Tuesday, April 10, 2012

James White Exposes "Calling Christians" (Again)

Muslims once again make the mistake of bringing a kazoo to a gunfight.

310 comments:

1 – 200 of 310   Newer›   Newest»
Billy said...

Muslims are absolutely blinded by their religious belief even to have the ability to hear what the other side is saying. Many of the people who claim to be followers of Mohammad have no concern about truthfulness or accuracy at all. That is one of the strongest evidences that the vast majority of Islamic dawa is simply untruthful—it has no concern for truth at all. Where are the Muslim apologists who are policing your own sites? (J. White. paraphrased).

To blow things up, Muslims dispatch their indoctrinated and ignorant kids strapped with bombs. Similarly, to debate, again they dispatch their indoctrinated, ignorant, and intellectually lightweight kids with Afghanistan madrasa education.

Radical Moderate said...

Oh they did it to him again lol.

The voice on the video is not Calling Christians don't know who he is, but CallingChristians AKA ABu Shujab has a thick west indy accent.

So the next video they do will be attacking Dr White again for not knowing who it is he is talking about lol.

THose guys are pathetic. I don't even think they know when they are lying anymore.

He writes on his blog.
"•We’ve since had over 10,000+ views in our few months of operation, our articles and videos have gathered thousands of views and we look forward to what the future brings."

I mean really just look at the views of his video's only a few hundread if that. Most our under a hundread.

Oh well he is funny to listen to especially when he corrects my pronouciations of words.

When the young man can say THREE and not TREE, or properly prounounce Saduccees then he can tell me how to prounce Essenees lol

Witness said...

Just watch, in response Nadir Ahmed will release a YouTube video where he makes the Muslim case against the deity of Christ. Following his thrashing of Dr. White on the debate of whether the New Testament can be trusted, he should raise the following key arguments:

1) Dr. White plays hot potato with the truth
2) David Wood is toast
3) The debate is over
4) Muta

www.examineyourheadwhileitsupyourass.com

Deleting said...

www.examineyourheadwhileitsupyourass.com


Hey!!!!! This doesn't go to a website AT ALL!!

Yes. I'm ashamed to say...I fell for it.

Witness you have shamed me!

lol

Radical Moderate said...

LOL I knew it, I just checked his site and sure enough

..."what you will see is taht he incoreclty identified the person in the video in hist Tirty Minute Rant"

LOL

Mary said...

Islam is a cult for supremacy. It is not a claim to intellectual superiority or reasonable argument. The cult of Islam is also a war machine which lure and keeps those who enjoy the plunder, rape, abuse of and murder of non-Muslims while still expecting the supremacy and favor promised by Islam. Those in good faith initially have to make a choice when they realize they are trapped in a diabolical, deceitful cult, they have to decide to leave and face death as an apostate or continue to support Islam and jihad violently, financially, or passively. Passive does NOT mean peaceful, especially in passively supporting jihad against non-Muslims.

Osama Abdallah said...

This clown is so full of himself! I did raise before that he's arrogant and needs to learn to humble himself a little.

Now having said that, the Muslims are not unethical or untruthful about Islamic Dawah and about seeking the Truth, and about learning from others. We know what Christianity says, and we're not convinced. Not only we don't find Christianity convincing, but we also know that so many Christian theologians have turned either atheists or agnostics. Like the Glorious Quran Says: "....they follow nothing but conjecture...." Indeed, Christianity is nothing but a conjecture. It's a joke and a desperate faith to prove falsehood. Jesus is simply a creation of GOD Almighty, a servant of GOD Almighty, and a great Prophet from GOD Almighty, and our Messiah and Leader. He is no more than that.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Foolster41 said...

"This clown is so full of himself! I did raise before that he's arrogant and needs to learn to humble himself a little."
Who? Dr. White or the muslim? How is Dr. White being "full of himself" for showing outright dishonesty? Why are you incapiable of ever siding with Kuffir when they are wronged by muslims? Why can't you seem to critisize a fellow muslim when he is wrong? Is it possibly because Islam teaches a fascist command to subjegate the non-beleiver, and that muslims are superior (ubermench)?

"Muslims are not unethical or untruthful about Islamic Dawah and about seeking the Truth, and about learning from others"
Not unethical or untruthful? Uh, did you watch the video? Of course, you've been extremely dishonest and unethical in hte past, so this is hardly shocking.

P.S. You still owe me an apollogy for saying I want hatye crimes to happen against muslims for mearly pointing out (citing a report) that hate crimes against muslims don't really happen all that often, it was beyond the pale! Also, you havn't apollogized for your mistake about 2 Chron 5:5. Muslim Honesty!

aaron said...

