Monday, August 9, 2010

Sam Shamoun vs. Shabir Ally: The Bible or the Qur'an?

Thanks to Nazam for forwarding the link.

201 comments:

1 – 200 of 201   Newer›   Newest»
kate said...

Shamoun, U did awesome! U whipped Shabir Alley's bootie!!!! WOOT WOOT!!!
I found it hilarious when Shabir asked the Christians if they have the Bible in Greek (not realizing that the entire Bible wasn't written in Greek, rather Hebrew & Greek w/ Aramaic here here & ther).
And then he has the nerve to ask the muslims if they have the quran in Arabic, R U Serious! The reason why the muslims have the quran in Arabic is b/c allah is an idol they worship and thus can't speak all the languages on earth.
But Jesus created all the languages on earth (The tower of Babel) thus He is able to have His word transilated into all the languages on earth.
Besides it's funny how so many ppl who become musilms have no idea what they are reciting from the quran! How pathtic is that. That's like an English speaking person reading a novel in my native language (Amharic).
I was talking to a muslim last week who became born again and she admitted to me that she had no clue what the quran was saying when she was reading it as a muslim!
And that is true for the rest of the muslim population. Pathetic! What kind of god creates everything but can't speak the languages he created? that would be allah. All the more proof that Jesus is the true God!
Good job Sam Shamoun, U can never lose a debate cuz Jesus the true God can never be defeated both by Satan and all his children! WOOT WOOT!!!!

dasize said...

I definitely want to see more debates with Sam. IMO Sam is one of the best debaters out there. He does an excellent job at rebutting his opponent and addressing each point. He also answers the questions very well. I wish there were more debates out there with Sam.

I wish i had the knowledge and memory Sam has.

Sam said...

Kate, don't forget that this was my FIRST PUBLIC DEBATE and I still whiped the floor with Shabir. However, there were three places where I would have responded differently, namely Allah being a deceiver and God's existence and one other point which slips my mind. However, seeing that this was my first debate I don't think that these mistakes on my point detract from the fact that this was the debate that made Shabir never want to face me again. Imagine how badly I would humiliate him now by God's grace? Maybe his fanboy Nazam can get that debate set up.

Matt Teneight said...

David,
Did I miss the video of you and Nabeel encountering the Impact International volunteer at the Arab fest.? If not, when will you show that one?

Can you tell me this blog has a place for unrelated comments,like this? Thanks.

Bartimaeus said...

Man I didnt know that sam ever had hair. Anyway I can see why Shabir doesn't really want to debate our brother Sam. Shabir god smoked

Nazam said...

Sam,
Maybe your new fangirl Kate can instead.

Odo said...

Wow Sam is wearing a suit and has hair!

The Fat Man said...

Wow whats that on Sam's head? When did this debate happen?

Tom said...

Ahh, Sam! Please just let me add my thanks for your willingness to use - for the Kingdom of Heaven - the Gifts that our Precious Lord has shared with you. I realize that you must be tired of flattery but, as the young people used to say: "YOU ROCK!" and your video is worth HOURS of study for those of us who want to know better how to rebuke the unclean spirit of Islam - in Jesus Gracious Name!

KAFFIR AND PROUD and LAUGHING OUT LOUD! MAY JESUS CHRIST BE PRAISED!

Will said...

In this debate Sam did an excellent job! Sam you are definitely one of the best debaters out there! Shabir was grossly quoting the Bible out of context and you kept correcting him every time. Shabir's reasoning to do so was very weak.

Also, Shabir did not answer many points you made, instead he always went on the attack and forgetting what points you've made.

Thanks for posting this!

serrevin said...

sam i'm concerned with this "wiped the floor with shabir" verbiage. you did well. but to brag and add "by god's grace" doesn't do much to veil pride. please weigh what I have to say and consider it thoughtfully. was it necessary to come on here and crow that you wiped the floor with him and that he's now scared to face you. even if it is true, please review paul's attitude toward the corinthians. he was hesistant to boast about his visions and dreams, much less a debate he won in a synagogue. can you imagine dr white saying "I just wiped the floor with tim staples...!!"

as I said, you may want to defend yourself here, (I am not out to attack you, believe me i'm a fan and i've referred you as a must-see for believers studying islam) but I am concerned for you as a brother.

Sam said...

Nazam, instead of picking on women like your prophet did you need to be be a good little fanboy and run to your hero and tell him to accept my challenge so I can expose Muhammad for all to see. BTW, we are still waiting for you to condemn Muhammad for cursing his followers and for being a false prophet who thought Jesus was going to descend during the lifetime of his companions which never happened.

Sam said...

Guys, let me know if you want me to repost Muhammad's false prophecy concerning Jesus descending during the lifetime of Muhammad's companions which never happened and Muhammad cursing and swearing at his followers.

The Fat Man said...

Sam said...
Guys, let me know if you want me to repost Muhammad's false prophecy concerning Jesus descending during the lifetime of Muhammad's companions which never happened and Muhammad cursing and swearing at his followers.
YES REPOST

kate said...

Nazim......
I would love to address Sam's points that he wasn't able to state in his debate. Would u like to volunteer? I need an audience to address it to. LOL!
How do u think Sam did Nazim? Or am i not supposed to ask that question.............................................................................................................................Sorry!!!

mkvine said...

Sam did an excellent job. Most, if not all, of Sam's opening statement went unchallenged and unanswered by Shabir. Instead of dealing with all the texts of the Quran brought forth, Shabir merely rubbed them off by saying that sometimes the Quran speaks favorably of the Bible. Then he went off into a lot of red herrings like quoting all the stories of the bible that he didn't like. I didn't know that personal satisfaction with the stories was a criterion for authenticity. All Shabir did was use his same old arguments of redactional criticism. But that same argument can be used to against the Quran if we quote Oriental scholars. So once again Shabir is being inconsistent. Anyways, I think Sam did an excellent job presenting his case and answering Shabir's points (even though Shabir quoted a lot of things out of context.

P.S.
David do you know of any good books on Redactional Criticism of the Quran? I would prefer it if you gave me the most liberal oriental scholar :)

Pat said...

Hey Sam,

I'm going to be writing a report on the perservation of the Qur'an and related issues this upcoming semester. Can you either post some good resources to use, or send me an email. I'll need at least 15 total, but at least pointing me in the right direction to start would be a huge help!

Thanks

getrealman said...

Sam,

You're a knowledgeable man. It appears your knowledge is something that is puffing you up. I love Jesus with all my heart, but I cannot help but be grieved by your boasting. Where is the humility that bespeaks a heart that is broken before God and only wanting His glory? You have given yourself quite a bit of glory here, but I don't think that's what the Lord intended you to do with his gifts. If you could only see and hear the way you sound to others both inside and outside the kingdom you would realize how incredibly wrong all of this self exaltation is and what damage it is doing. I'm embarrassed for you and I'm also quite ashamed that this is the best we have to offer a dying world, lost and blind Muslims, and a thrice holy God. Up until now I could not see what others see regarding this and have noted. Unfortunately, now it's the only thing I can see. Quit your boasting, my brother. It is wrong and not edifying anyone, but simply proud flesh on display. May we all repent of this as we find it so easily in our own hearts.

GRM

characterbuilder said...

Sam,

Your comments about your debate with Shabir sound very arrogant. Take some cues from James White he never boasts about "wiping the floor" with his opponents...he leaves it up the audience to determine which debater made their case.

More importantly the Scripture exhorts you in...

Proverbs 27:2 (NASB77)
2 Let another praise you, and not your own mouth; A stranger, and not your own lips.

Sam is it really your goal to humiliate your opponent or to be a humble messenger of the truth?

In the past I have supported your ministry but I am finding it harder to do when you demonstrate an arrogant attitude as you have in your post.

Please apologize to Shabir for your insulting comments.

Doug Myers

Modesto CA

Sam said...

Serrevin, I don't think you really want me to review Paul's attitude, or Jesus', or Elijah's for that matter. Nor do I think you want me to post all the verses that indicate that there is a time to treat people like Nazam and Shabir the way they deserve to be treated. If you want to get an idea of what I am talking about please go here:

http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_puberty3.htm

But thank you for your opinion. I appreciate it.

Sam said...

Now per Radical Moderate's request. Nazam thought he would come here all high and mighty and accuse Jesus or the NT writers of false predicting Jesus' return in the time of Jesus' generation. Not only did Anthony school him badly, showing Nazam has no business doing any exegesis of the Holy Bible I decided to turn the tables on Nazam and use this own criterion (which he got from his hero Shabir) against Muhammad.

Here are the sound hadiths where Muhammad told his companions that Jesus would soon descend upon them to lead them:

Abu Huraira reported that the Messenger of Allah said: By Him in Whose hand is my life, the son of Mary WILL SOON DESCEND AMONG YOU AS A JUST JUDGE. He will break crosses, kill swine and abolish Jizya and the wealth will pour forth to such an extent that no one will accept it." (Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0287)

Narrated Abu Hurayrah:

The Prophet said: There is no prophet between me and him, that is, Jesus. He will descent (to the earth). When YOU see him, recognise him: a man of medium height, reddish fair, wearing two light yellow garments, looking as if drops were falling down from his head though it will not be wet. He will fight the people for the cause of Islam. He will break the cross, kill swine, and abolish jizyah. Allah will perish all religions except Islam. He will destroy the Antichrist and will live on the earth for forty years and then he will die. The Muslims will pray over him. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 37, Number 4310)

Continued...

Sam said...

Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, son of Mary (Jesus) will SHORTLY DESCEND AMONGST YOU people (Muslims) as a just ruler and will break the Cross and kill the pig and abolish the Jizya (a tax taken from the non-Muslims, who are in the protection, of the Muslim government). Then there will be abundance of money and no-body will accept charitable gifts. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 34, Number 425)

Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until the son of Mary (i.e. Jesus) descends AMONGST YOU as a just ruler, he will break the cross, kill the pigs, and abolish the Jizya tax. Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it (as charitable gifts). (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 43, Number 656)

Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, surely (Jesus,) the son of Mary will SOON DESCEND AMONGST YOU and will judge mankind justly (as a Just Ruler); he will break the Cross and kill the pigs and there will be no Jizya (i.e. taxation taken from non Muslims)... (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 657)

Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said "How will YOU be when the son of Mary (i.e. Jesus) descends AMONGST YOU and he will judge people by the Law of the Quran and not by the law of Gospel (Fateh-ul Bari page 304 and 305 Vol 7)(Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 658)

It is narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah observed: What would you do when the son of Mary would descend AMONGST YOU AND WOULD LEAD YOU AS ONE AMONGST YOU? Ibn Abi Dhi'b on the authority of Abu Huraira narrated: YOUR LEADER AMONGST YOU. Ibn Abi Dhi'b said: Do you know what the words: "He would lead as one AMONGST YOU" mean? I said: Explain these to me. He said: He would LEAD YOU according to the Book of your Lord (hallowed be He and most exalted) and the Sunnah of your Apostle. (Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0292)

mike said...

Good debate. The thing about debates is that both people debating tend to be rather intelligent people. I find it disheartening when people make statements like " whipped someones booty" I watched this debate simply to see if that fact was valid. Indeed, it is not valid. Sam, although I do not agree with the way you view things, I would not say Shabir whipped your butt because you raised good points- so did he. I have heard a lot of things you say and must admit you do not have a character of compasison but rather of hostility. Arrogance is a disease and we should all do our most to wipe our hearts of it. You might try to argue against Islam all you want, but what you will never understand is what Islam does for Muslims and the peace it brings us- true Islam, not what you preach to be true Islam. I know youll have some witty response, but I ask you not to make one and just think how you can improve yourself in this regard. much luv.. mike

Sam said...

So you see, Radical, how Muhammad thought Jesus was going to descend soon, during the very lifetime of his companions? Nearly 15 centuries have gone by and still no Jesus. Therefore, if Nazam and Shabir are going to be honest and consistent they are going to have to condemn Muhammad for what he is, namely a false prophet. But we all know better.

Next I will post hadiths where Muhammad swore and cursed his followers.

Sam said...

Here are the narrations where Muhammad curses his followers.

Chapter 23: HE UPON WHOM ALLAH'S APOSTLE INVOKED CURSE WHEREAS HE IN FACT DID NOT DESERVE IT, IT WOULD BE A SOURCE OF REWARD AND MERCY FOR HIM

A'isha reported that two persons visited Allah's Messenger and both of them talked about a thing, of which I am not aware, but that annoyed him AND HE INVOKED CURSE UPON BOTH OF THEM AND HURLED MALEDICTION, and when they went out I said: Allah's Messenger, the good would reach everyone but it would not reach these two. He said: Why so? I said: Because you have invoked curse and hurled malediction upon both of them. He said: Don't you know that I have made condition with my Lord saying thus: O Allah, I am a human being and that for a Muslim upon whom I invoke curse or hurl malediction make it a source of purity and reward? (Sahih Muslim, Book 032, Number 6285)

This hadith has been reported on the authority of A'mash with the same chain of transmitters and the hadith transmitted on the authority of 'Isa (the words are): "He had a private meeting with them AND HURLED MALEDICTION UPON THEM AND CURSED THEM and sent them out." (Sahih Muslim, Book 032, Number 6286)

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Apostle as saying: O Allah, I make a covenant with Thee against which Thou wouldst never go. I am a human being and thus for a Muslim whom I give any harm or whom I scold or upon whom I INVOKE A CURSE or whom I BEAT, make this a source of blessing, purification and nearness to Thee on the Day of Resurrection. (Sahih Muslim, Book 032, Number 6290)

Continued...

Sam said...

Muhammad even had the audacity to curse an orphan slave girl making her cry!

Salim, the freed slave of Nasriyyin, said: I heard Abu Huraira as saying that he heard Allah's Messenger as saying: O Allah, Muhammad is a human being. I lose my temper just as human beings lose temper, and I have held a covenant with Thee which Thou wouldst not break: For a believer whom I give any trouble or invoke curse or beat, make that an expiation (of his sins and a source of) his nearness to Thee on the Day of Resurrection. (Sahih Muslim, Book 032, Number 6293)

Anas b. Malik reported that there was an orphan girl with Umm Sulaim (who was the mother of Anas). Allah's Messenger saw that orphan girl and said: O, it is you; you have grown young. May you not advance in years! That slave-girl returned to Umm Sulaim weeping. Umm Sulaim said: O daughter, what is the matter with you? She said: Allah's Apostle has invoked curse upon me that I should not grow in age and thus I would never grow in age, or she said, in my (length) of life. Umm Sulaim went out wrapping her head-dress hurriedly until she met Allah's Messenger. He said to her: Umm Sulaim, what is the matter with you? She said: Allah's Apostle, you invoked curse upon my orphan girl. He said: Umm Sulaim, what is that? She said: She (the orphan girl) states you have cursed her saying that she might not grow in age or grow in life. Allah's Messenger smiled and then said: Umm Sulaim, don't you know that I have made this term with my Lord. And the term with my Lord is that I said to Him: I am a human being and I am pleased just as a human being is pleased and I lose temper just as a human being loses temper, so for any person from amongst my Ummah whom I curse and he in no way deserves it, let that, O Lord, be made a source of purification and purity and nearness to (Allah) on the Day of Resurrection. (Sahih Muslim, Book 032, Number 6297)

Continued...

Sam said...

Radical, did you notice, folks, that instead of controlling his tongue or instead Allah giving him victory over his rage and foul mouth Muhammad justifies his cursing, attacks and insults on people by saying that Allah will bless anyone he cusses out? How convenient for the prophet of mercy!

Anyway, I am going to repeat what I told Nazam. Nazam, I am going to make a covenant with your god that anytime I swear at you Muslims, curse you, insult you, and treat you like Muhammad treated, insulted, cursed, and swore at his followers that Allah will turn these into blessings for all of you taqqiyists.

Now if Nazam is consistent he must condemn Muhammad for being a false prophet who made false predictions and a person who couldn't dialogue or talk with decency and respect. He has to speak out against Muhammad for cussing out and insulting his friends and followers since that is not how decent human beings speak or dialogue.

I am glad for one thing and that is that Nazam doesn't follow the example of his false prophet and is actually better than him when it comes to morals, decency and respect.

The Fat Man said...

Just finished listing to the whole debate. It's a shame you two won't do further debates. It looked like you were having fun and enjoying yourself.

alahad said...

Let me see if i got it right.
I think the debate should've been titled: The Bible or the Quran, which is NOT God's Word?"
Why? Because instead of focusing and bringing out the merits in their respective books, they practically engaged in mudslinging. We had too much of that already.
Maybe it could have been better if they talked about prophecies, historical, archeological, and scientific accuracy, moral values, and their respective teachings' direct effect on mankind, i.e., the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

alahad said...

Lt's try to explain Jesus' ransom sacrifice:

The Scriptures teach it is God's means to save humankind from sin and death. When He created Adam, God gave him perfect human life: a perfect body and mind--he would never get sick, grow old, or die. As a perfect human, he had a special relationship with God. Adam was a “son of God” (Luk 3:38) made “in God’s image” meaning that Adam was created with qualities like those of God, including love, wisdom, justice, and power.
Yet clearly, when Adam disobeyed God and was condemned to death, he paid a very high price: his sin cost him his perfect human life with all its blessings.
Sadly, Adam lost this perfection not only for himself but also for his future offspring. “Through one man [Adam] sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned.” (Rom 5:12) The Bible says that he “sold” himself and his offspring into slavery to sin and death. (Rom 7:14) So what is the hope for their offspring then, including us?

God came to mankind’s rescue by means of the ransom--a price paid to bring about a release or to buy something back; a price that covers, or pays, the cost of something.

Since a perfect human life was lost, no imperfect human life could ever buy it back. (Psa 49:7,8) What was needed was a ransom equal in value to what was lost. This is in harmony with the principle of perfect justice in Deut 19:21 “Soul will be for soul.” So, to cover the value of the perfect human soul, or life, that Adam lost, another perfect human life was the “corresponding ransom” was required.—1 Tim 2:6.

God sent his only-begotten Son, and willingly, this Son left his heavenly home. (Phil 2:7) By means of God’s holy spirit, he was born as a perfect human and was not under the penalty of sin.—Luk 1:35.

Adam as a sinner could pass on only sin and death to his offspring--not human perfection. Jesus, whom the Bible calls “the last Adam,” had a perfect human life, and he never sinned. (1 Cor 15:45) In a sense, Jesus stepped into Adam’s place in order to save us. By sacrificing, or giving up, his perfect life in flawless obedience to God, Jesus paid the price for Adam’s sin. Jesus thus brought hope to Adam’s offspring.—Rom 5:19; 1 Cor 15:21,22

muslimranger said...

Anyway I can see why Shabir doesn't really want to debate our brother Sam. Shabir god smoked

ummm noooooo, Shabir said in the debate itself that he would debate Shamoun again based on one condition: that he knows and recognizes the difference between the offensive language in Ezekiel and swelling breasts. Otherwise, why should Shabir debate a jackass?

Nazam said...

Kate,
I'll put it this way, now I know why they cut certain parts out in the previous recording. For example, in the previous recording they didn't show Shabir's rebuttal to Shamoun's response to the question on how God died and operated the world. In the unedited version you see Shabir's response and he makes a total comedian out of Shamoun.

You can find more examples from here;

http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/comment_on_shabir_sam_debate.htm

alahad said...

This is to add to Sam's reply regarding the FIG tree. Yes, one of the more puzzling passages in the Bible is the account of Jesus and the barren fig tree.

According to Mark 11:12-14, 20-24, when Jesus saw a certain fig tree with leaves but no fruit, he cursed it and, as a result, the tree withered. Yet, as Mark plainly says, it wasn’t the season for figs (as Shabir conveniently pointed out).

Why, then, did Jesus curse this fig tree? And why did
Mark, under inspiration, record this incident? While some of Christendom’s commentators have
been embarrassed by this account, not only do the facts justify Jesus’ actions, but they also reveal that Jesus was really teaching lessons on faith.

For example, while figs don’t usually mature until June, fruit buds usually appear on the branches of fig trees as early as February. In fact, this occurs two months before leaves appear on the branches in late April or early May. So by the time a fig tree has its leaves, it should surely have figs.

This helps us to appreciate that when Jesus saw this particular fig tree in late March, while it wasn’t the season for fig trees to have mature figs, it also wasn’t the season for fig trees to have leaves.

The fact that this tree did have leaves shows that it was unseasonably mature. Surely it
would not have been unreasonable for Jesus to expect that such a tree would also be unseasonably early with its fruit. Yet, this tree was unproductive.

