. He said: Let me take retaliation. He said: Take retaliation. He said: You are wearing a shirt but I am not. The Prophet then raised his shirt and the man embraced him and began to KISS HIS SIDE. Then he said: This is what I wanted, Apostle of Allah! (Abu Dawud, Book 41, Number 5205.)

2. Ibn `Abd al-Barr relates, in his Isti`ab fi Ma`rifat al-as-hab (p. 673), that the Prophet, after forbidding two or three times the use of khaluq (a kind of perfume mixed with saffron), and finding that Sawad ibn `Amr al-Qari al-Ansari was wearing it, nudged him in the mid-section with a palm-tree stalk (jarida) and scratched him. The latter asked for reparation; when the Prophet bared his own belly to him, he jumped and kissed the Prophet's belly.

3. Ibn Ishaq's version in the Sira mentions that Sawad was standing in the ranks of the Companions of Badr at the time of this incident. The Prophet was arranging the ranks with his switch (miqra`a) and he nudged Sawad's belly with it, scratching him inadvertently, with the words: "Align yourself with the others." Sawad said: "Ya Rasulallah, you hurt me, so give me reparation." The Prophet handed him the switch and said: "Take reparation." Sawad approached him and kissed his belly. The Prophet said: "What made you do that, O Sawad?" He replied, "Y Rasulallah, the time has come for what you see, and I loved that my last action in this dunya be to touch you."

4. Narrated Buhaysah al-Fazariyyah: My father sought permission from the Prophet. Then he came near him, lifted his shirt, and began to kiss him and embrace him out of love for him... (Abu Dawud, Book 9, Number 1665.)

Ummm, was this how Meccan men expressed brotherly love?

shafsha711 said...

4. Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: The Prophet cursed effeminate men; those men who are in the similitude (assume the manners of women) and those women who assume the manners of men, and he said, "Turn them out of your houses." The Prophet turned out such-and-such man, and 'Umar turned out such-and-such woman.

Sahih Bukhari 7:72:774

( so the q, why muhamed has been keeping effeminate males in his house ?! )

minoria said...

Wow Sallu!

You really believe in the Jewish conspiracy idea and that the Jewish people are bad.All the evidence is to the contrary.True they help each other out,but so does every group:Chinese,Indians,ec.Only they are more efficient.

JOEL ROSENBERG

But they don't rule the world.One man who is half-Jewish(on his father's side) and who identifies with his Jewish brothers and sisters is JOEL ROSENBERG.

He's a great Christian writer.And he's famous all over the US.He tries to wake up Americans about the threat of a nuclear Iran(put in here another Jewish conspiracy thing).

It's rare for a half-Jewish person to identify with the Jewish group,and even say he is Jewish.Almost always they are 300% assimilated into the non-Jewish group.He's an exception.His blog is JOELROSENBERG.COM.

IN YOUTUBE ALSO

You can also find him in youtube where he talks about defending Israel from Iran(I hope you don't think his campaign is also part of a Jewish conspiracy).He is a real Christian and also (for some)Jewish.I say for some since in Judaism today being Jewish is through the mother,not the father.

Irenaeus of New York said...

Ben, shafsha711, David,

I wasnt trying to say that the human aspect of his nature existed for all time, because I dont believe that. However, in the method I was arguing it looked like that was what I was claiming. In reflecting on what you all said... I have come to realize you all are correct in defending what David said. I was wrong. My apologies.

shafsha711 said...

Ireneus:

Yous Dont have to apologize my brother, though it is so nice of you (hope muslims will learn this virtue from u) But we just were trying to express and discuss our believes , and we were really happy to share this together, and I believe this is the way to reach the truth with all love.

GBU

The Fat Man said...

Muslims are at Gods Mercy, Christians Recieve Gods Mercy

Sepher Shalom said...

MuslimPhoton said: "You are only a bunch of Muslim-hatred people"..."You are like those zombies in brother Michael Jackson’s Thriller video: a scourge to humankind."

Wait...you are accusing other people of hating, and then in the next sentence you say that!? This is what the dictionary tends to define as 'hypocrisy'.

nma said...

MuslimPhantom wrote..
Which substance of the periodic table can be said to be the one of Allah? Someone that has not been discovered yet? And you, christians, dare to say we, Muslims, do not follow science? Don’t make me laugh!

Well, it is shown that Allah is composed of oxygen and nitrogen as well as materials to make a bomb. In reality, Islamic Allah is an evil spirit call the Devil.

ben malik said...

No need to apologize, brother Irenaeus, since that is why we are all here for, to sharpen one another as we grow in the truth of our eternal and glorious Triune God.

Bryant said...

Hmmmm,


This "Muslim Phantom" guy sounds a lot like "The Great Ghamidi."

KeithTruth said...

Dr. Wood's argument at 21:39 of the second video (rebuttals) was probably the best defense of the logic of the incarnation that I have ever heard. Brilliant professor. Lord bless.

Wood cleary won this debate glory to Christ.

Sepher Shalom said...

Yahya said: "You have blasphemed according to christianity.

Fact...Jesus had a beard..you think beards make people ugly...surely that means you think the christian god is ugly!!! unless you are using double-standards."


What exactly is your source for the claim that Yeshua had a beard, Yahya? Nowhere in the Bible does it say that, and I don't recall it being in the Quran.

Same question about Mary and 'covering'. What is your source that allows you to KNOW Yeshua had a beard, and Mary 'covered' [whatever you mean by that term]. You shouldn't make statements of fact when you only have assumptions.

I also want to point out that if Yeshua had a beard, it was not an Islamic beard, and if Mary covered it was not an Islamic hijab.

In addition, you clearly have NO IDEA at all what the word "blaspheme" means in a Biblical context. Saying beards are ugly, even if Yeshua had a beard, is not blasphemy. We are also allowed to say sandals are ugly, and assuming Yeshua wore sandals, this too would not be blasphemy. I don't know why you would make such an absurd comment, Yahya. I guess you are thinking Islamicly, and transposing the attitude you are required to have about Muhammad, where you copy his beard, copy his clothes, and copy his bathroom habits.

shafsha711 said...

Sephar Shalom:

"Copy his bathroom habits"
LOL, funny but true..

since u mentioned this let me tell few things to yahaya that he should follow ( they have complete whole chapters in sunna on: Pooping, peeing and farting; sorry to mention this but true):
1- use ur left hand to wipe urself. that why it is condemned in isalm to eat with your left hand !! right is for eating , so dont put it down there !!
2- use 3 syones or and odd numbet to cleant it after u finish
3- they classify farting to caegories, one with sound and the other with smell !! the one with sound is cause by satan playing in this area, to distract believers when praying. and they need to clean themselves
4- urine of camels is beneficial !!
5- urine of muhammed is blessing and will protect believers, as it is supposed to be like ALLAH gift to believers (very clean from clean person)
6- all that comes of the body make muslim Neges( which is not refering to unclean or dirty only, but this means very impure that he cant pray !!) ( an I think that why they cant understand incarnations, cause they have a very bad look towards such issues)
7: a male should shake or through last drop from his penis three times after he finishes

and there a lot many more about such disgusting issues all over the sunna, that talked about all these things. Also dealt with women health like menstruation and breast feeding. But the funndy thing is that muhammed was talking about these things like they happened to be from satan ...(Islam of the WC)

Fernando said...

