Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Osama Abdallah Supports the Deity of Christ!

Osama Abdallah was recently challenged to defend the erroneous Qur'anic claim that the Jews consider Ezra to be the "Son of God" (Surah 9:30). Osama's defense consisted of the following passage, with bold letters to emphasize his point:

"The Second Book of Esdras is an apocalypse that attempts to explain why God allowed the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem to be destroyed by Gentiles in AD 70. The book claims to report seven visions of Ezra the Scribe concerning ethical issues and the problem of evil and suffering. The first three revelations (3:1-9:25) concern the angel Uriel's instructions to Ezra about the spiritual-moral realm. In the fourth revelation (9:26-10:59), Ezra witnesses a mourning woman change into the heavenly Jerusalem. The fifth and sixth revelations (11-13) condemn the Roman Empire and forecast its destruction along with other evil Gentile nations by a messiah. The seventh revelation (14) describes Ezra's role in producing the books included in the canonical Scriptures (the 22 books in the Hebrew Bible) and the (70) apocryphal books. This revelation closes with Ezra being taken into heaven without dying. Chapters 1 and 2 and 15 and 16 are generally recognized as subsequent Christian interpolations." SOURCE.

Hence, according to Osama, if a person ascends to heaven without dying, he must be the Son of God. Now I'd like to share an interesting Qur'an passage with our friend Osama.

Qur'an 4:157-158--And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure. Nay! Allah took him up to Himself; and Allah is Mighty, Wise.

The conclusion to be drawn is obvious. But to put the argument more formally:

Premise 1: If anyone ascends to heaven without dying, he must be the Son of God. (Claim made by Osama.)
Premise 2: Jesus ascended to heaven without dying. (Claim made by the Qur'an.)
Conclusion: Jesus is the Son of God. (1,2 Modus Ponens.)

Even Ibn can follow the logic on this one.

Since Osama is now forced to grant Jesus' deity, he simply needs to realize that Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead, and he will be saved!

84 comments:

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

David Wood wrote:

Even Ibn can follow the logic on this one

Elijah replies:

Good one

Nakdimon said...

Man I didnt see that one coming. Good observation David. But I still think you are giving Ibn too much credit here.

Shalom,
Nakdimon

Osama Abdallah said...

David Wood,

More and more your quality and integrity decrease!
Obviously, desperation is becoming clear among the anti-Islamics here. Here is where you went terribly wrong and TWISTED MY POINTS ENTIRELY:

1- I never embraced the book that I quoted about Ezra ascended to Heaven without ever dying. SO THEREFORE, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CHRIST BEING THE SON OF GOD!

2- If one ascends to Heaven by Allah Almighty's Will, he still is not the son of GOD Almighty. Allah Almighty Said:

"And they say: "(God) Most Gracious has begotten offspring." Glory to Him! they are (but) servants raised to honour. (The Noble Quran, 21:26)"

So as we clearly see, there are no sons of GOD Almighty in Islam.

3- I did state absolutely clearly to Nakdimon that much of the Jewish and Christian original and authentic sources ARE LONG GONE and hence he could not disprove Islam by showing that a certain Islamic Claim does not exist in the Bible.

4- MY reference to the book about Ezra ascending to Heaven without ever dying was further prove to Nakdimon that Ezra was not an ordinary person to the Jews. Whether the book itself is right or wrong is irrelevant to me, because in either way it remains as a proof that Ezra was a big deal, and hence, it shouldn't be of any surprise for him to be called the son of GOD.

5- You are also not taking into account the historical record in the Glorious Quran! The Noble Quran's claim about the Jews did call Ezra the son of Allah Almighty proves that Ezra was indeed called as such. The Glorious Quran can be used here as a historical record for this claim regardless of whether you believe in the Holy Book or not.

You got your entire post wrong David Wood. I hope that I made my points clear enough.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

David Wood said...

Nice try Osama. This reminds me of the time you explained the situations in which a woman should be severely beaten, and then tried to change the obvious meaning of your words.

Nakdimon said that the Jews never considered Ezra to be the Son of God. As proof that Ezra was considered the Son of God, you provided a text in which Ezra ascended to heaven without dying. This means that there are only two possibilities here:

(1) You believe that ascending to heaven without dying has nothing to do with being God's Son, in which case your comment and article were pointless and irrelevant. Why, then, did you post them?

(2) You believe that ascending to heaven without dying is evidence that someone is the Son of God, in which case Jesus must be the Son of God.

So which is it? Was your comment totally pointless, misguided, flawed, and meaningless? Or have you simply changed your position because your reasoning, if correct, would support the deity of Christ?

Osama Abdallah said...

"(1) You believe that ascending to heaven without dying has nothing to do with being God's Son, in which case your comment and article were pointless and irrelevant. Why, then, did you post them?

(2) You believe that ascending to heaven without dying is evidence that someone is the Son of God, in which case Jesus must be the Son of God.

So which is it? Was your comment totally pointless, misguided, flawed, and meaningless? Or have you simply changed your position because your reasoning, if correct, would support the deity of Christ?"

David,

In modern-day Judaism and Christianity, every believer is the son of GOD Almighty:

Psalm 82:6 "I said, 'You are "gods" (Elohim; plural to El); you are all sons of the Most High.' ":

http://www.answering-christianity.com/godtitle.htm
.

Now this "son of GOD" expression started off as one being a Servant of GOD Almighty and His sincere follower and believer. But then, it got more and more corrupt until it ended up being GOD Almighty himself as your in your religion, despite that the Bible doesn't even claim it.

Now Ezra being ascended to Heaven without dying is a big deal. I can see how many of the Jesus-rejecting Jews would want to match up with Christians and say that it is Ezra who is the son of GOD Almighty. Ezra was even called the FATHER OF JUDAISM by many Jews: http://www.answering-christianity.com/quran/qb005.htm.

The point here is this:

1- Even if the Bible downplays Ezra and doesn't give much regard for him, this still doesn't take away the fact that many Jews did believe that he was ascended to Heaven.

2- Ezra was a great figure to many of the Jews. The link above provides ample proofs for this.

Therefore, while I still haven't given you a direct and clear reference of Ezra being called the Son of God by the Jews, despite that the Psalm verses above do, but I've provided you ample evidence that directly supports Islam's position about Ezra more than it does to the Bible. I am using common sense here and logic to see if Islam's position is supported. And again and again I tell you, **********just because an Islamic claim doesn't exist in the Bible, it doesn't make the claim false.********* We have ample evidence that it actually and indeed makes the Bible false and Islam true.

As to accepting the deity of my Lord and Prophet, Jesus Christ, as a Muslim, of course I do. I accept his true deity and not the false one that your faith invented on him, which ironically, the Bible even doesn't claim it.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

The Fat Man said...

Good Job David Wood. Oh no Osama got caught AGAIN with his hand in the cooke jar.

Osama Abdallah said...

David,

Furthermore, we read this about Ezra:


"The work has not yet been assigned chapters, but it is divided internally into four parts. First, Ezra ascends to heaven and pleads with God for mercy upon sinners. Second, led by Michael and Gabriel he descends into Tartarus, where he views the punishment of Herod and other sinners, one of whom is described as the Antichrist. Third, he ascends into the heavens and witnesses more punishments, even in Paradise, where he sees Enoch, Elijah, Moses, Peter, Paul, Luke, and Matthew. Fourth, he descends again deeper into Tartarus where he witnesses more torments, and eventually wins blessings for those who revere his book (to biblion touto) and curses for those who do not believe it. He dies, giving up his soul; his body is buried." (http://www.textexcavation.com/apocalypseezra.html)

Clearly, Ezra is a big deal to the Jews! Why should you be surprised to hear from Jesus-rejecting Jews that Ezra was the "son of God"? Ezra's experience as similar to Jesus' in the New Testament. I can clearly see how many ancient Jews considered Ezra to be the son of God especially during the days of "Jesus being the son of God" emerged. I can see how many Jews would counter that using Ezra.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

The Fat Man said...