Indeed, as Mark states, the tree had “nothing but leaves,” that is, no fruit. Certainly the leaves gave that tree a deceptive appearance.

alahad said...

Calling God "Father" a deviation from the original teachings?

Let's see if God is called Father in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Isaiah 64:8 "Yet, O LORD, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand."

Isaiah 63:16 "But you are our Father, though Abraham does not know us or Israel acknowledge us; you, O LORD, are our Father, our Redeemer from of old is your name."

Deutronomy 32:6 "Is this the way you repay the LORD, O foolish and unwise people? Is he not your Father, your Creator, who made you and formed you?"

Jeremiah 3:19 "And I myself have said, ‘O how I proceeded to place you among the sons and to give you the desirable land, the hereditary possession of the ornament of the armies of the nations!’ And I further said, ‘“My Father!” YOU people will call out to me, and from following me YOU people will not turn back.’

Psalm 89:26 "He himself calls out to me, ‘You are my Father, My God and the Rock of my salvation.’"

So we can say hardly a deviation as Sabir Ally cheerfully tried to paint. It seems a common practice for the Hebrews to call God their Father, so it's not uncommon for Jesus nor the Apostles to use the two interchangebly.

marlon said...

Brother Sam I'm a big fan too. I learn a lot from you. But I agree with Serrevin. nothing to brag or to boast. Your talent is a God given talent. What did our Lord say? love GOD with all your heart, mind, soul....and love your neighbor as yourself..remember the Holy Spirit symbolizes a white dove.humble, harmless. The Lord Jesus Christ as the Lamb of God.If I was a muslim newly converting to Christ and had read your comment. Satan would have used this to prevent me to believe in the Lord JESUS..

Locrian said...

I'm not real sure I've ever heard Shabir in a debate where he's asked about the Qur'an.

Is this debate like one of the last where Shabir is expected to defend statements in the Qur'am?

I've seen many of Shabir's debates concerning the Bible, so this was a bit of a treat.

Good presentation as well Sam. I think Mr. Ali is very fortunate to have had to met up with you as a noob (not that your presentation showed it). Not that he was able to pull any points past you, but it may have went much worse for him with your current experience.

GBY Sam and your family.

Michael said...

Why do we insist on the doctrine of the trinity as an article of faith? There is one God the Father and one Lord and Savior of all, the Lord Jesus (God's eternal Son, to whom God the father has bestowed all power and authority)? Also why do Muslims obsess so much on sexual imagery in the scripture, they are like adolescents in this regard. Any mention of sex, urination, defecation they get completely unreasonable saying "how can the word of God talk about such things?"

Michael said...

Very well argued Sam Shamoun, Shabir Ali does all the Muslim phony "shock and awe" nonsense regarding passages that mention sex in the scriptures. Muslims act like adolescents when they get anywhere near sexuality, it's embarrassing to listen to. The scriptures are not children's tales, they are the inspired word of God for life. Shabir also misrepresents and misinterprets scripture out of context. Of course in the Koran there is no context to be "out of".

And why would a Holy God reward Holy behaviour on Earth with lasciviousness and sexual indulgence in heaven? Ridiculous!
Islam appears to be the deification of the lusts of Arab men.

However, I do not hold with the doctrine of the trinity. There is ONE GOD the FATHER and ONE LORD and SAVIOR of all mankind the eternal SON of GOD Jesus Christ. God the FATHER has given all power and authority to his son because it pleased God to do so. The one who grants power is greater than the one who receives power. Jesus himself said that his father was greater than he (Jesus) was, Jesus spoke only that which the Father gave him to speak, Jesus only did what the father gave him to do. So why have we made belief the trinity a tenant of the Christian Faith? Our arguments with Muslims would be stronger if we would just stick to the plainly stated scripture regarding the divinity of Jesus. He is worthy of worship because we worship/honour the Father when we worship/honour His Son.

Silvy said...

Brother Sam, God bless you and strengthen you in your mission. I have a personal experience to share with you all, I am a Christian and like to watch debates over the internet. The internet is full of clips from people like Zakir Naik misquoting and misinterpreting the Bible for their own personal gains. At one time I had a sort of faith crises and I remember it was during one of those days that I came across a video from brother Sam Shamoun and David Wood on ABNSAT. After seeing their video's I believed that what we have in the Bible is the truth and the Muslim apologist like Zakir Naik are nothing but deceivers.

I recently saw your video clip along with David Wood "Answering muslim apologist" .. You both did an excellent job as always. Please have more such shows in which you can put some of their clips and refute them.

BR,
Silvy

Sam said...

Kate, Nazam is suffering the ill effects of kissing the black stone idol of Muslims too much which is why he thinks Shabir's response to my reply concerning God dying made me look like a comedian. Actually, I made Shabir look like one of the stooges after mmy reply since he had nothing to say but whine like Nazam often does that I was quoting the Gospel of John to prove my assertion that Jesus was still alive and conscious during those three days.

To the fanboy Nazam, instead of running your mouth here go back to your hero Shabir and asked him to make me look like a comedian again. I am not the one running away and making excuses all these years. I would be glad to face Islam's star comedian and expose him once again by the grace of Jesus.

Furthermore, you need to start explaining the foul manners and false prophecies of your false prophet since I won't let you run away like Shabir.

Sam said...

ummm noooooo, Shabir said in the debate itself that he would debate Shamoun again based on one condition: that he knows and recognizes the difference between the offensive language in Ezekiel and swelling breasts. Otherwise, why should Shabir debate a jackass?

Umm, is that why Shabir has been running for nearly ten years? So let me get this straight it is ok for your god to speak of specially created whores in paradise with swelling breasts whom men with hard erections will be busy deflowering for all eternity but it is not ok for the Bible to describe the sin of idolatry in graphic language?

I guess you are like Shabir in this respect. His reply to my pointing out all the sexual perversion that he will have with these swelling breasted hours was basically to aks, "What else are we going to be doing, play harps?" Talk about a comedian, that response was classic sitcom!

Sam said...

To Marion my brother. I think you misunderstood my language to imply that I think that I am somehow smoking Shabir on the basis of my own ability. On the contrary, I have acknowledged my inability to do what I do APART FROM THE GRACE OF THE TRIUNE GOD. I know I am nothing without Jesus.

The reason why I speak this way to trolls like Nazam is because the Bible says that at times you need to answer a fool according to his foolishness, his stupidity, lest he thinks he is actually smart and providing a meaningful reply. Read Proverbs 26:5.

Even Paul was forced to boast about his own achievements which he acommplished by the grace of the Lord Jesus in order to silence and humble the Corinthians (2 Corinthians 11:16-33; 12:1-6).

So I apologize to you, my brother, if I gave you the wrong impression that I somehow think I am this great debater or apologist. Apart from Christ I AM NOTHING BUT DUNG.

Sam said...

It sure must be eating at Shabir's fanboy Nazam to see the comments of all these posters who claim that Shabir his hero got defeated by a nobody like me in HIS FIRST PUBLIC DEBATE. I can't wait to get Shabir again because his defeat will be even more humiliating then this one.

Poor Nazam. If it's any consolation maybe you and Shabir can share group hugs and travel together to Mecca to worship your black stone.

Sam said...

Pastor Doug,

Please read all of my comments and the link I gave. You need to be more Biblically balanced in your statements since by your own criterion you pretty much condemned many of the prophets and apostles.

Moreover, whether you decide to support my ministry or not is between you and the Lord. However, please don't use such bullying tactics to try to force me to do anything. I don't appreciate it brother and that is beneath you as a pastor. I expect much better from you.

Sam said...

Mike, thank you for your comments and I really do appreciate them. However, if we take into consideration that this was my first debate, Shabir failing to adequately deal with all the verses I raised concerning what the Quran says about the Bible, and also failing to realize that his attack on the Bible meant that his prophet was mistaken concerning the Bible's veracity and authority and that he knows more than Muhammad himself, I must say that he pretty much got whipped which is why he has been avoiding me.

However, let me put this in perspective. I normally do not comment on my debates In fact, I don't even have any copies of my debates let alone own them SINCE I CAN'T STAND WATCHING MY BIG FAT UGLY SELF ON CAMERA! Man, they say that the camera adds 50 pounds I sure hope in my case that the camera added 100 pounds seeing how I looked!

The only time you will find me claiming victory and bragging about defeating my opponents is when certain Muslim trolls come in and start harassing and antagonizing me and others with their lies and spins.

Take for example Nazam who somehow tried to insinuate that I may have edited the debate in order to make myself look better. He erroneously assumed that the unedited version would somehow paint a different picture. But as we can see that lie has been exposed for what it is.

Therefore, when you have trolls like Nazam coming in here masquerading to be gentle, humble servants they need to be exposed for who they are. Read what the Apostle Paul said about Satan's apostles pretending to be servants of righteousness (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:2-4, 13-15).

So I do hope that this clarified things a bit for you Mike.

Sam said...

Anyway folks, I am done commenting for now. The only time I will comment is if Nazam the fanboy spreads more lies and slander. And we are all still waiting for him to justify Muhammad's foul, abusive manners against his own followers and his blatant false prediction concerning Jesus' return. Please make sure he doesn't run away like Shabir but actually addresses his false prophet's cursing and false prophecies.

I do thank everyone for commenting and want to especially thank all my brothers in Christ, especially Pastor Doug, for caring enough to share their views with me. Lord bless you all.

Sam said...

Pat, please email me for the info you need. sam_shmn40@hotmail.com

serrevin said...

well sam i'll take your word for it. all i'm telling you is how it looks.
paul did boast about it to the corinthians but he did it reluctantly. he even said "I am speaking as a fool here" you could tell it was almost like torture for paul to have to out-boast the corinthians. if you're saying the same about what you've posted here then i'll take your word for it.
you don't answer to me, doug, marlon or anyone else on the board you answer to the lord jesus.
just please take into consideration that when you're engaging folks that you're not just speaking to them.
anyway, love what you're doing, it's been very helpful for me with the somalia community where I live. you guys should do a jesus or muhammad broadcast on the topic of isma. and compare them both. it's really interesting to see that muhammad couldn't even control who he cursed.

Sam said...

Also read what Paul also says in the rest of 2 Corinthians 12, particularly 12:7-21.

serrevin said...

well sam i'll take your word for it. all i'm telling you is how it looks.
paul did boast about it to the corinthians but he did it reluctantly. he even said "I am speaking as a fool here" you could tell it was almost like torture for paul to have to out-boast the corinthians. if you're saying the same about what you've posted here then i'll take your word for it.
you don't answer to me, doug, marlon or anyone else on the board you answer to the lord jesus.
just please take into consideration that when you're engaging folks that you're not just speaking to them.
anyway, love what you're doing, it's been very helpful for me with the somalia community where I live. you guys should do a jesus or muhammad broadcast on the topic of isma. and compare them both. it's really interesting to see that muhammad couldn't even control who he cursed.

Anthony Rogers said...

Michael,

The glory Jesus received from His Father as the incarnate Son and our Savior is the same glory He always had with the Father before the world began (John 17:5). None of the statements that show Jesus willing subordination to His Father or the glory, honor, and eternal dominion that He received upon the basis of His completed work, all of which was for the sake of our redemption, were intended to teach that He is anything less than "the Eternal Son" (a title you recognize but use inconsistently). As the Eternal Son all the qualities of His Father belong to Him by nature; in willingly condescendig to save us, He voluntarily veiled that glory and set aside the unrestricted use of His divine prerogatives (Philippians 2). Consequent upon His resurrection and ascension to His Father's right hand, Jesus took up His rightful reign, but now, in addition to having the right to do so because He is the Son of God, He does so as the Son of Man, the one who came from the Father, assumed our nature, and defeated Satan and death, all that He might rule over all not only as a just Judge but as a righteous and merciful Savior.

Although some may not want me to put it this way, the stark reality is that the Church, in Christ's name, the name above all names, kicked Arianism's booty a long time ago. Every time it has cropped its ugly head up, in the name of the Lord the Church has cut it off. So, for your own sake, I beseech you: Stop defending Arianism; it is not worth losing your head over.

Sam said...

Serrevin, thank you for your concern and love. I really appreciate it and do love you for the sake of the Lord Jesus. Believe me when I say that I only speak this way to these particular individuals who have no shame. You can ask David how I am and how I view myself. I am not trying to sound humble, but mean when I say that apart from Christ I am nothing but garbage.

Nazam said...

When did I ever accuse Sam of personally editing his debate with Shabir? I said that Robert Morey's ministry who distribute the debate, distribute an edited version of the debate. Some 'victory' for Shamoun when his own fellow brothers in Christ edit the Muslim speaker out.

"Apart from Christ I AM NOTHING BUT DUNG."

The Oxford Dictionary definition of the word 'Dung'

"the excrement of animals; manure (of an animal) defecate"

He said it not me.

muslimranger said...

Michael,

The Arabic word kawaa'ib is the singular of kaa'ib, which means bosomy or fully developed. If the translators said "fully developed women" it would have had a different tone than "swelling breasts". In Arabic it is not inappropriate to use this word. It's not inappropriate for one to tell his mother "Mother find me a nice religious girl who is also fully developed and mature physically". But if he told his mom "Mommy find me a girl with swelling breasts", well.... then..... loool...... yeah that's inappropriate because of your choice of words.

But Shabir Ally was pointing out that EVEN IF WE ASSUME that we let the text say "swellings breasts" HOW ON EARTH can you compare that statement to the following passage from Ezekiel 23:14-21:

14 "But she carried her prostitution still further. She saw men portrayed on a wall, figures of Chaldeans portrayed in red, 15 with belts around their waists and flowing turbans on their heads; all of them looked like Babylonian chariot officers, natives of Chaldea. 16 As soon as she saw them, she lusted after them and sent messengers to them in Chaldea. 17 Then the Babylonians came to her, to the bed of love, and in their lust they defiled her. After she had been defiled by them, she turned away from them in disgust. 18 When she carried on her prostitution openly and exposed her nakedness, I turned away from her in disgust, just as I had turned away from her sister. 19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. 21 So you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled.


Shabir said that he would consider debating Shamoun again if Shamoun could at least recognize the difference between the two. If Shamoun is tooo stupid or too stubborn and arrogant to recognize this, then what business does a respected person like Shabir have debating such a sleaze?

cksheng74 said...

If you notice carefully, Shabir actually never rebutted the textual criticism of Quran by Sam. He simply acknowledged "Yes, it is....so what's wrong with this?" "what's wrong with that?". What Shabir loved is to attack the Bible particularly the development thing from one gospel to another.

cksheng74 said...

Why can't Muslims see that enjoying God's presence is so good, so glorious, so perfect that we don't need carnal sex pleasure in Paradise? See 2:12:0

Nazam said...

Get Real Man & Character Builder, what Sam is doing to justify his behavior is to quote parts of the Bible and ignore other parts which don't agree with him. For example 1 Peter 3:15 says "if someone asks about your Christian hope, always be ready to explain it. But do this in a gentle and respectful way. Keep your conscience clear. Then if people speak against you, they will be ashamed when they see what a good life you live because you belong to Christ." Why dose he not follow this verse? If people are being malicious against him, why does he not have patience so that in time they might be ashame of such behavior?

cksheng74 said...

Why did Shabir keep accusing of the development and progressive improvement thing from one gospel to another? If that is true, then prove it! Did Shabir know who these writers of the gospel were? Did he know the readership of their writings that were originally intended for? Can he prove that indeed Mark, Matthew, Luke and John had face-to-face access to each other AND historically indeed had a conspiracy to change the gospel? Even if that were so, why is it so?

minoria said...

Hello Nazam:

SHABIR ALLY has not seen the basic Christian belief about Jesus:

JESUS had a BODY(like us) and inside he had a SPIRIT(immortal,like ours).

Easy enough.

DIFFERENCE

The SPIRIT was that of GOD THE SON,which had NEVER been created,had always existed(the ESSENCE or NATURE of what is GOD).

Easy enough.

WHAT DIED:

It was ONLY the body that died but the spirit(God the Son) simply left the body.

WHEN WE DIE:

Our SPIRIT leaves and the body dies.
I HOPE SHABIR by now sees something so BASIC of Christian belief and does not ask how the world continued if Jesus was God and died.If he still has NOT,I will then know he is NOT a serious intellectual,he only wants to win in a debate,NOT see the logic and reason of the other side.

hugh watt said...

Michael:

What do you think +ians mean by Trinity?

Sam said...

I said I wouldn't chime in unless fan boy chimed in with more lies and deceit. Nazam, you need to get real with your selective citations. As I said your cherry picking ends up condemning your false prophet as well but being an inconsistent, deceptive taqqiyist you could care less.

Anyway, I will post all of those verses which you ignore to show you how to interpret texts in context, which is something you cannot do seeing you follow an incoherent, acontextual piece of babble.

hugh watt said...

So many Muslims read the Quran in Arabic,(2hrs 17m), a language Ally admits they don't understand! So what's the point of that? it's no different to a person with a rabbits foot, or a pagan-Arab with some superstitious belief. I've met Muslims who are shaken by what the Quran really says, and who often deny what it teaches until shown in their native tongue. What was Ally trying to prove here, that it's somehow more beneficial to recite what they can't understand, than to read what they can? No sane person would take medicine before reading and understanding the instrucions; yet, how much more important to read and understand the instructions for your souls health!
Allah is not a good physician, better to find another One.

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

It seems that we have another deceptive inconsistent Muslim on board name Muslimranger.

Let me quote what his own scholars say regarding the meaning of kawaib:

meaning, wide-eyed maidens WITH FULLY DEVELOPED BREASTS. Ibn 'Abbas, Mujahid and others have said,

"This means ROUND BREASTS. They meant by this THAT THE BREASTS OF THESE GIRLS WILL BE FULLY ROUNDED AND NOT SAGGING, because they will be virgins, equal in age..." (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Volume 10, Surat At-Tagabun to the end of the Qur'an, pp. 333-334: http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=78&tid=56852; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Another famous commentator, ar-Razi, stated in his Tafsir (Volume 8, p. 311) that:

"The kawa`ib are the buxom girls (nawahid) whose breasts have become FULL (taka``abat) and ROUND (tafallakat)." (bold and capital emphasis ours)

Now let me show you what one Muslims says about the arousal that Muslims get from reading this filthy text about swelling breasted whores:

Continued...

Sam said...

We do not know with certainty that there will be such a restriction on women even if the reverse would hardly be mentionable to a decent woman. A woman in the traditional world would and does consider it a horrible thing to say to her that "You can have all the men you want"! The Qur'an would never use inappropriate language. However, the Qur'an does mention that for the inhabitants of Paradise - male and female - {There wait on them immortal youths} (56:17), {There serve them youths of everlasting youth, whom, when you see them, you would take for scattered pearls} (76:19). If this does not make a believing woman happy then, as Imam al-Shafi`i said to the one WHO IS NOT MOVED BY EROTIC POETRY, "You have no feelings." As for the believing men, as one of the Awliya said, some of them will need GHUSL just FOR HEARING THE VERSE {Same-age young-bosomed girls} (78:33). As for us hard-hearted analphabets we may read it and read it without effect. (G. F. Haddad, Sex with slaves and women's rights; capital and underline emphasis ours)

Ghusl refers, in this specific context, to the ritual bathing of the body that a Muslim must perform after sexual intercourse or because of a seminal discharge. What the author is essentially saying is that Surah 78:33 can cause a person to be aroused to such an extent that he ends up having an emission!

Continued...

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

It seems I am going to need to put this in caps for Nazam to see and avoid running like his taghut Sahbir.

NAZAM WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR YOU TO CONDEMN MUHAMMAD'S ILL-MANNERED BEHAVIOR TOWARDS HIS OWN FOLLOWERS AND FOR HAVING NO SELF-CONTROL OR SHAME. WE WANT YOU TO PROVE YOU ARE CONSISTENT BY CONDEMNING THIS ANTICHRIST FOR CURSING PEOPLE AND EVEN GETTING HIS GOD TO APPROVE OF IT. WE ARE ALSO WAITING FOR YOU TO CONDEMN YOUR FALSE PROPHET FOR FALSELY PREDICTING THAT JESUS WOULD COME IN THE LIFETIME OF HIS FOLLOWERS.

But we know better than to expect Shabir's fanboy and a Muhammadan to be consistent and honest.

Sam said...

One correction. I said 200 perverts but meant to say 100 perverts. :-)

Sam said...

Muslim Ranger continued...

