Overall I was happy with the debate though I could have done some things better.I tried to show that Christians make no distinction between the prophets and read and have all of them in the Bible. Muslims, it seems to me, say they make no distinction but in practice seem to edit the earlier prophets to fit with Muhammad. Regarding the worship and nature of God, I tried to show that the worship of Jesus as son of God and son of man is consistent with the Old Testament prophets.I did not address the plurality issue adequately in terms of grammar but tried to do it in terms of Son of God (Psalm 2) and Son of Man (Daniel 7). These show the worship of the one God through the Son of God and Son of Man.I did not address the unchangeable nature of God adequately.
Abdullah made the point that to say that you are sure of going to paradise puts a limit on God and that to limit God must be wrong.In the debate I said that God is faithful to his promises and we simply receive it with thankfulness. But I think that the Qur'an too "limits" God.God has bought from the believers their selves and their possessions against the gift of Paradise; they fight in the way of God; they kill, and are killed; that is a promise binding upon God in the Torah, and the Gospel, and the Koran; and who fulfils his covenant truer than God? (;111, Arberry)This verse seems to imply that there is a "binding promise on God" and that he will be faithful to his covenant. My feeling was that Abdullah's definition of God seemed to be Aristotelian. I think that in both the Bible and Qur'an God is a God who can be trusted to keep his promise to you.
I found this encounter with Samuel to be very hospitable and enjoyable with mutual respect from all in both sides present at the event. I perhaps didn't engage the point regarding the black stone very well (although, my retort was clear and with a reference to Leviticus) and apologise for this. Moreover, in the opening statment I say 'pronounciation' twice, when I actually meant to say 'translation', apologies again. I think the key points that I would want covered better if I were watching as an audience member trying to understand the Christian view are: how an eternal being changes and remains eternal, what the link/s between the OT descriptions of God and the NT descriptions of Jesus is/are and why the focus is applied so heavily to blood being spilt, but no other Levitical laws about sacrifice. I know there must be answers to these questions out there, as I am no theological genius and there are many theological geniuses on the Christian side of the fence that would have considered and explained these issues before, no doubt, but I don't think they were conclusively covered on the evening. Again, I'd thank Samuel and UTAS Evangelical Students for the opportunity.
Dear brother Samuel Green, I'm bery happy withe your performance... you know: Abdullah "Always in Fashion" Kunde made some twisting assessments withoute any knowledge on any methafisical knowledge just trying to throw some sand into your eyes, butt you were very able to avoide them... good job indedd..
Brother Samuel, there were a few things that you let Akunde get away with which I already took Akunde to task for in the comments section on youtube. If you like i can repost them here.
I really enjoyed the debate. Thanks for the upload.
Samuel,I thought you might find this article by Moiz Amjad interesting.What is the meaning of the Hadith, in which the Prophet is reported to have said that man is created in the image of God?http://understanding-islam.com/related/text.aspx?type=question&qid=1564
Samuel are you British???And if so, what part of Britain are you from??????
Hey Samuel,First of all great job.I also want to commend Abdullah for his respectful demeanor You said,I did not address the unchangeable nature of God adequately.I say,I would love to see a discussion about God’s unchangeable nature in Christianity verses Islam. As you briefly touched on in the debate it’s Allah whose nature changes by necessity. Only a Triune God can be said to be both personal and unchangeable.I would have liked to see that truth explored more fully because I'm not sure that Muslims understand it’s weight. peace
nice debate and very decently conducted.
Mr. Kunde,I look forward to hearing the whole debate, but in checking the sound quality to see if I would need to go somehwere it was quiet or put on my headphones I happened upon your comments in part III starting at about the 3 minute and 30 second mark. At that point you laid down a challenge:"I challenge any Christian to give me any example of where the plural word for God is used in the Old Testament and then the plural verb or plural adjective is used....It's never used."Here are a handful of verses that meet your challenge.Genesis 20:13Genesis 35:7Deuteronomy 4:7Joshua 24:192 Samuel 7:23Psalm 58:11I can't wait to listen to the rest of the debate. Are there other challenges like this one?
JabariI am from Australia!
SamYes, please answer any issue I did not address.
Son of ManAbdullah, replied to my reference to Daniel 7 and the Son of Man by saying that the Son of Man is an angel. I have looked up all the references to this phraseNumber 23:19Psalm 8Daniel 8:17Ezekiel (lots)and it seems to me that they all mean "human".
Isaiah 53I referred to Isaiah 53 and Abdullah made 2 points.1. The sacrifice of Isaiah 53 is a "guilt offering" (53:10) and guilt offerings in Lev 6 are for unintentional sins only.2. The Levitical sacrifices were to be clean but just was not clean because of the way he was treated.My replies1. Guilt offerings in Lev 5-6 are for both unintentional sins.If a person acts unfaithfully and sins unintentionally against the Lord's holy things, then he shall bring his guilt offering to the Lord (Lev 5:14)But also for intentional sins.If anyone sins and is unfaithful to the LORD by deceiving his neighbor about something entrusted to him or left in his care or stolen, or if he cheats him, 3 or if he finds lost property and lies about it, or if he swears falsely, or if he commits any such sin that people may do-- 4 when he thus sins and becomes guilty, he must return what he has stolen or taken by extortion, or what was entrusted to him, or the lost property he found, 5 or whatever it was he swore falsely about. He must make restitution in full, add a fifth of the value to it and give it all to the owner on the day he presents his guilt offering. (Lev 6:1-5)
God's unchanging eternal natural. Here is a helpful video that David did.http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2010/08/how-can-god-die.html
David and Nabeel and others - There needs to be a debate on the specific issue of "The Islamic Wars against the Byzantine and Persian Empires were Unjust 632-732 AD and beyond to 1071 AD (Battle of Manzikert near Van) (Aggressive warfare; they had no right to do what they did.)Does anyone know of good sources and history on that?