All you have to check this video out Its Rifqa Berry's testimony prior to her runaway in the summer of 2009. So much for the claim by muslims that she made the whole thing up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne0MdUyJ1GU&feature=player_embedded#t=132

David Please do a special blog post on this. I think it is to importatnt to leave just in the comment section

Yahya Snow said...

David

I think Abdallah made himself perfectly clear on this issue. He merely stated that it appears through the Bible (an unreliable book)that the Jews regarded Ezra as somebody greater than a human.

We must remember the Jews took to the worshipping of a calf so it would not surprise the unversed that the Jews worshipped a man.

Also Abdallah is perfectly correct to state the lak of Biblical support for an Islamic belief does not negate the Islamic belief as the Bible is unreliable.

Also the Bible is a very diverse and even a subjective book now; some Bible followers believe (erroneously) that Jesus is a god while others do not. This is a fundamental issue that is brought up to highlight the Bible's diverse (and even contradictory) teachings which if anything point to the fact it has been altered.

Furthermore, David it was extremely underhand of you to misrepresent Abdallah in such a manner. However, I know you have previous form on misrepresenting people, so does Richard Carrier!

David, you claim to have the holy spirit dwelling in you (which you believe to be a god), my question to you is thus:

How in the world can somebody with a supposed god inside him make such a mistake that borders on deception in misrepresenting Abdallah???

Whilst you are in the business of answering questions perhaps you could explain how killing an innocent man is deemed as justice in your eyes

Another couple for the road:
Does the Trinity make sense and is it a biblical teaching?

You see David, Christianity has many flaws in its logic an it is compounded by apologists like yourself who resort to misrepresenting opponents.

May Allah guide us all and I hope we all have a good ramadan.

David Wood said...

Yahya,

Let's review. Osama was challenged to provide evidence that the Jews regarded Ezra as the Son of God. Osama replied that Ezra ascended to heaven without dying. Therefore, Osama must regard ascending to heaven as evidence of divinity (even you admit that this is evidence that Ezra was regarded as more than merely human). I simply drew out the implication of his claim, and you accuse me of deception. To put the matter differently, if Osama doesn't regard such an ascension as evidence of divinity, then he hasn't even begun to respond to the challenge. Why then post a pointless, meaningless response?

Here's what I find amazing. You're accusing me of misrepresenting Osama, and you question whether I have Jesus in me because you think I've misrepresented Osama. Yet the evidence shows that I haven't misrepresented Osama at all. The reason I find this amazing is that Muhammad obviously misrepresented the beliefs of the Jews. If you're consistent, shouldn't you question whether he was speaking for Allah?

Irenaeus of New York said...

Man framed with Koran desecration dies in police custody

The Fat Man said...

Yahya Snow said...
"Also Abdallah is perfectly correct to state the lak of Biblical support for an Islamic belief does not negate the Islamic belief as the Bible is unreliable."

Wow thats logic, the Koran makes a claim that can not be substantiated, that is actualy un true, so its the bible that is unreliable.

Yahya why isnt the teaching of the Koran un reliable since it makes a claim that can not be substantiated?

Semper Paratus said...

Yahya: Also the Bible is a very diverse and even a subjective book now; some Bible followers believe (erroneously) that Jesus is a god while others do not. This is a fundamental issue that is brought up to highlight the Bible's diverse (and even contradictory) teachings which if anything point to the fact it has been altered.

Also the Qur'an is a very diverse and even a subjective book now; some followers of Al-Qur'an believe (erroneously) that God has bodily appendages while others do not. This is a fundamental issue that is brought up to highlight the Qur'an's diverse (and even contradictory) teachings which if anything point to the fact it has been altered.

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Yahya:

Also the Bible is a very diverse and even a subjective book now; some Bible followers believe (erroneously) that Jesus is a god while others do not.

me:

I have an honest question

Do you know of any group holding to Sola Scriptura and Biblical inerrancy that does not believe that Jesus is divine?

I don't

peace

Yahya Snow said...

David,

Let us go through this one more time, I will not waste further time with you on this matter if you continue to fail to comprehend the actualities.

Abdallah said:

4- MY reference to the book about Ezra ascending to Heaven without ever dying was further prove to Nakdimon that Ezra was not an ordinary person to the Jews. Whether the book itself is right or wrong is irrelevant to me, because in either way it remains as a proof that Ezra was a big deal, and hence, it shouldn't be of any surprise for him to be called the son of GOD.

This should suffice for anybody of any scholarly capacity in understanding Abdallah is not accepting man-worship or promoting Jesus/Ezra to the level of God. I ask you to put your bias to one side and use some intellectual honesty.

As for him being challenged to find evidence (from the Bible) that Jews worshipped Ezra. That is a red-herring. Abdallah has already highlighted the lack of trust and reliability within the Bible, thus he/nor any non-Christian has a need to view the Bible as being wholly reliable. abdallah merely highlighted a part of the Bible which misguided Jews may have misconstrued in order to represent Ezra as the son of God. As simple as that, that is all he did, why can't you not see this?

Now it is your belief that Muhammed misrepresented the Jewish teachings just like it is my belief that Paul (and others) misrepresented the teachings of Jesus and brought in the concept of this Pagan 'man-god' idea in order to appease/compromise with the Romans.


Both are beliefs that can be discussed at a later date.

I did not question whether you had Jesus in you, I questioned whether you had your 'other god' in you, namely the holy spirit.

It does appear you have a history of misrepresenting people, how about the Richard Carrier debacle, or you misrepresenting me and other issues...are these evidences of your mistakes not enough for you to question whether you have a 'god' inside you?

I would also like to point the audience to the fact that Wood avoided the testing questions about Christianity I set...why is that a constant theme in Christendom? Do Christians not realise that their fellow Christians are leaving Christianity partly due to the illogical nature of Christianity (highlighted via the questions I set Wood)? Surely Christian leadership such as Wood would attempt to answer the questions which are leading to a mass exodus out of Christianity...surely these questions are of a greater priority than attempted to wrongly smother Abdallah with an accusation of man-worship?

Food for thought...

May Allah guide us all

Defending and proclaiming Islam at:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/

Yahya Snow said...

Fifth

My friend where are you going with this?:

Do you know of any group holding to Sola Scriptura and Biblical inerrancy that does not believe that Jesus is divine?

Yahya Snow said...

Semper..

Both those groups believe that God is not like anything else.

It is the fallacy of false equivalence that you committed..

Semper, as you have involved yourself in the discussion erhaps you could pick up tha batton at the point where your colleague, Wood, dropped it; namely the point where I asked Wood to answer the difficult questions concerning Christian fundamentals.

I am off to university now. I may check in on you guys later.

Thanks, hope you have a good day

May Allah guide us all. Ameen

Defending and proclaiming Islam at:

http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/

Nakdimon said...

1- I never embraced the book that I quoted about Ezra ascended to Heaven without ever dying. SO THEREFORE, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CHRIST BEING THE SON OF GOD!

Osama, you are totally being dishonest. You claimed to have proof that Ezra was being considered the Son of God by Jews and provided that quote to prove just that. Now you say you don’t believe what that article says. THEN WHY DID YOU BRING IT UP? Even if you bring it up to show what OTHERS believe, you still use it as proof for your position. But that quote said nothing to that regard. All it said was that Ezra was taken up into heaven without dying. This was your major emphasis as proof that he was considered the Son of God. So therefore, David correctly pointed out that since you believe that someone being taken up into heaven without dying is equivalent to being the Son of God, you have just stated, without even knowing it, that Yeshua, who was taken up into heaven without dying according to the Quran, is the Son of God. David hasn’t twisted anything, you have shot yourself in the foot in your desperate attempts to salvage Allah from his gross error and lie about the Jews.