So now that we got that lie out of the way will Muslim ranger condemn his god for turning paradise into a whore house of swelling breasted women for men to deflower for all eternity with the sex drive of 100 perverts?

Abu Dawud At-Tayalisi recorded that Anas said that the Messenger of Allah said,



Anas said, "I asked, 'O Allah's Messenger! Will one be able to do that? He said,

At-Tirmidhi also recorded it and said, "Sahih Gharib." Abu Al-Qasim At-Tabarani recorded that Abu Hurayrah said that the Messenger of Allah was asked, "O Allah's Messenger! Will we have sexual intercourse with our wives in Paradise?" He said,



Al-Hafiz Abu 'Abdullah Al-Maqisi said, "In my view, the Hadith meets the criteria of the Sahih, and Allah knows best." (Tafsir Ibn Kathir - Abridged, Volume 9, Surat Al-Jathiyah to the end of Surat Al-Munafiqun, pp. 429-430; bold and capital emphasis ours)

The two Jalals, also renowned Sunni commentators, say regarding S. 56:36 that:

and made them virgins, immaculate - every time their spouses enter them they find them virgins, nor is there any pain [of defloration] - (Tafsir al-Jalalayn: http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=56&tAyahNo=36&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0; bold and underline emphasis ours)

Shame on all you Muslim taqqiyists for justifying this filthy, sick perversion.

Sam said...

For some strange reason part of the last quotes don't show up. Here it is again:

In Paradise, the believer will be given such and such strength for women.

Anas said, "I asked, 'O Allah's Messenger! Will one be able to do that? He said,

He will be given the strength OF A HUNDRED (MEN) At-Tirmidhi also recorded it and said, "Sahih Gharib." Abu Al-Qasim At-Tabarani recorded that Abu Hurayrah said that the Messenger of Allah was asked, "O Allah's Messenger! Will we have sexual intercourse with our wives in Paradise?" He said,

The man will be able to have sexual intercourse WITH A HUNDRED VIRGINS IN ONE DAY.

Pat said...

Did Aisha have "swelling breasts" at 9 years old?

Pat said...

Sam,

Do Muslims get a new set of virgins every day, or do they only get one set for eternity?

Habra2022 said...

Pat,

do you have genitals the size of donkeys?


"She lusted after lovers with genitals as large as a donkey's and emissions like those of a horse." Ezekiel 23:20 (NLT)

I don't understand what is the point of this verse, why do we need know such graphical details? And who bother to check and find out so that this could be written down and included in the book of Ezekiel?

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Hey Habra2022,

You said:

"She lusted after lovers with genitals as large as a donkey's and emissions like those of a horse." Ezekiel 23:20 (NLT)

I don't understand what is the point of this verse, why do we need know such graphical details?

I say:

The point of the verse is to shock self-righteous sinners awake. The people of Israel believed themselves to be the most righteous and upstanding people on earth. They looked down on others for their minor ceremonial uncleanness. They saw themselves as good “religious” people.

Ezekiel wanted to show then how God saw them. The passage is meant to be shocking. The lust of the hoar it talks about is supposed to be disgusting. The Children of Israel (and Pharisees professing to be Christians) are supposed to be ashamed that such a text is in their Bible.

They should be concerned because the passage is about them!!

The fact that you are unconfortable with the graphic nature of this symbolic passage is proof that Ezekiel (and God) knew exactly what they were doing .


Peace

Candiceevans1 said...

On the eighth day GOD created Sam Shamoun LOL,,,,Sam you really did wipe the floor with Shabir Ally. I saw Yahya saying no one should share a plaform with Sam Shamoun or David Wood. They are terrified of you two. So they try to create a stigma to silence you. You have exposed their lies ....KEEP DEFENDING THE FAITH!!!!

serrevin said...

habra and the rest of you muslims reacting to the perversion listed in ezekiel

you must realize that is exactly the point. this is what idolatry looks like from heaven's perspective. do you think bowing to statues is LESS perverse than what's described in ezekiel? you do. you don't find it sickening that shirk is mentioned throughout the quran and the bible. you read it and you know what it is, but it doesn't repulse you the way it should. what god is communicating by giving these disgusting details is the affect that idolatry SHOULD have on us but doesn't. israel was married to yaweh, and bowing to and worshipping other gods was MORE DISGUSTING than mating with an animal.

that's the point of the text. we are to be absolutely sick to our stomach disgusted by idolatry. the point of the text is to make us fiercely monotheistic. surely you've read the passage in context and recieved the same message?

please compare this to hadith literature about aisha scraping dried semen stains (i'm sorry) off of muhammad's clothing as he went off to masjid. what is the spiritual import of this? why did we need to know this?

getrealman said...

QUESTION: you guys that keep talking about "wiping the floor" with someone, what is wrong with you? Are you broken over the lostness of Muslims or are you enjoying the verbal sparring? I cannot believe that someone whose heart is crying out to God to save sinners can say such a thing. I have loved Jesus for 32 years, seen my inconsistencies bring shame to the Christ who redeemed me out of a horrible pit, but I have never seen such utter foolishness in my entire life. What Sam is doing is wrong. The attitude is wrong, the behavior is wrong, the boasting is wrong, and the defense of his behavior is sinful. Why would a Muslim ever listen to his words, whether they are true or not, when they are loaded with vitriol? I do not see the same person off-camera as I see on ABN. I see someone belittling others, quoting scriptures for the purpose of justifying his behavior (wrongly applied, as you are not Elijah, the apostle Paul, or Stephen), and driving others away from Christ, the only hope of salvation. Is this really what you want? Is this really what God has called you to do? Is this your ministry? Really? Knowledge puffs up, love builds up. May we all quit trying to win the argument and worry a lot more about winning the lost.

I am not as knowledgeable as Sam regarding Islam and I never will be. I only wish someone would step in here (James White, are you there?) with a little bit of seasoned godly wisdom to stop this behavior. Intentionally insulting others, mocking their blindness, and adding a couple of "I am nothing without Jesus" comments doesn't cut it. If I were not a Christian this type of behavior would drive me so far away I would never see the light. God help us all, if this is what we really think following Jesus and loving him looks like. No discipline, no disciple. Period.

Hopefully I will not offend anyone by stating the obvious. Boastful flesh, whether mine or yours, is sin.

GRM

The Fat Man said...

Sam great stuff, that's GOLD Sam GOLD.

I can't wait to use that on Muslims the next time I hear.

"Jesus in the bible is rude, look he calls his mom WOMAN, and another Woman a dog. Jesus would never say such things, thats just rude" lol

Notice that Mohamed "Curses" the little girl with "You will never grow up" then he says it's a blessing. I'm sure he was hoping she would never grow up.

Zack_Tiang said...

Nazam said...
""Apart from Christ I AM NOTHING BUT DUNG."

The Oxford Dictionary definition of the word 'Dung'
"the excrement of animals; manure (of an animal) defecate"

He said it not me."

Was that meant to be an indirect insult? Lols!



And keep up the good work, brethren in Christ! Their offense grows weaker and less meaningful with each comment.

The Fat Man said...

Also notice that Mohamed tells allah what do do, he tells allah "hey I cant control myself so just make it a blessing"

Royal Son said...

Sam ,well done on your debate. A few quick points here:

Shabir's position is based on a presupposition full of conjecture, specifically that the bible has developed over time, that the doctrine has developed over time. A number of ways to respond to this.

First - So what? Even if it were true that there would be a development of doctrine, Shabir has absolutely no position to use this against the bible, because the Qur'an itself was revealed in stages and muslims know that Allah himself abrogates portions of the qur'an, some portions of the qur'an are "something better" than others - which leads to an interesting question - "Is the Qur'an consistent in its quality of revelation or are there some portions which are superior to others?"

Another question comes from another thread where a gentleman named Amir pointed out that Muslims actually believe that even some HADITH abrogate verses of the Qur'an. Would that mean that the quality of the Qur'an, at least in some portions are inferior to Hadith?

Next point - The number of times John mentions the term Son of God is irrelevant. If Mark teaches it, then it's there in primitive form.

Next point - Mark not only teaches that Jesus is the Son of God, but in the VERY FIRST CHAPTER in the SECOND AND THIRD VERSE there is a reference to Jesus being God - namely that John the Baptist was fulfilling Isaiah the prophet who spoke of one in the wilderness announcing YAHWEH - Isaiah 40:3. In Mark 2:3 - John the Baptist is announcing Jesus, prepare straight HIS paths. Jesus is Yahweh right from the beginning of Mark.

As a side note - Muslims often ask "Where is the gospel of Jesus" Again, Gospel of Mark chapter 1, verse 1.

Not only is Jesus God's Son, Mark tells us He is His BELOVED Son at the Baptism, again chapter 1 - verse 11.

He draws people to follow HIM in verse 17.

He has the authority to forgive sins of the paralyzed man - chapter 2 verse 5 making Himself equal with God verse 7.

He's the very one who can cure the spiritual sickness of sin - something only God can do - verse 17.

He is the LORD of the Sabbath verse 28.

This is just from the first two verses of Mark. No Deity of Christ taught ? Gimme a break Shabir !

Royal Son said...

sorry I meant first two chapters of Mark not verses.

alahad said...

I tend to agree with Micheal regarding the Trinity Doctrine--it's practically the main gripe of Muslims against Christianity. While it could be "explainable to some degree" as I personally see it (most Christians apologists are very good at it actually), it seems equally explainable as well (perhaps even easier) to stress that there is NO Triune God using the very same Bible--and there's lies the problem.

If God is a Trinity, it has to be presented in the Scriptures VERY clearly, without reading between the lines. But there's hardly a clue that from the time Noah, Abraham, Lot, Moses, up to the time of the prophets, that they were worshipping a Triune God. Instead they clung fast to the Shema, the belief stated in Deutronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord".

Interestingly, the Encyclopedia of Religion admits: “Theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity.” And the New Catholic Encyclopedia also says: “The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament.”

The same could be said regarding the NT. The dichotomy between the Father and the Son is again MORE obvious, more plainly stated, then them being a part of Triune God.

Without these difficulties, I'd say Muslims could be easier to be won over.

I'm sorry about my English, I'm not a native speaker.

alahad said...

How i wish these debates in this site have mp3 versions. Videos are notoriously slow to load if you don't have the bandwith.

Fernando said...

Hi alahad... thanks for your words... coulde you, although, explain to whom (or whate) did God pay randsom? I think this must be very clearly expressed... thanks...

Royal Son said...

Alahad said "I tend to agree with Micheal regarding the Trinity Doctrine--it's practically the main gripe of Muslims against Christianity. While it could be "explainable to some degree" as I personally see it (most Christians apologists are very good at it actually), it seems equally explainable as well (perhaps even easier) to stress that there is NO Triune God using the very same Bible--and there's lies the problem."

I'm not sure how you feel that the Bible equally expresses a Triune and a non-Triune God. The Bible refers to two persons as Yahweh the personal name for God, and also testifies that the Spirit of God is God. On the balance of presenting this multiplicity of persons, it consistently testifies that there is only one God. I am not sure how one can believe that the Old Testament does not speak of the Divine Trinity.

"If God is a Trinity, it has to be presented in the Scriptures VERY clearly, without reading between the lines."

There are a number of ways I could respond to this. Firstly, allow me to ask you these questions:

1. Does the Bible consistently teach that there is only one God?

2. Does the bible consistently teach that the name of God Yahweh is held by more than one personal entity?

3. Does the bible teach that the Messiah to come would be served by all nations?

4. Does the bible teach that refuge should be taken in the Son?

5. Does the Bible teach that the Spirit of God is God?

6. Does the Bible ascribe Divine attributes to no more and no less than 3 personal entities, namely God (The Father), The Son/Messiah, and the Spirit of God?

If you answer yes to each of the above questions, I'm not sure how you would feel that The doctrine of the Divine Trinity is moot in the bible.

Let me also add this - I believe that Muslims are actually in a worse position to speak on this matter. Their Qur'an does not actually equip them theologically to discuss the complex nature of God. At best they can say there is one God, but they cannot actually discuss the personhood of God.

On the one hand, Muslims will say that there is nothing like God in creation, and yet on the other hand they will reject the Trinity because they can't associate it logically with what they encounter in creation. But if God is supposed to be totally unique, then why try to associate Him or match Him with what is seen in creation?

What's more, the Qur'an actually appeals to the Bible as a valid authority. Since the Bible unquestionably teaches that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, yet there is but one God then Muslims have no ground to deny the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity.

One might object saying that in the Qur'an Allah has no Son. This point is noted. However, from a theological point of view, the Qur'an misaims when it discusses sonship, because it associates it with the physical act of begetting through intercourse. The Qur'an actually says that Allah has no son BECAUSE He has no consort. If that is the meaning attached to the word Son, then we Christians agree, God the Father does not have a Son in that sense. However, the Jesus Christ, the 2nd person of the Divine Trinity is the one who eternally proceeds from the Father.

I firmly believe that Muslims have no authority on which to reject the Qur'an.

Royal Son said...

Oops, I meant no authority to reject the Blessed Trinity.

What is with my typing today??

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Hey Alahad,

You said:

it seems equally explainable as well (perhaps even easier) to stress that there is NO Triune God using the very same Bible--and there's lies the problem.

I say:

If this were true protestant Christians would be Unitariantian. We take the Bible as our authority for all matters and when we look at the Bible we find the following indisputable facts

1) There is one God
2) The Father the Son and Holy Spirit are each God
3) The Father the son and the hold Spirit are not the same person.

In order to disprove the Trinity you need to disprove one of those three facts. Cultists have been trying to do so for thousands of years and have failed repeatedly



You say:


But there's hardly a clue that from the time Noah, Abraham, Lot, Moses, up to the time of the prophets, that they were worshipping a Triune God. Instead they clung fast to the Shema, the belief stated in Deutronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord".

I say:

First of all the Shema is one of the three indisputable facts that prove the Trinity.

Second of all if you will read the Bible you will find that these folks recognized the other two facts as well. They worshiped the Father and the Spirit and the Son in the guise of the Angel of Yahweh. And they understood that these individuals were not the same person.

It’s The Trinity all the way down.

You say:

Without these difficulties, I'd say Muslims could be easier to be won over.

I say:

If that were the case Muslims would be flocking to cults like the JW. That they are not proves otherwise

peace

hugh watt said...

alahad said:

"..there is NO Triune God using the very same Bible--and there's lies the problem."

Who for? You reason like Muslims do! They try to apply human (Muhammad) logic to God, which only leads to confusion on their part.

"..it seems equally explainable as well (perhaps even easier) to stress that there is NO Triune God using the very same Bible--and there's lies the problem."

Would you mind explaining?
Muslims only know how to reason from human logic, which is why they have no problem with Tawhid; anything outside of their human understanding, it baffles them. This means then that Allah is a very small god that fits in with man's limited knowledge.

Btw, if you believe in a Tawhid god, your god is not God!

Michael said...

Fifth Monarchy Said:

"If this were true protestant Christians would be Unitariantian. We take the Bible as our authority for all matters and when we look at the Bible we find the following indisputable facts

1) There is one God
2) The Father the Son and Holy Spirit are each God
3) The Father the son and the hold Spirit are not the same person."

But trinitarian doctrine didn't really start until the early fourth century and then it was enforced with violence until accepted in general. I still don't see why the trinity has become an article of faith. There are many scripture believing Christians who do not accept trinitarian theology. Repeatedly we read plainly in the scripture that there is ONE God (the Father) and ONE Lord (the Lord Jesus, God's eternal only begotten son). God the father gave His Son all authority and power, but Jesus nature and divinity was inherent just as eye colour or height might be in human terms.

The point is that the "indisputable" facts are in dispute! Can we not just accept the plain teaching of scripture regarding God and Jesus? i.e. Eph 4:6, 1 Cor 8:6 We need also to drop labels such as "unitarian" or "arianism" etc. It's too easy to apply a simple label to a person whos ideas and understanding may be different from our own.

for some interesting reading on these subjects try these links:

http://www.restorationministry.com/literature.html#guides


May God grant you wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him.

"Even so, come Lord Jesus..."

alahad said...

Thank you for the swift replies. This really is a great way to learn and and I really appreciate it.

Now let me try to address Royal Son's questions.

1. YES. I believe so.

The Shema (Deut 6:4) says it. But what is meant by “Yahweh our God is one Yahweh?” The context reveals that Moses had just finished rehearsing to Israel the Ten Commandments. The first of these required that Israel must “never have any other gods against my face.” The declaration that Israel’s God was “one Yahweh,” Moses was opposing a vital aspect of false worship by Gentile nations--polytheism. In contrast, Israel must worship only one God, Yahweh.

Paul said, “Even though there are those who are called ‘gods,’ whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords,’ there is actually to us one God the Father.”—1 Cor 8:5,6

Even Jesus acknowledged this in John 17:3 saying "to know the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he has sent". Jews in Jesus' time believe in one God. They were waiting for the Messiah, without an iota of a clue that God/Yahweh would manifest in the flesh and be with them. If I were then a Israelite studying the scriptures, would I even find that teaching? I doubt it. That's why the Apostles were asking Jesus if he is the
Messiah or the Son of God--not if he is God himself which would understandibly constitute
blashphemy, as the phrasees later wrongfully accused Jesus of (making himself equal to God).

2. NO. I believe the divine name is attributed only to the Father.

"I am Yahweh. That is my name; and to no one else shall I give my own glory, neither my praise to graven images." - Isaiah 42:8

"For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD (YHWH) of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.
Isaiah 54:5

"That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth." Psalm 83:18

“The Spirit of the LORD (YHWH)is upon me,for he has anointed me to bring Good News to the poor..." Luke 4:18
Please note that with most translations, The word LORD when spelled with capital letters, stands for the divine name, YHWH.

3. Definitely.

"It shall come to pass in that day, that the root of Jesse, that standeth for an ensign of the peoples, unto him shall the nations seek; and his resting-place shall be glorious.” Isaiah 11:10

"After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb..." Revelations 7:9

4. I believe the Bible teaches we should take refuge in the Father (YHWH).

"In you, O LORD(YHWH), I have taken refuge... be my rock of refuge, a strong fortress to save me." Psalm 31:1-2

"He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High will rest in the shadow of the Almighty. I will say of the LORD (YHWH), He is my refuge and my fortress, my God..." Psalm 91:1-2

5. Not really. The spirit of God/Holy Spirit is the power of God, sometimes referred to as the "finger" of God. (Please compare Matthew 12:28, Luke 11:20, and Exodus 31:18). It is always designated as the Father's/ YHWH's spirit, never Jesus' spirit.

I'm afraid a discussion regarding as to the Holy Spirit being a person, thus part of a triune God will have to take a series of posts. Maybe we could start with the definiton of what "spirit" is as used in the Bible, and move on from there.

6. Not necessarily. Again I will post on these points as I go. Please just be patient and bear with me, brothers.

God bless to all Bible believers.

alahad said...

To Fernando,
Hi. I was hoping I made it clear in my post about the ransom sacrifice. Simply put, it is
God's very own provision to save mankind from sin and death , but one have to put faith in

Jesus to avail of this (JOhn 3:16) As to whom the ransom is paid, lets read Hebrews 9:11-14

"But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through

the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he

entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his

own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the sprinkling of defiled persons

with the blood of goats and bulls and with the ashes of a heifer sanctifies for the

purification of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal

Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify your conscience from dead works to

serve the living God."


Then at Hebrews 9:24-28

"For Christ has entered, not into a sanctuary made with hands, a copy of the true one, but

into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer

himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the Holy Place yearly with blood not his own;

for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it

is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to put away sin by the sacrifice of

himself. And just as it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment, so

Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to

deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him."

Since Israel was required to make animal sacrifices to God for the atonement of their sins,

and Jesus Christs foreshadowed these sacrifices, the answer must be pretty obvious.

I hope this clarifies it ain anyway. THnak you.

Nakdimon said...

Obviously all you who bicker about Sam's language have no idea what it is about th "boast in the Lord" which is exactly what Sam is doing. These guys have nothing to offer when it comes to comparing their stance with the wisdom and surpasing grace of the Lord.

I have heard the debate once before and I'm gonna watch it again. From what I remember it was a fairly even debate as far as eloquence goes. But back when I heard the debate I barely knew anything about Islam.

TO MUSLIMRANGER:

Yes there is a glaring difference between Ezekiel and "swelling breasts" in your book. Whereas the language of Ezekiel is to REBUKE Israel by describing her behavior as being of an adulterous woman there is absolutely no reason to be "offended". It is only an "offense" when you have a shallow view of sin as most if not all muslims do. However your "swelling breast" is meant to ENTICE those that are fixed on walhallah and eternal pleasure with sex, eternal erections, babes, booze and debauchery (i.e. an eternal brothel) to join a "religion".