@ osama
you don;t even know what the bible says. can;t ever read songs of songs and 1 corintheans 5:5 properly.so in reality you don;t know what it says. I smell the irony from you :) when you say things such as that.

Foolster41 said...

That is 1 Chron 5:5
Now watch as Brave sir Osama, (brave Elmo Osama?) runs away once again when confonted with his "arrogant" attitude, and "untruthful" and "unethical" behavior.

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to." -Matt 23:13

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZwuTo7zKM8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK-CoXmX4oY&t=6m8s

Derek Adams said...

Why does James White even bother to respond to misrepresentations like this? Waste of time.

Osama, I'm an Atheist Agnostic, and James White here is simply saying "don't take my views and quote me out of context".

Shabir Ally is of a much higher calibre than you.

CristoTeAma said...

And Osamas's argument to refute White's statements are.....???

I love when he writes because he shows Islamic Schollarship is low.

Leo said...

Hello Osama Abdallah,

What does it mean to you that Jesus was your messiah? For Christians it has a meaning when we say that Jesus is the Christ, but what does the title Messiah/Christ mean for you as a muslim? It’s just a title you give to Jesus with no meaning. And he is your leader?? According to islam all prophets are the same, but when it comes to Jesus, muslims tend to use big words, like leader and great prophet, why? To snuggle op to Christians for dawa purposes maybe? Or you a confused about what islam teaches about Jesus?

Muslims think it is ridiculous that one man died for all of our sins, that sounds silly indeed.. why? Because muslims don’t know who the real Jesus is.

I can really be baffled when I think about it.. in order to maintain the Islamic standpoint about Jesus, as just a prophet, you have to consider the New Testament a complete fake and a forgery.

You know, usually you start with the original and then comes the fake, but in islam it is the other way around, first comes the fake (Bible) and then the original (the Quran).

Kangaroo said...

Dang, Osama straight on!

Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Osama,

How do you distinguish between what's real and imaginary?

Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Kangaroo,

It's always nice to see you cheering on the imaginary.

Zack_Tiang said...

Osama wrote, "Like the Glorious Quran Says: "....they follow nothing but conjecture...." Indeed, Christianity is nothing but a conjecture."

Quran verse in reference:
"And because of their saying (in boast), "We killed Messiah 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allah," - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of 'Iesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man), and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not [i.e. 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary)]"
~ Sura 4:157 Hilal-Khan

Osama can't even quote the Quran without taking the verse out of context to suit what he wants to say. Tsk tsk tsk.

A joke indeed, sorry to say.

Foolster41 said...

(thumbsup.ico) Kangaroo and Osama likes name-calling, logical fallacies, hypocracy and not presenting evidence.

curly said...

Osama Abdullah,
"we also know that so many Christian theologians have turned either atheists or agnostics"

Do you have the data evidence?

Royal Son said...

Osama, since you believe that Christianity is nothing but conjecture, perhaps you could help me out here. I've been asking Muslims this for quite some time now but none have managed to meet the challenge. I know you pride yourself on being such a wonderful representative of Islam so here's the challenge:

Please establish who the historical muslim followers of Jesus were using pre-Mohammad sources. The Qur'an says that they would prevail over the believers unto the day of resurrection, so it should be pretty easy right?

Now, keep in mind that this Jesus needs to be one that comports with the Islamic view.

In particular I'm looking for a Jesus that matches the following criteria:

1. The true Messiah
2. Born of a virgin
3. Not crucified
4. Not the son of God
5. Not divine
6. A mighty messenger of God

Can you show us such a group from history Osama? I want to see their writings, their teachings about Jesus.

Let me just give you a little helping hand before you get started by eliminating groups and writings that couldn't possibly match the criteria:

1. Ebionites - Denied the virgin birth.
2. Essenes - Elimintated before the end of the first century.
3. Gospel of Barnabas - Denies the messiahship of Jesus.
4. James - Was a slave of God and the LORD Jesus Christ, beliving in His death, resurrection and Deity.
5. Gnostics - Believe Jesus could not be crucified because He was too divine to have physical flesh. Believed that the creator is an evil demi-urge.
6. Pharisees - Ordered the death of Jesus, fully believing it had taken place, denied His messiahship, and virgin birth.
7. Sadducees - Denied the resurrection.

Ok that should do for starters. Kangaroo - feel free to step into the ring also since you fully agree with Osama's statements.