In my limited ability, I would like to inform Mr. Kunde that I believe he has erred in that indeed, if one were to limit God in His Majesty, Mr. Kunde has certainly done so. Think of it in these terms, "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him ". Assuredly, seeing and declaring imply two different actions, unless, the declaring perfects that which is meant by seeing. Consider, after describing a certain complex thought, a person would say, " oh, I get it", which is to say, "I understand", I see clearly now.It is Mr. Kunde's unfortunate experience to have had his views shaped erroneously by a seducer, a supplanter, i.e., Mohammed, who having been influenced both of Jewish and Christian thought, departed further from the understandings of each. Consequently, Mohammed's alleged revelations are no revelation all, but grievous error. Because of this Mr. Kunde must refute the triune nature of God therefore preventing him from seeing how the God of all creation can insinuate Himself into that which He has created, and yet be God and God alone.In attempting to give a simplistic understanding, we must ask ourselves, can God be in His indescribable heavens, and yet be on earth at the same time. We must ask ourselves, can God, who is omniscient, limit Himself, and function in the world of the flesh, and yet be God? Is it possible that the God having no beginning and no end, might prepare for Himself a body that is capable of being put to death as a sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, and retain to Himself the power to raise that same dead body back to life?Too, Mr. Kunde, dishonors jehovah God in his feeble attempt to describe how He must act or perform or conform to Mr. Kunde's understanding instead of assenting to the unknowableness of the Creator. Indeed, were we able to so describe the attributes of God, than we would of necessity be God.To further emphasize, a cube has 6 sides of which only three may be seen at any one time. Except one had an opportunity to cause the cube to be turned across all it's faces for viewing, no adequate description could be made of the faces of the cube with assurance, because there would just be no way of knowing what was present on the distant, unseen faces. I regret this feeble attempt, but it is the only way I know of suggesting that God is so much more than the finite mind can describe, therefore, " No man hath seen God at any time..."It is my hope that Mr. Kunde can have the scales of his pride and the blindness of his eyes removed, that he may know the Lord of Glory and salvation in the Messiah of Eternal God Jehovah, our Lord and Savior,Jesus Christ.
To the moderator, I hope the prior post was successful and not duplicated. Sorry for the inconvenience.Brother Sam,God bless you.Too, God bless Abdullah. His origins are remarkably different from those of Paul the apostle who purposely sought to destroy and was consenting to the death of Christians. nonetheless, he is yet a man who our Savior has died for.May he be brought into the Light of the Gospel. I strongly recommend to brother Abdullah that he read 1 John 4 and prayerfully consider that which is written therein.He must acknowledge that the jesus of the quran is not the Jesus of the Gospel.Too, allah of the quran and Jehovah of the "Book", the Law, the Psalms and the Prophets are not the same.I am not wishing to demean him.
Okay your Australian (I don't know why I get the Australian and the British accent mixed up).Anyway you did well Samuel :).
It's true that Christians have more respect to the OT then the Muslims. But you should know that the Jews have no respect to the God of the NT AT ALL!!! Why is that, if it's the same God ? Well , because the God of the OT is different from the God of the NT. In Israel it's forbidden to preach the NT.
1moremuslim - Care to explain to us what a Messianic Jew is?
1moremuslimI know many Jewish people who are Christian and accept the NT, other just accept the OT and still other in practice do not accept either.
1moremuslim,To add to what Samuel said:"There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues..." (S. 3:78)See also: 2:41-44,59, 72-79, 85, 101, 140, 146, 159, 174, 176, 213; 3:19, 24, 70-71, 78-79, 94, 187; 4:44-47; 5:13-15, 41-44; 6:91; 7:162; 41:45; 62:5-6.That is sufficient to account for the failure of those Jews who do not see the connection between the OT and the NT.More importantly, as Jesus said:"Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?" (John 5)
1MoreMuslim : You said "In Israel it's forbidden to preach the NT."I think you mixed up Saudi Arabia for Israel. Okay, so by your logic if the God of the OT and Quran is the same then Saudi Arabia should at least allow us to preach the OT. Wouldn't you agree ..