3- I did state absolutely clearly to Nakdimon that much of the Jewish and Christian original and authentic sources ARE LONG GONE and hence he could not disprove Islam by showing that a certain Islamic Claim does not exist in the Bible.

Yes, you have claimed that those sources are long gone. But which sources are you referring to? What “original and authentic sources” that are “long gone” use to prove that Jews believed that Ezra is the Son of God? NAME ONE SUCH SOURCE! If you cant, then you have just demonstrated that you are making your arguments up as you go along.


4- MY reference to the book about Ezra ascending to Heaven without ever dying was further prove to Nakdimon that Ezra was not an ordinary person to the Jews. Whether the book itself is right or wrong is irrelevant to me, because in either way it remains as a proof that Ezra was a big deal, and hence, it shouldn't be of any surprise for him to be called the son of GOD.

And because Ezra was a “big deal” that means that Ezra was regarded to be the Son of God, right? WRONG! In fact, in Jewish history Ezra was one of the least of the prophets! Moses was the highest. In fact, it is held by Judaism that there is no prophet that can supersede Moses in revelation and exaltation with the exception of the Messiah, Son of David. Since Ezra couldn’t be considered as the Messiah, since he was from the tribe of LEVI and NOT from JUDAH, Ezra cant even stand in Moses’ shadow, according to Judaism. It amazes me that you would think that because Ezra is a “big deal” you automatically assume that he was regarded the Son of God. Again, despair drives you to make this leap.

5- You are also not taking into account the historical record in the Glorious Quran! The Noble Quran's claim about the Jews did call Ezra the son of Allah Almighty proves that Ezra was indeed called as such. The Glorious Quran can be used here as a historical record for this claim regardless of whether you believe in the Holy Book or not.

Osama, Judaism is notorious for its rich tradition. Everything in Judaism is based on tradition and every tradition is preserved in some way through history. Whether true or false. It is either mentioned by rabbis as a side note that people used to hold to a certain tradition but got excluded from Jewish tradition or it is mentioned as a point of refutation by some rabbi. Yet there is not a stitch of evidence or reference to any tradition among Jews that Ezra was ever held to such high esteem. That makes the Quran UNTRUSTWOTRHY, rather than a reliable historical book. It has history against it. Sorry, but we are not willing to throw out history instead of the Quran, because the history contradicts the Quran. The Quran has to give way when ever it contradicts historical facts.


Nakdimon

Nakdimon said...

David,

In modern-day Judaism and Christianity, every believer is the son of GOD Almighty:

Psalm 82:6 "I said, 'You are "gods" (Elohim; plural to El); you are all sons of the Most High.' ":


Osama, this is from Scripture. This is what GOD revealed! Are you saying that God says we are His sons in the Psalms, but then in the Quran He changes His mind? Keep digging that grave of your deeper and deeper.

1- Even if the Bible downplays Ezra and doesn't give much regard for him, this still doesn't take away the fact that many Jews did believe that he was ascended to Heaven.

The Bible DOWNPLAYS Ezra? So you are saying that the Bible is wrong about what it says in Ezra only to bolster your imaginary sources about Jews claiming that Ezra is held in high esteem?

David,

Furthermore, we read this about Ezra:

"The work has not yet been assigned chapters, but it is divided internally into four parts. First, Ezra ascends to heaven and pleads with God for mercy upon sinners. Second, led by Michael and Gabriel he descends into Tartarus, where he views the punishment of Herod and other sinners, one of whom is described as the Antichrist. Third, he ascends into the heavens and witnesses more punishments, even in Paradise, where he sees Enoch, Elijah, Moses, Peter, Paul, Luke, and Matthew. Fourth, he descends again deeper into Tartarus where he witnesses more torments, and eventually wins blessings for those who revere his book (to biblion touto) and curses for those who do not believe it. He dies, giving up his soul; his body is buried." (http://www.textexcavation.com/apocalypseezra.html)

Clearly, Ezra is a big deal to the Jews! Why should you be surprised to hear from Jesus-rejecting Jews that Ezra was the "son of God"? Ezra's experience as similar to Jesus' in the New Testament. I can clearly see how many ancient Jews considered Ezra to be the son of God especially during the days of "Jesus being the son of God" emerged. I can see how many Jews would counter that using Ezra.


Again Osama READ YOUR SOURCES! This is NOT a source of JUDAISM, but a CHRISTIAN source! NO WORK OF JUDAISM HAS PETER PAUL LUKE AND MATTHEW in its works alongside MOSES ENOCH AND ELIJAH! READ YOUR SOURCES BEFORE YOU USE THEM! It will save you a LOT of embarrassment. This is what the scholars in the link say:

“Daniel J. Harrington writes: "The work known as 2 Esdras is in fact three separate compositions….THIS IS A CHRISTIAN WORK COMPOSED IN GREEK in the mid-second century C.E.”


“Raymond E. Brown writes of Section One (chs. 1-2): "THIS IS CLEARLY A CHRISTIAN WORK, composed in Greek…”

“Daniel J. Harrington writes: "In providing A GLIMPSE INTO EARLY CHRISTIAN LIFE under the Roman empire, 6 Ezra is a valuable source.”

“Michael E. Stone writes: "The date, place of origin, and authorship of 5 Ezra [2 Esdras 1-2] are uncertain. The contents of the book suggest, however, that it was composed during the second century A.D. BY A CHRISTIAN who was writing in the context of a dispute with Judaism." (Harper's Bible Commentary, p. 776)”

“M. E. Stone writes: "The dependence of the writing on (presumably the Greek version of) 4 Ezra and ITS CHRISTIAN CHARACTER indicate a date sometime in the first millennium.”

“James Charlesworth writes (The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research, pp. 117-118):…THE WORK IS CHRISTIAN, rather late,...”


Although there is much dispute about what the origin, date and place of the document is, it is clear that the majority of the scholars think it is a Christian work.


Nakdimon

Nakdimon said...

Yahya Snow: We must remember the Jews took to the worshipping of a calf so it would not surprise the unversed that the Jews worshipped a man.

This is the most inconsistent nonsense I have ever heard. Muslims will play flip flop with their arguments as they see fit.

When we argue for the Deity of Yeshua as God in the flesh, Muslims will jump up and claim that this is something that was invented by Paul and that Jews have never believed in such things, since it cant be found in the Old Testament. (it actually CAN be found in the OT, but that’s beside the point now!) The entire purpose for this claim is to show Christians that they stand alone and that their beliefs are incorrect since no one believed this prior to them.

But NOW, because Muslims desperately need Ezra to be more than a human being, they will destroy their argument against the Deity of Yeshua and claim that since Jews worshipped a Golden Calf at one point in history, they are prone to worship a man too. Preferably Ezra, of course. What on earth will it be?

And, by the way, speaking about the Golden Calf, WHO made that Calf for them? Wasn’t it AARON? Why is there no mention of this in the Quran? Why is AARON held in such high esteem while the Jewish people are vilified throughout the Quran?

Nakdimon

Prophet said...

Osama says -
3- I did state absolutely clearly to Nakdimon that much of the Jewish and Christian original and authentic sources ARE LONG GONE and hence he could not disprove Islam by showing that a certain Islamic Claim does not exist in the Bible.

Long gone now, 2009, however in the 7th Century when the islamic barbarians (or should I say persian criminals who probably started this whole mess) aided by the traitorous Jacobites in Egypt invaded and conquered those eastern Christian lands - rich with ancient Christian texts - they weren't.

Funny how the islamic barbarians didn't manage to find and save those texts which prove the troglodyte mohammad was prophesised in the Bible. Possibly because there weren't any????

But then again, they didn't manage to save the originals of their qur'an either, despite conquering lands far advanced in the technology of written materials as compared to the barren sands of pagan arabia.

And, of course, there is that small issue of all written materials coming out of that desolate place - previously alive with commentaries about their life - ceasing from 570AD!!!! until 200 years later.

No wonder islam demands destruction of all evidence of the previous culture - the better to fabricate its lies. No serious historian regards "islamic history" as factual.