Folks, witness the sheer bankrupt nature of Islam which is totally divorced from history and reality.

aaron said...

@kangaroo
wow you are listening to a man who can't even read a text properly go ahead and read 1 corintheans 5:5 and tell us where did paul say kill sexually immoral as osama claims. seriously osama needs reading lessons cause he can;t even read a title or a verse properly or he is deliberately being deceitful. the beginning of the chapter says EXPEL THE IMMORAL BROTHER and clearly says kick him out of the church in the chapter including 5:5. And Osama can;t even support his claims properly.

lets see you try to defend a man who seems to be impaired in reading or deliberately deceitful. go read it yourself. I like to see how you can back him up on this one and we haven't even gotten to his mess up of song of songs most recently and did similar things. even our atheist friend Derek can understand what its saying.

me and the others here read your excuses from osama but they don;t answer the question instead they repeat the same message concerning that particular verse but not explain why the other verses contradicts in view. I though the quran was perfectly clear. did Allah missed it out or Allah made a mistake?

we are all waiting for osama to apologize for such a mistake.

here is the verse
"hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord."

no where does it say kill.

kiwimac said...

Dang,Osama- shot yourself in the foot again! The Messiah in the Bible is eternal and is God in the flesh.So he is your Messiah as well?
Muslims die in their pride as well as their Sins!

aaron said...

@ everyone
the other week i showed osama's claim of song of songs to my other christian friend. where he makes his wild claims again. he though the manw as a bit of a joke because no where in the verse did it say "69" with our sister.

I even had muslims claim that the bible allowed sex with three year olds and they got mixed up with the talmud. but then again with people like osama who is either deliberately deceitful and can;t swallow his own pride or just have a mix up of meaning of words and use a different form of English then us. no wonder they mess up

Assyria_Lost said...

‘’Jesus is simply a creation of GOD Almighty, a servant of GOD Almighty, and a great Prophet from GOD Almighty, and our Messiah and Leader. He is no more than that.’’


Amen! To the Messiah & Leader comment, but Osama, I don’t think your redeemer Mehdi will be very pleased with you calling Jesus a Leader; you’re kinda taking his glory.

Witness said...

@ Deleting great news. That means the domain is available for Oxford Union President Nadir Ahmed ;-)

@ Osama - Can you answer one question please? If Christianity is a "joke" why does the Qu'ran say this:

2:62 "Those who believe, and the Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabeans, whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve." (87)

I hope you answer that question, or the debate is over.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Witness

"2:62 "Those who believe, and the Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabeans, whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve." (87)"

The verse is not speaking about the christians who believe in Jesus (pbuh) as God, the trinity, etc... but the followers of Jesus (pbuh) who listened to his message of monotheism. Same with the Jews, it is speaking about the Jews who were with Moses (pbuh) and followed the Torah. Osama was not talking about the christians who believed in absolute monotheism, but the christianity we have today.

Anthony Rogers said...

To borrow the words of Kangaroo (and put them to better use): "Dang, Royalson, straight on!"

Royal Son said...

Samatar, please help your brothers out. Scroll up to see the challenge and then give us what we're all waiting for. Ps: Allah knows best does not count. Thanks in advance.

Lleychino said...

@ Samatar Mohammed,
Can you then tell us or give us sources about "THESE" followers of Jesus?
For the record: The only historical source that we can know about the true Jesus is the Bible and in it HE (Jesus) Himself claims to be Divine.
Not Christians try to claim Him to be!

Lleychino said...

@ Samatar,
If you can't scroll up.
This is what Royal Son is asking you, I quote:
"Please establish who the historical muslim followers of Jesus were using pre-Mohammad sources. The Qur'an says that they would prevail over the believers unto the day of resurrection, so it should be pretty easy right?

Now, keep in mind that this Jesus needs to be one that comports with the Islamic view.

In particular I'm looking for a Jesus that matches the following criteria:

1. The true Messiah
2. Born of a virgin
3. Not crucified
4. Not the son of God
5. Not divine
6. A mighty messenger of God

Can you show us such a group from history Osama? I want to see their writings, their teachings about Jesus.

Let me just give you a little helping hand before you get started by eliminating groups and writings that couldn't possibly match the criteria:

1. Ebionites - Denied the virgin birth.
2. Essenes - Elimintated before the end of the first century.
3. Gospel of Barnabas - Denies the messiahship of Jesus.
4. James - Was a slave of God and the LORD Jesus Christ, beliving in His death, resurrection and Deity.
5. Gnostics - Believe Jesus could not be crucified because He was too divine to have physical flesh. Believed that the creator is an evil demi-urge.
6. Pharisees - Ordered the death of Jesus, fully believing it had taken place, denied His messiahship, and virgin birth.
7. Sadducees - Denied the resurrection.