Its funny that everything that Allah forbids in this life is abundantly available for all in the next. To claim that this sinful description is our reward for a holy life in this world is extremely offensive indeed.

David Wood said...

Allow me to shed some light on the disagreement over Sam's "boasting," "mocking," etc.

I know Sam, and I know that he doesn't think much of his own abilities or importance (despite the fact that he's the best Bible/Qur'an teacher I've ever seen). Thus, when Sam wins a debate (as he clearly did here), he boasts because he's convinced that the victory is clear evidence that the truth is on his side.

With that said, I agree that such boasting is out of place in this case. Sam's victory was obvious, and requires no boasting whatsoever.

As far as Sam's rebukes towards Muslims, there is room for some disagreement here. Clearly, according to Scripture, there is a time and place for open rebuke, mocking, mean comments, etc. (See, e.g., 1 Kings 18:20-29; Jeremiah 4:22; 10:8,14; Luke 11:37-54; Philippians 3:2-3; 2 Peter 2:12, 19-22.) Thus, if a Christian claims that we must always be nice and gentle in every situation, he would clearly be at odds with Scripture.

So Christians are commanded to speak the truth in love and to be gentle, but there are obviously exceptions. The overarching Christian rule of thumb, I think, would go something like this: "The Christian is to use the appropriate tone to achieve the desired result at the appropriate time in the appropriate circumstances." In general, the appropriate tone would be one of gentleness. In certain circumstances, however, open rebuke or even mockery may be appropriate.

The disagreement, then, would be about whether the present situation is one that calls for strong rebuke, mockery, etc. Here I would have to say, "No." Again, Sam's victory in this debate was obvious, despite the fact that it was his first debate. (You wouldn't know that Sam had only been studying Islam for a year or two when he took on Shabir, or that the Muslim organizers had been extremely deceptive in setting up the debate. Sam is absolutely correct that his victory would be much more staggering if it took place today.) Moreover, his refutations of Nazam's claims and Muhammad's prophethood are clear enough. No forceful language is needed for emphasis.

Hence, rather than seeing Sam defend his comments so far, I would rather see him expand upon points from the debate, respond to challenges to these points, and continue to expose Muhammad and the Qur'an.

getrealman said...

Nak,
Sorry, but you're wrong. I fully understand "boasting in the Lord". However, if you reread Sam's comments you will see he was not boasting in the Lord but was boasting in his accomplishments. He constantly asserted SA was running from him (not Christ) and hiding from him (not Christ). He even stated, "this is my first public debate, you can imagine what I will do in the next debate...". Man, let's all get real. This is flat out bragging and self-congratulation pure and simple. He added the caveat "only through Jesus..." after people started calling attention to his self adulation. We don't need to gather around each other and make sure we never acknowledge what is happening, no matter how unpleasant it is. Sam is bragging about his abilities, Sam is "rubbing other people's noses in it", and he is inflating his own ego at the expense of lost Muslims. In case somebody really doesn't see this, I mean really deep down in their hearts do not see this, let me say it differently: SS is acting like Osama Abdullah. Is that clear enough? OA is a self-promoting, self congratulating, self inflating machine. Sam has the mental moxie and an amazing breadth of knowledge regarding Islam. He just needs to realize that the repeated problems with his caustic attitude and bragging is self-inflicted, not due to someone else "misunderstanding". It's really hard to see how it could be any clearer. If any of us are not willing to acknowledge this is because we do not want to state the obvious. It is simply true whether from a Christian or Muslim perspective. One other thing: it's not okay to belittle other people. I mean, do you really think the verbal barrage against Nazam is becoming someone that is weeping over their lost condition? You really think this is somehow "apostolic" and reflects "ministry"? Not even a chance. Its vitriol. It's aggression. It's also the same old same old that has been occurring for years from SS. There is not a bunch of false accusations here, but instead just one brother saying to another, "Man, don't do that crap. That's wrong and should not be acceptable, ever. Let another man praise you, and not yourself".
GRM

David Wood said...

Getrealman,

Speaking of "vitriol" and "aggression," you seem to direct quite a bit toward Sam Shamoun. You've stated your view. Nakdimon stated his. I stated mine. People can see all of our points. Are you going to continue a long series of comments further attacking Sam, all while complaining about aggression, further distracting people from the Shamoun-Ally debate? Or are you going to allow people to return to the topic at hand?

alahad said...

Obviously, this talk about the Trintiy stirreds up a hornet's nest so to speak. But we're here for the love of the truth, to examine and upbuild our own beliefs by proofs,

not just sweeping statements. worship the God of the Bible--and it's my personal vindiction that our very salvation depends on the proper understanding of the scriptures, to believe and prove without reasonable doubt.

I am not a man of letters, I don't a Phd, I have a very limited acedemic education--but I doubt that these are really required to understand God's word. Jesus' apostles were mocked because they were "unlettered" and many of his listeners were regarded as "amharets" -- poorest of the poor, the people of the land. But they understood his message, and I am hoping I will do so, too.

While my questions may seem infantile to most you, it could be the very same questions of millions more, and your posts here are wonderful opprotunities to give us satisfactory, straightforward answers.

Let us tackle one issue at a time then: To Fist Monarchy, please let me understand this:

"First of all the Shema is one of the three indisputable facts that prove the Trinity.
Second of all if you will read the Bible you will find that these folks recognized the other
two facts as well. They worshiped the Father and the Spirit and the Son in the guise of the
Angel of Yahweh. And they understood that these individuals were not the same person."

I read the Bible. Please show who these folks were, and how their belief in the Trinity were
clearly manifested. In other words, how did Israel worship/recognize the Son or the Holy Spirit before Jesus was born of Mary? Actually, I find your statement they worshipped an "angel" (Jesus in his pre-human form undoubtedly) a bit disconcerting. Can you please refer me to the texts?

Thank you and God bless.

getrealman said...

Hi David,

Thanks for the admonishment. Correction accepted. I've watched every episode on ABN and I am a contributor because I believe in the work you guys are doing. Just pointing out what I saw as "too much". With your above post I think the point has been made from every perspective and I accept the wise counsel you've given. Thanks.

Getting realer every day.

characterbuilder said...

getrealman,

Thank you and blessings to you for demonstrating how to receive correction with a grateful and humble spirit.

Pay attention fellow bloggers this man demonstrates for us all Christlikeness!

Doug Myers
Modesto, CA

alahad said...

Sorry for the typos, guys, I wasn't supposed to type "personal vindiction" but "personal conviction." Think I need to get more sleep now.

And sorry if I have to cut-and-paste most passages from the internet since it's practically more convenient.

And kudos to people behind this site--you're doing a great service in educating people about the dangers of radical Islam.

For the peaceful Muslims, why don't you hold a debate against fellow Muslims who had these radical views and show that they err? I doubt this will ever happen though.

Peace.

hugh watt said...

1-

alahad:

2. NO. I believe the divine name is attributed only to the Father.

"I am Yahweh. That is my name; and to no one else shall I give my own glory, neither my praise to graven images." - Isaiah 42:8


I shall use the J.W's N.W.T to prove some points, not that I approve of it, but to show how they try to hide the Triunity.

Luke 9:26 For whoever becomes ashamed of me and of my words, the Son of man will be ashamed of this one when he arrives in his glory and that of the Father and of the holy angels.

I'm afraid a discussion regarding as to the Holy Spirit being a person, thus part of a triune God will have to take a series of posts. Maybe we could start with the definiton of what "spirit" is as used in the Bible, and move on from there."

Acts 5:3 But Peter said:
“An·a·ni´as, why has Satan emboldened you to play false to the holy spirit and to hold back secretly some of the price of the field? 4 As long as it remained with you did it not remain yours, and after it was sold did it not continue in your control? Why was it that you purposed such a deed as this in your heart? You have played false, not to men, but to God.”

Acts 13:2 As they were publicly ministering to Jehovah and fasting, the holy spirit said: “Of all persons set Bar´na·bas and Saul apart for me for the work to which I have called them.”

hugh watt said...

2-2

So, we see the J.W's try to deny what their N.W.T says, even breaking grammatical rules to hold onto WTS doctrine.

You see how we need not force our own interpretation into the text; J.W's etc, will do that consistently.

Sam said...

To getrealman, I just want to say I do appreciate you wanting to hold me accountable since I am not above admonishment, correction or the Scriptures. Please pray for me that the risen Lord Jesus will enable me to be A LOT MORE PATIENT when dealing with attacks and blasphemies so that in everything I do he will be glorified.

Lord bless you all.

Fernando said...

Hi alahad... thanks for your words... I think I grasped your explanations, butt coulde you be more clear to all off those muslims thate came arounde here and are less familiar to Christianity? I'll try to explaine my question:

"ransom", as you saide is «a price paid to bring about a release or to buy something back; a price that covers, or pays, the cost of something»...

the questions thate must be putted quiete clear are:

1) who paied the ransmom?
2) to whom or whate was the rannsomn paied?

I guess your words will be very important iff they can bee clear and direct on tese two questions... thanks...

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

You say,

I read the Bible. Please show who these folks were, and how their belief in the Trinity were clearly manifested. In other words, how did Israel worship/recognize the Son or the Holy Spirit before Jesus was born of Mary?

I say:


How about you start here.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/trin02.html

The evidence is everywhere in the OT I can think of dozens of passages. No offence but That you don’t know this makes me doubt that you have ever read the Bible for yourself.

If you read the scriptures with an open mind I really can’t see how you could deny my contention that Jews worshiped the Spirit and the Son (in the guise of the Angel of Yahweh”

You say,

Actually, I find your statement they worshipped an "angel" (Jesus in his pre-human form undoubtedly) a bit disconcerting. Can you please refer me to the texts?

I say,

That you find this statement disconcerting is clear evidence that you need to spend some quality time in the OT.

Here are some texts to get you started

Genesis 16, Genesis 22, Exodus 3, Numbers 22, Judges 2, Judges 5, Judges 6, Judges 13, 2 Samuel 24, 1 Kings 19, 2 Kings 1,2 Kings 19, 1 Chronicles 21, Psalms 34, Isaiah 37 Zechariah 1, Zechariah 3, Zechariah 12

Or you can read this


http://answering-islam.org/authors/rogers/malak_yahweh1.html

peace

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Hey Michael,

You say,

But trinitarian doctrine didn't really start until the early fourth century and then it was enforced with violence until accepted in general.

And I say,

You need to spend a little more time studying the early church and a little less time reading the likes of the Da vinci Code.

The fact is we have concrete evidence Christians were worshiping Christ as God as early as the mid first century. And the violent enforcement came just as often from the Arians.

You say,

There are many scripture believing Christians who do not accept trinitarian theology.

I say,

I’ve never met a person who denied the Trinity and accepted all of scripture as written. You might be the first but I doubt it.

You say,

Repeatedly we read plainly in the scripture that there is ONE God (the Father) and ONE Lord (the Lord Jesus, God's eternal only begotten son).

I say,

This very passage supports the Trinity. Is God (The Father) not Lord? It is impossible for a being to be God not be Lord. To suggest such is blasphemy.

You say,

God the father gave His Son all authority and power, but Jesus nature and divinity was inherent just as eye colour or height might be in human terms.

I say,

Divinity is not an attribute. It is an essence. If divinity can be inherited then God is not intrinsically unique. Perhaps he was a man on another planet and inherited divinity from his God.


Do you see where this kind of extrabibical speculation will lead you?

Only God is divine.end of story

Peace

KeithTruth said...

It would be interesting to see a debate solely focused on what the Quran says about the Bible since this issue was raised but not adequately addressed by Mr. Ally. Nadir was unable to refute the fact that the Quran grants the validity of the Bible and it would be interesting to see a FULL discussion on this issue between Shamoun and Ally. I was very unimpressed with Ally's handling of this issue. Instead of addressing the Islamic texts that validate the Bible directly, Ally's method was to show other passages that simply disagree with Biblical doctrine. This assumes the Quran can be harmonized and is thus inspired - which is begging the question - the very thing Ally asserted Sam was guilty of. Very inconsistent.

jem said...

Hello, Sam, I really enjoyed the debate....but am much concerned with your arrongance, pridefulness, and boastfulness... please refrain from those human attributes....that ruin your character.....

Best regards,


jem

Royal Son said...

Alahad, Thank you for your response. Let me address the points you said no to:

2. NO. I believe the divine name is attributed only to the Father.

Would you please explain what Isaiah 44:6 which reads:

"Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me.

Two entities bearing the name of Yahweh here - Yahweh the King of Israel, and His redeemer Yahweh of Hosts.

means as well as Genesis 19:24 where Yahweh sends brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah from Yahweh in Heaven?

Two entities bearing the name Yahweh here: Yahweh on the earth sending brimstone and fire and Yahweh in the heaven from whom the fire and brimstone comes.

I am Yahweh. That is my name; and "to no one else shall I give my own glory, neither my praise to graven images." - Isaiah 42:8"

Right, the name belongs to the ONE God - the Triune God. (Please see matt 28:19)

4. I believe the Bible teaches we should take refuge in the Father (YHWH).

Psalms 2
12 Do homage to the Son, that He not become angry, and you perish in the way, For His wrath may soon be kindled. How blessed are all who take refuge in Him!

5. Not really. The spirit of God/Holy Spirit is the power of God, sometimes referred to as the "finger" of God. (Please compare Matthew 12:28, Luke 11:20, and Exodus 31:18). It is always designated as the Father's/ YHWH's spirit, never Jesus' spirit.

Please see Acts 5:3-4

3 But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land?
4 "While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God."

6. Not necessarily. Again I will post on these points as I go. Please just be patient and bear with me, brothers.

See afforementioned points.

David Wood said...

Jem said: "Hello, Sam, I really enjoyed the debate....but am much concerned with your arrongance, pridefulness, and boastfulness... please refrain from those human attributes....that ruin your character....."

And I'm far more concerned about the fact that Jem just saw everyone discuss this issue, state their cases, resolve the issue, and accept correction, and then he tries to start up another attack against Sam, in the most offensive manner imaginable.

Jem, I'm not sure how long I'll tolerate someone deliberately bringing division and making trouble.

Nazam said...

As for Prophet Muhammad cursing his followers. Prophet Muhammad was human and he made a pact with Allah that the person wrongfully cursed would be blessed. Shamoun said that he would make a pact with my God. First of all, he doesn't believe in the God that i believe in so he isn't being sincere. Secondly, what guarantee would Shamoun have that God would agree to his pact?

It's amazing to observe how Shamoun justifies his ill behaviour by appealing to the Bible! When Jesus and Paul are portrayed in their discussions with people as being very rude by for example calling people who disagree with them "foolish", "adulterous generation", "Satan", "sons of the devil", etc. etc. Shamoun takes that as justification that he could go and insult whoever disagrees with them. Wow, simply amazing! We have Jesus calling THE ROCK OF THE CHURCH Peter "Satan" unconditionally with no apologies from Jesus' side, but Muhammad is the problem huh? Yeah sure okay.

As for Jesus' predictions I already replied back saying that Shamoun didn't prove that the word "YOU" necessarily refers to the Prophet's contemporaries. The word "soon" means absolutely nothing. Who is define what "soon" means? Allah says in the Qur'an that the Day of Judgment is soon from His perspective, but not necessarily from humans (70:6-7) and since Jesus' coming is one of the signs of the Day of Judgment the same logic could be applied. So when the Prophet said "SOON" he could be speaking in reality from Allah's perspective. This is nothing compared to the problems in the Bible and what respected Bible scholars have said.

I only responded to Shamoun to prove that us Muslims aren't running from anything except Shamoun's foul behaviour. If he could speak politely and maturely we will address all the objections that he has. Is this so much to demand and ask for? Can he stop following the Biblical Jesus and Paul for a second and actually have some manners and self respect?

Zack_Tiang said...

"It's amazing to observe how Shamoun justifies his ill behaviour by appealing to the Bible!"

And I find it amazing to know how Muhammad justifies his ill behaviour by appealing to Allah!




And Nazam seems to have no problem with that!!

Sam is arguing about consistency, not the fact that Muhammad did that.
You condemned Sam for such behaviour... then if you are to be honest and consistent, condemn Muhammad as well!

And same goes to Muhammad's 'Jesus will come soon'. If you're willing to say, 'look in the context'.. Then same for Jesus's statement, 'look in the context', and the context has been explained to you over and over and even in different point of views (both biblically sound so far I see).
Yet you choose to still reject them and continue to say Jesus meant only that...
Consistency, Nazam.. That's Sam's whole reason for 'chasing' you down regarding this matter.

And I doubt he'd be satisfied with that response of yours.

Sam said...

Notice folks Nazam's justification of Muhammad's false prophecies and cursing people. He says I didn't prove that Muhammad said that YOU necessarily meant Muhammad's contemporaries!!!! How many times do I need to quote the same hadiths in order for Nazam to finally get the fact that Muhammad clearly said that Jesus would SOON descend AMONG YOU in order to LEAD YOU and told them to recognize him when they see him? Does it get any clearer than that? If language has any meaning then you can't provide any clearer examples of Muhammad mistakenly thinking that Jesus would appear in the lifetime of his followers.

Next, notice his justification for Muhammad abusing and cursing his followers, not just his enemies. Muhammad was simply human!!!! But wait a minute, aren't we told by Muslim scholars that prophets are guarded and protected (isma/masum) from committing sins? If so then why did Allah fail to protect his prophet from his anger? Why didn't Allah give Muhammad complete mastery over his anger so as to not verbally abuse and curse his followers who loved him more than they loved themselves? Why does Allah allow Muhammad to revel in his sin by accepting his deal to bless anyone he curses? What kind of god would accept such an agreement which allows a person to justify and even continue with abusing people, such as orphan girls?

Nazam, you need to start showing your true nature and stop covering up how you really feel inside. You need to start acting like Muhammad and start cursing us and threatening us with harm and violence much like your false prophet did. You need to stop employing taqiyya like your prophet did when he was outnumbered by the pagans and knew he would have been slaughtered if he tried to subjugate them. So sop pretending to be someone you are not and start showing us your true self, the one who emulates Muhammad your role model.

Face it Nazam, your prophet stands condemned by your own criteria and your weak replies in defense of Muhammad's false prophecies and cursing only further expose your inconsistency. It clearly shows that, like Shabir, you do not apply the same criticisms against Islam that you do to Christianity since, if you did, you would be forced to admit what everyone here besides the Muslims have known for quite some time. Muhammad was nothing more than a false prophet and one of the antichrists that the Bible warned against (cf. 1 John 2:18, 22-23).

Time for you to abandon this false religion and embrace the truth.

alahad said...

Royal Son. Thank you Sir. Now let's try to compare different translations of the text:
NIV "This is what the LORD says--Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.
NLT "This is what the LORD says--Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD of Heaven's Armies: "I am the First and the Last; there is no other God.
NASB "Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me."
I think it's more evident that there is only ONE Yahweh here.
Now let's move to Genesis 19:24. In this account, Abraham received a visit from “three men” who were from God. Of course, YHWH God himself had not appeared in the flesh to Abraham, since "no man may see Him and yet live." This agrees with other occasions when angels appeared to humans and were spoken of as “YHWH” for they were God's representatives. (Gen 16:7-13 Jud 6:12-16) After the “three men"(angels) delivered their message attention was turned to Sodom and Gomorrah. While the angel representing YHWH remained with Abraham, the other two went to Sodom. When the destruction came on the wicked cities, we then read: NIV "Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah--from the LORD out of the heavens.
NLT "Then the LORD rained down fire and burning sulfur from the sky on Sodom and Gomorrah."
Now, it is consistent with Hebrew idiom to speak of a person’s doing something in reference to himself.
1 Kings 8:1
GOD'S WORD® Translation "Then Solomon assembled the respected leaders... to King Solomon"
KJB "Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel... unto king Solomon"
Hosea 1:6-7
NIV "Yet I will show love to the house of Judah; and I will save
them--not by bow...but by the LORD their God."
ESV "But I will have mercy on the house of Judah, and I will save them by the LORD their God.”
Zechariah 10:12
NIV "I will strengthen them in the LORD and in his name they will
walk," declares the LORD.
ESV "I will make them strong in the LORD, and they shall walk in his name,” declares the LORD
American KJV "And I will strengthen them in the LORD; and they shall walk up and down in his name, said the LORD.
This may not be appropriate, but even Floyd Mayweather speaks in this manner when saying
"Mayweather will do this and that..." Just hoping to drive a point. Again, pardon my naivette.
Matthew 28:19. Do the texts say that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are coequal or coeternal or that all are God? McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature acknowledges “This text, however, taken by itself, would not prove decisively either the personality of the three subjects mentioned, or their equality or divinity.” (1981 reprint, Vol. X, p. 552)
Psalms 2:12. Yes you are right. We must also take in refuge in Jesus. Mea culpa. I appreciate the correction.
Regarding Acts 5:3-4; if we read down to 5:9, it clealry states that the Holy Spirit is the spirit of the LORD/YHWH. Hence, lying against it is akin to lying against GOD.
Interestingly, Matt. 12:31, 32 says: “...and whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven...”
So, if the Holy Spirit were a person and were God, would it mean that in some way the Holy Spirit was greater than the Son? Or was Jesus saying that the Father, to whom the “Spirit” belonged, is greater than him, the Son of man?
Peace.

jem said...