Prophet said...

Irenaeus, what a shocking example of the hideous cult of islam.

One in nine Christians are living in persecution in the world today; most of them in islamic majority countries.

And the pathetic muslims in the west cry victimhood if they get as much as a sideways glance in their direction and this has been increasing since 9/11. What a sick bunch of wilful lobotomites muslims defending islam are.

(and yes, I know, lobotomites isn't a word, but the meaning is clear)

Fernando said...

Hi Yahya Snow... lets trie another start on our "relations"... you asked: «Does the Trinity make sense and is it a biblical teaching?»... yes it does, and yes it his... where are your doubts? cann you presente them here... on the other side: where is the shahada in the qur'an?

you also saide: «Also Abdallah is perfectly correct to state the lak of Biblical support for an Islamic belief does not negate the Islamic belief as the Bible is unreliable»... we can also state: nothing thate Abdallah can bee corrected abioiutte his readings from the Bible from muslim presepusutions since the qur'an and the hadiths are absolutely unreliable... can't we? what proof do you have thate the qur'an is true? what prrof can you present that muhammad really recieved any revelation? thankes...

Ehteshaam Gulam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
minoria said...

I do not understand what is the exact point of Osama and Snow's comment on EZRA going up in body to heaven in a certain book.

EZRA SON OF GOD/ELIJAH

What of it?So Ezra is more than an ordinary man.So is ELIJAH in the OT.He goes to heaven alive,so does ENOCH.Yet NO Jewish writing has HIM as being DIVINE,correct?Nor ENOCH.

ELIJAH is BIG in Judaism.He is supposed to come before the Messiah and tell of his coming.Yet he is nowhere said to be divine.

MORE THAN AN ORDINARY MAN,EZRA

Granted,yet still only a man.A "son of God"(holy man),yet a man.But the Koran puts Ezra Son of God and Jesus Son of God on the same level."The Christians say Jesus is the Son of God(God the Son,divine)!He is not."And that is true.

"The Jews say Ezra is the Son of God(divine)!He is not."(Incorrect)

Do do you see the error.Ezra NOT EVEN in the book cited by Osama has divinity.

minoria said...

ABOUT THE TRINITY

To say it is no logical or true because of its triune nature is to say MATH is not logical or true.

1+1+1=3 but:

According to other mathematical laws we have:

1X1X1=1
infinity+infinity+infinity=infinity

Also we have the mathematical and physical arguments of the brilliant scientist TIPLER regarding the TRINITY.

QUESTION

Why can not God be in nature according to one set of mathematical laws even if it goes against your idea of him?If he is triune and it even complies with physics and math then why say:"It is nonsense."It would be nonsense if it could NOT be explained using physics and math,correct?

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

BTW EZRA was considered the son of God by some Jews in Yemen (south of Arabia). I am guessing the Quran is correct and is talking about them:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/ezra.html

Forever yours in Islam
Ehteshaam Gulam
http://www.answering-christian-claims.com

minoria said...

TRIAL OF THE CENTURY

Guys,in Jan 2010 they are going to put GEERT WILDERS,the Dutch politician,maker of the video FITNA,and an ATHEIST,on trial!

The majority of Dutch people are with him.I believe he will win,and it will be a victory for FREEDOM OF SPEECH,a human right.

BASICS

Again Islam is NOT a race or person.It is a set of religious beliefs.So ISLAMOPHOBIA(being anti-Islam)is ok.Why?Since you are only saying the X reasons you disagree.

1.MODERATE=believer in human rights.

2.GOOD=human rights,but for most Muslims,GOOD=Islam.

3.Islamophobia is NOT discriminating a PERSON who believes in Islam,a Muslim,since Islam is NOT a person.

4.The correct word is MUSLIMOPHOBIA.But Muslim leaders in the West always want us to confuse the 2.Why?To be able to:"declare in the legal system that Islamophobia is a crime."(That is how it is in SHARIA law).

minoria said...

REGARDING THE ATONEMENT(I think Snow was referring to it)

There are 2 views on this.One is that the DEATH of Jesus,an innocent man,was NECESARRY for the salvation of the world.

The other,that of the CATHOLIC church(I do not know about the EASTERN ORTHODOX church) is that what was NECESARRY was not the death but the SHEDDING of blood.

ARGUMENTS

My knowledge is not that deep to say which is correct but the second option has good arguments:

1.HUMAN SACRIFICE was forbidden in Mosaic Law.
2.The BLOOD of Jesus was so precious that only ONE DROP was enough to save the world.

THEN WHY DIE?

The idea is that Jesus did NOT have to literally die(even though it was prophesized)but chose to to show HOW MUCH he cared about our salvation.He went BEYOND what was necesarry.To show his love.

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Hey Yahya how’s it going?

you say:
My friend where are you going with this?:



I respond

The claim was made that the Bible is “a very diverse and even a subjective book” and as supporting evidence the following was offered…..

Quote:

some Bible followers believe (erroneously) that Jesus is a god while others do not.

End Quote:

This claim is just incorrect and the supporting evidence is faulty.

No one who believes what the Bible says denies that Jesus is divine.

Some heretical groups might claim to believe the Bible and deny the divinity of Jesus but with out exception they either deny that the bible is with out error or else they hold that some sort of extra-biblical human authority has the right to tell them what the Bible says.

You simply can’t read the Bible with an objective open mind and come away believing that it teaches that Jesus is just a man.


peace

Fernando said...

Brother minoria saide: «To show his love»... yes... only an infinite love can forgibe totally, save totally reunite totally humanity with God...

Ehteshaam Gulam... one problem is that the qur'an equalizes Ezra being son of God withe Jesus being the Son of God... and this latter was neber admited by the Jews thate did not became Christians... butt then: can you present any textual evidence in first (or second hand... lets admit this one...) thate indeed some jews considered Ezra as a son of God in the proper, and not methaphorical way, way? thankes... your answer will bee bery apreciated...

The Fat Man said...

It was only a matter of time really. Ehteshaam Gulam has deteroriated to another LINK POSTER.

Ethshaam can you demonstrate from the link where any jew worshiped Ezra as the son of GOD?

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

no, Read the whole Islamic-awareness.org article-- It says SOME Jews believed that Ezra was the son of God in Yemen. The Quran was talking about them not all Jews.

Semper Paratus said...

Yahya: Both those groups believe that God is not like anything else.

But both groups do not mean the same thing when they say "God is not like aything else." How could they? The point of reference is different: for the one it is a "god" without bodily appendages, and for the other it is a "god" with bodily appendages. Besides, mainstream Muslims have categorically rejected Salafism as inconsistent with the teaching that "God is not like anything else."

Also, I could play the same game: Those who believe in the deity of Christ and those who do not believe in it both believe in the transcendence of God.

Yahya:It is the fallacy of false equivalence that you committed..

Actually, the fallacy here is equivocation, and it is all yours. You can't disprove that two groups of "Muslims" come to different conclusions on fundamental issues (e.g. Salafi anthropomorphism vs. the actual teaching of the Salaf and Khalaf) by pointing out that they formally agree on another point of doctrine (i.e. "God is not like anything else").

Yahya:Semper, as you have involved yourself in the discussion erhaps [sic] you could pick up tha [sic] batton at the point where your colleague, Wood, dropped it; namely the point where I asked Wood to answer the difficult questions concerning Christian fundamentals.

After looking over your posts, I did find some questions that you asked, but I couldn't find the difficult ones you are talking about. Perhaps you are thinking of another post of yours on another thread??? If so, point it out to me and I will be happy to answer them.

Here are my answers to the questions I could find:

Yahya: How in the world can somebody [i.e. David] with a supposed god inside him make such a mistake that borders on deception in misrepresenting Abdallah???

This is a loaded question; it assumes that David made a mistake, which I don't grant.