Samuel GreenWhat I find really dishonest from you, is that you take a fallible human opinion and make it binding on all Muslims. What Umar Ibn Khattab said about the Black stone was pretty clear: there is no benefit nor harm in kissing the black stone. So saying that it gives blessings, is a direct contradiction to What Umar is saying. You quote one scholar I can quote another scholar: Ibn Uthaymeen wrote: As for those ignorants who thought that kissing the stone can give blessings, their opinion has NO FOUNDATION, it's false. (Fatawa Al Aqidah p28, My translation)Now I am asking you, what proof do you have to say that The black stone gives blessings or any kind of benefit, Opposing Umar's clear assertion of the contrary.You know quite well, if we take all the Christian writings as binding to you, you will be in bigger trouble.I find it amazing that an Atheist, opens the Bible and suddenly realizes that the Doctrine of the Trinity is true! It took few centuries and a dozen councils for the faithful Christians to figure it out!!! Some has spent their entire life studying the Bible and they have come to a quite unorthodox Trinity, others ( A Genius like Servitus) has found no foundation for it at all!!! The fact is, the Doctrine is a human fallible interpretation. Be Honest Samuel, You believe in the Trinity, because the mainstream Christianity teaches that.
1moremuslim,The reference I gave comes from one of the standard works of fiqh and sunnah. Bukhari, Muslim and Abu Daw'ud reported that 'Umar approached the Black Stone and kissed it. Then he said: "I know that you are a mere stone that can neither harm nor do any good. If I had not seen the Prophet (peace be upon him) kissing you, I would have never kissed you." Al-Khatabi said: "This shows that abiding by the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him) is binding, regardless of whether or not we understand its reason or the wisdom behind it." Such information devolves obligation on all those whom it reaches, even if they may not fully comprehend its significance. It is known, however, that kissing the Black Stone signifies respect for it, recognition of our obligation toward it, and using it as a means of seeking Allah's blessings. Indeed Allah has preferred some stones over others, as He preferred some countries and cities, days and nights, and months over others. The underlying spirit of all this is unquestioning submission to Allah. (Sayyid Saabiq, Fiqh-us-Sunnah, vol. 5, p. 75)The hadith shows that Umar is uncomfortable with kissing the stone. I agree with him. But he does what he finds uncomfortable because he saw Muhammad do it.The venerating of stones was a pagan pre-Islamic practice:Narrated Abu Raja Al-Utaridi: We used to worship stones, and when we found a better stone than the first one, we would throw the first one and take the latter, but if we could not get a stone then we would collect some earth (i.e. soil) and then bring a sheep and milk that sheep over it, and perform the Tawaf around it. ... (Sahih al-Bukhari: volume 5, book 59, number 661, Khan)Do not make idols or set up an image or a sacred stone for yourselves, and do not place a carved stone in your land to bow down before it. I am the LORD your God. (Leviticus 26:1, NIV)Muhammad should have got rid of this pagan practice.
Samuel green:Ibn Uthaymeen is also one of the greatest scholars of our time, that doesn't make him infallible nor Sayed Sabiq is infallible. Still you didn't answer my question, Umar said that the stone can't benefit nor harm, where is the evidence that the black stone give blessings?To say Umar was uncomfortable by doing that is your own subjective opinion. Umar made a clear difference between Aqidah ( belief) and ritual. I am seeing you perpetrating very silly conclusions about Islam: Muhammad should have stopped venerating stones!!! This is like saying: Paul should have condemned homosexuality. If we are to summarize the mission of Muhammad in one sentence, it will be: STOP WORSHIPING STONES. Your comment is an insult to the intellect. If Muhammad even suspected that the black stone would be an object of veneration he would have smashed it like he did to the other stones."The venerating of stones was a pagan pre-Islamic practice"Thanks for that discovery Samuel, very enlightening, Muhammad didn't notice."Narrated Abu Raja Al-Utaridi: We used to worship stones...."And now what? What is the point of that Hadith if the narrator has found yet another stone to worship? Where is the part: NOW WE FOUND THE BLACK STONE, THE BEST OF ALL STONES TO WORSHIP? Who stopped them from worshiping Stones? Where is your understanding Samuel? I have 2 questions for you and please don't get around:1/ Could you tell me how can we make the difference between a man claiming truly to be God, and a man claiming falsely to be God?2/ Dr William L Craig said that the Jews were wrong in crucifying Jesus, could you tell me what should they have done right?thx in advance.
There is no need to examine thoroughly verses of the OT and the NT. This is plain and simple:- The OT says don't worship anything in Nature.- The NT (supposedly) says that God was something in nature. You have two solutions:1/ they are not the same God.2/ It's the same God, but he is schizophrenic, making cosmic jokes and childish tricks. Astaghfir-ullah.
Abdullah "don't you dare not to call me Mr" Kunde saide: "how an eternal being changes and remains eternal"... Hahahahahaha... whate is the conexion between eternity and inmutability? cannot an eternal being change? and by the way: where is the change in God withe the Son's incarnation? Can anyone simply present one evidence of this? Hahahahahahaha...
The "Son of man is an angel"? Hahahahaha... another muslims "apologist" going into JW ignorant exegesis... Hahahahahahaha...
1more(ignorant)muslim is back... wuow: I bet we wouldn't do so after his last debacle... I was wrong... these muslims are always so eagger to show their ignorance...
gran'pa... how many texts in the Bible say thate people saw God? do you ignora this willingly or you are a naïf JW?