Brother Sepher: do nott boile in cold water... Yahya White's claims aboutt Jesuss beard and Mary's veill is a commum shaolin muslim tactic: say thate those thate Christians respect acted and behaved in the way Muhammad and poor baby Lady Aiesha did... Butt whate woulde bee their reaction iff someone told thate Muhammad said people to love it's enemies, or thate poor baby Aiesha was a chaste woman? Perhaps the entiry muslime worlde woulde express, in more riotes, why islam is the religion off peches...

Nakdimon said...

About the killing of children. I wonder if they would have the guts to object to God on Judgment Day when they get judged for their sins by saying "but you killed women and children". LOL!

Nakdimon said...

Sepher, bro. You wrote: "copy his bathroom habits"

I wonder if they copy his facial expression too while taking a dump!

Nakdimon said...

Hey Fat Man, you wrote: "I seem to recall that when the movie about Alexandar the Great came out. That some muslims were claiming that no way would a Prophet in islam be a homosexual and this was just another attack on islam."


Talking about Alexander the great. The Quran claims that he travelled west till the place where the sun set. When I was in Israel Alexander the Great came up in one of those tours and I checked the route his conquests. He NEVER even travelled west. All his conquests were EASTWARDS. He started in Macedonia and went to Turkey, Persia and all the countries in the Middle East. Unless Muslims will claim that the sun sets somewhere in Macedonia (the farthest he ever went west) the Quran again has false testimonies in it and should be rejected as anything significant, by its own standards!

Nakdimon

Nakdimon said...

Oh my... I really hate it when Muslims make bogus claims about the Tenach (which they do A LOT!). Andalusi made a claim about the word "elohim" being "majestic plural". There is NO MAJESTIC PLURAL IN THE TENACH!!!!! It doesnt exist there! I challenge anyone to produce the evidence for this. Andalusi's argument is bogus and should be rejected. To claim that "every Jew knows that it's referring to the plural of majesty" is just belony!

Nakdimon

Nakdimon said...

WOW I heard Andalusi repeat almost all of Sami Zaatari's arguments from the White debate in the UK last year. I have made a full rebuttal addressing all Sami's points, including the lame Malachi "nature change" argument over here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuhFiOyxO-U

These arguments hold no weight whatsoever!

Nakdimon

Fernando said...

Brother Nakdimon saide: «There is NO MAJESTIC PLURAL IN THE TENACH!!!!!»... absolutelu correct! One might argue thate ther's a deliberatibe plural, butt not a majestic one. Butt remember brother Nakdimon: ignorance dies hard, specialy in lusmims heart and minds sonce they live in a mental an soul jacket-force...

nma said...

Sepher Shalom said...

I guess you are thinking Islamicly, and transposing the attitude you are required to have about Muhammad, where you copy his beard, copy his clothes, and copy his bathroom habits.


It's all weird. They can copy Mohmmed in all other ways, but they can not copy his image on paper (draw his picture).

On a related note: If the hadiths are wrong, there are no details of Mohammed's conduct in the Quran (if I am not wrong) so how can Muslims copy Mohammed's conduct without knowing the details? If the hadiths are right, Mohammed was a bad person to copy because he was engaged in pedophelia, looting, murdering and slavery.

shafsha711 said...

Brother Fernando / Nkdimon,

Ignorance is one of the fundamentals of islam, u forgot that all muslims claims that muhammed was ignorant, and they have to follow him LOL.

Also islam is based on 5 main letter, first of them u have to become ignorant enough to believe , look at the word Islam:

I : Ignorance ( first thing as u can see, in order to accept all the other myths and shut down your brain), Intolearnce
S: Sex
L: Lust
A: Aggression, Arrogance, Assasinations
M: Murder, Myths


and all of these things are proven from islam if any one would ask for more details :-)

Abdullah said...

@ Nakdimon,

"Judge not, lest you be judged"

"So why does Elohim have a plural suffix if it is numerically singular with a singular verb and singular adjective? It turns out there is a special type of plural in Hebrew that has a plural suffix even though it is numerically singular with a singular verb and singular adjective. These nouns are called majestic plurals. - Nehemia Gordon" (Hebrew Grammarian & Lexiconographer)

"The most common of the originally appellative names of God is Elohim (), plural in form though commonly construed with a singular verb or adjective. This is, most probably, to be explained as the plural of majesty or excellence, expressing high dignity or greatness: comp. the similar use of plurals of "ba'al" (master) and "adon" (lord). In Ethiopic, Amlak ("lords") is the common name for God." JewishEncyclopaedia.com

Sepher Shalom said...

Oh my! I had no intention of leading the thread into a bathroom etiquette discussion. You guys are too funny :D :D

I guess when we read those rules, we are supposed to say, "..and Allah knows best".

Sepher Shalom said...

Nakdimon said: "Andalusi made a claim about the word "elohim" being "majestic plural". There is NO MAJESTIC PLURAL IN THE TENACH!!!!! It doesnt exist there!"

Yes, but this claim has been repeated so many times by Muslims that it is assumed by them to be true.

He didn't even touch the other word of major importance within the Sh'ma > echad

The Rabbis have been been debating and speculating for centuries why YHWH chose to have echad as a description of His nature rather than the term for absolute numerical oneness [yachid].

The simple linguistics of Hebrew found in the Sh'ma does not comport with Tawheed in any way.

frency varghese said...

he (muslim guy) says his GOD is independent. So y did his GOD use muhammed to preach islam? why cant his GOD directly send islam into everyone's heart?

shafsha711 said...

The first words of the Bible are breshit bara elohim, where bara ברא is a verb inflected as third person singular masculine perfect. It should be noted that the plural verb form bar'u בראו was not used in this sentence. Though the plural noun is used, "Elohim" is acting as a singular entity

frency varghese said...

hello
This muslim guy says, his god is all powerful. but then he says how can a infinite come into this world as a finite human being? I would say if god is all powerful he can do that. If his god cant do that then his god is not all powerful!!!!

Nakdimon said...

@ Abdullah,

I know Nechemia Gordon, I have some of his lectures. I know of this explanation as I have debated Orthodox Jews for years. That argument lacks substance and is used to explain their problem away if you want to maintain a Unitarian concept of God. But when there are tough questions being asked in regard to scripture, they cant answer them. But I have to go now. I will give you the specific details later to show that this claim is bogus!

Nakdimon

Abdullah said...

@ Nakdimon,

Fine I know you want to think Orthodox Jews are wrong, it disagrees with your theology to think they are right.

But I'm glad you are already aware of the opinions they hold vis a vis the meaning of Elohim. An awareness I might add, that contradicts your disingenuous challenging of my assertion of what Orthodox Jews claim.

Good to see we're making progress. :)

Leonard said...

I: Gods attributes are unlimited, as Christians and Moslems claim.

II: God is capable of lying and actually did lie, as Muslim teachings imply.

Therefore God is an infinite liar according to Muslims ;)

Nakdimon said...

Ok Abdullah, I understand your claim now. It deals with what JEWS believe and NOT what Scripture teaches.