I too am eager to hear the answer. SO PLEASE DO ANSWER AND STOP RUNNING AWAY.

Lleychino said...

And we (Christians) also do believe that Jesus preached monotheist.
It's your Satan inspired prophet that tells you about something we don't even believe.

Hezekiah Ahaz said...

I still laugh when I think about that imam crying over the imaginary. Don't expect any answers from Osama et al.
I gave up a long time ago now I just laugh.

Radical Moderate said...

@Samatar MO

You wrote...

"The verse is not speaking about the christians who believe in Jesus (pbuh) as God, the trinity, etc... but the followers of Jesus (pbuh) who listened to his message of monotheism. "

Ok great so now who were these followers of Jesus the pbuh who listend to his message of montheism?

Do you have any names of individuals? Do you knwo any of his disciples or companions who listend to to this message?

Where are their writtings? Is is the Gosple of Barnabas? Or the Gosples of Peter or the Gsopsle of Thomas. Please I want to convert to Islam so I can have four wives and mutta marrage and sex slaves and kill people for allah.

I am so depraved, please save me from this false belief in Christ.

Radical Moderate said...

Royalson

It was the Essenes remember becasue well it just has to be lol

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Royal Son

That is a brilliant question your brought forth. I am unaware of any historical evidence for now that shows the Islamic view of Jesus (pbuh) before the revelation in the Quran. But I will definitely be researching a lot now to see if I can get you answer to these questions.

1. Any historical evidence of a group that held the islamic position of Jesus (pbuh) before the Quran was revealed.

2. What happened to the true christians who held the muslim position of Jesus (pbuh), and why are they not found anywhere in history.

I'm sorry again I do not have the answers, but by the will of Allah (swt) I will try my best to find these answers to the best of my ability in the near future.

CallingChristians.com said...

James is being deceitful again, he rather respond to a 1 minute subclip, rather than the 40 minute video it's based on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OOy0yK0yop8

Does james ever intend on having any credibility?

Radical Moderate said...

OH look everybody its Calling CHristians posting a link to his youtube page tryin to get "HITS". But wait its not his youtube page its Muslimbychoices youtube page.

He then asks if James White has any integrity?

We don't need to ask that Question of Mr Callinghimself. We already know he has NO Integrity.

Oh hey Abu maybe you can help out Osama Abdullan and Mohamed Samatar and answer royalsons question. Tell us how the Essenes where the pre mohamed Islamic followers of Jesus. I'm sure everyone will laugh as hard as I did during out debate.

Go back to the kidde table, adults are talking here.

CallingChristians.com said...

@lleychino

{1. Ebionites - Denied the virgin birth.}

Lies, see the Epiphanius of Salamis, it's well known this was a belief held by some, others did not hold this belief.

{2. Essenes - Elimintated before the end of the first century.}

Existed during the time of Jesus, fulfills most criteria. If they were eliminated before or right after Jesus you would have a point, otherwise you don't.

{3. Gospel of Barnabas - Denies the messiahship of Jesus.}

It doesn't, have you read it?

{4. James - Was a slave of God and the LORD Jesus Christ, beliving in His death, resurrection and Deity.}

The word kurious used means master, much like how we say Mr. or Mister or Teacher today, see Genesis 23.

{5. Gnostics - Believe Jesus could not be crucified because He was too divine to have physical flesh. Believed that the creator is an evil demi-urge.}

Not all, again, you're generalizing groups that had vastly different beliefs with titles being given to them by patristic authors who often conflicted on which group believed what.

{6. Pharisees - Ordered the death of Jesus, fully believing it had taken place, denied His messiahship, and virgin birth.
7. Sadducees - Denied the resurrection.}

These two opposed Christ.

{I too am eager to hear the answer. SO PLEASE DO ANSWER AND STOP RUNNING AWAY.}

The Ebionites or the Essenes are the most probable answers

Royal Son said...

Oh my, look who has turned up on the doorstep. It's Callingchristians. The same group which Abu Shujab belongs to, who debated Radical Moderate on "Were the Essenes the preMohammad Islamic followers of Jesus?"

CallingChristians accuses James White of having no credibility when Abu Shujab produced the following for his case that the Essenes were the Pre-Mohammad Islamic followers of Jesus (I include my responses below):

1. There were three main sects of Judaism present at the time of Jesus according to the Catholic Encyclopedia: The Pharisees, the Essenes, and the Essenes.