1moremuslim said: "Some has spent their entire life studying the Bible and they have come to a quite unorthodox Trinity, others ( A Genius like Servitus) has found no foundation for it at all!!!"1moremuslim said: "Ibn Uthaymeen is also one of the greatest scholars of our time, that doesn't make him infallible nor Sayed Sabiq is infallible."
Fernando,You are too eager to criticize. If you are saying what I believe you are, then i cannot disagree with you. Case in point, Manoah and his wife. And I do not disagree. I question your hasty response to what I have stated before, and believe you have narrowly interpreted what I said. I do not minimize any experience that men have been recorded as having, direct experiences with God, such as Elijah at Horeb. I will not argue regarding semantical concepts, i.e., precisely who or what is the Angel of the Lord. Gabriel always identified himself as Gabriel, Michael is properly shown as an Archangel, but to say that the Angel of the Lord is anything other than Jehovah manifesting Himself to human eyes is not sound. The appearance of anything is that and that alone and does not suggest Consuming Glory is imperative. Frankly, God may do as He chooses to accomplish His purposes and I am not going to argue it. I am just not that smart or knowledgeable to do so. There are the recorded instances of the children of Israel hearing His voice. There is Abraham's experience in the plains of Mamre, the prophesy concerning Sarah, and the experience of Lot and the subsequent action described in Genesis 19:24.I am not nor never have been affiliated with the WatchTower organization.Are you choosing to just argumentative for arguments sake?
Fernando,I meant " meaning to be argumentative for arguments sake ", in the previous post. Also, I neglected to share Gideon's experience in Judges 6. I believe we are in agreement, don't you?Gran'pa
1more(ignorant)muslim saide: «The OT says don't worship anything in Nature.The NT (supposedly) says that God was something in nature»...oh, dear, can you simply go wash your dishes at your home? no one worships anything created by itself. We Christians worship the divine person of Jesus... please: putt some Fairy in your dishes, will you dear?
So 1more(ignorant)muslim acknowledges thate muhammad knew thate the adoration of stones was a pagan activity and still allowed is followers to adore the white (now black due to the menstruation blodd spilled on it) stone thate was in the kabah... hummm... whate does thate make of him? we all know, don't we?
1moremuslim said: It's true that Christians have more respect to the OT then the Muslims. But you should know that the Jews have no respect to the God of the NT AT ALL!!! Why is that, if it's the same God ? Well , because the God of the OT is different from the God of the NT. In Israel it's forbidden to preach the NT. Thats because the orthodox rabbis have a big deal to say there and are inconsistent. They forbid the preaching of the NT because they claim its idolatry, yet they have no problem with the preaching of1) atheism2) himduism3) buddhism4) fortune tellers5) IslamAll preaching false gods or in case of atheism, even denying the Creator. If idolatry is an issue, then why only forbid the NT? The fact is that the NT appeals to Jews who hear it, more than any other book. And thats why the orthodox feel threatened and ban the NT, even persecuting Messianics all over again. They also claim that it is because of the history of church persecution of Jews. To that I can relate, but no matter how despicable the behavior of the Church has been in regard to the Jewish people, you will not be able to deduce from the NT that it is an anti-semitic text.I always issue the following challenge to Jewish anti-missionaries: if you think that the NT is an anti-semitic book, although its been written by Jews, then let's make a contest and see which book is more anti-semitic than the other: The NT or the Tanach? You quote from the NT the passages that you think are anti-semitic and I will go to the Tanach and quote texts from there that are anti-semitic by the same standards and see which set of book is worse than the other. I have yet to meet any anti-missionary that would take up that challenge.So the ban of the NT has nothing to do with the fact that there are different Gods or not. It has to do with the threat that the orthodox community has for the messianic community. Messianic Judaism is way more attractive to the Israeli than orthodox Judaism. Nothing less.Nakdimon
Abdullah, I will take issue with your claims about the Hebrew text in a video that I will put on youtube, God willing.Shalom,Nakdimon
Brother Anthony, Great list of plural verbs in conjunction with Elohim. However, I would take out Deuteronomy 4:7, since it can be read as "For what great nation is there, that has gods so nigh unto them (elohim q'rovim elaav), as the LORD our God is whensoever we call upon Him?", and replace it with Genesis 1:26. But nice list. Let's see what Abdullah has to say about it.Nakdimon
The Muslims again play a foul game. He claims you will never find a plural noun in conjunction with a plural verb or adjective, THEREFORE, God cannot be a plurality. BUT if you so happen to find any reference with plural nouns in conjunction with plural verbs and adjectives, its just a majestic plural so THEREFORE God cannot be a plurality. So basically, damned if you do, damned if you dont. How convenient Abdullah!The fact is that we have instances where these plural references are found. And it is up to you to prove that they are merely references to a majestic plurality, including the passages where there are clearly two YHWHs mentioned, such as Genesis 19:24 and Isaiah 48:16, which you mentioned in your opening statement and which I will address in the upcomming video.
gran'pa saide: «to say that the Angel of the Lord is anything other than Jehovah manifesting Himself to human eyes is not sound»...really? are you sure? and are you sure there ain't other sightenings off God in the OT thate are not the seeing of the Angel of the Lord?now my critizese off your position is just beggining... just because that's the typiccal muslim interpretation off those facts, unlike the Christian one as brother Semper Paratus has presented eben here in this blog... and no, I'm not arguing just to argue: I'm truing to allow our muslims friends who comme arounde this glog not to be mistake Christianity to some pseudo-Christian cults... and I do bet you agree withe me thate this is a good goal... May Jesus, our eternal God, bless you and your family...