I was about to type out a small essay to show that what Orthodox Jews BELIEVE is not always in conformity with what the Tenach teaches. But I'll concede the point if your claim was about orthodox Jewish understanding instead of Scriptural teachings. They only use that excuse because that is the only way they can get out from under the facts as they are in the Tenach and they would have to come to inescapable conclusions.

In ancient times there was no "majestic plural". It is a recent phenomenon that is believed to have been at first used in the 4th or 5th century.

Nakdimon

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Hey Abdullah,

It makes no difference how a particular group of Jews today read Elohim but what the correct way is.

Modern orthodox Jews are exactly the wrong folks to ask that question. It makes as much sense as asking a Muslim what a word in the NT means

If you want to show that Deuteronomy 6:4 precludes a Trinity you need evidence of how pre-Christian Jews understood it.

The Evidence from the rest of the OT is that a Trinitarian reading was very plausible. In speaking of the Messiah Psalms 45 reads


Psa 45:6 Your throne, O God, (Elohim) is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness;
Psa 45:7 you have loved righteousness and hated wickedness. Therefore God (Elohim), your God (Elohim), has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions;



Sounds like the Trinity to me


peace

Sepher Shalom said...

Abdullah,

"Hear, O Israel, Adonai Eloheinu Adonai is one. These three are one. How can the three Names be one? Only through the perception of faith; in the vision of the Holy Spirit, in the beholding of the hidden eye alone.…So it is with the mystery of the threefold Divine manifestations designated by Adonai Eloheinu Adonai—three modes which yet form one unity."

Unfortunately you have fallen victim to the same sad anachronism that has kept many Jews away from receiving our Messiah for centuries. To assume that what the Rabbis teach now is what Jews have always believed the Tanach to mean is a serious error. Much of modern Rabbinic theology is reactionary. It is a reaction to being a small minority amongst all the people of the world, whom are in a position of having to share their sacred Scriptures with another major world religion that far outnumbers them. This has manifested itself through the centuries in the form of a near "slash-and-burn" theology. That is to say, the Rabbis have communicated that "Whatever Christians believe, we Jews do not believe".

This has even gone so far as to lead to the wholesale abandonment of cherished beliefs from sages of old. I am not without simpathy for the Rabbinic modus operandi. They have spent centuries trying to keep the Jews from being assimilated, mainly into Christendom, and thereby ceasing to exist as a distinct people.

Nevertheless, the truth is, compound-unity of YHWH is Jewish. Jewish sources are awash with ideas of multiple "emanations from The Throne", "The Divine Council", etc etc.

I offer this quote once again:

""Hear, O Israel, Adonai Eloheinu Adonai is one. These three are one. How can the three Names be one? Only through the perception of faith; in the vision of the Holy Spirit, in the beholding of the hidden eye alone.…So it is with the mystery of the threefold Divine manifestations designated by Adonai Eloheinu Adonai—three modes which yet form one unity."

This is not a quote from a Christian source, or a recent Messianic Jewish source, or anything of the kind. This is a quote from the Zohar [Zohar II:43b (vol. 3, p. 134, Soncino Press edition)]; one of Judaism's most esteemed sacred texts, held by the Rabbis to be a source revealing the deepest mysteries of the faith. Now I ask you, Abdullah; Can you fit that quote into Tawheed? I challenge you to actually read these primary Jewish sources [in particular the Zohar], and please explain to me why it completely fails to match up with Tawheed and why it DOES NOT match with the complete misrepresentation of Judaism that you and other Muslim apologists are selling?

Some links further refuting "plural of majesty"

[Link]

[Link]

[Link]

Adam said...

Who is responsible for Mumbai 26/11 terror attack?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReVT0QTzTzc&feature=related

Adam said...

Where Is Dr.Zakir Naik MBBS?

happy to see Zakir's Students trying hard to defend islam and their self claimed prophet

Nakdimon said...

Sepher, I hesitated to post that quote about the Sh'ma. Even the Orthodox Jewish sources struggle hard with certain passages that seem to indicate plurality in the Godhead instead of unitarianism.

Maybe we should educate Muslims about what the orthodox Jewish sources actually say about certain passages and how they try hard to explain away hints to plurality in the Godhead.

Nak

Costea said...

i was wondering if anyone of you knows of any muslim debater that became christian. im just curious to see if these debates do anything good or not,besides many listeners or maybe people that find Christ hearing these debates...

Sepher Shalom said...

Nakdimon said: "Even the Orthodox Jewish sources struggle hard with certain passages that seem to indicate plurality in the Godhead instead of unitarianism.

Maybe we should educate Muslims about what the orthodox Jewish sources actually say about certain passages and how they try hard to explain away hints to plurality in the Godhead."


Yes, exactly. The problem is, most Muslims have been fed this very superficial idea about the concept of G-d in Judaism. It's the same simplistic view that untrained and un-researched Jews are fed in order to keep them from seeing the consistency of the theology of the Brit Chadasha and the Tanach.

It's so frustrating to see Muslims use such a narrow understanding of Judaism's concept of G-d.

minoria said...

Hello Costea:

I don't know of any case of a Muslim debater who became Christian because of hearing arguments.

What I do know is that is that if any secretly no longer believe in Islam,just no longer believe in it,not that they believe in Christianity,then they would be afraid to day it publicly.

MAGDI ALLAM

They could be killed by fanatics.Take MAGDI ALLAM,he was the most famous Muslim journalist in Italy.Editor of CORRIERE DELLA SERA,one of its top newspapers.He's from Egypt and married to an Italian woman.He and RULA JEBREAL(Palestinian Muslim ) and the late ORIANA FALLACI,were the most famous Italian journalists.Rula and he have Italian citizenship now.

ISLAMOPHOBIA

As a Muslim Magdi Allam in his books said he was against Islamophobia.He wasn't even religious,he was secular.Yet he couldn't see the contradiction.In his books he defended Israel against the Islamic terrorists like Hamas and Hizbullah.He was always giving liberal interpetations of the Koran.

In his books he was against the extremist Muslim organiztions in Europe.So he was under death threats from them,he is under police protection.

BECAME A CHRISTIAN

He finally realized he didn't believe in Mohammed anymore and was baptized by the Pope live on TV(2008).It was a good example to encourage others who secretly no longer believe to know they are not alone.He wrote a book about why he became a Christian.

PROOF HE WAS THE CLOSEST THING TO A MODERATE A MUSLIM CAN GET

BOOKS BY HIM:

JIHAD IN ITALY:A JOURNEY THROUGH RADICAL ISLAM(2002)

KAMIKAZE MADE IN EUROPE:WILL THE WEST DEFEAT ISLAMIC TERRORISTS?(2004)

CONQUERING FEAR:MY LIFE AGAINST ISLAMIC TERRORISM AND WESTERN UNCONSCIOUSNESS(2005)

I LOVE ITALY,BUT DO ITALIANS LOVE HER?(2006)

LONG LIVE ISRAEL(2007)

minoria said...

ISAIAH 53 AGAIN

About the idea it is about innocents being punished by God to bring a future good.In effect that is the present Rabbinic position.Again it goes against the promise in the Torah.To protect the Jews if they are good.And viceversa.