It also assumes that if God dwells in a person, then that person has the attributes of God, in this case infallibility. I don't grant this either.

Yahya: Whilst you are in the business of answering questions perhaps you could explain how killing an innocent man is deemed as justice in your eyes

You are right, it was a supreme injustice. Those who killed the Lord Jesus were wicked for what they did. But what they meant for evil, God meant for good, in order to save many lives.

Yahya: Another couple for the road: Does the Trinity make sense and is it a biblical teaching?

Yes, and yes. (Ask a simple question...get a simple answer.)

Having answered your questions, here are some questions I have for you.

1. Do you believe that Allah is one in every way?

2. Do you believe that Allah has a face, a hand, a shin, etc?

3. Do you believe that the Qur'an (and ahadith) supports your answers to the above two questions?

I eagerly await your answers (Especially since a colleague of yours - i.e. Educating_Christians - dropped that batton when I tossed it to him a few weeks ago).

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

Fatman read the link entirely. Same with Nakdimon and David Wood (if by any chance they are read this comment) This link:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/ezra.html

proves that there were some (Arab or Bedouin) Jews in Yemen (south of Arabia) who used to believe that Ezra is the son of God. So my guess is that the Quran was only speaking about them.

Feels good to be back. Maybe now I won't say stupid stuff.

Ehteshaam Gulam
http://www.answering-christian-claims.com

Semper Paratus said...

Correction: that should read "baton" above; I was copying Yahya.

minoria said...

It is good Ehteshaam is back.And I believe the rest of the year will be better.But turning to another idea:

WHAT IF?

I was discussing Islam with someone,a non-Muslim, and the person said that on one point the Muslims were right.Why is it against the law to say the Holocaust never happened and yet it should be ok to make fun of Mohammed?Double standards.

I said Mohammed was dead and a historical figure and the Holocaust was a historical fact.Then he said that in Europe it is even against the law to SUGGEST the Holocaust didn't happen.It was even worse.

MINIMALIST APPROACH

So instead of arguing about it I said:"Ok,suppose they pass a law that says it is OK to DENY the Holocaust,freedom of speech.

That STILL would not prevent some Muslims from VIOLENT action against NON-MUSLIMS due to caricatures of Mohammed.It is INDEPENDENT."

minoria said...

WHAT IF?

Then we got to Israel.He said it would be better if Israel ceased to exist,that the Jews should go to the US.That would solve the problem.

Again I used the minimalist approach:"Ok,let us say it happens.Israel disappears.That STILL would not prevent people being killed by some Muslims due to Mohammed caricatures.It is INDEPENDENT."

PROTEST AND PROTEST

Where human rights rules the way to protest against an IDEA(like negative ideas about Islam)is not by asking for the punishment and silencing of those who express such ideas,but by writing books and holding lectures expressing counter-arguments.But the Muslim organizations are always trying to punish those of the other side.

Fernando said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fernando said...

Ok... I read Ehteshaam Gulam "article"... now... can you just presente ONE evidence thate:

1) jews in Yemen used to believe that Ezra is the son of God in the same way jews saide Jesus claimed He was the Son of God?

2) can you prove thate the qur'an were speaking aboutt those possible existing jews?

ounce again: JUST ONE EVIDENCE, JUST ONE... your lack of hability to dialogue is very sad... you refuse any attempt of serious dialogue: you just say: read this, read that, read it again... no intelectual interaction at all...

Royal Son said...

Ehteshaam Gulam said "sno, Read the whole Islamic-awareness.org article-- It says SOME Jews believed that Ezra was the son of God in Yemen. The Quran was talking about them not all Jews."

Ehteshaam, sorry but your interpretation is incorrect because Sahih Bukhari does not localize Ezra worship to a limited group. Check Vol 9 Book 93 Number 532s. In that hadith it says that the reason Christians go to hell is because they worship the Messiah as the Son of God, in like manner the Jews come before Allah and they are asked what they used to worship, and they respond Ezra. It makes no attempt to localize the Jews to a particular subset, just as it does not attempt to focus on a subset of Christians who worship Jesus as the Messiah.

Allow me to quote the hadith to you, and PLEASE be honest as to how it ought to be interpreted. I place in bold the portion that is most relevant:

Bukhari Volume 9, Book 93, Number 532s

......Then Hell will be presented to them as if it were a mirage. Then it will be said to THE JEWS, "What did you use to worship?' They will reply, 'We used to worship Ezra, the son of Allah.' It will be said to them, 'You are liars, for Allah has neither a wife nor a son. What do you want (now)?' They will reply, 'We want You to provide us with water.' Then it will be said to them 'Drink,' and they will fall down in Hell (instead). Then it will be said to THE CHRISTIANS, 'What did you use to worship?'

They will reply, 'We used to worship Messiah, the son of Allah.' It will be said, 'You are liars, for Allah has neither a wife nor a son.


Once you are done with that, could you I'd also be interested to know if you believe that Allah will literally appear on the day of resurrection and if so, in what form? (go to the beginning section of this hadith online to see what I'm talking about)

Finally, I'm not sure if you noticed my previous posts to you requesting that you recant your accusations about Mary and Joseph, since the Catholic Encyclopedia clearly exposes the fact that such claims were based upon myth, not reality.

Sorry to throw that all at you at once, it's just that you have missed posts of mine in the past.

Thank you in advance for your response.

Bartimaeus said...

Hey Guys

Long timeno see. Have had a buys summer. But just wanted to say I am happy that Osama is on the Muslim side and now ours. Every time he opens his mouth or writes he makes Islam more and more rediculous. Osama keep up the good work ;-)

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Ethesham dear bro,

The articles of islamic-awareness is merely a reitaration of answering-christianity or vice versa, merely utilizing the exactly same sources.

If you read this thread carefully and the thread preceding it, you will see that we effectively dealt with Osama's sources and therefore equally with the sources of islamic-awareness.

The only credible point that has been raised and which may support the muslim view is the point raised by Osama that the Psalms refer to humans as the sons of the Almighty.

Now that is a good pointer, but it hardly recognises the fact that this overal use of the term is not connected with the use of the term in specific cases such as Solomon, or Israel as a nation or Jesus Christ.

The reference in the Psalms describes mankind as sons of God since we rule the world, whereas Solomon, Israel and Jesus were termed with such terms due to more their individual relationships with the divine.

Hence it still remains an issue for the muslim here to prove that Ezra belonged to his category according to the view of the Jewish community.

Dk said...

Nice work Royalson, I was about to do the same.

Osama said:

"As to accepting the deity of my Lord and Prophet, Jesus Christ, as a Muslim, of course I do. I accept his true deity and not the false one that your faith invented on him, which ironically, the Bible even doesn't claim it."

Did no one catch this?

Osama refers to Jesus as "True Deity, Lord" ? hah??

Fernando said...

Dear brothers Royal Son and Hogan Elijah Hagbard... I tried to interact with Ethesham by the softer side: asking him questions... I do think your pointes, well made, are to delicate to his capacities... butt let's waite and see...

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

Royal Son,

Good to hear from you. As for the source of this very young age of the Virgin Mary you can read this link by Bassam Zawdai:

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/why_did_prophet_muhammed_marry_aisha_at_a_young_age__is_that_morally_right__what_about_paedophilia___by_dan_1988

But I don't want to get into it. I want to try to calm down about this subject. I just read that info on Bassam's site, thought it was very interesting and passed it around. You can shoot him an email at the end of the article. But I am going to try very hard to be more respectful and not get into these misguided conversations (this is why I don't want to do anything with David Wood).

I want to discuss religion in a very civilized manner with scholarly people such as you, Hogan Elijah Hagbard, Mary Jo Sharp, Nabeel (but he has some growing up to do, him making fun of Sami Zaatari's accent was just wrong), etc.

So let's drop it. I'll let other Muslims like Bassam deal with those issues.