Nakdimon,Thanks for the observation on Deuteronomy 4:7 and for confirming the relevance and significance of the other passages I supplied.As for the "plural of majesty" claim, I am sure you have more than enough information to deal with it, but I thought I would point out that I have an article that may be of some interest to you:The Plural of Majesty: Allah is Neither Plural nor MajesticThere is an additional link in the above article to another that deals with the subject more broadly and offers not just a critique of the plural of majesty explanation (and others) but presents a positive argument for understanding Genesis 1:26, 3:22, 11:7 and Isaiah 6:8, where God uses plural pronouns, as indicative of the Trinity.Finally, I also have an article on Genesis 19:24, which can be found here: The "Heavenly" and "Earthly" Yahweh.(P.S. If you do read these articles, do let me know if you would modify anything. Also, please let me know when your video is done. Thanks.)
Hi Antony,I have read the article on the plural of majesty and I loved it. I was fascinated by the quote from the Sira that basically says that Allah revealed a clear book that is supposed to take away all disputes but has nonetheless used such a language to give the heretics something to argue about and give them grounds for their heretical views. Which is typical Allah: I will reveal a clear book that will end all disputes but I will give people something to dispute about anyway. And if they question the Sira then they are, yet again, dishonest because how many lectures are there in circulation of Muhammad where they say that people called him “al Ameen”, the trustworthy? Yet this reference is solely found in the Sira. reading the rest now.
Fernando:My point still stands:- The OT says don't worship anything in Nature.- The NT (supposedly) says that God was something in nature. Open your eyes Fernando, and read, there is no issue over being created or uncreated.Second, Jesus is said to be the God-man, two natures in one person: Created nature along with uncreated Nature. Both at the same time. If you worship only the divine nature, you are not worshiping Jesus. And if you worship Jesus, you have no choice but to bow before his body which is flesh and bones. That is your mess , believe it.
To Fernando" ". May Jesus, our eternal God, bless you and your family..."This summarizes why Trinity is indeed polytheist in practice. Where is the share of the Father and the Holy Spirit in your blessings? I hope you catch up and make justice between the three.
1moremuslim,The word "nature" has many meanings, and aside from the fact that you don't tell us in what sense you are using the word, you don't supply any references for either of the two propositions which you assert are in tension so that we might see if those verses are using the word (or some equivalent term) the way you are.The OT and NT both clearly teach that God is omnipresent and also that God can manifest Himself in special ways to people, so if this is what you mean to deny then you are as mistaken as it is possible for anyone to be about the Old and New Testaments.
the body of jesus is the interface the Son uses to communicate to the world. I don't see any polytheism there.the worship is to the Son..not to the body.
1moremuslim said "This summarizes why Trinity is indeed polytheist in practice. Where is the share of the Father and the Holy Spirit in your blessings? I hope you catch up and make justice between the three"Jesus answers you in John 14:13-14 "And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father..."When we worship and give praise to the Son, the Son brings glory to the Father because the Son and the Father are One.
Keep up the good apologetics, brothers in Christ. =)
1more(ignorant)muslim saide: «The OT says don't worship anything in Nature; The NT (supposedly) says that God was something in nature»... poor soul... debating withe you is like me giving math classes to university students and after being explaining some trignometry a "clever" student saying "but 2 plus 2 is 5 and not 4"... have you read the OT? and the NT? 1) where in the OT is ONE quote thate forbides worship of anything in nature?... maybe you can find some quotes thate forbade to worship things thate are only created, butt I bet you cannot find ONE thate supports whate you claime... 2) so, in relation withe the NT, do you agree thate it saies thate «God was something in nature»?... being so, and since muhammad believed thate the NT (the same we habe today) he had in his days was the true NT, you agree thate it says thate, indeed, God was something in nature... that's fine withe me... I also agree thate Jesus, whose personal nature is being God, was God in nature... you also saide: «Open your eyes Fernando, and read, there is no issue over being created or uncreated»... my eyes are quite openned, those off you are? since it appears you do nott grasp the simpliest evidences off Christian teachings (as saying thate 2 plus 2 are 5 instead of 4) whate these reality say off your eyes being opened? butt I really do nott understand the meaning off your expression «there is no issue over being created or uncreated»... can you explain these expression?... 1more(ignorant)muslim saide: «Second, Jesus is said to be the God-man, two natures in one person: Created nature along with uncreated Nature. Both at the same time. If you worship only the divine nature, you are not worshiping Jesus. And if you worship Jesus, you have no choice but to bow before his body which is flesh and bones. That is your mess , believe it»... no my dear firend: we only worship the person, and the person of Jesus is only divine, not human... as light: it is, at the same time, corpuscular and ondolatory, butt in some experiences we can make in laboratory, we can only detect one at the time but thate does not mean that the other desapeared... so: we still have light (the person) withe the natures of ondolatory and corposcular (divine and human) united and inseparable, butt in some circusntances only off those are detactable, butt in any case whate is experienced is the light... so: iff this happend everytime in reality, why not in the divine person off Jesus? when you are talking to a person, are you talking to his bones? to his blood? or to his "self"? are you saying thate your self his absolutelly dependent off your bones and blood? is this the mess you habe in your mind? 1more(ignorant)muslim also saide: «This summarizes why Trinity is indeed polytheist in practice. Where is the share of the Father and the Holy Spirit in your blessings? I hope you catch up and make justice between the three»... my dear ignorant friend, the Son, the Father and the Holy Spirit are inseparable in ousia (I bet this word can make it easy to you not to mixe "nature as essence" --ousia-- withe "nature as creation" --ktisis--), so when one askes one to perform one external action this action is common to all off them... ounce again: are you saying thate 2 plus 2 is 5? may Jesus, our eternal God, bless you and your family...