JOB

He was innocent yet God let him suffer.Yet later he was blessed.The same as Isaiah 53?No.Job was never given a formal promise like the Jews...in fact,Job wasn't even Jewish.

ABRAHAM AND ISAAC

I saw this in a movie about Auschwitz.They decide to put God on trial.The defense used that argument.

God tells Abraham to kill Isaac.Yet God had PROMISED Abraham he would have descendants through Isaac.How is it possible if Isaac dies?

NO KILLING TOOK PLACE

Abraham was stopped before he could kill him.And Abraham was 100% going to do it.Read GENESIS 22:1-19.It's not the same as Isaiah 53.NO DEATH took place.While in Isaiah 53 real suffering takes place.

MENTAL SUFFERING THEN?

No physical harm,suffering,correct?But certainly mental anguish,grief of the mind.The same as Isaiah 53?No.

ABRAHAM HAD NO MENTAL SUFFERING EITHER

GEN 22:5,Abraham says to his servants:"Stay here,I and the child will go....and WE will return to you."

But if Isaac was to be killed,and Abraham was 150% going to kill Isaac,then what is this about "WE will return?"

RESURRECTION

By logic Abraham was 150% convinced he would kill Isaac,yet God would still keep his promise of descendants through Isaac.No mental anguish.How?By RESURRECTING
the dead body.

minoria said...

ISAIAH 53 AGAIN

About the idea it is about innocents being punished by God to bring a future good.In effect that is the present Rabbinic position.Again it goes against the promise in the Torah.To protect the Jews if they are good.And viceversa.

JOB

He was innocent yet God let him suffer.Yet later he was blessed.The same as Isaiah 53?No.Job was never given a formal promise like the Jews...in fact,Job wasn't even Jewish.

ABRAHAM AND ISAAC

I saw this in a movie about Auschwitz.They decide to put God on trial.The defense used that argument.

God tells Abraham to kill Isaac.Yet God had PROMISED Abraham he would have descendants through Isaac.How is it possible if Isaac dies?

NO KILLING TOOK PLACE

Abraham was stopped before he could kill him.And Abraham was 100% going to do it.Read GENESIS 22:1-19.It's not the same as Isaiah 53.NO DEATH took place.While in Isaiah 53 real suffering takes place.

MENTAL SUFFERING THEN?

No physical harm,suffering,correct?But certainly mental anguish,grief of the mind.The same as Isaiah 53?No.

ABRAHAM HAD NO MENTAL SUFFERING EITHER

GEN 22:5,Abraham says to his servants:"Stay here,I and the child will go....and WE will return to you."

But if Isaac was to be killed,and Abraham was 150% going to kill Isaac,then what is this about "WE will return?"

RESURRECTION

By logic Abraham was 150% convinced he would kill Isaac,yet God would still keep his promise of descendants through Isaac.No mental anguish.How?By RESURRECTING
the dead body.

dasize said...

Abdullah,

I notice in most of your debates you state that the first Jewish Christians didn't believe Jesus was the Son of God or divine. Being a Messianic Jew, Early Jewish Christianity is a passion of mine that I have been studying for years.
The majority of the first followers of Yeshua were Jewish. We must remember Yeshua was a Jewish Rabbi of his time and all of his disciples were practicing Jews. Jesus never came to establish a new alien religion called Christianity. Jesus came as the fulfillment of the Messiah as revealed in the Tanakh. Which first had to be the suffering servant to deal with sin and establish the new covenant that would be written on our hearts..
Abdullah claims the Ebionites and the Nazarenes did not believe in Jesus as the Son of God. This is a FALSE statement. The Nazarenes did believe in Jesus as being divine and remained Jewish in doing so. You can read early church fathers that wrote about them as well as early Jewish writings. There are many books on this subject. There were sects of the Ebionites that only followed the Hebrew gospel of Matthew that did reject Yeshua’s divinity, but this was not the majority. Just as there were small sects of Muslims that viewed Muhammad as being divine, so was there small sects of Ebionites that didn’t believe Jesus was divine. Just because they existed did not mean they held the Orthodox view of Yeshua. On the other hand the majority of the Nazarenes DID accept Yeshua as the divine Son of God and recognized that he provided the only way of atonement for sin. These Nazarenes and Ebionites kept the true Sabbath and the biblical feasts. They celebrated Passover NOT Easter just as Messianic Jews do today. These were TRUE Christians as well as the righteous Gentiles that met with them in the Synagogues. The early church both Gentile and Jewish kept the real Sabbath and Biblical feast/holidays until Anti-Jewish bishops changed things. Eusebius, the early church historian who lived in the fourth century, relates that Bishop Sixtus of Rome was the first not to observe the Passover, and began observing Easter Sunday in its place (between A.D. 116-126). This was during the reign of Emperor Hadrian (A.D. 117-138), who adopted a Roman policy of radical repression of Jewish rites and customs.
They rejected the ORAL tradition of the Pharisees which made the Torah into a burden with it's added man made traditions. The oral tradition was later compiled into the Talmud. Yeshua rejected the oral traditions as you can read in the beginning of Matthew 15. It wasn't’t until Christianity became more and more Gentile, that the Church uprooted itself from it's Jewish roots. You will find the majority of the early Church Fathers were Anti-Semitic and viewed the Jewish Christians as Judaizers because they kept the true Sabbath and Biblical feasts and holidays. They refused to give up being Jewish.
.
Up until 135 A.D. and the Roman conquest of Jerusalem, when the headquarters of the Jewish Church was finally discontinued, the leaders of the church had remained Jewish. These were the successors of James the brother of Yeshua who founded the Jerusalem Church. After the conquest the Jews were banished from the city. The new Greek bishops appointed by the Romans to oversee the new Gentile Christian church in Jerusalem did away with all things Jewish, and made Christianity into an alien type religion to the Jews. This is when mainstream Christianity became Anti- Jewish and pagan holidays and festivals crept in. The Jewish Christians then became persecuted because they did not want to abandon being Jewish. When Constantine combined church and state and made Christianity Rome's religion, then Roman Catholicism was born and the bishop of Rome was now the pope and was made supreme over all the other bishops. The church then became the "spirtual" Israel that replaced the Jews and God's covenant with the Jews was void in their eyes. It wasn't until the Church separated itself from it's Jewish roots that it became corupt and Jewish persecution and hatred started.

dasize said...

Abdullah,

I notice in most of your debates you state that the first Jewish Christians didn't believe Jesus was the Son of God or divine. Being a Messianic Jew, Early Jewish Christianity is a passion of mine that I have been studying for years.


The majority of the first followers of Yeshua were Jewish. We must remember Yeshua was a Jewish Rabbi of his time and all of his disciples were practicing Jews. Jesus never came to establish a new alien religion called Christianity. Jesus came as the fulfillment of the Messiah as revealed in the Tanakh. Which first had to be the suffering servant to deal with sin and establish the new covenant that would be written on our hearts..
Abdullah claims the Ebionites and the Nazarenes did not believe in Jesus as the Son of God. This is a FALSE statement. The Nazarenes did believe in Jesus as being divine and remained Jewish in doing so. You can read early church fathers that wrote about them as well as early Jewish writings. There are many books on this subject. There were sects of the Ebionites that only followed the Hebrew gospel of Matthew that did reject Yeshua’s divinity, but this was not the majority. Just as there were small sects of Muslims that viewed Muhammad as being divine, so was there small sects of Ebionites that didn’t believe Jesus was divine. Just because they existed did not mean they held the Orthodox view of Yeshua. On the other hand the majority of the Nazarenes DID accept Yeshua as the divine Son of God and recognized that he provided the only way of atonement for sin. These Nazarenes and Ebionites kept the true Sabbath and the biblical feasts.