Hello, David, you said

"And I'm far more concerned about the fact that Jem just saw everyone discuss this issue, state their cases, resolve the issue, and accept correction, and then he tries to start up another attack against Sam, in the most offensive manner imaginable.

Jem, I'm not sure how long I'll tolerate someone deliberately bringing division and making trouble."

Actually, I've been stating the same thing all along......one cannot reach the masses with rude behavior...its a known fact....my apologies...if the truth offends..

Just FYI I've been to occupied with other things....which is the reason for not posting earlier...

If I am wrong then I humbly ask that you forgive my bad manners....


Best regards,



jem

alahad said...

I came across this one, I think it's a great read.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/the_inkblot_mosque.html

Peace!

Sam said...

To brother Zack Tiang I want to say... praise the risen Lord Jesus! You see my point perfectly! Now let us hope that Nazam sees it and does the honorable thing and condemn Muhammad much like he condemned the NT writers and me when his own prophet is guilty of the same thing.

Anyway folks I have accomplished my purpose of exposing Nazam's gross inconsistencies and dishonesty and that others would see this for themselves. I will let the rest of the brethren address Nazam.

I just want to say to all my brothers and sisters, please forgive me if you feel offended by anything I say and pray that I become more like our risen Lord Jesus for his glory.

Lord bless.

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Hey alahad,

Just a little advice,

Stringing together “thought for thought” translations and paraphrases like the NIV and NLT and "GOD'S WORD® Translation" is not the way to answer an argument based on a literal word for word translation of the scripture.

If you have an issue with what a literal translation like the KJB or ESV or NASB say please make your point based on the actual Hebrew text or at least as it is literally “word for word” translated.

When we are looking at what individual words in a text are saying it does not help your case to present what some editorial committee thought was the gist of a phrase

Those sorts of translations are fine for light reading but when you need to look at in-depth doctrine you might want to stick with something a little more precise that better reflects the actual text you are looking at.


peace

Fernando said...

Hi alahad... I thought you coulde habe already answer the 2 questions I placed... are everythingue OK withe you?

muslimranger said...

As I have explained, the word refers to bosomy girls (i.e. those with developed breasts). The verse is stressing on the fact that men will be given women who are fully developed and attractive. Now it depends on one's culture, mentality and intentions when it comes to constituting what one's reaction would be. If someone's intention is sincere he would realize that the verse is stressing on the beauty and attractiveness of the woman (she is not a whore by the way because they are referred to as our spouses in paradise), while someone with Shamoun's intentions would be those of desperation. Shamoun has his bible talking about genitals and emissions in a graphic manner. The Qur'an does not speak in such a graphic manner. The Qur'an uses the word Kawaa'ib - which only has THE IMPLICATION that women have swelling breasts - but the Qur'an does not use the actual words "swelling breasts", while the Bible actually uses the words "genitals like donkeys and emission like horses". This is graphic and unsuitable.

If I say that I saw a beautiful woman. Would you say that I am being inappropriate? No, because I only used the word beautiful. However, what implications does the word beautiful have? It could imply that the woman has a great body with nice breasts and thighs and a gorgeous face. So just because it has these implications that doesn't make my use of the word "beautiful" to be inappropriate. It would only be inappropriate if I used graphic terms like "I saw a woman with nice breasts and smooth thighs, etc.". So Shamoun is comparing apples with oranges here and needs to recognize and admit the difference. Until he does, why would Shabir debate such a sleaze? Why would Shabir debate someone who cannot tell the difference between one using a word that implies details and between someone who actually utters the actual details itself?

hugh watt said...

1-

muslimranger said:

"Shamoun has his bible talking about genitals and emissions in a graphic manner. The Qur'an does not speak in such a graphic manner."

"So just because it has these implications that doesn't make my use of the word "beautiful" to be inappropriate. It would only be inappropriate if I used graphic terms like "I saw a woman with nice breasts and smooth thighs, etc."


The Bible would say, 'knew his wife,' the Quran says;

S.2.:223 Your wives are a place of sowing of seed for you, so come to your place of cultivation however you wish and put forth [righteousness] for yourselves. And fear Allah and know that you will meet Him. And give good tidings to the believers.

223. Your wives are
As a tilth unto you;
So approach your tilth
When or how ye will;
But do some good act
For your souls beforehand;
And fear God,
And know that ye are
To meet Him (in the Hereafter),
And give (these) good tidings
To those who believe.

223 Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will, and send (good deeds) before you for your souls, and fear Allah, and know that ye will (one day) meet Him. Give glad tidings to believers, (O Muhammad).

Tafsir's to explain...

hugh watt said...

2-2

Your women are a tillage for you, that is, the place where you sow [the seeds of] your children; so come to your tillage, that is, the specified place, the front part, as, in whichever way, you wish, whether standing up, sitting down, lying down, from the front or the back: this was revealed in response to the Jews saying that if a person had vaginal intercourse with his wife from behind, the child would be born cross-eyed; and offer for your souls, righteous deeds, such as saying, 'In the Name of God' (bismillāh) when you commence intercourse; and fear God, in what He commands and prohibits; and know that you shall meet Him, at the Resurrection, where He will requite you according to your deeds; and give good tidings, of Paradise, to the believers, who feared Him.

(Your women are a tilth for you ...) [2:223]. Abu Bakr Ahmad ibn al-Hasan al-Qadi informed us> Hajib ibn Ahmad> 'Abd al-Rahim ibn Munib> Sufyan ibn' Uyaynah> Ibn al-Munkadir that he heard Jabir ibn 'Abd Allah say: "The Jews used to say that whoever penetrates the vagina of his wife from a back position, the child born as a result of this intercourse will be cross-eyed. To deny this, Allah, exalted is He, revealed (Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will) ". This was narrated by Bukhari from Abu Nu'aym and by Muslim from Abu Bakr ibn Abi Shaybah, and Abu Nu'aym and Abu Bakr related it from Sufyan. Muhammad ibn Ibrahim ibn Muhammad ibn Yahya informed us> Abu Sa'id Isma'il ibn Ahmad al-Khalali> 'Abd Allah ibn Zayd al-Bajali> Abu Kurayb> al-Muharibi> Muhammad ibn Ishaq> Aban ibn Muslim> Mujahid who said : "I read the Qur'an out of memory, from beginning to end, under Ibn 'Abbas' supervision three times, stopping at each verse to ask him about its meaning until he got to this verse (Your women are a tilth for you (To cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will). He said: 'The men of this part of Quraysh used to have sexual intercourse with their wives while the latter lay down on their front. They enjoyed their wives from the front and back positions. When they migrated to Medina and married the women of the Helpers, they tried to do with them what they were in the habit of doing in Mecca. But the women of the Helpers objected, saying: 'This is something that we did not do before'. The talk spread until it reached the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace. Allah, exalted is He, then revealed (Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will). He said: If you want you can penetrate your wives from a back position or from a front position, or if you want from a kneeling down position. He meant by this, penetrating their women's vaginas from any of these positions. He said: go to your tilth as you will '". This was narrated by al-Hakim Abu 'Abd Allah in his Sahih from Abu Zakariyya al-'Anbari from Muhammad ibn' Abd al-Salam from Ishaq ibn Ibrahim from al-Muharibi.

Fernando said...

Hi muslimranger... why do you say "This is graphic and unsuitable"? thanks in advance for your answer...

Zack_Tiang said...

Little did alahad realize... he actually quoted something (amongst his various translation) that would support Jesus's divinity..

NASB "Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me."
I think it's more evident that there is only ONE Yahweh here.

Why isn't it 'the Redeemer', but 'his Redeemer'? This is referring to the Son.

And then there's God's title, 'The First and the Last'...
Let's see:

Isaiah 44:6
"This is what the LORD says— Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty:
I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God."

Isaiah 48:12
"Listen to me, O Jacob, Israel, whom I have called:
I am he; I am the first and I am the last."

I'm sure Alahad has no problem with saying these verses are referring to YHWH.
There's a couple verses also in Revelation and I'm pretty confident he accepts Revelation as the Word of God..

Revelation 1:17-18
"When I [John] saw him, I fell at his [YHWH] feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: "Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last [YHWH]. I am the Living One; I was dead [uh-oh], and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades. "

Let's hear that again...
Revelation 2:8
""To the angel of the church in Smyrna write:
These are the words of him who is the First and the Last [YHWH], who died [uh-oh] and came to life again."

Seems to me Jesus is being equated to YHWH. Praise His glorious Name. =)

Zack_Tiang said...

muslimranger said...
"So Shamoun is comparing apples with oranges here and needs to recognize and admit the difference."

Yes, I agree. It is comparing apples and oranges.

One is used to make us feel disgusted of the scene; idolatry as God sees it.
While the other is used to entice the followers and motivate them to be good Muslims.

Apples and oranges.

Which is another problem/issue, IMHO, for Muslims...
Why is it... that Muslims are taught/told to live 'godly' lives (by not committing adultery, only have max 4 wives, 'be good' to their wives)... but are motivated to go to 'Paradise' where they'll be welcomed and 'married' to these newly-created 'developed' women?

Think about it...
You lived your Muslim life, avoiding the thoughts of adultery, avoiding the thoughts of 'indulging' in pornography or committing love affairs outside your marriage....
only to end up in 'Paradise' (with your wife/wives and children) and be indulging (for eternity) the sex and pleasure of [only] Allah knows how many of these 'developed' women (which were specifically created in this Paradise, and specifically for the 'good' Muslim men)... in front of your wife/wives and children??

You got to admit.. something is just not right with that 'goal', my Muslim friends..

Zack_Tiang said...

Oh... let's not forget Muhammad's promise to his followers that they will have an erection and the strength of 100 men so they could 'keep up' with the 'developed' women in Paradise. *rolls eyes*

Alahad,

In God's eyes, sex is one of His beautiful and good creations. He created sex, and He meant it for a man and woman bonded in marriage.
He doesn't see a man's or a woman's private area (along with every other animal's) as dirty or disgusting. He created it all in the beginning and saw that it was good!

But the abuse of His wondrous creation is what disgusts Him... how we mere arrogant mortals abuse His wondrous creation for our own pleasures, but at His displeasure.

Much like how we see electricity as a wondrous ally when it comes to our technological advancement... but then are horrified when we watch a man being electrocuted to death.

alahad said...

Greetings!

Once more, thank you for the replies. I will try examine the points you raised and post my comments later, though comparing various translations, I believe, is conducive to an in-depth study of the Scriptures. Thanks the Internet for making these information available.

Zack Tiang,
I have no problem regarding sex as a gift from God. He created them naked in the first place--no burqa no kondura--and gave them the task of procreation--undoubtedly through sex within marriage.

We're in the same boat here, my friend.


Fernando,

Hi. Obviouly, since no one can redeem mankind from Sin, God himself provided the ransom sacrifice through his Son, Jesus (JOhn 3:16). The Bible also says, “the gift God gives is everlasting life by Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 6:23.) Jesus is called the "Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the World." (John 1:29)

To whom would the ransom be paid? Psalm 49:7 explicitly states, the ransom is to be paid “to God.” Yes, YHWH makes the ransom available, but after the Lamb of God has been sacrificed, the value of his ransom must be paid to God, as foreshadowed by the Abraham-Isaac account in Genesis 22:7, 8, 11-13. By insisting that a ransom be paid—even at great cost to himself—God affirmed his unwavering adherence to righteous principles. (James 1:17)


Thank you.


Just a thought:

These Muslim-Christian apologetics debates are great, I can't seem to get enough of them personally. But at the back of my mind, I can't seem to wonder if these are just "smoke screeen" -- with these apologetics bringing forth a "sanitized and peaceful" version of Islam (thus keeping a large portion the public's opinion divided), while the radical Islam chugs happily along its way.

The radical speakers are speaking in front of their fellow Muslims while the apologetics are speaking in front of the kuffars.

Hmmm....

If these Apologetics really cares Islam, I would love to see them engaging the leaders of these radicals in dialogues in front of their fellow muslims.

Maybe Shabbir Ally against Zakir Naik?

A pipe dream...

Habra2022 said...

"She lusted after lovers with genitals as large as a donkey’s and emissions like those of a horse."

Ezekiel 23:20

So let get this correct, the male members are suppose to represent Egyptian Idols and the ejaculation is suppose to represent the extant of their worship?

Nazam said...

God states in the Holy Quran that men and women in paradise:


....shall get all that they may desire and all that they can ask for, as a first gift from God. His blessings would follow subsequently [ Fussilat 41:31 ]

Sounds quite fair to me, if this promise is not fair, i would like to know what does in the eyes of christians. Both men and women shall get in paradise all they wish or ask for. The fact that the Quran only mentions one reward for men in paradise does not cancel out Allah's promise that both men and women shall get in paradise all they ask for or wish.

In paradise there will exist no jealousy or ill feelings. Husband and wife will never feel jelous to each other for whatever reason. Both will live their afterlife in full happines and joy, getting all they desire ! Jealousy will never exist in paradise. Allah states in the Holy Quran:

And We shall remove from their hearts any ill-feelings ;- beneath them will be rivers flowing;- and they shall say: Praise be to Allah, who hath guided us to this (felicity): never could we have found guidance, had it not been for the guidance of Allah: indeed it was the truth, that the messengers of our Lord brought unto us." And they shall hear the cry: Behold! the garden before you! Ye have been made its inheritors, for your deeds (of righteousness). [ Qur'an 7:43 ]


Biblical view paradise:


In christian heaven, you will be no longer married to your beloved wife on earth but they will be married to Christ. So any kind of sexual relations with their spouses would be fornication or adultery.

Nazam said...

Zack,

how can any example that Shamoun shows can be comparable to what comes out of his mouth?

Shamoun has been consistently abusive and foulmouthed using his own very name. It is not being said that he merely abuses using psuedonyms (nor is it being said that using pseudonyms is wrong); on the contrary he has been openly abusive as can be seen here:

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

He even brags about it and does not care if his filthy emails are published. The above is a solid documentation of this.


He has serious psychological issues and is mentally unstable when he is in front of a computer.

Sam said...

I said I would only comment when Nazam chimes, so here goes.

Zack, Nazam is right. What I have to say and said IS NOTHING COMPARABALE to the filthy language and abuse hurled upon others by his own prophet he is correct. According to his own logic Muhammad must have had serious psychological issues which an examination of his lifestyle confirms. After all, a man who initially thought he was demon possessed, who swore and abused his followers, who permitted men to rape married female captives, who condoned prostitution which he called temporary marriages (muta), and who had people murdered and beheaded is a prime candidate for mental issues.

So Zack, do you see how Nazam once again condemns his prophet by his logic? And do you see how Nazam justifies whatever Muhammad does and will find ways to reconcile Muhammad's abusive, lowly character and false prediction but will not extend that same courteous to the NT or others?

And Nazam pretends that I never addressed or exposed Bassam's link. Here is my reply: http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_puberty3.htm

There you will see Muslims using the foulest of language AGAINST EACH OTHER and even threatening to physically harm one another.

You see in my case you can at least say that there are places in the NT which show that my behaviour shouldn't be the nrom but the exception. However, how do you condemn these Muslim thugs when they are perfectly exemplifying the spirit of Muhammad and his followers who killed each other and hurled insults on one another?

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Hey Alahad,

you said,

though comparing various translations, I believe, is conducive to an in-depth study of the Scriptures. Thanks the Internet for making these information available.

I say,

There is nothing wrong with comparing translations. The question is what kind of translation we should use when studying doctrine

Let me give you an example. Here we have 4 literal word for word translations and one thought for thought (the CEV). Can you see the difference between the different translation types?

Jdg 2:1

(CEV) The LORD's angel went from Gilgal to Bochim and gave the Israelites this message from the LORD: I promised your ancestors that I would give this land to their families, and I brought your people here from Egypt. We made an agreement that I promised never to break,

(ESV) Now the angel of the LORD went up from Gilgal to Bochim. And he said, "I brought you up from Egypt and brought you into the land that I swore to give to your fathers. I said, 'I will never break my covenant with you,


(KJV) And an angel of the LORD came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said, I made you to go up out of Egypt, and have brought you unto the land which I sware unto your fathers; and I said, I will never break my covenant with you.


(YLT) And a messenger of Jehovah goeth up from Gilgal unto Bochim, Jdg 2:2 and saith, `I cause you to come up out of Egypt, and bring you in unto the land which I have sworn to your fathers, and say, I do not break My covenant with you to the age; and ye--ye make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land--their altars ye break down; and ye have not hearkened to My voice--what is this ye have done?


In case you missed it the CEV changes the phrase “and he said” to “and gave the Israelites this message from the LORD”.

There is absolutely no textual warrant for this change and you will not see it in any god “word for word” translation. It was made simply because the editorial committee of the CEV felt it made the passage more readable.

I’ll leave it to you to decide if that was the case but I think we can agree that this particular rendering is useless if we are trying to decide the doctrinal question of whether or not the Angel Of Yahweh is in fact Yahweh.

For that we need to look at the actual literal word for word rendering .

Do you understand?

Peace

Sam said...

Yes what I fair deal Nazam. On earth, you restrict yourself to only four wives but can have unlimited number of cuncubines and captive women, even if they happened to be married, whom you can rape and then sell of. Whereas Allah's paradise, which is supposed to be the holiest place in existence, you have basically turned into a whore house where you will have hard erections to deflower swelling breasted virgins for all eternity.

Wherein both will be those (maidens) restraining their glances upon their husbands, whom no man or jinn yatmithhunna (has opened their hymens with sexual intercourse) before them. S. 55:56, 74

Indeed today the inhabitants of Paradise are busy (read fī shughlin or fī shughulin), [oblivious] to what the inhabitants of the Fire are suffering, [busy] delighting in pleasures SUCH AS DEFLOWERING VIRGINS - not busy with anything wearisome, as there is no toil in Paradise - rejoicing, blissful (fākihūna is a second predicate of inna, the first being fī shugulin, 'busy'); (Tafsir al-Jalalayn; http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=36&tAyahNo=55&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0; bold and capital emphasis ours)

4337. It was narrated from Abu Umamah that the Messenger of Allah said: “There is no one whom Allah will admit to Paradise but Allah will marry him to seventy-two wives, two from houris and seventy from his inheritance from the people of Hell, all of whom will have desirable front passages and he will have a male member that never becomes flaccid (i.e., soft and limp).” (Da‘if)

Hisham bin Khalid said: “From his inheritance from the people of Hell” means: “Men who enter Hell, and the people of Paradise will inherit their wives, just as the wife of Pharaoh will be inherited.” English Translation of Sunan Ibn Majah - Compiled by Imam Muhammad Bin Yazeed Ibn Majah Al-Qazwini, From Hadith No. 3657 to 4341, Ahadith edited and referenced by Hafiz Abu Tahir Zubair 'Ali Za'i, translated by Nasiruddin al-Khattab (Canada), final review by Abu Khaliyl (USA) [Darussalam Publications and Distributors, First Edition: June 2007], Volume 5, Chapter 39. Description Of Paradise, pp. 423-424; bold emphasis ours)

Yeah I see just how fair and holy this deal is. The fact that you can even justify this shows just how sick and perverted your mind has become because of Muhammad and his teachings.