1more(ignorant)muslim saide: «The OT says don't worship anything in Nature; The NT (supposedly) says that God was something in nature»... poor soul... debating withe you is like me giving math classes to university students and after being explaining some trignometry a "clever" student saying "but 2 plus 2 is 5 and not 4"... have you read the OT? and the NT? 1) where in the OT is ONE quote thate forbides worship of anything in nature?... maybe you can find some quotes thate forbade to worship things thate are only created, butt I bet you cannot find ONE thate supports whate you claime... 2) so, in relation withe the NT, do you agree thate it saies thate «God was something in nature»?... being so, and since muhammad believed thate the NT (the same we habe today) he had in his days was the true NT, you agree thate it says thate, indeed, God was something in nature... that's fine withe me... I also agree thate Jesus, whose personal nature is being God, was God in nature... you also saide: «Open your eyes Fernando, and read, there is no issue over being created or uncreated»... my eyes are quite openned, those off you are? since it appears you do nott grasp the simpliest evidences off Christian teachings (as saying thate 2 plus 2 are 5 instead of 4) whate these reality say off your eyes being opened? butt I really do nott understand the meaning off your expression «there is no issue over being created or uncreated»... can you explain these expression?... (end part 1)
(part 2) 1more(ignorant)muslim saide: «Second, Jesus is said to be the God-man, two natures in one person: Created nature along with uncreated Nature. Both at the same time. If you worship only the divine nature, you are not worshiping Jesus. And if you worship Jesus, you have no choice but to bow before his body which is flesh and bones. That is your mess , believe it»... no my dear firend: we only worship the person, and the person of Jesus is only divine, not human... as light: it is, at the same time, corpuscular and ondolatory, butt in some experiences we can make in laboratory, we can only detect one at the time but thate does not mean that the other desapeared... so: we still have light (the person) withe the natures of ondolatory and corposcular (divine and human) united and inseparable, butt in some circusntances only off those are detactable, butt in any case whate is experienced is the light... so: iff this happend everytime in reality, why not in the divine person off Jesus? when you are talking to a person, are you talking to his bones? to his blood? or to his "self"? are you saying thate your self his absolutelly dependent off your bones and blood? is this the mess you habe in your mind? 1more(ignorant)muslim also saide: «This summarizes why Trinity is indeed polytheist in practice. Where is the share of the Father and the Holy Spirit in your blessings? I hope you catch up and make justice between the three»... my dear ignorant friend, the Son, the Father and the Holy Spirit are inseparable in ousia (I bet this word can make it easy to you not to mixe "nature as essence" --ousia-- withe "nature as creation" --ktisis--), so when one askes one to perform one external action this action is common to all off them... ounce again: are you saying thate 2 plus 2 is 5? may Jesus, our eternal God, bless you and your family...
To Fernando: " no my dear firend: we only worship the person, and the person of Jesus is only divine, not human" Congratulation! You have created a new Christian heresy... Or may it's old, I don't think that we can still find a new Christian heresy. What do we call the heresy of denying Jesus' humanity? Gnosticism? Never mind.When a man cannot draw a line between orthodoxy and heresy in the very core of his belief, he is in confusion, and a confusion cannot be a religion from God.Repent Fernando, people like you were burned at the stake in the medieval Europe.
1moremuslim,I think you misunderstood Fernando. He was affirming the orthodox doctrine that Jesus is a divine person rather than a created person. The two natures of Christ concur in one person - not two - and that person is the eternal Logos.
1moremuslimMy point still stands:- The OT says don't worship anything in Nature.The references I gave in the debate were Psalm 2 and Daniel 7. We see worship in these references to the son of God and the son of man.
To Samuel Green,Do you think that the Old testament teaches that a MAN claiming to be God is a blasphemy worthy of death and Hell? Do think that worshiping a MAN is Idolatry in the OT that would lead to Hell?If that is true, than the Idea of God becoming Man cannot be true, unless you believe in a God who is making cosmic jokes. If God truly became man, then we should ask, what other things can he become? Can he become a Cow? Or may be he became Alexander the Great ? Why not?I would ask again my old question: Dr Lane Craig said that the Jews were wrong in Crucifying Jesus. What the Jews should have done to be considered right?