ANYWAYS
As for the hadith, it doesn't say ALL Jews worshiped Ezra as the son of God. Rather it could be referring to SOME Jews of Arabia. So that's my guess of what the Quran is talking about:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/ezra.html

Islam awareness is one of the best websites on Islamic information. Did you read the link?

And Hogan Elijah Hagbard-- yes, the term "son of God" means many different things-- so the information found in the Islamic-awareness.org link could be referring to those specific Jews in Yemen. Not the entire Jewish People. The hadith which Royal Son quoted doesn't say ALL Jews used to worship Ezra as the son of God. That's my guess. And Allah knows best.

Thanks,
Ehteshaam Gulam
http://www.answering-christian-claims.com

IF You want to see Nabeel making fun of Sami Zaatari's accent you can view this debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLbAi1Chkso&feature=related

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

Royal Son,

Forgot to say, I remember that you wrote me an email a while ago. Sorry I didn't respond, I think I deleted it, could you write another email? You can get my email from here and learn more about me:

http://answering-christian-claims.com/about.html

Thanks
Ehteshaam Gulam
http://www.answering-christian-claims.com

Royal Son said...

Ehteshaam Gulam: Regarding Mary and Joseph, you said that you got the info from Bassam Zawadi's website and so you passed it on. So you didn't even bother to check the sources yourself? Please, I urge you, go and check out the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, and read what it says about the subject, you'll find that this stories are based on myth and have no factual basis whatsoever.

I am rather surprised that you wouldn't actually bother to go to the sources. You want to be recognised as a serious muslim apologist do you not?

Regarding the Ezra passage in Bukhari, read it again, it does not localise the Jews to any subset, nor the Christians, it groups them all together.

"The Christians" , it doesn't say SOME Christians, but THE Christians. It doesn't say SOME Jews but THE Jews.

Finally, do you believe that Allah will come in a form on the day of resurrection? If so, what form will it be that you will recognise Him? If Allah is capable of coming in a form on the day of resurrection, does that not entirely validate the theology of Christianity regarding God coming in the form of a man?

Dk said...

"As for the hadith, it doesn't say ALL Jews worshiped Ezra as the son of God. Rather it could be referring to SOME Jews of Arabia."

Did you even read the Hadith given to you by royalson?

It refers to the day of JUDGEMENT. At the day of judgement ALL Christians and Jews are judged by God, not "some Jews of Arabia". You are eisegeting here.

Further more the hadith shows you these are point blank statements, it shows you it is all christians and jews period by the use of the definite article for both "THE CHRISTIANS" and "THE JEWS". These entire groups of people will be saying the exact words Muhammad quoted them as saying.

I really have to wonder what you are doing as a so called "apologist".

Fernando said...

Dear Ehteshaam Gulam: ounce again ignoring the points I made... and redirecting people to other people texts only exptesses two things:

1) you do not habe a personal identity convictions and arguments;

2) you do not eben understand whate is right and wrong on those texts (unless you're incapable, or unwilling, or forbiden, of/to critiicize them)...

I have to agree, in this point, with Muslim Photon: you, as a apologist/debater, are sub-zero...

attacking cowardldy Doctor Nabeel is another example off whate you are...

as the same to try to defend your GUESS to defend wahte is indefensable about the hadith and the ignorance of muhammad and allah... never the jews called Ezra the Son off God in the proper sense off the term as the muslim's texts imply... thate expresses how untrusty are muslim sorces...

Ehteshaam Gulam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ehteshaam Gulam said...

never mind Hogan, I'll just email you.

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

Never mind, Hogan, If your too busy, don't write the email. I don't want to waste your time.

I'll just come to your blog.

Thanks,
Ehteshaam Gulam
http://www.answering-christian-claims.com

Royal Son said...

Ehteshaam Gulam said: "But I don't want to get into it. I want to try to calm down about this subject."

Sorry sir, but it's not that easy. If you make statements about Mary and Joseph, you have to be prepared to back them up. Now, allow me to quote what the Catholic Encyclopedia says about the matter IN TOTAL:

"It will not be without interest to recall here, unreliable though they are, the lengthy stories concerning St. Joseph's marriage contained in the apocryphal writings. When forty years of age, Joseph married a woman called Melcha or Escha by some, Salome by others; they lived forty-nine years together and had six children, two daughters and four sons, the youngest of whom was James (the Less, "the Lord's brother"). A year after his wife's death, as the priests announced through Judea that they wished to find in the tribe of Juda a respectable man to espouse Mary, then twelve to fourteen years of age. Joseph, who was at the time ninety years old, went up to Jerusalem among the candidates; a miracle manifested the choice God had made of Joseph, and two years later the Annunciation took place. These dreams, as St. Jerome styles them, from which many a Christian artist has drawn his inspiration (see, for instance, Raphael's "Espousals of the Virgin"), are void of authority; they nevertheless acquired in the course of ages some popularity; in them some ecclesiastical writers sought the answer to the well-known difficulty arising from the mention in the Gospel of "the Lord's brothers"; from them also popular credulity has, contrary to all probability, as well as to the tradition witnessed by old works of art, retained the belief that St. Joseph was an old man at the time of marriage with the Mother of God.

Now will you finally recant?

Out of interest, if we were to entertain the myth about Joseph being 90 and Mary being 12 - 14 years of age, would you consider that to be abnormal and disgusting?

And do you think there is anything disturbing about a 54 year old man with a 9 year old girl?

I am interested in your response.

Thank you.

Royal Son said...

And I would like to apologize for dragging this issue into the thread, but I wanted Ehteshaam to address it somewhere.

Royal Son said...

"As to accepting the deity of my Lord and Prophet, Jesus Christ, as a Muslim, of course I do. I accept his true deity and not the false one that your faith invented on him, which ironically, the Bible even doesn't claim it."

Does Osama realise what he just said?

Wow.

That's all I have to say.

Fernando said...

Royal Son... Osama knows whate he wants to mean since he's using material from the JW's texts...

Royal Son said...

If he's using the JW interpretation then he would have to believe that Jesus is a lesser god who was the junior partner in the creation of all things. Despite being horribly heretical, it would nevertheless be a HUGE step for a muslim to take.

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

Royal Son, I am going to go to Christian sources about the age of Mary. If your sources say she is 12 or 14, I believe it. Plus there is nothing in the New Testament that say otherwise and all Biblical scholars say Mary was around 12 or 14 when found preganant with Jesus and married to Joesph the Capenter.

Moreover if you dismiss these sources because you don't like it, why not dismiss the entire New Testament, as myths and legends. Many scholars agree that the Gospels are not biographies, rather they are propaganda. Inconsistency, my man.

I think your too ashamed of what God the Father did. I agree with you, its a very disturbing thing God the Father did. It is so disturbing that even Atheists agree to it. I remember one Atheist calling God a "pedophile" for doing what he did. Now I wouldn't say that- but you get the point.

The more Christians deny this fact, they more inconsistent and silly they look.

Anyways I off to Hogan Elijah Hagbard's blog to dialouge with him. It was a pleasure meeting some of you, debating with some of you, etc.

Osama I advice you do the same, leave this blog and work on your site.

Thanks
Ehteshaam Gulam
http://www.answering-christian-claims.com

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

Also to add injury to insult, let me provide more evidence for the very young age of Mary:

One of the Newest writers of my site is my friend and former professor, Robert Holkerboer-- A PhD in English and scholar of the Bible. He says in a new article I am about to write for my site:

"There is no evidence in the OT for marriageable age, though it was probably very young (the principal reason that marriages were arranged by parents). Much later, rabbis fixed the minimum marriageable age for women at 12, for men at 13. "

So the rabbi's are the one's who took care of Mary, right? Therefore they gave her to Joesph when she was around 12. It wasn't uncommon for a Jewish Girl to be married at such a young age.

Also Sally Cunneen in her book, In Search for Mary, says on page 32, that Mary was only 12 or 13 when preganant with Jesus.

So how could you ignore all of this, and claim something else? Are you following history or myth?