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

Hi alahad...

thaks for your answers...

can you place here the yext of the version of the NT text you use for consubstantiate your good explanation thate God pays Himself the ransom to liberate humanity?

you know... our muslim friends must understand this not by two different texts, expetially when one off them is from the OT... I mean: please present a NT text thate says thate God paied, in Jesus and by Jesus, a ransom to Himself to liberate humanity...

another point I think thate must bee clearly stressed (and I ask you to provide some biblical evidence as well so our muslim friends can grasp the substutionary theory in its depth) is: a ransom is an ammount thate must be paied by someone (God, as you saide) to someone (God as well, as you saide) so thate this someone (God as you saide) realeses someone else (humanity); so: the ransom theory must say thate God had humanity enclausured: where can we see this?

thanks in advance for your remply...

Fernando said...

Hi Habra2022... you're getting there... good work...

Sam said...

Challenge to Nazam. Since women ill get what they desire does that mean that there are also heavenly men awaiting them? Does that mean each woman will have at least seventy men with eternal erections waiting to deflower her? Since there will be no jealousy in Paradise then surely there should be no problem with her having that many men raping, err, I mean having sex with her for all eternity.

And don't bother coming up with the lame excuse that this will be shameful since you have shown what is shameful on earth is no longer shameful in heaven, i.e. in paradise you will have more than four wives whereas in earth that is forbidden, in heaven you will have wine something forbidden on earth.

If you answer know then where is the justice for women? Why can men have large number of heavenly whorees whereas women, who on earth can have only one husband at a time, cannot have more than one husband to deflower them with hard penises?

Odo said...

ahaha

So lets get this correct. What Yhwh forbids, abhors, and condemns here on earth, Allah actually entices and rewards with in heaven! wow, Muhammad had a sick imagination...

Sam said...

Hear the very loving and peaceful nature of Muslims: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzNDBnL-19Q&playnext=1&videos=ygr2eOgxEFo

Zack_Tiang said...

Alahad
"We're in the same boat here, my friend."

Oh.. I'm sorry.. I think I addressed my comment to the wrong person at the end of my last comment. it should've been muslimranger.
So sorry about that, Alahad. Didn't mean to address the topic of sex with you.. meant it for the Muslim commentors.

Zack_Tiang said...

Nazam,
"....shall get all that they may desire and all that they can ask for, as a first gift from God. His blessings would follow subsequently [ Fussilat 41:31 ]"

Ok... so let me get this straght... God will punish all who are sinners and disbelievers.. And we all know even 'good' believing Muslims are forbidden to sin (although Allah will conveniently sweep their sins under the rug or just have a Jew or Christian be punished on behalf of each Muslim)..
So, while it is forbidden to sin on this earth, in our physical lifetime... we can go all out and do anything/everything we want in 'Paradise' that was initially forbidden on earth?
There's no longer need to be loyal to your spouse... there's no longer need to be 'un-selfish'.. there's no longer need to respect others.. there's no longer need to prevent stealing other people's 'developed' women... there's no longer need to restrain ourselves from drunkardness... there's no longer need to avoid fighting or killing each other if a disagreement should ever happen... (i.e. my 'developed' woman is better than yours, that's right, she's better than yours)

Oh.. here's an extra thought... Since 'all that they can ask for' will be 'as a first gift from God'... let's say.. theoretically... a muslim goes to the 'gates to paradise'... but his parents never became Muslims.. and he desires them to come to 'paradise' (for whatever reason people wanna go there)... and so asks it from Allah... will it be granted? If no, why not?


"Both will live their afterlife in full happines and joy, getting all they desire !"

I still find this amazing... that Muslims don't realize just how 'selfish' that belief really is... Were we created by God for His pleasure? Or for our own pleasures??
Muslims' 'paradise' is one of the most selfish places ever thought of by men... God is completely left behind and instead, reduced to become men's servant who satisfy their every desire.
It's disgusting in the eyes of those who knows God and His most wonderful glory.

"And We shall remove from their hearts any ill-feelings ;- beneath them will be rivers flowing;- and they shall say: Praise be to Allah, who hath guided us to this (felicity): never could we have found guidance, had it not been for the guidance of Allah: indeed it was the truth, that the messengers of our Lord brought unto us." And they shall hear the cry: Behold! the garden before you! Ye have been made its inheritors, for your deeds (of righteousness). [ Qur'an 7:43 ] "

So... that means... when Muslims go to their 'paradise'.. they lose their 'free will' and are turned into 'good' robots that will never do anything wrong or with ill-feelings anymore? Allah just... 'switches off the 'evil' side of Muslims the moment they enter 'paradise'... How convenient...

Zack_Tiang said...

Nazam,
"Biblical view paradise:

In Christian heaven, you will be no longer married to your beloved wife on earth but they will be married to Christ. So any kind of sexual relations with their spouses would be fornication or adultery."

First of all, it's the Jehovah's Witnesses that believe in an earthly 'Paradise'... and they don't believe in the inerrancy of the Holy Scripture itself (it needs to be 'filtered' by the Watchtower first).

Secondly.. the reason why there is no longer marriage in heaven is because there will no longer BE any husbands and wives in Heaven 9i.e. no longer any need for sex).
Everyone becomes brothers and sisters and become a part of the Body of Christ, the Church in Heaven.

And UNLIKE the Islam's 'paradise', in Heaven, GOD IS THE MAIN FOCUS! We were created for HIS pleasure ultimately! And we will be in Heaven to worship Him and fellowship with Him and enjoy His glorious presence for all eternity!! No longer will we be driven/motivated by material possession or earthly pleasures (e.g sex, wine, etc); but by the love of God and for God will we live in eternity!
And whatever we receive in Heaven, is not because we desire it, but because it comes out from the pure & perfect love that God have for us.
We seek Heaven not because 'all that we may desire and ask for will be given to us'.. but because we want to be with God for eternity...

Our purpose in Heaven is for His pleasure, not ours! Hallelujah! Praises to God! Praises to Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ!

Zack_Tiang said...

Re: Sam's 'unChristian' behavior/mouth

I find this somewhat curious... All this time, when people criticize Sam for his 'ill-behavior' or 'foul-mouth'... He is always compared against the bible and Jesus... even by the Muslims...
Is it just me, or is it somewhat funny that Muslims never attempts to compare Sam's 'ill-behaviour' or 'foul-mouth' against Prophet Muhammad's 'respectable', 'exemplary' behavior/lifestyle/words?
If Prophet Muhammad is the ultimate example for Muslims to 'imitate', do they try to compare Sam's behaviour to Muhammad's?

Sam, I'm totally aware of that.
And Nazam, at least we can rebuke Sam for his 'un-Christlike' behaviors if any.
How about Muslims? Can they condemn one another if they were 'un-Muhammadlike'?
What would be considered 'un-Muhammadlike'?
I'm every curious to hear your answer to that.

And Nazam never addresses the issue. Why is it justifiable that Muhammad can ask Allah to bless those whom he cursed that did not deserve his cursing in the first place? What kind of an example is that? That completely excuses Muhammad from any accountability to his 'brethren'...
If Muhammad can do that, why not Sam? Sam could just pray to our God (if indeed Allah is the same as God in the bible as most Muslims continue to claim) to bless those who he curses if they did not deserve it.

This 'excuse' is completely immoral and unacceptable! What kind of prophet gives himself a reason to excuse his foul-mouth or ill-behaviour by just saying "Allah will bless you if I was 'mistaken' to curse you when you didn't deserve it"?
Hey! What do you know! Muhammad makes mistakes..

Nazam said...

Minoria,

I've been so busy I completely forgot to give you my answer to your question, Did God die physically at the cross? I hope you get this message.

The issue is with his definition of immortal, which means exempt from death. And the definition of death, which means separation of spirit from the body.

How do you define the word 'immortal' within the context of 1 Tim 6:16
HE (God the Father) ALONE IS IMMORTAL, whom no man had seen or can see...

The above verse can't be referring to Jesus here, as people had seen him.

Perhaps the following Questions with clarify the matter further:

Are we subject to death? Yes
Was Jesus subject to death? Yes

Is our spirit subject to death? No
Was Jesus' spirit subject to death? No

Hence...

Are we immortal? No
Was Jesus immortal? No

Conclusion:
According to 1 Tim 6:16, God the Father, ALONE is immortal. period.

Hope that helps.

alahad said...

Hi guys.

That we are having this discussion attests to Michael's earlier statement that what is deemed "undisputable" teachings of the Trinity is actually "disputable."

Fact is, not all Christians
believe in the Trinity-and I guess JW's keeps popping up in here since they are the most vocal about; only if they have apologetics that would engage in public discussions.

Truly, this subject is exhaustive, time and resource consuming. Debates over this had been going on for centuries--and up to now remains unsettled.

My question, though, regarding Matt. 12:31, 32 implying that in "some way the Holy Spirit
was greater than the Son" still begs some clarifications.

Fifth Monarchy Man

Hello Sir. Thank you for the replies and your patience with me. But forgive me for quoting
you: "The question is what kind of translation we should use when studying doctrine."

So then I ask what translation then remains faithful to the original text, hence, we can
just study this and disregards the rest that seeming causes confusion--which in turn was caused by, as you say, "what some editorial committee thought was the gist of a phrase"?

Is it the NIV? the KJ? The NAB? We got a long list here, don't we?


Fernando,

Hello, sir. The OT and the NT makes up the "Bible", and we both know it. So asking for "a NT text thate says thate God paied, in Jesus and by Jesus, a ransom to Himself to liberate humanity..." is akin to being moot and academic.

You say : "so: the ransom theory must say thate God had humanity enclausured: where can we see this?"

Can you please explicate further what you mean by "enclosured?"

Thank you.

Fernando said...

Nazam saide to brother minoria: «Hope that helps»...

I love tos ee these ignorant muslims apllying theirs human logical to a reality that is not only human, rather divino-human...

do you know the difference between "nature" and "person"? I want to beliebe you do: the bible portraits Jesus as a divine person thate operates two natures: human and divine (thats why sometimes Jesus is portraited as doing human actions and other times divine ones: these natures are not opposite or incompatible since man was created at the image and resemblance of God)... in His dead only the human nature died: not His divine nature, nor His divine person...

God, in Jesus, died humanly... easy as thate...

May Jesus, our common God, bless you...

p.s.: brother minoria: sorry to interviene at these time, butt I found Nazam's comments soooo foony...

Haecceitas said...

I have yet to listen to the question and answer part of the debate, but I have to say that I was very unimpressed by Shabir Ally's arguments. Looks like he has matured quite a bit since the time that this debate took place (years ago, I think).

I do think that Sam should have used all of his time in the rebuttal periods so he could have pressed some of the points from his opening statements more effectively.

In conclusion, Shabir made almost no points at all that I think would even begin to convince a person who has more than a superficial knowledge of Christianity. With regard to Sam's points against Islam, some of them did seem pretty good from where I stand, but I don't feel competent enough to judge them with any great confidence (I'm not that familiar with the Muslim side of the debate on all of the issues). But I can't think how Sam's points could fare any worse than Shabir's so at worst this was a draw in terms of the actual arguments, but more probably a victory for the Christian side. In terms of rhetoric, I think this was a pretty solid draw.

Zack_Tiang said...

"Did God die physically at the cross?"

I find this question interesting. Haha.

God... Physical? Haha. Will let minoria to address it, since it's pointed to him.

hugh watt said...

How do we judge who won a debate? Is it not based on who best presents their point of view most accurately to the texts? Did Sam represent the Bible to its truest meaning, or did Shabir? Likewise, the Quran; did Sam use the refs' in the manner accepted in the era in which they were written, or Shabir? Did Sam misrepresent either Text to make a point, or Shabir? On a similar note, I see the same thing happening with certain commentators here.

Zack_Tiang said...

Alahad,

I noticed you still haven't make known your opinion regarding what I quote..

That YHWH proclaimed that He was the First and the Last in Isaiah.

And then YHWH proclaimed in Revelation that He was the First and the Last, who was dead and is alive. (Twice this is mentioned in Revelation 1 and 2)

Please give us your understanding of that text..

Fernando said...

Hi alahad...

thanks for your kind words... sure, I do belive thate th OT and the NT are one entire book, bu I'm not the point here, rather our muslim friends who desire to know more from Christianity... so: to them its important to present a NT text where its authors present the interpretation you cleaverly gave us all off the randsom theory; in other words: where do the NT authors interpret the randsom theory the way you do? thanks...

you asked whate I meant by "enclosured"... sure: by "enclosured" I mean "limit liberty"... as I saide: "ransom" is the thing someone pay to someone to liberate someone from captivity (limited freedom or prision)... so (and I'll repeat myself): a ransom is an ammount thate must be paied by someone (God, as you saide) to someone (God as well, as you saide) so thate this someone (God as you saide) realeses someone else (humanity); so: the ransom theory must say thate God (since it was to God thate God payed randsom) had humanity in prision: where can we see this?

as I saide: your words are very important...

thanks in advance...

Sam said...

Nazam again shows that he has no business doing any type of exegesis of the Bible. He can't even exeget his own sources, let alone God's true Word!

A careful reading of the immediate context of 1 Timothy 6:16 shows THAT IT IS NOT ABOUT GOD THE FATHER, BUT ABOUT JESUS CHRIST. I am going to post excerpts from one of my articles in order to help educate Nazam on how to do exegesis AND AVOID PARROTING SHABIR HIS TAGHUT.

Sam said...

EXCERPTS FROM MY ARTICLE ON 1 TIMOTHY 6:16 PT. 1

According to the NT Jesus is the only Sovereign King of kings and Lord of lords who alone has immortality:

“I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who in his testimony before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, to keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which he will display at the proper time — he who is the blessed and ONLY (monos) Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who ALONE (ho monos) has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen.” 1 Timothy 6:13-16

It is clear from the context that the nearest antecedent of the pronouns is Jesus Christ, which means that Paul is speaking of Christ here. Paul provides further confirmation that Jesus is the subject of the above verses since elsewhere the Apostle says that Christ brought forth life and immortality by destroying death. Paul further writes that Jesus is the One who will appear and also offers praise to him, much like he does in 1 Timothy 6:16:

Continued...

Sam said...

EXCERPTS FROM MY ARTICLE ON 1 TIMOTHY 6:16 PT. 2

“So do not be ashamed to testify about our Lord, or ashamed of me his prisoner. But join with me in suffering for the gospel, by the power of God, who has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel. And of this gospel I was appointed a herald and an apostle and a teacher.” 2 Timothy 1:8-11

“In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge … Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day — and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing … Alexander the metalworker did me a great deal of harm. The Lord will repay him for what he has done. You too should be on your guard against him, because he strongly opposed our message. At my first defense, no one came to my support, but everyone deserted me. May it not be held against them. But the Lord stood at my side and gave me strength, so that through me the message might be fully proclaimed and all the Gentiles might hear it. And I was delivered from the lion's mouth. The Lord will rescue me from every evil attack and will bring me safely to his heavenly kingdom. To him be glory for ever and ever. Amen.” 2 Timothy 4:1, 8, 14-18

Continued...

Sam said...

EXCERPTS FROM MY ARTICLE ON 1 TIMOTHY 6:16 PT. 3

Moreover, Jesus is explicitly said to be the Ruler of all earthly kings since he is the King of kings and Lord of lords:

“and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood” Revelation 1:5

“They will make war on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those with him are called and chosen and faithful.” Revelation 17:14

“I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. ‘He will rule them with an iron scepter.’ He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.” Revelation 19:11-16

Continued...

Sam said...

EXCERPTS FROM MY ARTICLE ON 1 TIMOTHY 6:16 PT. 4

All of these factors strongly support that Jesus is the subject of 1 Timothy 6:15-16 and therefore he is the One whom Paul says is the only Sovereign who alone possesses immortality!

Amazingly, even an anti-Trinitarian group admits that Paul was speaking of Christ in 1 Timothy 6:15-16!

Jehovah is the “happy God” and his Son Jesus Christ is called “the happy and only Potentate” (1 Tim. 1:11; 6:15)… (Aid to Bible Understanding [Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., 1971], p. 711; bold emphasis ours)

Continued...

Sam said...

EXCERPTS FROM MY ARTICLE ON 1 TIMOTHY 6:16 PT. 5

And:

How can Jesus be “the one alone having immortality”?

The first one described as being rewarded with immortality is Jesus Christ. That he did not possess immortality before his resurrection by God [sic] is seen from the inspired apostle’s words at Romans 6:9: “Christ, now that he has been raised from the dead, dies no more; death is master over him no more.” (Compare Re 1:17, 18). For this reason, when describing him as “the King of those who rule as kings and Lord of those who rule as lords,” 1 Timothy 6:15, 16 shows that Jesus is distinct from all other kings and lords in that he is “the one alone having immortality.” The other kings and lords, because of being mortal, die, even as did also the high priests of Israel. The glorified Jesus, God’s appointed High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, however, has “an indestructible life.” – Heb 7:15-17, 23-25. (Insight on the Scriptures [Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., Brooklyn, NY 1988], Volume 1. Aaron-Jehoshua, p. 1189 – see also p. 1032)

Continued...

Sam said...

EXCERPTS FROM MY ARTICLE ON 1 TIMOTHY 6:16 PT. 6

To say that the explanation offered here is desperate would be a wild understatement. The NT doesn’t teach that Jesus possesses immortality because of the indestructible life he received by virtue of his resurrection. Rather, Jesus has this quality by virtue of being Life itself who gives life to all!

In him was life, and that life was the light of men.” John 1:4

“Jesus said to her, ‘I am the Resurrection and the Life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?’ ‘Yes, Lord,’ she told him, ‘I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who was to come into the world.’” John 11:25-27

“Jesus answered, ‘I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’” John 14:6

You killed the Author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this.” Acts 3:15

“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life— THE LIFE was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you THAT ETERNAL LIFE which was with the Father and was manifested to us— that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.” 1 John 1:1-3

Continued...

Sam said...

EXCERPTS FROM MY ARTICLE ON 1 TIMOTHY 6:16 PT. 7

Therefore, since Jesus is Life, Eternal Life, and the Author of Life it was impossible for Jesus to remain dead:

“Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.” Acts 2:22-24

In fact, Jesus himself said that no one could take his life away and that he would personally raise himself up from the dead:

“Jesus answered them, ‘Destroy this temple, and I WILL RAISE IT AGAIN in three days.’ The Jews replied, ‘It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and YOU are going to raise it in three days?’ But the temple he had spoken of was his body. After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.” John 2:19-22

Continued...

Sam said...

EXCERPTS FROM MY ARTICLE ON 1 TIMOTHY 6:16 PT. 8

“The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life — only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.” John 10:17-18

Yet despite their erroneous interpretation the fact remains that an anti-Trinitarian cult such as the Watch Tower Bible and Tract society of the Jehovah’s Witnesses clearly sees and readily admits that Paul was referring to Christ as the only Sovereign who alone possesses immortality!

This ends the section from my article. For those interested in reading it for themselves here are the links:

http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/exclusive_language1.html

http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/exclusive_language2.html

Lord willing, I will soon follow this up with some more challenges for Nazam to run from or to give mediocre replies which only expose his gross inconsistency.

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Hey Alahad,

You say,

That we are having this discussion attests to Michael's earlier statement that what is deemed "undisputable" teachings of the Trinity is actually "disputable."

I say,

Every single doctrine known to man is denied by someone. I’ve met people who deny that the physical world exists. I once had a long dialogue with an individual who claimed to believe that the law of non contradiction did not hold universally therefore it was possible for a square to be a circle

The fact that a doctrine is denied does not mean it is disputable.

A doctrine is disputable if people of good will starting from the same presuppositions come to different conclusions. This would include such things as the timing of the rapture but not the Trinity.

You say,


Fact is, not all Christians believe in the Trinity-

I say,

Depends on how you define “Christian”. If by Christian you mean “orthodox” or “bible believing” or “born again” then yes all Christians believe in the Trinity

You say,


So then I ask what translation then remains faithful to the original text, hence, we can
just study this and disregards the rest that seeming causes confusion--which in turn was caused by, as you say, "what some editorial committee thought was the gist of a phrase"?

I say,

This is the third time I’ve told you it’s not about “which translation” It’s about what kind of translation.

Some kinds (paraphrases and dynamic equivalent thought for thought) are not suitable for detailed systematic study of doctrine but are perfectly fine for uses that don‘t require precision .

This is not a controversial statement. No biblical Scholar or theologian would disagree. The fact that you don’t seem to understand it makes me think that either you are purposely trying to muddy the waters or I am unable to make my self clear to you for some reason. Here is a article explaining the different types of translations maybe that will help.


http://members.cox.net/deleyd/religion/solarmyth/bibles.html

If you still don’t understand this simple fundamental prerequisite for exegesis it’s easy to understand how you have become so confused about what the Bible says.

Perhaps you should ask your Pastor to explain the different types of translations to you. I’m sorry I could not help


Peace

Anthony Rogers said...