1moremuslim,Your question is inaccurate.The OT taught that,1 - A MAN that claims to be God but is not is committing blasphemy and is worthy of death.2 - Worshipping a man (or woman or anything) that is not God is idolatry.3 - Thus your conclusion is false and also doesn't follow through with your arguments anyway. Just cause a man can't claim to be God, doesn't mean God can't enter into the body of a man.If God can't enter into His creation.. then do you agree He can't speak from out of a fire?Then again, He can't reveal Himself to a mountain to crumble it, yeah? Cause time and space are part of creation, no?and obviously, the right thing for the Jews to do was to worship Jesus and acknowledge Him as their prophesied Messiah. I thought that's pretty obvious.
Zack_Tiang Worshipping a man (or woman or anything) that is not God is idolatry. Can you show me please how to make the difference between a man who is God and a man who is not God? Many humans were considered God incarnate, why only Jesus. Remember, the difference should be as clear as the difference between Hell and Heaven.I asked what the Jews should have done right in respect for the crucifixion. Should they have believed Jesus and worship him, and not to stone him or hand him to the Romans? Your thoughts please.
Honestly, 1moremuslim, I don't feel like answering you for now... cause it takes me time to get the citations, write out the response, etc..So I pray that someone else will take on your questions instead. Thanks in advance.
1moremuslim said:Can you show me please how to make the difference between a man who is God and a man who is not God? Many humans were considered God incarnate, why only Jesus. Remember, the difference should be as clear as the difference between Hell and Heaven.Oh and it is - thousands of years of OT prophecy, healing and miracles thousands witnesed, claiming to be God, followed by RAISING FROM THE DEAD. Clear as day to me, dont think too many Alexander the Greats and Muhammads could raise from the dead at their own will. Nobody like Him before, nobody like Him since.
Mr. Kunde is my favorite Islamic debater so far. He really is scholarly, courteous, and conscience. (I just finished his opening statement.)I like him more than Mr Abdullah, and I think Mr. Osama Abdullah is cuter than a box of kittens.
The plural word for God: Elohim and the plural adjective for God is found in Deuteronomy 6:4"Hear o Israel the Lord is our God, The LORD is one.The word one is the Hebrew word "echad" and is the word used to show unity.In the same way, the word "echad" is used in these verses:Genesis 2:24 husband and wife become one (echad) fleshGenesis 34:16 people of Shechem and people of Israel become one (echad) peopleGenesis 41:25 two dreams are one (echad) and the same.Exodus 24:3 voices of people became one (echad) voice.2 Chronicles 30:12 many people have one (echad) heart.
To One moremuslim:I found this on a Muslim website called Muslimmatters.org in an article titled "Kiss the Black Stone Every Time."t was narrated that Ibn ‘Abbaas said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said concerning the Stone: “By Allaah, Allaah will bring it forth on the Day of Resurrection, and it will have two eyes with which it will see and a tongue with which it will speak, and it will testify in favour of those who touched it in sincerity.”Narrated by al-Tirmidhi, 961; Ibn Maajah, 2944This hadeeth was classed as hasan by al-Tirmidhi, and as qawiy by al-Haafiz ibn Hajar in Fath al-Baari, 3/462Also this:"It was narrated that Ibn ‘Umar said: I heard the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say: “Touching them both [the Black Stone and al-Rukn al-Yamani] is an expiation for sins.”(Narrated by al-Tirmidhi, 959. This hadeeth was classed as hasan by al-Tirmidhi and as saheeh by al-Haakim (1/664). Al-Dhahabi agreed with him).I just cut and pasted that. I have no idea what hasan and saheeh even mean. But put yourself in my shoes. If you were a Christian reading those hadiths, what would you think about those hadiths and whether or not it was taught that they promised some sort of a blessing to the ones who kissed that stone?
One moremuslim:Here is what you asked:"2/ Dr William L Craig said that the Jews were wrong in crucifying Jesus, could you tell me what should they have done right?"This is what they should have done. They should have done honor and justice to God and acknowledged that no one can cause the miracles which Jesus performed except God.Instead they literally gave Satan credit!(Matthew 12:24)Then they should have let the miracles speak for themselves. Would God allow a blasphemer and a liar take away worship belonging to Him only, and stamp him with His seal of authority (miracles)?Does God give Divine power to false gods, so that they can lie to people? Has He ever?Then they should have searched the writings of Moses and the prophets to see if Jesus fulfilled those prophecies.Both of these things Jesus requested them to do.
1moremuslim:Think about your arguement."Why is that, if it's the same God ? Well , because the God of the OT is different from the God of the NT."Based on that argument, since you allege that allah is the same as Jehovah, then the Jews should read the Quran....right?I wonder how the Quran goes down in the homes of Jerusalem these days.
In regards to God coming in the flesh, the Septuagint, which predates the Masoretic text by 10-13 centuries had translated Psalms 40:6-8 into Greek as this: (translated into English)"Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not; but a body thou hast prepared me; whole-burnt-offering and sacrifice for sin Thou didst not require. Then I said, Behold I came in the volume of the book it is written concerning me. I desired to to thy will O My God, and Thy law in the midst of mine heart."
Thank you Mr. Green. You are really awesome. I actually paused the video so that I could take notes on some of your points, and even placed them in the margins of my bible. I love it when that happens. I wish you were my Sunday school teacher.And Mr. Kunde is no slouch. I hope he has more debates here.