My response: Actually there were the Zealots also. But hey, no biggie.

2. A group of Jews had migrated to the North of Arabia some time after the destruction of the 2nd temple according to the Jewish Encyclopedia. The Essenes were the only Jewish sect to have fully depopulated their land.

My response: Actually, all we know is that after the destruction of the second temple, there is no more record of the Essenes. Abu never established that the Essenes migrated at all instead of being exterminated under the siege of the Romans.

3. There is no record of the Pharisees or Sadducees migrating to Arabia.

My response:Nor is there any record of the Essenes migrating to Arabia! Quite simply, the Jewish Encyclopedia which he cites states that there is no clue as to the origin of the Jews who migrated to Arabia!

4. According to the Jewish Encylopedia - This group of Jews had limited bible knowledge, had brought the Talmud with them and no rabbinical authority beyond that which was accepted by the Mohammaden authors. They also assimilated into Arabic Culture and customs. This proves that they were Muslims waiting for the coming of Mohammad (s.a.w)

My response: If as Abu believes, the Essenes were the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls, then a group which had limited bible knowledge does not sound like the Essenes. One would expect that those who wrote this collection of copies of biblical manuscripts to be intimately familiar with the knowledge of the bible. The Talmud was an authority for the Pharisees, and concluding that assimilation into pre-Mohammad Arabic culture makes one a Muslim is laughable. Firstly, Adopting culture and customs does not automatically infer the religious beliefs of that community, but supposing Abu wants to go that route - this makes his case even worse, because the Arabs of that time period were PAGAN. This is confirmed in Muslim sources themselves. The whole reason we're told that Mohammad was commissioned by Allah was to bring the people of Arabia out of idolatry to the worship of one God. If the Jews who had arrived in Arabia prior to Mohammad had indeed adopted the RELIGIOUS beliefs and practices of their Arabian neighbours, then they were PAGANS. Well done Abu.

More to follow...

aaron said...

@callingchristian.com

let me ask you why should we bother answering your entire video when you can;t even get one simple fact correct that Ignatius predated the council of nicea and he already believed the deity of Christ.

so in reality you are the one who lacks credibility because you still use the same argument even though we proved the deity of Christ predate it though Ignatius, who are first gen of Christians.

James white is saying that you are using same old mistakes again and again without realising that you messed up in your history on when deity of Christ was established. we are talking about first gen Christians using Ignatius here

CristoTeAma said...

Samatar said
"The verse is not speaking about the christians who believe in Jesus (pbuh) as God, the trinity, etc... but the followers of Jesus (pbuh) who listened to his message of monotheism. Same with the Jews, it is speaking about the Jews who were with Moses (pbuh) and followed the Torah. Osama was not talking about the christians who believed in absolute monotheism, but the christianity we have today."

You have been in this page for how long? and yet you don't know we believe in 1 God? but let's suppose we believe in 3 Gods as your Quran falsely says, where is the historical data about Christinas believing in some Deity named allah and rejecting Christ as the Son of God, and accepting he was born of a virgin, being the Messiah, etc (as Muslims believe even when you can't even udnerstand what the Messiah means)?? there is non, so you really have decided not to even try to know our beliefs and to deny the historical facts, you just like most of the muslims in the world just want to think what your quran says Christianity is even when it is 100% WRONG, so much for a all knowing god lol..

BTW why "christians" who believe that Jesus is nothing but a prophet would name themselves "christians" or the arabic word the quran used to call Christians, even more when this "Jesus" says he is a Muslim and they all should be Muslims as Adam, Abraham, Moses, etc.. Get straight your own theology, try to hear ours and then comment.

CristoTeAma said...

CallingChristians.com said...
James is being deceitful again, he rather respond to a 1 minute subclip, rather than the 40 minute video it's based on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OOy0yK0yop8

Does james ever intend on having any credibility?


------------------------------

This kind of ppl is scary, they will never see that they are wrong because they are so blind that as James said they wont hear anyone, they just repeat again and again the same nonsense... is this what Allah turns you into?¿?¿

curly said...