Alahad,

Earlier you said:

"I believe the divine name is attributed only to the Father."

And you cited the following Scriptures to prove this:

"I am Yahweh. That is my name; and to no one else shall I give my own glory, neither my praise to graven images." - Isaiah 42:8

"For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD (YHWH) of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called." Isaiah 54:5

"That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth." Psalm 83:18


I wonder how you reconcile that with a later attempt of yours to deal with Genesis 19:24:

"Now let's move to Genesis 19:24. In this account, Abraham received a visit from “three men” who were from God. Of course, YHWH God himself had not appeared in the flesh to Abraham, since "no man may see Him and yet live." This agrees with other occasions when angels appeared to humans and were spoken of as “YHWH” for they were God's representatives. (Gen 16:7-13 Jud 6:12-16) After the “three men"(angels) delivered their message attention was turned to Sodom and Gomorrah. While the angel representing YHWH remained with Abraham, the other two went to Sodom. When the destruction came on the wicked cities, we then read: NIV "Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah--from the LORD out of the heavens."

Although I would not otherwise object, for reasons that might become apparent in the course of our discussion, since the text does not call all three of the men who appeared to Abrahm "angels", would you care to explain on what basis you do so? Genesis 19:1 only calls two of the men angels; the other one is consistently called Yahweh throughout Genesis 18-19.

Furthermore, setting aside the contradiction mentioned earlier of admitting that the divine name is incommunicable but then turning around and saying a creature can be called Yahweh, on what basis do you claim that angels in general are called Yahweh because they are His representatives? Can you show us anywhere in the Bible where this name is applied to any "angel" other than "the Angel of Yahweh", who is a distinct figure in the Old Testament?

By the way, when you say that God could not have appeared to Abraham in the flesh because no man may see God and live, wouldn't the fact that no man can see Him and live be the whole point of God graciously condescending to appear "in the flesh", i.e. in a way where He could be seen if He so chooses?

I have many other questions and things to say about all this, but let's see how you do with this for now.

Sam said...

Anthony, just to add something. It is ironic that alahad mentioned Isaiah 54:5 when that text affirms that God is actually multipersonal since the words for Maker and Husband are both plurals in Hebrew!

"For your Makers are your Husbands (ki ḇo‘alayiḵa ‘osayiḵa); the LORD (YHWH) of hosts is his name; and your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called." Isaiah 54:5

ḇo‘alayiḵa is the plural of baal and ‘osayiḵa is the plural of 'asa. Go figure!

alahad said...

Wow, with an avalanche of questions heading my way, I think it's pretty useless for me to reply at all.

I can try -- but I doubt it will be of use at all.

So, I think I'll remain quite...


At least for now.

LOL!

Thanks.

Anthony Rogers said...

alahad,

That sounds like a wise move. It is always best to cut your losses rather than plunge headlong into something which only guarantees further loss. Of course it is even wiser to count the cost before venturing on a project that you can't bring to completion.

Since you said you are going to remain quiet "for now", if you do want to reassert your advocacy of the Arian heresy make sure you come back to this thread first and deal with the issues addressed to you. This is a blog answering muslims (not pseudo-Christian cultists), and the topic of this thread has nothing to do with Arianism. In other words, you were graciously allowed to derail things this time but should not thereby think you have a license to interject your anti-trinitarianism into any and every unrelated discussion you may feel like in the future, particularly if you are going to broach such a topic and not finish it.

With that said, I do hope you will think through all of the points made to you by everyone even though you (prudently) have chosen not to respond.

alahad said...

Anthony Rogers,

Sir.

My earlier refusal to reply doesn't mean I am cutting "my losses" as you conveniently calls it. I must admit I am overwhelmed when a barrage of questions from different bloggers is directed at me. I have answers, sure, I could, but consider doing so an exercise in futility.

You said I was allowed to "graciously derail things this time" and that but if you willl look at my earlier posts, I was comemnting on the debate itself. Only when I agreed with Michael on his post (though the trinity was discussed in the debate) did Royal Son begun asking me questions, six in fact--and that started he whole thing. I did not initiate this or "broach" this in, as you like to imply.

If deviation from the topic is not allowed here, someone could've just said "excuse me alahad, we would like to accomodate your concerns about the triity, but this is not the proper forum" and that could've been the end of it.

Just a thought though...

I am a mere layperson (with most of the questions), and most of you here obviously pastors and heads ministries and congregations (with ALL of the answers), would you even consider me just asking questions and YOU (plural) doing the enswering?

If it's agreeable to you, I repost for the THIRD time my question regarding Matt. 12:31, 32 implying that in "some way the Holy Spirit was greater than the Son."

If not, we could just end everything here.

Peace.

Anthony Rogers said...

alahad,

As I see it, you and Michael are joined at the hip. Two Arian peas in a pod.

To bring up the Trinity in a Christian forum and then stand back in surprise that everyone is responding to you does not show a great deal of foresight. If you weren't lacking in foresight and did anticipate this, then you have no grounds now to complain that you can't possibly respond to everyone.

It seems to me your reply shows something of the fact that my remarks about "cutting your losses" was on point: first, not only did you take all that time to write a response to my last post, time that could have included responding to my (or someone else's) previous post, but you even appeal to the fact that you are "a mere layperson" to account for why you feel overwhelmed by all the questions. This shows that your expressed lack of desire to not respond to all the quetions you brought your way has to do with more than just a lack of time; it bespeaks an awareness on your part that you are not prepared to answer the comments and questions provoked by your remarks.

I am fine if you are unable to answer, but you should just come clean. What I am trying to prevent is a bunch of drive-by attacks on the Trinity. If you raise the issue in the future and then once again drop the conversation when you as a "layperson" are taxed and pretend you don't have the time finish what you started, then nothing will be accomplished or seen through to a conclusion.

I will come back and answer your question about Matthew 12 in a later comment. However, if you want to reply to what I have to say on this, then go back up and first reply to what I wrote you earlier (or openly acknowledge that you can't). That way we can make some progress.

piscario said...

Why EVER do you think Sam did well in this debate?!! When you listen to the debate, you will get an impression that Sam did well, do you know why? Because, Sam has got a special kind of expressions, gesture, a special way of speaking etc which makes everyone think that won the debate. But in reality, Sam totally failed even after Shabir's opening speach!!! Sam really has to learn something first before he can meet somebody like Shabir. But, that said, dont ever think that Sam or any other Christian can ever win debate over Muslims. Even if Sam or the whole of the christianity debate till the end of world without even a pause, you will never win over muslims. Do you know why?, because, the christians can never prove the concept of Trinity, the sonship of Jesus, the crucifiction etc. These are the VERY VERY VERY basic concept of christian belief. Some debators even go to the extent of saying that Trinity is a mystry!!! That means your belief is based on a mystry?!!! And, if the christians cannot prove these very basic concepts of their belief, then all the christians are lost and dead.

hugh watt said...

piscario:

Prove Muhammad wasn't speaking with a demon in that cave. If you don't/can't without the true Jesus to save you you'll be lost and dead forever.

bassam said...

Shabir Ally did awesome. Sam you did a good job in terms of your tone and presentation, much stronger than other Christians I have seen debate, but at the end of the day, Shabir's logic was more solid. Furthermore, he was able to use Christian scriptures to illustrate Biblical deviations in detail. Though modern Christian thought and tradition derives from preexisting pagan theology. But since God is most just and merciful, it is still mentioned that Christians will go to heaven in the Koran.

At the end of the day, cognitive dissonance will prevent most from realizing the truth. But a good debate regardless.

piscario said...

Quran did not mention Christians will go to heaven. Don't also think that just because one has a muslim name, he will go to heaven. The conditions for that is mentioned in Chapter 103 in Quran. Only if one follow that conditions he can be successfull, otherwise you are lost.

piscario said...

"It is He who sits above the circle of the earth" (Isa. 40:22).
"He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing" (Job 26:7).


Do you know the difference between CIRCLE and SPHERE?
A CIRCLE is a two dimensional figure but a SPHERE is three dimensional figure!!!
Earth is NOT CIRCLE. Earth is SPHERE. I will give you another example. Your head is almost like a sphere, and photo of your head is almost like a circle. BUT BY READING BIBLE YOUR HEAD HAS BECOME A HOLLOW SPHERE, and that is why you have quoted Isa 40:22 and Job 26:7 to prove earth is ROUND!!

So, Isa 40:22 says earth is CIRCLE, but it DO NOT SAY earth is SPHERE. At least now you realize Bible is wrong!

Now how about Job 26:7?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What is the meaning of STRETCH? The meaning of stretch is to LENGTHEN or to EXTENT. So if HE STRETCHES THE NORTH OVER EMPTY SPACE, then earth is not circle also because a CIRCLE HAS A FIXED RADIUS but ROUND HAS NO FIXED RADIUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So what is happening in Bible?!!! Isa 40:22 says earth is circle and Job 26:7 says earth is not circle!!!!
So according to Bible our earth keep on changing its shape!!!!!!!!!!!
CONTRADICTION!!!!!!!! COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONTRADICTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

COCOCOCOCOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONDRADICTIONSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!

alahad said...

The Hebrew word chugh, at *Isaiah 40:22 translated “circle,” may also be rendered “sphere.” (A Concordance of the Hebrew and Chaldee Scriptures, by B. Davidson) Interestingly, regarding “circle” in this verse, the Scoffeld Reference Bible says in a marginal note: “A remarkable reference to the sphericity of the earth.” Moffatt’s translation reads: “He sits over the round earth,” and the Catholic Douay Version says here: “It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth.”

alahad said...

"The earth is flat. Whoever claims it is round is an atheist deserving of punishment."
- Sheik Abdul-Aziz Ibn Baaz, supreme religious authority of Saudi Arabia, 1993, printed in "Muslim Edicts Take on New Force", New York Times, February 12, 1995.

Muslim Researcher on Astronomy Fadhel Al-Sa'd, declared in a televised debate aired on Iraqi Al-Fayhaa TV (October 31, 2007) that the Earth is flat as evidenced by Qur'anic verses and that the sun is much smaller than the Earth and revolves around it.As devout Muslims, they have good reason to conclude the Earth is flat; the Qur'anic verses 15:19, 20:53, 43:10, 50:7, 51:48, 71:19, 78:6, 79:30, 88:20 and 91:6 all clearly state this and not a single verse in the Qur'an hint to a spherical earth.

piscario said...

Mr. alahad


Oh! Really?!! The Hebrew word chugh can be rendered sphere also? So, you are proving that nothing is possible for those who can convert immortal God to mortal man and then kill the immortal God, right? Wow! You guys are simply smart!!! But just read the following: Maybe you didn't look closely enough at that bunch of dirty filthy porno books, named Bible.

>>>>"The devil took him [Jesus] up into an exceedingly high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them."
- Matthew 4:8

How could one see all the kingdoms of the world from an exceedingly high mountain unless the world was flat?

>>>>"I saw a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great.
The tree grew, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth."
- Daniel 4:10-11

It's not possible to have a sight of "the end of all the earth" no matter how high a tree grows unless the Earth is flat. Daniel 4:10-11 also stated that the Earth has an "end".

>>>>"I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth" (Rev. 7:1)



>>>>He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.
- 1 Chronicles 16:30

>>>>Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...
- Psalm 93:1


>>>>The world is firmly established, it will not be moved.
- Psalm 93:1 & 1 Chronicles 16:30



Of course we know today that not only does the Earth rotate, but that it orbits the Sun and that Solar System itself orbits the center of the Milky Way Galaxy, and that the Milky Way Galaxy moves as well...

Furthermore, the Bible states that the heavens, the stars, the moon and the Sun are fixed in a solid firmament surrounding the Earth and that when God shakes the Heavens, the whole Earth shakes too.

The earth quaked, the foundations of heaven were trembling.
- 2 Samuel 22:8

hugh watt said...

"So, you are proving that nothing is possible for those who can convert immortal God to mortal man and then kill the immortal God, right? Wow! You guys are simply smart!!!"

Smart enough to see the mistake in your comment. Try reading back what you just said. If you miss it it's because you're simply not smart!

"The devil took him [Jesus] up into an exceedingly high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them."
- Matthew 4:8

How could one see all the kingdoms of the world from an exceedingly high mountain unless the world was flat?


So, tell us about the power of the devil, if you can.

"I saw a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great.
The tree grew, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth."
- Daniel 4:10-11

It's not possible to have a sight of "the end of all the earth" no matter how high a tree grows unless the Earth is flat. Daniel 4:10-11 also stated that the Earth has an "end".


As a Bible student I have been taught that Satan often quotes Scripture out-of-context. That's how he deceives souls,... piscario! Here's the bit you missed:

Dan.4:10 "Here are the visions I saw while I was lying on my bed.."

Your arguing against your own misquote of the text!

"I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth" (Rev. 7:1)

He has fixed the earth firm, immovable. 1 Chronicles 16:30

Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm. Ps.93:1

The world is firmly established, it will not be moved.
Ps. 93:1 & 1 Chronicles 16:30

Do you see the earth being rolled about like a pool ball?!!!

piscario said...

Mr. Hugh Watt


“…So, tell us about the power of the devil, if you can…”

Oh! You ask me the power of devil, ha smarty boyo?!

Stupidity knows no bound when it comes to Christianity.

From your Bible I understood that THE DEVIL IS SO POWERFUL AS TO LIFT YOUR OWN ‘GOD’ UNTIL, AT LEAST, THE TOP OF THE HIGHEST MOUNTAIN!!! From your Bible I understood that your ‘God’ is less powerful than even the devil!!!!!!!!!! And you still call him the God?????!!!!!!!!!

And you ask me the power of devil, ha smarty boyo?!
Stupidity knows no bound when it comes to Christianity.

From your Bible I understood that THE DEVIL IS SO POWERFUL AS TO show him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendour from the highest mountain!!!! From your Bible I understood that your ‘God’ is less powerful than even the devil!!!!!!!!!! And you still call him the God?????!!!!!!!!!

And you ask me the power of devil, ha smarty boyo?!
Stupidity knows no bound when it comes to Christianity.



From your Bible I understood that THE DEVIL IS SO POWERFUL AS TO TAKE YOUR ‘GOD’ TO THE HOLY CITY AND HAD HIM STAND ON THE HIGHEST POINT OF THE TEMPLE!!!! From your Bible I understood that your ‘God’ is less powerful than even the devil!!!!!!!!!! And you still call him the God?????!!!!!!!!!

And you ask me the power of devil, ha smarty boyo?!
Stupidity knows no bound when it comes to Christianity.


From your Bible I understood that THE DEVIL IS SO POWERFUL AS TO CHALLENGE YOUR GOD TO JUMP FROM THE HIGHEST POINT!! From your Bible I understood that the your ‘God’ is less powerful than even the devil!!!!!!!!!! And you still call him the God?????!!!!!!!!!

And you ask me the power of devil, ha smarty boyo?!
Stupidity knows no bound when it comes to Christianity.

hugh watt said...

piscario:

"From your Bible I understood that THE DEVIL IS SO POWERFUL AS TO LIFT YOUR OWN ‘GOD’ UNTIL, AT LEAST, THE TOP OF THE HIGHEST MOUNTAIN!!! From your Bible I understood that your ‘God’ is less powerful than even the devil!!! And you still call him the God???!!"

"From your Bible I understood that THE DEVIL IS SO POWERFUL AS TO show him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendour from the highest mountain!!! From your Bible I understood that your ‘God’ is less powerful than even the devil!!! And you still call him the God???!!!"

"From your Bible I understood that THE DEVIL IS SO POWERFUL AS TO TAKE YOUR ‘GOD’ TO THE HOLY CITY AND HAD HIM STAND ON THE HIGHEST POINT OF THE TEMPLE!!! From your Bible I understood that your ‘God’ is less powerful than even the devil!!! And you still call him the God???!!!"

"From your Bible I understood that THE DEVIL IS SO POWERFUL AS TO CHALLENGE YOUR GOD TO JUMP FROM THE HIGHEST POINT!! From your Bible I understood that the your ‘God’ is less powerful than even the devil!!! And you still call him the God???!!!"

"And you ask me the power of devil, ha smarty boyo?!
Stupidity knows no bound when it comes to Christianity."


Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart. Do not depend on your own understanding.

James 4:6 God continues to give us more grace. That's why Scripture says, "God opposes those who are proud. But he gives grace to those who are not."

Heb.2:14We are people of flesh and blood. That is why Jesus became one of us. He died to destroy the devil, who had power over death.

hugh watt said...

piscario:

"From your Bible I understood that THE DEVIL IS SO POWERFUL AS TO LIFT YOUR OWN ‘GOD’ UNTIL, AT LEAST, THE TOP OF THE HIGHEST MOUNTAIN!!! From your Bible I understood that your ‘God’ is less powerful than even the devil!!! And you still call him the God???!!"

When read in the right context, yes.

"From your Bible I understood that THE DEVIL IS SO POWERFUL AS TO show him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendour from the highest mountain!!! From your Bible I understood that your ‘God’ is less powerful than even the devil!!! And you still call him the God???!!!"

You've not told us about Satan'a power yet. I'm waiting.

"From your Bible I understood that THE DEVIL IS SO POWERFUL AS TO TAKE YOUR ‘GOD’ TO THE HOLY CITY AND HAD HIM STAND ON THE HIGHEST POINT OF THE TEMPLE!!! From your Bible I understood that your ‘God’ is less powerful than even the devil!!! And you still call him the God???!!!"

Is Satan so powerful that he can make you misquote Scripture by leaving words out of verses, then attacking your own error?

"From your Bible I understood that THE DEVIL IS SO POWERFUL AS TO CHALLENGE YOUR GOD TO JUMP FROM THE HIGHEST POINT!! From your Bible I understood that the your ‘God’ is less powerful than even the devil!!! And you still call him the God???!!!"

Hasn't Satan challenged Allah's will at any time? Let's see some consistency, boyo!

"And you ask me the power of devil, ha smarty boyo?!
Stupidity knows no bound when it comes to Christianity."


Is this the +ianity that Muhammad said was ok, until he's prophethood was disputed?

piscario said...

Sam Shamoun = Shame SahmeOn

Shame ShameOn was actually more interested in promoting his website. In rebuttal, he kept on saying go to the web site, go to the web site, go to the web site.... and still complaining the time allowed is not enough!!! At one stage, he didn't even use the allowed time fully. Also, look at the expression on his face when he had to read that 'holy' sentence from Ezekiel, poor Sam..... Shame on....

piscario said...

Mr. Hugh Watt.

“…You've not told us about Satan'a power yet. I'm waiting…”

I already said 4 points

5) From your Bible I understood that THE DEVIL IS SO POWERFUL AS TO GIVE YOUR ‘GOD’ ALL THE KINGDOMS OF THE WORLD AND ITS SPLENDOR!! From your Bible I understood that the your ‘God’ is less powerful than even the devil!!!!!!!!!! And you still call him the God?????!!!!!!!!!

And you ask me the power of devil, ha smarty boyo?!
Stupidity knows no bound when it comes to Christianity.


6) From your Bible I understood that THE DEVIL IS SO POWERFUL AS TO COMMAND YOUR ‘GOD’ TO BOW DOWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! From your Bible I understood that the your ‘God’ is less powerful than even the devil!!!!!!!!!! And you still call him the God?????!!!!!!!!!

And you STILL ask me the power of devil, ha smarty boyo?!
Stupidity knows no bound when it comes to Christianity.


7) From your Bible I understood that THE DEVIL IS SO POWERFUL AS TO COMMAND YOUR ‘GOD’ TO WORSHIP SATAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! From your Bible I understood that the your ‘God’ is less powerful than even the devil!!!!!!!!!! And you still call him the God?????!!!!!!!!!

And you STILL ask me the power of devil, ha smarty boyo?!
Stupidity knows no bound when it comes to Christianity.


I also understood that you are smart enough to simply quote all my comments to create a misconception that you have given an answer long enough!!!! What I expect you to do is to express your understandings about those stupidities in that ‘holy’ collection of those dirty filthy porno books.




“…Proverbs 3:5 …”

How dare you trust a ‘God’ who is less powerful than even the devil??????!!!!



“…James 4:6…”


How is it possible by a ‘God’ who is less powerful than even the devil??????!!!!!



“…Heb.2:14…”


The devil is destroyed when the ‘God’ died!!!!! That says it all, boyo. Is it the devil that you are considering as God??????
Also tell me the meaning of IMMORTAL!!!!!!!!!!

piscario said...