They celebrated Passover NOT Easter just as Messianic Jews do today. These were TRUE Christians as well as the righteous Gentiles that met with them in the Synagogues. The early church both Gentile and Jewish kept the real Sabbath and Biblical feast/holidays until Anti-Jewish bishops changed things. Eusebius, the early church historian who lived in the fourth century, relates that Bishop Sixtus of Rome was the first not to observe the Passover, and began observing Easter Sunday in its place (between A.D. 116-126). This was during the reign of Emperor Hadrian (A.D. 117-138), who adopted a Roman policy of radical repression of Jewish rites and customs.


They rejected the ORAL tradition of the Pharisees which made the Torah into a burden with it's added man made traditions. The oral tradition was later compiled into the Talmud. Yeshua rejected the oral traditions as you can read in the beginning of Matthew 15. It wasn't’t until Christianity became more and more Gentile, that the Church uprooted itself from it's Jewish roots. You will find the majority of the early Church Fathers were Anti-Semitic and viewed the Jewish Christians as Judaizers because they kept the true Sabbath and Biblical feasts and holidays. They refused to give up being Jewish.


Up until 135 A.D. and the Roman conquest of Jerusalem, when the headquarters of the Jewish Church was finally discontinued, the leaders of the church had remained Jewish. These were the successors of James the brother of Yeshua who founded the Jerusalem Church. After the conquest the Jews were banished from the city. The new Greek bishops appointed by the Romans to oversee the new Gentile Christian church in Jerusalem did away with all things Jewish, and made Christianity into an alien type religion to the Jews. This is when mainstream Christianity became Anti- Jewish and pagan holidays and festivals crept in. The Jewish Christians then became persecuted because they did not want to abandon being Jewish. When Constantine combined church and state and made Christianity Rome's religion, then Roman Catholicism was born and the bishop of Rome was now the pope and was made supreme over all the other bishops. The church then became the "spirtual" Israel that replaced the Jews and God's covenant with the Jews was void in their eyes. It wasn't until the Church separated itself from it's Jewish roots that it became corupt and Jewish persecution and hatred started.

minoria said...

Interesting information by Dasize.Thanks for the knowledge shared.I am glad to know there are Jewish believers in Jesus who read this blog.One would think it would be read only by Christians with a Muslim who would read it now and then.

I am saddend that many Jewish people dislike Jesus because of the past actions of Judeophobia by Christians.

It's true most never ever even read the NT,but that is no excuse for a lack of humanity.Because of that the idea among most Jewish people is that the NT is Judeophobic.

CONTEXT

But when you read those supposed verses in context it's not true.Again CONTEXT is crucial.In Isaiah the entire Jewish people are called "seed of an adulterer","seed of falsehood" and "seed of evildoers."But no rabbi would say it teaches the Jews are cursed forever.Why?Because of CONTEXT.

1 THESS 2:14-16

It's another Jews are cursed forever passage,supposedly.First of all,it was written by a JEW,by Paul.So?So "seed of evildoers,etc"was also in the work of a Jew,Isaiah.

JOHN

It mentions the word Jew 70X and according to the context it means different things.It's said to be Judeophobic.Yet it has Jesus say "Salvation is from the Jews"(John 4:22).

PAUL AGAIN

According to a very intelligent analysis by MICHAEL BROWN,1 Thess 2:14-16 isn't Judeophobic.It refers to persecutions suffered by the Greeks of Thessalonica,a port city of Greece,by other Greeks.

And by Jews in Judea at the hands of other Jews.Of Jews who believed in Jesus by other Jews,who didn't.

PAUL KNEW ABOUT THAT

Paul,a JEW, before was a great PERSECUTOR of other JEWS,those who believed in Jesus.

In 3 letters considered authentic by all scholars he says so:

1 COR 15:9:"I persecuted the church".

GAL 1:13:"I excessively persecuted and ravaged the church."

PHILIP 3:6:"Regarding zeal,a persecuter of the church."

PERSECUTION OF JEWS BY JEWS

Do you think persecution of Jews(who believed in Jesus)by other Jews(who didn't) disappeared just because Paul stopped?He stopped about 34 AD,yet 1 Thess is from the 50's AD.It continued even 20 years later.

And don't forget that in 62 AD JAMES,head of the Messianic Jews in Judea,one of the 3 top leaders (with Paul and Peter),was killed on false charges in Jerusalem.

dasize said...

Hi Minoria,

I'm a big fan of Michael Brown also. He is one of the many that helped me on my spiritual journey when my faith was in crisis. I just prayed to Yah that he show me the truth no matter where it lead.


Jews defintley persecuted other Jews who believe in Yeshua and still do. Especially in Israel. They were kind of an outsider from both sides. Up until the Bar Kokhba revolt in 132-136 the Nazarenes and Messianic Jews were still considered Jews by other Jews. I don't think the NT or Paul was anti-semitic at all. Paul is often misunderstood by many Jews and non Jews due to their lack of understanding of first-century Judaism and lack of understanding of the N.T. . Judaism was united, but also very divided at the same time. Paul was against the man made traditions applied to the Torah. He was a Torah keeping Jew, not a tradition keeping Jew once he became a believer.

The early Gentile church became anti-semitic when it took an axe to it's Jewish roots. Thats when they started observing their own traditions and holidays to seperate themselves from the Jews. Not all the early "Gentile" church was like that, but they were the ones that weren't were persecuted when the church became "catholic" (so to speak) and the bishops became the sole authority of doctrine. Many non biblical teachings crept in. Being many of the gentile converts came out of Paganism, pagan traditions crept in. Just as paul warned in Colossians.

The very first Christians were Jews, not Protastant, Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox. The Church of the East today is not what it started out as. I admit that it's history is ancient, but much changed even earlry on when it became Anti-Jewish. There was no Lent, Easter, Christmas, or Mass at the beginning. This came later. Notice Yah called his feast HIS feasts NOT Jewish feasts. Christ is our passover lamb and we chould celebrate that. The Feasts are prophetic and have deep meaning, there is a reason we should keep them. This is why the Church today in the middle east and Rome are usually Anti-Israel. Unless they are Evangelical, Protastant or Messianic, they are usually Anti Israel. They don't realize the Old Testament is just as relevant as the new. They did not replace Israel. Many Palestinians teach that Jesus was a Palestinian who came to liberate them from the Zionist. They view Jesus very similar to the way the muslims do.

Can you imagine what Paul or the Disciples would think if they walked in to a Eastern or Roman Catholic Church today? Can you imagine them being the JEWS they are, what they would think of all the Statues, Bloody Crucifixes, Idols of Saints, and people bowing to a Virign Statues? Pictures of Roman European looking saints that did not even resemble them? This would be an alien religion to them. Paul would probably even rebuke them. They would feel more at home in a Synagogue than what many of the churches have become today.

dasize said...