Royal Son, Samatar Mohammed, and everyone

First of all, I am serve Jesus Christ. I am reject Quran. My english written is not wonderful as my primary language, English. Anyway, I believe Mohammad borrow from the stuffs: Ebionites, Gospel of Barnabas, Infancy of Gospel Thomas, etc mixed into the portrait of Jesus Christ in Quran. There are 2 sub-group of Ebionites: One denied the Virgin Birth and One accept Virgin Birth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites#Jesus

Also, Mohammad was live in Arab area where there are many gnostic people live that area. It is make sense to me, because Roman Empire was very control over people with christianized. In 600 AD, Roman Empire is cruel to the heretic people include gnostic and Ebionites. Obviously, Gnostic and Ebionites moved away from the area of Roman Empire for safety. Arab is not part of the Roman Empire. That why I believe Mohammad borrow from them.


Radical Moderate-
Of course, I would love to convert to Islam because I love polygamy. Unfortunately, Jesus’s offering is too priceless than polygamy. I want to live in Eternal heaven than live with several wives in a temporary earth.

Derek Adams said...

haha CallingChristians just watched your 40 minute response. Apart from all the ad-hom at the start your points are retarded.

As I suspected waste of time.

Here is one example.

Paul quoting the pre-pauline hymn according to your words supposedly proves that there were "previous revealed scriptures". Well what that means when the Quran quotes the disbelievers, they're quotations also had to be either previous divine scriptures, or they were the "uninspiried words of men" as you level at Paul.

Oh wait you didn't think about that.

But remember this is all a smoke screen and a diversion, CC. You still can't show one group of first century believers who believed like Muslims do today.

It's time to put the white flag up.

Or are you going to continue the intellectual dishonesty?

Derek Adams said...

Judiazers did not claim divinity of Jesus?

Provide Evidence.

"Other groups at that time".

Since we are referring to the first decade after Jesus, please provide Evidence, of the supposed other "GROUPS (PL)" Judiazers is one GROUP. Now list the others.

Well I hope someone covers all the errors.

But just these were enough to make me stop watching.

Thanks for nothing.

Thanks for failing to prove there was even ONE Muslim in the first century or the first decade.

RyanS said...

amatar Mohamed said...
@Royal Son



"1. Any historical evidence of a group that held the islamic position of Jesus (pbuh) before the Quran was revealed."

1400 years of Islamic study has failed to find any of this socalled evidence, why do you think you will? It simply doesnt exsist



"2. What happened to the true christians who held the muslim position of Jesus (pbuh), and why are they not found anywhere in history."

There is no such thing as a "muslim" position for Jesus, The New Testament is rooted in the Old Testament, there is no "muslim" postition before Muhammad! happend



"I'm sorry again I do not have the answers, but by the will of Allah (swt) I will try my best to find these answers to the best of my ability in the near future."

Since you will not find these answers , because again if after 1400 years of Islamic scholership has not found proof for any of these claims, will you be honest enough to admit it? That if the claims of Islam are not true then Muhammad is a liar?

Truth is what is real and actual not hopeful, not pretend, not fantasy, not wishfull thinking, but evidence that corresponds to reality.

aaron said...

@calling christians
wow nice try on Barnabas but even even a fool would know that it was a medieval forgery. reasons listed

number 1- he claimed he was a original disciple which was not he did not appear till Paul came along

number 2-his name was only called Barnabas when the disciples called him that meaning son of encouragement before that he was known as joesph Acts 4:36.

number 3 - the gospel of barnabas disllows polygamy, the quran allows it. so If you assume that the earlier Christians were muslims you messed up again. Besides the way it uses the jubilee shows that it was written in the medieval era

Royal Son said...

Hooray, someone stepped up to the plate. Thank you so much CallingChristians for positing your response, albeit fraught with a host of problems. That is to be expected when your sources have very little to say about my Lord and Saviour.

You said:1. Ebionites - Denied the virgin birth.}

Lies, see the Epiphanius of Salamis, it's well known this was a belief held by some, others did not hold this belief.


I will assume you meant to say "See the Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis"; Let's see what it says:

30,1 30. Ebionites are very like these Cerinthians and the Nazoraeans; and the sect of the Sampsaeans and Elkasaites was associated with them to a degree.
30,2 They say that Christ was created in heaven, also the Holy Spirit. But Christ lodged in Adam at first, and from time to time takes Adam himself off and puts him on again—for this is what they say he did at the time of his advent in the flesh.

Sounding like the Isa of Islam? A man who lodged in Adam and put him off and on and did thus during his advent in the flesh?

Let's continue:

30. - Against Ebionites.1 Number ten, but thirty of the series

1,1 Following these and holding views like theirs, Ebion,2 the founder of the Ebionites, arose in the world in his turn as a monstrosity with many forms, and practically represented in himself the snake-like form of the mythical many-headed hydra. He was of the Nazoraeans’ school, but preached and taught other things than they.