Thanks
Ehteshaam Gulam
http://www.answering-christian-claims.com

Royal Son said...

Ehteshaam Gulam: "Royal Son, I am going to go to Christian sources about the age of Mary. If your sources say she is 12 or 14, I believe it. Plus there is nothing in the New Testament that say otherwise and all Biblical scholars say Mary was around 12 or 14 when found preganant with Jesus and married to Joesph the Capenter."

Sir, with all due respect, you have not been reading what I have said. I said that the source where the quote comes from actually discredits the notion of a 12-14 year old Mary with a 90 year old Joseph as myth, dreams, contrary to all probability, void of authority. Do you understand now? So the very sources that Bassam quotes from actually refute what he is trying to say, he just didn't happen to quote the full context of the source.

Seriously Ehteshaam, I am beginning to wonder if you are actually interested in seriously paying attention to what people say or not.

Again, even if we were to go along with the myth, would you have a problem with a 90 year old Joseph and 12-14 year old Mary? And on the same note would you have a problem with a 54 year old Mohammad and a 9 year old Aisha?

Thank you in advance for your response.

Fernando said...

Ehteshaam Gulam... aboutte your claims aboute Rabbis and those schoolars, just read this book, the AUTHORITATIVE one on thate aspect:

Michael L. Satlow - Jewish marriage in antiquity...

you'll bee surprised aboutt the EVIDENCES, nott supositions, about the NORMAL age of marriage for women... late teens and young twenties...

about the NT not saying whate age Mary was I suppose:

1) you habe to follow thate previous book since its the best one and so mary woulde be in her late teens or young twenties...

2) understand the Bible text about the annunciation in Lc. and Mt.... in these texts there are NO mention to the parents of Mary when reffering her engagement and futur marriage with Joseph... so it was CLEAR as water to it's readears thate they were not envolved in the action off choosing Joseph as fianvé and husband... and at WHAT AGE of a girl/women COULD THATE HAPPEN? 16!!!

so Ehteshaam Gulam... take care...

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

The problem is Gulam,

There are no primary sources that verify that Mary was only twelve when she was married.

You have an encyclopedia and some opinions from modern scholars, but no primary sources to support the claim.

That Jews married the girls of when they were 12-13 was however a common practice but just because it was common does not mean it was practiced in every case, far from it.

Furthermore, while Jews did marry their daughers of in young age, the Talmud nevertheless describes it as disgraceful to marry of a girl to an older man.

I am fully aware that such has been practiced in every culture, but in every culture such practice is shameful; whereas marrying a 12 year old girld to a 18 year old boy is slight a different matter.

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

Hogan Elijah and Royal Son:

For the last time, I am going to go to Christian sources (REGARDLESS whether its "Catholic" or not) to find out the age of Mary. If those sources say she was 12 or 14 when married and preganant-- then I believe them. You can't just pick and choose what you want to believe and throw out.

Again as Robert Holkerboer PhD (the newest writer of my site) said, Jewish girls got married at 12-- It was not uncommon for them to do so. He even said that Mary was 12 years old. And this guy is one of the smartest Christians I know. So there is no way around it.

Just like you'll go to Muslim Sources to find out what we believe, I am going to go to Christian sources to find out and investigate what you believe. There is nothing in the New Testament that contradicts what Biblical Scholars say about her age... All Biblical Scholars say Maary was around 12 or 14. So your going to go against them?

Like I said before:

Sally Cunneen in her book, In Search for Mary, says on page 32, that Mary was only 12 or 13 when preganant with Jesus. Plus she's a scholar on this stuff. Are you also going to contradict her?

Are you two too embarrassed by the fact that God the Father impregananted her at 12 years old?
Is it too disturbing for you? I went to an atheist website and that site was saying God is a "pedophile" and other stuff-- again that's not what I am saying--- I am just saying your sources give us the age of Mary-- and we should accept it.

Christians accuse Muslims of their inconsistency but just look at their own inconsistency.

They want to throw everything against Muslims-- yet Christian apologists don't want to deal with their own problems.

This is not to mock or make fun of you Hogan or Royal Son, I like you guys, nor is it to say your God the Father did satutory rape to Mary-- it's just don't throw out Christian info just because you don't like it.

off to Hogan's blog now.

Forever yours In Islam
Ehteshaam Gulam
http://www.answering-christian-claims.com

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

One more thing, since we are on the issues of Christian apologists.

I also remember another inconsistency from Christian apologists.

I was there for Osama Abdallah's debate with David Wood on Science in the Quran. And Osama said something very interesting.

He said that the Christian Apologists (I assume David and Nabeel-- but he could be referring to others) refuse to debate Science in the Bible. And I believe him-- I have never seen Christians (except William Cambell and Zakir Naik) debate this topic.

Moreover during the debate, William Cambpell started talking about alleged prophecies in the Bible during the debate-- refusing to adresses science in the Bible! The Topic was Science in the Bible and the Quran-- not Prophecies in both books. After Zakir Naik won the debate, Answering-Islam.org refused to put this debate on their website, interestingly.

however the debate can be seen here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcKZnmBnQVE&feature=player_embedded

Now are are two reasons why Answering-Islam refuses to put this debate up:

1) They saw William Cambpell get destroyed, aren't man enough to admit it and are too ashamed of it

2) They just don't have the time or badwidth-- video hosting is too big for their website.

I honestly don't know. But I think it's #1-- since they can easily link it to youtube.

But you can see the bad behavior and the arrogance of Christian apologists--- whoever wins againist them during a debate--they won't admit it. Me on the other hand will be honest and say, yes I didn't win my debates-- I lost both of them. David Wood an MJ Sharp clearly beat me.

But AT LEAST I am man enough and humble enough to admit it, too bad other Christian Apologists aren't.

Even William Lane Craig has a bad attitude when he lost a debate with Richard Carrier:

http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/search/label/W.L.%20Craig

(for example David Wood won't admit he was beaten by Nadir back in 2006 and Nabeel won't admit he was destroyed by Bassam Zawadi on the preservation of the Quran. Moreover Nabeel behaved very badly during his debate with Sami Zaatari on Who Was Jesus-- mocking an Arab accent. I was very angry at him for doing so, I have many Arab friends-- that just made me mad).

Unless they humble themselves and admit these facts-- my accusation stands against many Christian apologists.

The Only Christian apologists I have the highest respect for are Hogan Elijah Hagbard and Mary Jo Sharp. At least MJ was kind enough to post my website on her site and my debate review on her site. My site was never posted here (it was but only for a little bit. Then it was left out of the Muslim site section of this blog). Neither was Nadir's site or Osama's for some reason. I on the other hand have posted this blog site and MJ's site many times on my site before.

And I honestly believe it's because Nabeel and David no longer like me (even though I apologized to them many times), and both of them hate Osama Abdallah and Nadir Ahmed.

But My point is not to make fun of anyone, since I no longer do this-- but to tell others to look at the Christians inconsistency and attitude.

Look at Christian apologists bad attitude and behavior. While I'll never behave this, unless someone insults me or Prophet Muhammad first, you can see that I am sad at how Christians behave sometimes. Whatever happened to being humble, kind and loving?

They want to throw everything against Islam and not deal with their own problems. Then they behave badly when they are losing or cornered. I am sorry it doesn't work that way.

Thanks
Ehteshaam Gulam
http://www.answering-christian-claims.com

Royal Son said...

Ehteshaam Gulam said "For the last time, I am going to go to Christian sources (REGARDLESS whether its "Catholic" or not) to find out the age of Mary. If those sources say she was 12 or 14 when married and preganant-- then I believe them. You can't just pick and choose what you want to believe and throw out."