Here are some quotes from the early church fathers.


"Epistle of Barnabas" Chapter 4vs 6-7 (between 130A.D. and 138 A.D.)

Take heed to yourselves and be not like some piling up you sins and saying that the covenant is theirs as well as ours. It is ours, but they lost it completely just after Moses received it.



Justin Martyr - Dialogue with Trypho (Between 138A.D. and 161 A.D.)

We too, would observe your circumcision of the flesh, your Sabbath days, and in a word, all you festivals, if we were not aware of the reason why they were imposed upon you, namely, because of your sins and the hardness of heart.

The custom of circumcising the flesh, handed down from Abraham, was given to you as a distinguishing mark, to set you off from other nations and from us Christians. The purpose of this was that you and only you might suffer the afflictions that are now justly yours; that only your land be desolated, and you cities ruined by fire, that the fruits of you land be eaten by strangers before your very eyes; that not one of you be permitted to enter your city of Jerusalem. Your circumcision of the flesh is the only mark by which you can certainly be distinguished from other men…as I stated before it was by reason of your sins and the sins of your fathers that, among other precepts, God imposed upon you the observence of the sabbath as a mark.



Origen of Alexandria (185-254 A.D.) – A ecclesiastical writer and teacher who contributed to the early formation of Christian doctrines.

We may thus assert in utter confidence that the Jews will not return to their earlier situation, for they have committed the most abominable of crimes, in forming this conspiracy against the Savior of the human race…hence the city where Jesus suffered was necessarily destroyed, the Jewish nation was driven from its country, and another people was called by God to the blessed election.



John Chrysostom (344-407 A.D.) – One of the "greatest" of church fathers; known as "The Golden Mouthed." A missionary preacher famous for his sermons and addresses.

The synagogue is worse than a brothel…it is the den of scoundrels and the repair of wild beasts…the temple of demons devoted to idolatrous cults…the refuge of brigands and dabauchees, and the cavern of devils. It is a criminal assembly of Jews…a place of meeting for the assassins of Christ… a house worse than a drinking shop…a den of thieves, a house of ill fame, a dwelling of iniquity, the refuge of devils, a gulf and a abyss of perdition."…"I would say the same things about their souls… As for me, I hate the synagogue…I hate the Jews for the same reason.

From "The Roots of Christian Anti-Semitism" by Malcolm Hay



St. Augustine (c. 354-430 A.D.), Confessions, 12.14

How hateful to me are the enemies of your Scripture! How I wish that you would slay them (the Jews) with your two-edged sword, so that there should be none to oppose your word! Gladly would I have them die to themselves and live to you!



Peter the Venerable – known as "the meekest of men, a model of Christian charity"

Yes, you Jews. I say, do I address you; you, who till this very day, deny the Son of God. How long, poor wretches, will ye not believe the truth? Truly I doubt whether a Jew can be really human… I lead out from its den a monstrous animal, and show it as a laughing stock in the amphitheater of the world, in the sight of all the people. I bring thee forward, thou Jew, thou brute beast, in the sight of all men.



John Calvin

A Response To Questions and Objections of a Certain Jew

Their [the Jews] rotten and unbending stiffneckedness deserves that they be oppressed unendingly and without measure or end and that they die in their misery without the pity of anyone.

Sepher Shalom said...

minoria said: "ABRAHAM HAD NO MENTAL SUFFERING EITHER

GEN 22:5,Abraham says to his servants:"Stay here,I and the child will go....and WE will return to you."

But if Isaac was to be killed,and Abraham was 150% going to kill Isaac,then what is this about "WE will return?"

RESURRECTION

By logic Abraham was 150% convinced he would kill Isaac,yet God would still keep his promise of descendants through Isaac.No mental anguish.How?By RESURRECTING
the dead body."


Yes. This is also a very traditional Rabbinic understanding of that passage. There are even materials in the Rabbinic sources that claim Isaac actually died [i.e. his soul left his body from fear of the knife] and was resurrected. Of course, I think this is clearly taking too much liberty with the text and should be seen as more of folklore than actual textual representation.

You can even find writings about Isaac acting as a substitutionary atonement for the Jewish people in the Akeidah [binding of Isaac]. Once again, another place where the Islamic claims about Jewish theology and it's support for Islamic doctrine and rejection of "New Testament theology" do not bear out.

Fernando said...

dasize made a good question: «Can you imagine them being the JEWS they are, what they would think of all the Statues, Bloody Crucifixes, Idols of Saints, and people bowing to a Virign Statues?»... whow... I think Paul, as he did in Athens, woulde investigate whate was behinde those actions and try to understand the consequences off a religion tahte totally incarnated in history and then take his conclusiones... woulde he simply gett sad or mad? well, one day we'll all know thate when we'll meat withe him...

minoria said...

Hello Dasize:

I didn't know you had read Michael Brown.A very intelligent man,who loves his people.The Jews are a great people and have made alot of contributions to civilization in spite of their small number.

Jesus was a Jew himself,though most forget the fact.Plus if you add the contributions of the half-Jews then the list gets bigger.

JEWISH AND A BELIEVER IN JESUS

I don't know if you know this but BORIS PASTERNAK,author of Doctor Zhivago,was Jewish,and a believer in Jesus also,the same for OSIP MANDELSTAM,one of the great poets in Russian in the 20th century.They became believers,not that they were raised that way.Another one was HUSSERL,the great philosopher.

MENDELSSOHN the composer and BENJAMIN DISRAELI,the prime minister of England,were raised as believers but also identified themselves as Jews,ethnically speaking.

GUSTAV MAHLER became a Catholic Christian.They say it was not sincere,but I had read his biography by his wife,his great love,who said it was sincere.

Why believe HER?Because SHE didn't believe in Christianity,she calls hersef a "pagan Christian" in the book.It means she had been baptized as a baby,and technically she was a Christian but her beliefs were pagan.

WHAT'S THE BIG FUSS?

The thing is I noticed rabbis say those who are Jewish and believers in Jewish are no longer to be considered Jews.Yet they never say Pasternak,Mandelstam,Mahler,etc should be rejected as "Jews who have contributed to Western civilization" because they can NOT be considered as Jews because they believed in Jesus.

minoria said...

Hello Dasize:

Here is something that troubled me for a long time.I think it troubled you also.But little by little I got info(without even looking for it)that made see things anew.

ELIJAH COMING BACK


MALACHY 4:5: "I will send you ELIJAH,the prophet,before the great and dreadful day of the Lord comes." In Judaism it is understood to mean that before the coming of the Messiah Elijah, a figure of the OT, will reurn to the earth. So they say that since he didn't come before Jesus then Jesus was not the Messiah.

LITERAL ELIJAH OR METAPHOTICAL?

But in LUKE 1:13-17 it is said that Elijah was in reality meant to refer to John the Baptist,and it wasn't meant to be taken literally. Zechariah (who also appears in the Koran) is told that he will have a son,even though his wife Elizabeth is sterile,in LUKE 1:17:"It is he who will go as a forerunner before him in the SPIRIT and POWER of ELIJAH (note:in other words,be like Elijah in a great way,but not literally be Elijah) to turn the hearts of the fathers back to the children,and the disobedient to the attitude of the righteous,so as to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."