2,1 For this Ebion was contemporary with the Jews, and < since he was > with them, he was derived from them. (2) In the first place, he said that Christ was conceived by sexual intercourse and the seed of a man, Joseph4—I have already said that he agreed with the others in everything, with this one difference, his adherence to Judaism’s Law of the Sabbath, circumcision, and all the other Jewish and Samaritan observances.

Here we see that the founder of the Sect of the Ebionites, Ebion himself taught that Christ was conceived by sexual intercourse and the seed of a man, Joseph. Now according to CallingChristians, we are to believe that the true Muslim followers of Jesus before Mohammad were the Ebionites, but not the real Ebionites, but an offshoot of the Ebionites. So this prevailing group according to the Qur'an is now a subset of some obscure group who believed things contrary to the founder of their Sect, namely that Jesus WAS born of a virgin, contrary to the teachings of Ebion Himself!

3,7 They too accept the Gospel according to Matthew. Like the Cerinthians and Merinthians, they too use it alone. They call it, “According to the Hebrews,” and it is true to say that only Matthew expounded and preached the Gospel in the Hebrew language and alphabet16 in the New Testament.

This group accepted the Gospel of Matthew. Do you accept the Gospel of Matthew CallingChristians?

15,3 In the Travels they have changed everything to suit themselves and slandered Peter in many ways, saying that he was baptized daily34 for purification as they are. And they say he abstained from flesh and dressed meat as they do, and any other dish made from meat—since both Ebion himself, and Ebionites, entirely abstain from these.

Do Muslims abstain entirely from meat because Jesus became flesh?

Royal Son said...

Let's see what Epiphanius has to say about their version of the Gospel of Matthew:

13,6 But the beginning of their Gospel is, “It came to pass in the days of Herod, king of Judaea, < in the high-priesthood of Caiaphas >, that < a certain > man, John < by name >, came baptizing with the baptism of repentance in the river Jordan, and he was said to be of the lineage of Aaron the priest, the son of Zacharias and Elizabeth, and all went out unto him.”26 (7) And after saying a good deal it adds, “When the people had been baptized Jesus came also and was baptized of John. And as he came up out of the water the heavens were opened, and he saw the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove which descended and entered into him. And (there came) a voice from heaven saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased,27 and again, This day have I begotten thee.28

Please tell us CallingChristians, Do Muslims believe that Allah spoke these words? Does Allah beget? Is Jesus the Son of Allah? In fact, if you really want to go down this route, let me help you out with a passage from your Qur'an:

43:81 Say: "If (God) Most Gracious had a son, I would be the first to worship."

Sound to you like the Ebionites were Muslims?

Let's continue:

And straightway a great light shone round about the place.29 Seeing this,” it says, “John said unto him, Who art thou, Lord?30 And again (there came) a voice to him from heaven, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.31 (8) And then,” it says, “John fell down before him and said, I pray thee, Lord, do thou baptize me. But he forbade him saying, Let it alone, for thus it is meet that all be fulfilled.”32

Epiphanius comments:
(4) This is because they maintain that Jesus is really a man, as I said, but that Christ, who descended in the form of a dove, has entered him—as we have found already in other sects—< and > been united with him. Christ himself < is from God on high, but Jesus > is the offspring of a man’s seed and a woman.

According to Epiphanius, the Ebionites believed that Jesus and Christ were two persons! One came from God (Christ) and the other came from man's seed (Jesus). Does that comport with Islamic theology? Far from it. The Qur'an maintains that Jesus IS the Christ:

4:157 That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Apostle of God"; - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-

3:45 Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! God giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to God;

4:171 O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of God aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of God, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in God and His apostles. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for God is one God: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is God as a Disposer of affairs.

Royal Son said...

Please bear with me everyone, I will address the other groups in time, but I need to get the Ebionites out of the way first since this is one of the two groups that CallingChristians actually believes might have been the muslim followers of Jesus.

Quite telling though isn't it? Samatar conceded that he knew of NO historical evidence of muslim followers of Jesus prior to Mohammad. Calling Christians is split between the Ebionites and Essenes. He's not too sure which group to go with, but Insha'Isa, once I have dealt with his nonsensical claims, he will not dare to invoke them again.

As it stands, I have two parallel postings to tie up together, one on the Essenes, based upon Abu Shujab's recent debate with Radical Moderate, and this one with the Ebionites (and the other groups on the list). Please forgive me if it seems that I am jumping between threads, I hope it's not too confusing.