No, not for the last time. Ehteshaam,you are missing the point completely. I am not making a big deal about the source being Catholic. What I've been saying all along is that you are WRONG with your interpretation of the quote, absolutely WRONG. Read it again, I have quoted the entire entry for you so that you get the context. You say that if the sources say that Mary was 12 to 14 ------ STOP! HALT! WHOA NELLY! The source is NOT saying that Mary was 12 to 14, it is saying that the DREAMS, STORIES that spoke of Joseph being 90 and Mary being 12 to 14, are CONTRARY to all probability, and VOID of any authority. In other words the catholic encyclopedia totally refutes your position.

And you **still** haven't answered my question - IF we were to grant the false accusation about a 90 year old Jospeh and a 12 - 14 year old Mary, would it disturb you? And how about a 54 year old Mohammad and a 9 year old Aisha?

Take note folks, Ehteshaam says he doesn't care whatever the source, he will believe what it says, even though the source he's quoting from refutes his position.

I guess keeping all things consistent Ehteshaam, you believe any source that says anything about Mohammad right? You believe that Mohammad fabricated things against God and imputed words to Him that He hadn't spoken according to Al Tabari 6:111, right?

Fernando said...

Dear Ehteshaam Gulam... no: the Catholic Encyclopedia is not saying mary was 12 and Joseph was 91... it is saying thate non-Christian sources say so... how difficult is this to you to understand?

Fernando said...

Dear Ehteshaam Gulam... yoi saide tahte ALL Scholars say Maary was around 12 or 14 really? do you the names of:

Joseph Fitzmayer; Raymond E. Brown; Jean Aletti; Carlo Maria Martini; Joachim Jeremias...? I guess not...

Fernando said...

Dear Ehteshaam Gulam... you saide thate Sally Cunneen was is a scholar on this stuff... I guess thate by "this stuff" you mean biblical and historical matters... as a matter off fact she's not: she's a professor emeritus of English literature at Rockland Community College in the State University of New York... the fact thate she, as a feminist, wrote a book calles "In Search of Mary" does not make her a scholar in anything...

Fernando said...

Dear Ehteshaam Gulam... nust read L. Satlow - Jewish marriage in antiquity... it's the top bokk on this subject... he clearly states that, according TO historical evidences THATE HE PRESENTS, and not wild guesses, thate:

1) the fact rabbis established the age of possible marriage in 12/13 years (and after the first menstruation) does NOT MAKE thate the normal proceador... one law can say thate I can drink alcohol after 16 years butt I just want to do so after 18 years...

2) he proves thate 90% of jewish marriages were women thate were in theirs late teens early twenties...

so...

Fernando said...

Dear Ehteshaam Gulam... who's Robert Holkerboer? no scholar at all.. you eben can quote your next door PhD and thate does not make him a scholarly specialist in anything...

Fernando said...

Dear Ehteshaam Gulam... you saide There is nothing in the New Testament that contradicts what Biblical Scholars say about her age... really? all those I presented before agree on whate I sated before:

to those who understand the Bible text about the annunciation in Lc. and Mt.... in these texts there are NO mention to the parents of Mary when reffering her engagement and futur marriage with Joseph... so it was CLEAR as water to it's readears thate they were not envolved in the action off choosing Joseph as fianvé and husband... and at WHAT AGE of a girl/women COULD THATE HAPPEN? 16!!!...

Fernando said...

Dear Ehteshaam Gulam... I'm nor embaresed with whate God did to Mary...

1) God did not had sexual intercourse withe Mary;

2) Mary was, at least 16 years off age;

it's teh qur'an thate states thate allah, thate moon god off yours, blew into Mary's vagina... obviously a "lapsus linguae" of muhammad who loved to do such things specialy when his many wifes were with their period...

Fernando said...

Dear Ehteshaam Gulam... it was muhammad thate had a paedophilicus action withe poor baby Aisha... sorry with thate... I huess thate you, not thate you have left that pagan practice of the ramada, have enough intelectual energy to understand this fact...

Royal Son said...

Fernando - I don't think our friend is going to return to this thread somehow.

Fernando said...

Brother Royal Son said: «Fernando - I don't think our friend is going to return to this thread somehow»... well I think he's just boicotting myself... he's being done so for many months... perhaps it'a just my fault... I shoulde habe keep quiete and allow you to interactte withe him... Im sorry, butt sometimes it's just to hard to see muslims schoolras (cof. cof. cof.) just saying bestialities... or maybe it's just the impact on his self-estime of whate thate ex-fellow student of him (Coleen... O guess this is a female name...) sainde aboutte him... other possibility: the Muslim Photon saide thate E.G. was not doing a good job... perhaps he has meet with EG and told him that personaly... I hoppe no violence was involved, butt the truh is thate EG told thate many muslims are simply boicoitting this blogg and theatening others who do not so...

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

Royal Son: The Virgin Mary WAS 12 YEARS OLD when God the father went into her. GET OVER IT! I am appealing to Christian sources here.

Yes, its very disturbing and gross-- but the Biblical God always did have a "thing" for young girls (see Numbers 31:1-54).

Can you see why I am highly disturbed by Christianity?

Forever yours in Islam
Ehteshaam Gulam
http://www.answering-christian-claims.com

Royal Son said...

Ehteshaam Gulam - No Christian sources say that it happened, they say the contrary, that the "stories" are "dreams", "void of authority" and "contrary to all probability"

Amazing how easily you will discredit Isa's mother and legal father.

Take a read of surah 33:57 my friend.

God bless.

Fernando said...

EG saide: «The Virgin Mary WAS 12 YEARS OLD when God the father went into her. GET OVER IT! I am appealing to Christian sources here»... no you are not...

Fernando said...

EG... about your sorrow claimes about Numbers 31 here you habe some threads in this blogg thate totally denis your suposed inferations:

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/03/responding-to-sami-zaatari-case-study.html

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/06/great-debate-series-london-help-needed.html

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/09/abu-mansour-al-amriki-formerly-omar.html

when are muslims apologist EVER be serious? no wonder the Muslim Photon is saying thate Eg is doing a bad job...

I'm praying thate you EG, and your family, are in good health and may the true God, the Holy Trinity, bless you in Christ our muttual God

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Hey EG,

I hope you are well

you said:

Yes, its very disturbing and gross-- but the Biblical God always did have a "thing" for young girls (see Numbers 31:1-54).

Can you see why I am highly disturbed by Christianity?

I say:

Ok let see If I’ve got this strait:

Leaving aside the fact that I find your conclusions about Yahweh to be just silly and juvenile I think you might have given us what could be an important incite into your ethical system.

……..For some reason you find it “disturbing” that in your opinion Yahweh “has a thing for young girls”……. And this has caused you to also find christanity disturbing.

If such a thing were true I would also be disturbed because I believe it is not possible for God to sin. Is that your view or do you believe that there is no moral standard that God himself must ascribe to?

This line of thought again brings up a few questions

1)Does “having a thing for young girls” render a person morally unacceptable even if said person claims to be God (or his final prophet)?

2) What basis do you use to determine that this particular practice or inclination is morally unacceptable?

3) If it was determined that Yahweh (or Mohamed) sined would this disqualify them from being a moral example in your opinion?



Thanks in advance

PS I’ve repeatedly emailed you and still no response, perhaps there is a problem with your mailbox

peace

Royal Son said...

Ehteshaam Gulam, would 9 years old count as young in your opinion?

Fernando said...

Brother Royal Son asked: «Ehteshaam Gulam, would 9 years old count as young in your opinion?»... oh, masn... now you are cratting EG an enourmous dilema thate he'll escape by not even trying to gibe an answer... typical muslim tactic: putt there head in the sand...

Royal Son said...

Fernando - it would seem only logical that he'd have to say yes, because he said that Yahweh seems to have a thing for young girls - not only do the sources (which are unreliable) state that Mary would be 12 - 14 which amounts to 3 YEARS OLDER than Aisha would have been, but his own Qur'an state that Allah breathed into Mary's womb.

So let's see Ehteshaam - Was Aisha young in your opinion ? And Does you think Allah seemed to have a thing for young girls when he breathed into Mary's womb ?