JESUS AND ELIJAH

And Jesus says in MATT 11:12-15 that John the Baptist was the Elijah to come:"From the days of John the Baptist till now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence,and violent men take it by force. For all the prophets and the Law prophesized till John. And if you are willing to accept it,JOHN himself is the ELIJAH who was to come. He who has ears to hear,let him hear."

DAVID LITERALLY AS THE MESSIAH?

One might say:"How convenient,to say it is not to be taken literally,when the prophecy said clearly it would be Elijah,this proves the NT is false and Christianity is out." That is one argument used. But the case is that in the OT we have the same situation where we have such prophecies. How can I explain myself? In the OT is it said the Messiah would be a descendent of David:

a)Jeremiah 23:5-6/ Jeremiah 33:14-16/ Jeremiah 33:17
b)And also a descedent of Jesse,who was the father of David: Isaiah 11:1-2 and Isaiah 11:10.

DAVID HERE,NOT "SON OF DAVID":

But read carefully: a)JEREMIAH 30:1-9, b)HOSEA 3:4-5, c)EZEKIEL 34:23-24 and d) EZEKIEL 37:21-24. They lived hundreds of years after the death of David.

In JEREMIAH 30:9 the reference is to the Messiah gathering all the Jews to live in Palestine(all agree on that,Jews and Christians),yet the Messiah is called "DAVID THEIR KING". Now no rabbi has ever said that DAVID would resurrect from the dead and rule over the Jews who had been gathered from exile.

A METAPHORICAL DAVID

Also the passages in EZEKIEL are about the gathering of the Jews from all over the world,and the rabbis interpret that to refer to the time of the rule of the MESSIAH and there the messiah is called "David". Obviously it means somebody who would be like David,who would be a king,who would come in the "spirit and power of David",and be a descendent of David.

SOME ORTHODOX JEWS AGAINST STATE OF ISRAEL

That is why some Orthodox Jews are against the state of Israel,they say the gathering of the exiles can only be done by the messiah,and that the creation of the secular state of Israel only retards the appearence of the Messiah. Other religious Jews say that most of the Jews today are outside of Israel and so the prophecy only means that when the Messiah comes ALL,literally ALL the Jews of the world will go to leave in Palestine.

ARGUMENT FROM PRECEDENT ( 4 CASES )

As you can see,here we have not one,but FOUR cases of a PRECEDENT where the name mentioned (David) was not to be taken literally. So the Christian belief is that the Malachy prophecy refers to a symbolical Elijah,and for that we have the authority of Jesus.

minoria said...

To continue:

IT IS STILL A LITERAL ELIJAH

For those who say ELIJAH himself had to come then the question is,is MALACHY 4:5: "I will send you ELIJAH,the prophet,BEFORE the great and dreadful day of the Lord comes," where "THE GREAT AND DREADFUL DAY OF THE LORD COMES" can mean:

1.The ATONEMENT and RESURRECTION,or
2.The SECOND COMING.

SO?

So in MARK 9:2-8/MATTHEW 17:1-9/LUKE 9:28-36 Jesus goes with some men and there he has the TRANSFIGURATION,where Moses and ELIJAH appear with him:

MARK 9:2-4:" After six days Jesus took Peter, James and John with him and led them up a high mountain, where they were all alone. There he was transfigured before them. His clothes became dazzling white, whiter than anyone in the world could bleach them. And there appeared before them ELIJAH and Moses, who were talking with Jesus."

SO?

So ELIJAH did appear in the time of the first coming after all.If MALACHY was referring to the second coming he also appeared BEFORE it.

minoria said...

SALVATION AND THE GOOD THIEF

MAGDI ALLAM converted to the Catholic Church in 2008,being baptized by the Pope on tv.I was reading his latest book,in Italian(there was no translation in the library):"Thank You Jesus:My Conversion from Islam to Catholicism."

I don't agree with all Catholic ideas but I saw 100% that Magdi Allam was sincere,he undeniably has "Jesus in his heart".That is the MINIMUM for salvation.

SALAVATION BEFORE 1520

I often thought about the salvation of people before the Protestant Reformation in 1520.There were many holy men and women who had ideas I don't agree with but who undeniably had Jesus in their hearts.Then at least 90% of people couldn't read.And later the NT was only in Latin,which only a few could speak.I have read Latin,but I can only understand a few words,even though I can read with understanding 5 latin-derived languages easily(French,Spanish,Portuguese,Italian and Catalan).So how to get saved?

THE GOOD THIEF

Jesus is on the cross and a thief has a little bit of faith in him and THAT was enough for Jesus to pronounce him SAVED:

LUKE 23:39-43:" One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: "Aren't you the Christ? Save yourself and us!"

But the other criminal rebuked him. "Don't you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong."

Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."
Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.""

SO?

First,the thief had no sophisticated theological knowledge like we do of God the Son,Trinity,that the Messiah would resurrect in 3 days,the atonement,the Incarnation,etc.But he had a MINIMUM of faith in Jesus and was saved.

ALSO:

He died AFTER Jesus.You don't think he believed 100% till the end that just based on Jesus' words he was going straight to heaven?He was only human.He most probably lost hope in the end,it was only human.Whatever theology he knew was that the Messiah had to be triomphant and free Israel.Yet he had been pronounced saved.In the same way I believe many before 1520 went to heaven because they had Jesus in their hearts,even though their theology was fuzzy.

dasize said...

I think this would proably be a topic for another thread.

People before 1520 people were saved just like the people the disciples preached to were saved. They were saved by God's Ruach Hakodesh (Holy Spirit), repentance and confession. Just because they didn't have the New Testament in their language did not mean they weren't or could not be saved. Otherwise all the the churches the Apostles established were not saved. They were saved just like we are today. Just like Muslims were still Muslims before the Koran was written down.

There were tons of Christians that were burned at the stake by the Chuch of Rome. True Christianity at that time was underground. This conisted of both Jewish and Gentile beleivers in Yeshua. Anyone that still kept "Jewish" practices were persecuted. The early bishops and Church Fathers were unable to discern between Torah and religious tradition. Ignatius is the forefather of replacement theology. I seriously doubt he was a disciple of John being that he never met John and did not study under him. He saw Jewish followers of Yeshua as Judaizers and legalists.

minoria said...

Hello Dasize:

Yes,I agree that the topic is for another thread.But it ocurred to me because of the case of MAGDI ALLAM,the intellectual who is more Italian than Arab.I have great amiration for him.Why?

ACTIONS LOUDER THAN WORDS

I have been rereading his LONG LIVE ISRAEL(2007) and there it appears that when Ahmadinejad said that Israel should be destroyed he paticipated in a protest rally in Italy against Ahmadinejad.He was one of the chief speakers.At that time he was still a Muslim.Can you imagine TARIQ RAMADAN,SHABIR ALLY,JAMAL BADAWI or RULA JEBREAL doing that?

Unlike the great majority of Muslim intellectuals in the West he did more than say "I am against terrorism" or "I am against Al-Qaida."He was actually,in several books beginning after 2001,actively and actively speaking against the terrorists.He pointed out that the mosques in Europe were often controled by extremists who approved of the terrorists.And who wanted,literally,to impose Sharia Law in Europe.