Hi hugh Watt

Hope you are fine. I am waiting for your reply.........

hugh watt said...

1-

piscario:

I don't mind dialoging with you, but there needs to be an understanding here. Firstly, I'm a busy person and will only split my time with fellow bloggers, if it's worthwhile. I addressed your Q by asking you to think about what you are saying, you don't seem to have grasped this. When I ask Q's, I'd prefer a thinkers reply, I've no time for repeating posts for the sake of it, nor replying to the kind of cheap shots I often see on unmoderated sites. Atheists do the same thing. You may not like nor understand my reply, that's the way it goes sometimes. You clearly do not understand biblical texts and are not ready to discuss these matters in a constructive manner at the present time. This is a shame, for these are matters of great importance, something that will hit home for every soul some day. I'd like to chat, but in a meaningful way. This though needs to be a two way discussion and not the kind of re-posts I'm currently getting from you. Make it worth my while and I'll give you my time, gladly.

You ask me what immortal means. Check a dictionary.

"Even if Sam or the whole of the christianity debate till the end of world without even a pause, you will never win over muslims. Do you know why?, because, the christians can never prove the concept of Trinity, the sonship of Jesus, the crucifiction etc. These are the VERY VERY VERY basic concept of christian belief. Some debators even go to the extent of saying that Trinity is a mystry!!! That means your belief is based on a mystry?!!! And, if the christians cannot prove these very basic concepts of their belief, then all the christians are lost and dead."

The J.W's also deny the doctrine of a Triune God. When I first became a +ian I was led to study the cults and other religions. Let's see what their New World Translation [N.W.T] has to say about the Person of Christ and the Trinity.

Gen.1:1 In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Gen.2:7 And Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul.

John1:1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. 2 This one was in [the] beginning with God. 3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. What has come into existence 4 by means of him was life, and the life was the light of men.

hugh watt said...

2-2

Notice what the J.W's do here? They can't accept Jesus is God, so they try to make Him out to be a secondary god. They, of course deny He is a lesser god, but ask them to explain what 'a god' means, they'll try to evade the Q. Note also how this 'a god' creates everything!!!

v:10 He was in the world, and the world came into existence through him, but the world did not know him.

v:14 So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of undeserved kindness and truth.

Now they say the Creator became a man, came into this world He created, "resided among us" the "only-begotten son."

They say "only-begotten son" but deny it means equality with The Father.
So, what the N.W.T admits is: The Creator is Jehovah God, Jesus created "all things," Jesus is "a god" not God!

Col.1:5 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist,..

Again the N.W.T inserts a word into the text to promote their heresy, "other." What "other" things were there to create? Well, they teach, "Jesus was all Jehovah created" and through Jesus, His "master worker" everything else was made, as though this somehow makes Jesus a lesser being.

John 8:24 Therefore I said to YOU, YOU will die in YOUR sins. For if YOU do not believe that I am [he], YOU will die in YOUR sins.”

Ask, why would the J.W's do this? For the same reasons Islam do.

If you want to continue this would be a good place to work from.

piscario said...

REPLY - 7 (i will name my replies for reference)

To Hugh Watt

Is that a reply to me? J.W and N.W.T...etc? My questions and comments were something else and you conveniently and carefully deviated from my points and go for attacking J.W!!! J.W. also is Christian denomination who reject trinity. I can give you other Christian denominations also which reject the trinity. Why even the Christian denominations are rejecting the very basic concept of trinity??????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Because some realize the stupidity and is trying to make a deviation. Ok, let alone the case of these small denominations, let us come to another interesting issue:
Do you know how many books are there in Catholic Bible??????????

Do you know how many books are there in Protestant Bible??????????

Do you know how many books are there in Catholic Bible??????????

Catholics and Protestants are the two major denominations. Even they vary considerably with your holy scripture!!!!!!!!!!! Can you believe it?????????????????? Even you christians are not sure about your own belief and faith!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And to hide these stupidities, you smart guys are vainly attacking islam!!! It is because of these stupidities that more and more christians are converting to Islam. So, Hugh Watt instead of making and forcing yourself to believe the falsen ideas, it is time for some serious thinking.

So, at least tell me the meaning of immortal.

(Please don't deviate from the main point.)

hugh watt said...

piscario:

Part 1 didn't go through, so I add this to try to clarify part 2.

John 1:1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. 2 This one was in [the] beginning with God. 3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.

Read part 2 from this point.

hugh watt said...

Heb.2:14 Therefore, since the “young children” are sharers of blood and flesh, he also similarly partook of the same things, that through his death he might bring to nothing the one having the means to cause death, that is, the Devil;

When Jesus came to earth it was for the above purpose, to take the judgment for sinners, to pay a debt we could never pay. Remember, I'm using all N.W.T to show even the J.W's say this, yet they deny Jesus is God.

Matt.20:28 Just as the Son of man came, not to be ministered to, but to minister and to give his soul a ransom in exchange for many.”

Satan needs to be defeated, and only God can do that, Christ came in the form of man to defeat him. Why in the form of man? Well, Adam, a perfect man sinned when tempted by Satan, so it took another man to go through those same temptations and not fail them. It's not the God nature that was weak and was crucified. It was the fleshly weak human nature.

"From your Bible I understood that THE DEVIL IS SO POWERFUL AS TO GIVE YOUR ‘GOD’ ALL THE KINGDOMS OF THE WORLD AND ITS SPLENDOR!!"

2 Cor.4:3 If, now, the good news we declare is in fact veiled, it is veiled among those who are perishing, 4 among whom the god of this system of things [Satan]has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through.

When Adam sinned he lost Paradise. Christ came to win it back, but he had to go through the same trials Adam failed in. If He had failed there would be no one else who could go through those trials for us. All the prophets were sinners. The Koran says Muhammad was a sinner - something Muslims deny. He can't redeem anyone, yet Muslims entrust their souls into his uncertainty!

Satan robbed Adam of Eden, Christ came to win it back. When Adam sinned he lost his authority God gave to him over all physical life. Now for us to get that back, we all need to submit to the One who won the battle on the cross. Satan doesn't mind you being religious, he just doesn't want you saved.

hugh watt said...

"From your Bible I understood that THE DEVIL IS SO POWERFUL AS TO COMMAND YOUR ‘GOD’ TO BOW DOWN!"

You miss the point here. Satan wants the worship due to God to be directed to him. He has the temerity to ask God to step aside so that he can rule all of creation. He wants all, including God, to bow to him!!!
By refusing to submit to God through Christ everyone is bowing to Satan and his will.

If you miss the context of the texts you started with, you'll be confused as to what's happening.

John 10:10 The thief [Satan]does not come unless it is to steal and slay and destroy. I have come that they might have life and might have it in abundance.

"The devil is destroyed when the ‘God’ died!!! That says it all, boyo. Is it the devil that you are considering as God??"

Satan was disarmed when Christ died on the cross and rose again. He will be destroyed along with all who follow him at the final judgment in the lake of fire.

God is giving us a chance to get right with Him but will not force us to choose Him. Satan however does use subtlety and force to get his way. Ask yourself, why did Christ tell His followers not to fight, yet Allah/Muhammad did?

alahad said...

2 Cor 4:4
"...in whose case the god of this age has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that they may not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."


How true these words are to a Muslim!

alahad said...

@ Piscario:

Last time I checked, (at least for the last one hundred years) NO Christian claimed that the earth is flat, quite contrary to Saudi Sheik Abdul-Aziz Ibn Baaz's February 12, 1995 claim.

Let alone the declaration made by Muslim Researcher on Astronomy Fadhel Al-Sa'd, aired on Iraqi Al-Fayhaa TV (October 31, 2007)about the Earth being flat, as attested by the Quran.

Can you actually comment on this?
I already posted these, and you just ignored them.

piscario said...

To alahad



“…I already posted these, and you just ignored them…”


I gave you quotes from Bible which confirms the flat earth. But you also ignored them. Instead, another funny guy named Hugh Watt was the one who came up to comment on those. But, interestingly what he says is something else. He wants me to tell him the power of Devil who took your God to the highest mountain and showed your God everything in the world!!!! IT IS LIKE I HAD QUOTED FROM SOME OTHER SCRIPTURES THAN BIBLE!!!!!!! DUDE, I QUOTED Matthew 4:8 FROM YOUR BIBLE, I WAS NOT QUOTING SOME CHRISTIAN’S EXPLANATIONS ON THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If it was some Christian’s explanation then we can say that they were wrong, but I was quoting the exact word from your Bible. The bible indicate earth is flat in different places. So, Mr. alahad, why did you ignore them? Ok, now for the sake of argument, let it be how you guys like it. But, how could you kill immortal???????????????????????????????????????????? That is the main thing. How could you do that?????????????

Anyway, I have taught Mr. Hugh Watt the power of Devil as it is described in the Bible, you can also check it. Devil took the “God” to the highest mountain, then challenged him down…, what is this? They are playing tag??????????????? Brother, your God is playing tag with devil????????? What are these things???? How dare you call it God’s word???????????? Are you not ashamed to say that the God was deceived by Devil????????????????????? These are the reason why more and more Christians are converting to Islam. Now, the poor guy Hugh Watt is saying he is busy, an argument most of the Christians are finally find shelter under. I am busy, no time….

piscario said...

To alahad




“…Last time I checked, (at least for the last one hundred years) NO Christian claimed that the earth is flat…”


It is not about someone’s claim; it is about what your scripture says about it. Bible clearly says circle!!! And you come with a funny claim that circle can be rendered sphere. How are you going to render it, using any shape editing computer software???? When bible says earth is circle, then it is crystal clear that Bible is not God’s word, instead something written by some story writers. People started to realize it and that is the reason why more and more Christians are converting to Islam!!!! Because they know only God’s word will prevail.

piscario said...

To alahad:




Actually your reply reflects the ESSENCE of Christianity, so I don’t have to comment much on those points. But still, to make you understand I will explain it.




“…Can you actually comment on this? I already posted these, and you just ignored them…”



That says it all, brother! that says it all!!!! Actually, do you know why I ignored them???? And also, do you know why YOU ARE GIVING MUCH IMPORTANCE to them???? That is the difference between Muslims and Christians. Yes, brother!! That is the difference between Islam and Christianity! Now, what is that difference??? I am saying that is the difference, that is the difference, that is the difference…. What is that difference??? Yes. I will explain it. Read carefully:
YOU GAVE ME THE OPINION OF TWO MEN about the shape of earth and I IGNORED IT, but, interestingly, when ignored it YOU KEEP ON ASKING why I ignored it!!!
THIS IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MUSLIMS AND CHRISTIANS. THE MUSLIMS ARE GIVING HIGH PRIORITY AND PREFERENCE TO THE WORDS OF GOD WHILE CHRISTIANS ARE GIVING HIGH PRIORITY AND PREFERENCE TO THE WORDS OF MAN. Yes, brother this is the difference between Muslims and Christians!!!! Muslims prefer God’s word over man’s word while Christians prefer man’s word over God’s word!!!! And that is the reason why more and more Christians are converting to Islam, because they realize God’s word prevails!!!!








“…2 Cor 4:4…”


There you go again!!!! Pauline epistles!!!!! Paul was not even among the disciples of “the Son of God”, but still he could also do some of his own “contributions” to your “sacred” scripture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is my question: how trustworthy is a book written by a group of story writers???????????????????? Please answer……… Even the Paul himself is not sure if he is inspired by God, but still he could add his stories to the so called “sacred” scripture. He could add 13 stories. Is it 13 or less or more???? Who knows?? Some Christians say it is 13, some Christians say it is only 7, some Christians say it is 10 and some other Christians say it is 14!!!!!!!!! No one is sure about these. No one is sure about anything……. Utter confusion everywhere. Please answer why……. But Muslims have no about the authorship of Quran. Christians say God is immortal but at the same time they say God is dead!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How can an immortal die, be it for a 3 days or be it for a fraction of a second??????? People are slowly starting to realize the truth and that is why more and more Christians are converting to Islam. One group of Christians are happy with the 66 books in the bible, while another group is satisfied if there is 73 books, yet another group need 81 books in that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why those with 66 books rejected the other books from their holy scripture?????? Please answer… How trustworthy is that book from which they rejected 7 to 15 books????????????? Please answer……

Why those with 73 books added and rejected the other books to and from their holy scripture?????? Please answer… How trustworthy is that book from which they rejected 8 and to which they added 7 books????????????
Please answer……

Why those with 81 books added the other books to their holy scripture?????? Please answer… How trustworthy is that book to which they added 7 to 15 books? Please answer……


ALL THE ABOVE DESCRIBED BOOKS ARE STILL IN EXISTENCE AND USE BY CHRISTIANS. ALL THE ABOVE DESCRIBED BOOKS ARE THE LIVING PROOF THAT YOUR SCRIPTURE IS CORRUPTED DUE TO ADDITIONS AND DEDUCTIONS. WHY ARE YOU FOLLOWING A CORRUPTED SCRIPTURE?????? HOW CAN YOU IDENTIFY WHICH IS TRUE AND WHICH IS WRONG FROM A CORRUPTED BOOK?????? PLEASE ANSWR…..
And that is the reason why more and more Christians are converting to Islam, because they realize God’s word prevails!!!!

piscario said...

To HUGH WATT.



“…I've no time for repeating posts for the sake of it, nor replying to the kind of cheap shots I often see on unmoderated sites…”


What cheapest shot is there than the death of immortal God? Well, let’s do some meaningful discussion.

Christianity is not much related to God!!!! Christianity is not much related to Jesus (PBUH) also!!!!! Mostly Christianity resulted from the work of some pornographic story writers!!!

Can you deny me if I say cruelty is THE MOST BASIC CONCEPT of Christianity????
Can you deny me if I say cruelty is the CENTRE of Christianity????

>>God insist the death of innocent for the forgiveness of sins of the sinners!!!
>>God insist the blood shed of innocent for fogginess of sins of the sinners!!!
>>Even the very symbol of Christianity, the cross is cruelty of highest degree. Cross depicts a purposely painful and gruesome method of public execution!!!

Christianity is a kind of contradicting evolution

>> While the early Christians REJECTED Cross as a symbol of CRUELTY, the contemporary Christians ACCEPTED cross as a symbol of LOVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>> Jesus (PBUH) gradually becomes divine from Mathew!! to Mark!!!! to Luke!!!!!! to Jhon!!!!!!!!!!!!







“…Firstly, I'm a busy person and will only split my time with fellow bloggers, if it's worthwhile…”


If you are utilizing your time to preach the death of immortal God, then the time that you spending is not worthwhile at all!!!






“…You clearly do not understand biblical texts and are not ready to discuss these matters in a constructive manner at the present time…”


The death of immortal God has no validity at any time. If you do believe it, then you clearly do not understand anything at all.







“…I'd like to chat, but in a meaningful way…”


How can you do meaningful chat with a meaningless belief and a meaningless scripture?

piscario said...

To HUGH WATT.



“…You ask me what immortal means. Check a dictionary…”


Yes, I did check the meaning. Immortal means “not subject to death”. But your God died for three days!! So, what ACCORDING TO YOU is the meaning of immortal? That was what I asked you, what according to the Christians is the meaning of immortal? At least for three days your God is died, right? So, what according to the Christians is the meaning of immortal?

>> If YOUR MEANING ALSO is “not subject to death”, then WHY YOU ARE SAYING GOD DIED?????? Please answer….

>> If you are going to say that IT IS NOT THE GOD, it is the human that died, then WHY YOU ARE SAYING GOD DIED????? Please answer….

>> If you are going to say that IT IS NOT THE GOD, it is the human that died, then WHY YOU ARE WORSHIPPING CHRIST????? Please answer….

>> If you are going to say that we are not worshipping Christ, we are worshipping only God, then tell me why you cannot worship God directly without keeping Christ as an IDOL between you and God and break at least one of the ten commandments of do not worship idol????????? Please answer…. Remember, CROSS WITH OR WITHOUT human figure is an 100% idol.



Like Muslims, Christians also believe God is IMMORTAL and man is MORTAL. Christians say that God is immortal because he resurrected after his death. If there is any truth in that, then you have to say human beings are also immortal because human beings also will be resurrected!!!!!!!!!!! Can you say a man is immortal just because he will be resurrected after death???????????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why we say a man is immortal, because the man will die. Just like that if God is died, be it for three days or for the smallest fraction of a second, then you cannot say God is immortal. So, the very fact that you believe Jesus (PBUH) has died, proves that he is not God but a man with some miraculous powers given by the Almighty immortal God. You don’t have to be a genius to believe it! God is immortal and will not die even for fraction of a second. This is what you have to think seriously, this what you have to spend your valuable time over…. But, it’s unbelievable why you have to waste your valuable busy time to preach things the other way round!!!!!!!!!!!





“…When Jesus came to earth it was for the above purpose, to take the judgment for sinners, to pay a debt we could never pay…”


Again tell me why the ALMIGHTY God cannot pay debt without playing a cheap drama of dying and after three days woke up and walk away?????? If you believe God is almighty then why he has to play a cheap drama????? There is no one to question God of what he is doing, so why he has to play such a cheap drama if he want to pay that debt?????





“…Why in the form of man? Well, Adam, a perfect man sinned when tempted by Satan, so it took another man to go through those same temptations and not fail them…”



Again tell me why the ALMIGHTY God cannot forgive without playing a cheap drama of dying and after three days woke up and walk away?????
>>What is the LOGIC behind punishing an innocent for the sin of others??????????
>>Son of God died about 2000 years before. At that time WE WERE NOT EVEN BORN. So, forgiving the sin even before committing sin?????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>If all the sins are forgiven even before committing sin, then CHRISTIANITY IS A CERTIFICATE TO DO SIN???????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> Killing the innocent for the sins of others is a 100% INJUSTICE


SOME WILL DO MORE SINS WHILE OTHERS WILL DO LESS SINS. SOME WILL DO MORE DANGEROUS SINS WHILE OTHERS WILL DO LESS DANGEROUS SINS. SO, OBVIOUSLY THERE IS IMBALANCE! SO, my question is, IF YOU ARE PUTTING THOSE DIFFERENT SINS IN THE SAME CROSS, THEN THOSE DOING LESS OR LITTLE SIN ARE GETTING JUSTICE COMPARED TO THE ONES WHO ARE DOING MORE SINS???!!! Please answer………

alahad said...

@ Piscario
You said:

"YOU GAVE ME THE OPINION OF TWO MEN about the shape of earth and I IGNORED IT"

Of course you will ignore it. It is really shameful, you know. And I would bet that these two "MEN" you "IGNORED" studied more of the Quran than you did.

What you're doing is the classical Islamic defense of "ad hominem tu quoque". Not to mention taking pasages out of context and ignorance of Biblical teachings.

Pitting Paul vs Jesus is an old trick. I can't really blame you. Paul just doesn't leave for Mo's prophetic claims, did he?

Hebrews 1:1
"In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe."

Galatians 1:8,9
"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!"

And the Apostle John added:
1 John 2:22
"Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son."

And as for the Bible being corrupt, why don't you just the debates posted here regarding the subject?

alahad said...

@piscario:

As the matter of fact, why don;t you start here?

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/01/quran-vs-bible-ex-muslims-comparison-of.html

hugh watt said...

Piscario:
Ahmed Walid Elnathan

nick said...

u did an awesome job in the debate sam..but one question is running in my after watching it and that is"y dint sam expose about the deception of allah when he got a chance at 2:14:20(time)".i watch ur videos of ABN on youtube in which david and u over and over raise points about allah's deception in crucifixion,etc and expose it which i feel gud to enlighten the people..but i dont know why u dint expose the deception of allah in the debate..and i luv u guys(sam,david,white,joseph)..GOD bless u guys and the whole ABN team..my prayers are wid u people..and continue wat u are doin(apologetic job)..GOD has blessed u people with an amazing wisdom of the scriptures(bible) as well as other books..waiting for a deabte of you with mr.misinterpreter since a long time..boy i wud enjoy when u tear his false claims about christianity in front of everyone..!looking forward for the debate.. nick

Zaid said...

Sam,the comment about Muhammad's false prophecy is not false. Whenever Muhammad is addressing the muslims, he is talking about the muslims of ALL time, he never only addresses the people of his community. He always said My Ummah, and he never said Jesus will descend on my COMMUNITY right now, when he says "YOU" he is addressing the muslims of all mankind and of all time, so it is a misunderstanding on your behalf, it is not an error of muhammad if you do not understand his sayings, it is your fault for not seeking knowledge and the correct interpretation.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 201   Newer› Newest»