Okay I'm going to paste this in two parts.Part 1Enjoyed the debate, found both speakers extremely respectful, polite and non-aggressive, they just come across better than so many representatives and older debates, think it's the multicultural political correctness of Australians in general that causes this politeness.My comments are mainly directed to video 4 and 5 the most interesting part of the debate for me. Mr Kunde said Allah is one not in a numerical sense but in an absolute unique unification sense. Firstly this is an oxymoron. "absolute UNIFICATION". Unification always implies the conjoining of two or more entities/properties simultaneously existing together, unified, the oneness of unification is hence explained by it's co-existent diversity. (even the Quran mentions an example of this the heavens and the earth were once conjoined but "as thunder", split up and again sewn back together etc). Secondly Allah of course has to be one in a numerical sense as "Allah has no partners" is referring to two or more entities like/similar to Allah. So his oneness must exclude plurality in a numerical sense, meaning he has to be one in some kind of numerical sense (probably his being). Sam does a brilliant job of showing that here: http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2011/01/sam-shamoun-responds-to-abdullah-kunde_21.htmlThe argument that God having three persons means God is limited numerically. Now according to Mr Kunde words in the debate Allah is limited to one person/action/essence, so already this argument backfires and can be applied on him. And if God has no restrictions or limitations as Mr Kunde seems to be suggesting/arguing, then God is without definition or nature and rendered meaningless, as argued by an Atheist here:"If a supernatural being is to be exempt from natural law, it cannot possess specific, determinate characteristics. These attributes would impose limits and these limits would restrict the capacities of this supernatural being....A supernatural being, if it is to differ in kind from natural existence, must exist without a limited nature--which amounts to existing without any nature at all." Atheism: The Case Against God, written by George H. Smith (page 41).The fact that he concedes his God is not limited in any sense and in the particular sense of keeping his promises of certain salvation or blessings, covenants etc means his God is arbitrary, unreliable and unfaithful and can change his mind at any time contradicting his claim that his God is the same God as Numbers 23:19 (The OT God that doesn't change his mind, is changeless and eternal), when in fact Allah holds no ties to his covenant/bond with humanity or any beings. Also if his God is limitless and not compelled to take certain actions, then why can't he be limitless in person? Why impose one set of limitations on Allah (he can only be one person) but reject another set of limitations (he is compelled to act). Essentially saying "God is an absolute unity" doesn't explain anything about Allah at all as we have numerous double standards and glaring contradictions that arrive from an inadequate explanation of what this means.
Part 2According to video 5, Allah is not limited to merely to being "a person, or three persons", but Mr Kunde says Allah isn't compelled or limited to complete an action. If this is the case then why call himself "Most Merciful" and set this up as a descriptive attribute of himself where he will be compelled to act in accordance with it? There are three choices 1) Allah is not obliged to be merciful, and is simply lying about himself, 2) He is telling the truth but can change his mind at any time and completely untrustworthy or 3) Allah's mercy is an attribute that must be upheld refuting Mr Kunde who says "He's not compelled to take any particular action".But I do credit Mr Kunde for making a good argument against Theism in general. The real dilemma here is this: If what you have said is true: God is completely and utterly free, and can arbitrarily do what he wants, whenever he wants and is without limitations (meaning he doesn't have to be a person, or follow sets of actions or any other restrictions) then hence he is without a nature and is essentially meaningless or pantheistic. The second option is: Allah does have limits (he is the creator, unique and distinct from creation, and has other divine attributes) but he doesn't have this particular limit, meaning he is unable to be forced into a set of predetermined outcomes. This merely means you have a personal God who can still be defined but part of this definition means he cannot keep his promises because of his non-obligatory inconsistency showing he is untrustworthy.If however God has some sort of consistency then this means God is NOT free, he doesn't have free will, he is restricted to a fix set of actions he knows he will take that are derived and necessarily caused by his nature turning God into a mechanical robotic process of co-ordinates that are set up and derive from his nature and essence. What kind of divine person is that? If God has no free will, how can he be a person?If true, this refutes your belief that God is one person and the Christian belief that God is three persons, God cannot have any persons.This is only if we argue a person particularly a divine person must have autonomous libertarian free will in order to be a person.Put in argument format:1. God is omniscient2. God has a free will3. Entities with free will have non-determinate futures4. Omniscience entails foreknowledge5. If an entity knows the future, the future is not non-determinate6. From 3,5: Therefore there are no omniscient epistemic agents who have free will7. Therefore god is not omniscient and/or god does not have free will8. Therefore god does not existI'd like to thank Mr Kunde for further strengthening and confirming my non-belief, his information should cause any Muslim to question exactly how to define Allah. If Allah has no limits, then Allah is equivalent to pantheism. If however Allah has the important limits mentioned then his argument against "certainty of heaven" leveled at the Christians (a argument the Quran also makes) is in error, lastly he has the option his God is untrustworthy and cannot depend on the fact that he will be saved from the hell-fire, not even eventually. In all three scenarios he must reject Islam, because both pantheism and an error found in the Quran, and an unreliable God all contradict fundamental tenants of Islam.
Post a Comment