He wasn't just saying "terrorism" but naming Hamas and Hizbullah.He also says in his book he is against Sharia Law.That for a Muslim intellectual is radical indeed.He also condemned the Palestinian suicide bombers,he didn't see them as freedom fighters or martyrs.

minoria said...

This is for why due to a complicated bunch of details scholars in general put the Synoptics in the 70's and 80's.It has to do with the relationship among the 3 books and the content.And by throwing out the supernatural.There is a bit more but for later.

DATING THE SYNOPTICS

I had often wondered why the Synoptics are dated 70-75 AD and 80-85 AD.The reason is because of the Historical Method that eliminates the supernatural.MARK has Jesus predicting the destruction of the TEMPLE(it happened in 70 AD).

LUKE and MATTHEW have it also and add the destruction of JERUSALEM(ocurred in 70 AD).But Luke-Acts ends in 61 AD,with Paul still alive in Rome.

PROPAGANDA

In his introduction in Luke 1:4 he says he is writing "so you will know the certitude of the teachings you have received."So it is said Luke has things in it for propaganda purposes,like MIRACLES and PROPHECIES.

INVENTED PARTS

All the Synoptics are said to have things invented for propaganda purposes:

1.Miracles of healing the sick.

2.And prophecies(Jesus in all 3 several times predicting his death and resurrection in 3 days,plus destruction of the Temple and Temple-Jerusalem).

HISTORICAL METHOD

In the HISTORICAL METHOD to get the facts or as close as one can get you use:

1.Criterion of EMBARASSMENT
2.Criterion of EARLY DATE of WRITING
3.Criterion of DISSIMILARITY
4.Criterion of MULTIPLE ATTESTATION
5.Criterion of ENEMY ATTESTATION

WHY DID LUKE LEAVE OUT:

1.The death by martyrdom of JAMES in 62 AD?
2.Martyrdom of PETER and PAUL in 64 AD?
3.The fulfillment of the prophecies Temple-Jerusalem in 70 AD?

AGAIN,PROPAGANDA

Since Luke wanted to CONVINCE others and was writing in 80-85 AD,why leave out those 3 impressive facts?They were of great propaganda value.


CONSPIRACY

Why don't they say MARK is from 50 AD,LUKE and MATTHEW from 61 AD,and LATER somebody added inventions like Temple and Jerusalem prophecies to make it look better?The reason is we have several embarassing details in Mark,Matthew and even Luke.So?

So it doesn't make sense.Why invent something that has PROPAGANDA value yet at the SAME TIME have things that go AGAINST the cause?It goes utterly against a Real Conspiracy.A real conspiracy would have resulted in ELIMINATING the so-called embarassing events.Also in a REAL conspiracy they would 100% have added the martyrdom of the 3 top leaders(good propaganda to show they were sincere) and the destruction of the Temple-Jerusalem(great propaganda to show Jesus was a true prophet).

IF IT WERE JUST ONE BOOK

I believed if we just had Luke-Acts then scholars would have no trouble saying it's from 61 AD.And that the Temple-Jerusalem prophecies were added later(er,invented for propaganda).But since it's in Mark-Matthew it would involved a real,complicated CONSPIRACY.And for that,a responsible scholar would have to have real, convincing documentary evidence.

Semper Paratus said...

Okay, so I am more than a little late with this and I know this thread has since gone cold, but on top of being very busy I have been waiting for the new AI update to officially come out so I would free to announce it.

In any event, here is what I think of Mr. Andalusi's (and others) plural of majesty explanation mentioned earlier in this combox (Of course I should say, the article deals more with this idea in connection with the use of plural pronouns for God rather than specifically with the word Elohim): See here and here. Enjoy.

kate said...

Great Job Dr. Wood, u did awesome and u clearly won the debate!!!
I find it very amusing that muslims try in their might to understand their pagan god allah. They r capable of knowing what their pagan god can and cant do. They know what he's thinking, they know what he's gonna do to everyone in detail, they know what his kingdom looks like, filled with virgins, wines, young boys, etc. Sometimes i ask myself what kind of god they r worshiping, to me it sounds more like human.
But our God, Jesus, YWH, The God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, is beyond comprehend able. Yes He has given us some understanding of what and who He is but not FULL understanding. I would rather believe in God who is beyond my understanding in many ways, rather than believe in a god whom i can understand. If i can understand God fully than i might as well consider myself god.
Jesus has promised us "No eyes have seen, no ears have heard what the Lord has prepared for those who trust and obey Him." I cant even begin to imagine what heaven will be like, other than we will get to be with Jesus!
I pity that that the muslims believe in a pagan god whom they know what his capability's are. But our God Jesus, we dont need to understand Him completely, after all isn't that what a God is suppose to be?
Again Dr. Wood, u won, our Lord NEVER fails so of course u were gonna win. Jesus bless

donna60 said...

yes and in Deut 6:24, the word Echad "one" is a numeral which works as an adjective to show unity.

Gen 2:24 two persons one flesh
Gen 41:25 two dreams, one
2 Chron. 5:13 many musicians, one sound
Jeremiah 32:39 many people, one heart.

donna60 said...

I have been thinking about this all day, and you know what? If the Muslims want to accuse me of polytheism, they can just go right on ahead.

Better to bear the pain of slurs and name-calling than to be ashamed of my precious Jesus, my Savior and my God.

This is a fact. The Son of God must be a God, in the same way the son of humans must be human. The Father and the Son are of like Nature. Acts 5 calls the Holy Spirit God, as well.

I don't intend to squirm just because Muslims don't like it.

donna60 said...

Sallu said:

"David Woods is a Jew, he is NOT a Christian. Jews have taken on the guise of Christians since the beginning of Christianity in order to infiltrate Christian ranks."

Tee, hee, hee. That is hysterically funny! In any case why would I care?

Paul, in chains said "Some to be sure are preaching Christ even, from envy and strife, but some also from good will; the latter do it out of love, knowing I am appointed for the defense of the gospel; the former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition rather than from pure motives thinking to cause me distress in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way whether in prestense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed and in this I rejoice."

donna60 said...

Abdullah said " that God possesses infinite power, but he does not exert it to the infinite degree in his relationship with us (why does he need to anyways)."

Uh...because He promised us that he would.

Jabari said...

David could have also make an argument that the God of Islam is an unknowable person. That they can't know his essence. Whereas in Christianity, Yahweh is a knowable God. We can know what he is like.

zackt_789 said...

Andalusi seems to view God as an infinite God. But isn"t infinity a measurement of time? I dont think God can be measured by time or anything else for that matter.

The Great Lion said...

David,

Great Job, brother! I am a former muslim, now believe in Jesus as my Lord and after watching your so many videos, I just wanna thank you for all the contributions you put in to show the truth to Muslims. Thanks for your humility and knowledge you share!

Emmanuel said...

Dear Brother David:

It would be good if you prayed out loud in the presence of everyone before a debate to ask Holy Spirit to open their eyes and give you utterance.

It seems like the people wish to hear the Gospel of the Kingdom and you should preach it to them regardless of the topic.

GodSpeed
Emmanuel