Just to wrap up here for the night till my next post, I would like you all to consider an underlying assumptions made by Calling Christians in his claims - The assumptions are that (1) Epiphanius's writings have been preserved sufficiently to quote them as reliable and trustworthy accounts of who the Ebionites and Essenes were. (2) That the Essenes and the Ebionite group he wishes to identify as the muslim followers of Jesus (those who believed in the virgin birth of Christ) fulfilled all the other criteria that I mentioned.

While I'm happy to work through the sources and dismantle his position, I think he has an uphill battle from here on in.

CallingChristians and Samatar, I do not envy you. History works against you. Islam is bankrupt. I shall take great pleasure in forcing this issue until you both concede that there is no historical Isa of the Qur'an.

If you tap out early, you can go across the road and grab a burger.

Soli Deo Gloria.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Radical,

{OH look everybody its Calling CHristians posting a link to his youtube page tryin to get "HITS".}

So you presuppose I'm trying to get hits, rather than show *my* side of the argument? On what basis is that statement made?

{But wait its not his youtube page its Muslimbychoices youtube page.}

Well that proves your statement from above to be incorrect, proof by contradiction and you contradicted yourself.

{He then asks if James White has any integrity?}

Your logic is non sequitur, sorry.

{We don't need to ask that Question of Mr Callinghimself. We already know he has NO Integrity.}

Ad hominem, do *you* have anything actually intelligible to state?

{Oh hey Abu maybe you can help out Osama Abdullan and Mohamed Samatar and answer royalsons question. Tell us how the Essenes where the pre mohamed Islamic followers of Jesus. I'm sure everyone will laugh as hard as I did during out debate.}

Good to hear you laughed, no wonder you removed your commentary, shall I reference your statement from my 3rd question where you state the answer was the Pharisees? Or did you *forget* that?

{Go back to the kidde table, adults are talking here.}

More ad hominem, grow up.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Royalson,

{CallingChristians accuses James White of having no credibility when Abu Shujab}

I do not know who Abu Shujab is. Please fix this statement or atleast apologize for name calling. You can't be this lowly.

{1. My response: Actually there were the Zealots also. But hey, no biggie.}

See my statement, "according to the Catholic Encyclopedia", I also referenced precisely where the Catholic Encyclopedia said so. So my statement is already qualified, to prove me wrong, go to my referenced in the encyclopedia, and show where I purposely left out the Zealots or the *many* other groups not mentioned. Did you want me to mention all the other groups during a 15 minute introduction? Or is it that I mentioned some groups from a source which qualified my statements that has upset you?

{2.My response: Actually, all we know is that after the destruction of the second temple, there is no more record of the Essenes. Abu never established that the Essenes migrated at all instead of being exterminated under the siege of the Romans.}

Incorrect, I demonstrated that they were *not* only found in Qumran, but that they were found *throughout* Judea and were known to travel to other towns and cities, hence why we know now that some of them married and had children and why their ideology spread to other towns and cities. We know they migrated to *Arabia* because a large Judaic group *with their beliefs* were there at the same time Qumran was attacked, if that is the case, please give me the name of a Jewish group, which migrated during the time just before the 2nd temple was destroyed who held similar beliefs to the Essenes. Simple, no?

CallingChristians.com said...

@Royalson,

{3.My response:Nor is there any record of the Essenes migrating to Arabia! Quite simply, the Jewish Encyclopedia which he cites states that there is no clue as to the origin of the Jews who migrated to Arabia!}

My point is simple, during the time of the 2nd temple, we have 3 main groups which we can single out one. By a simple process of elimination we can logically deduce who that group was, no? So if the Pharisees and their beliefs were known at that period not to be widespread in Arabia, then the group isn't the Pharisees. If the Sadducees and their beliefs were known at that period not to be widespread in Arabia, then the group isn't them. Yet we know a *group* did migrate, so out of 3 we have 2 eliminated, I hope you're good with Math, as that leaves as with 1. Since this 1 other group, the Essenes had their beliefs spotted in Arabia, and we know a group migrated, putting the evidences together, it points to them. Problem?

{4. My response: If as Abu believes, the Essenes were the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls, then a group which had limited bible knowledge does not sound like the Essenes. One would expect that those who wrote this collection of copies of biblical manuscripts to be intimately familiar with the knowledge of the bible. The Talmud was an authority for the Pharisees, and concluding that assimilation into pre-Mohammad Arabic culture makes one a Muslim is laughable. Firstly, Adopting culture and customs does not automatically infer the religious beliefs of that community, but supposing Abu wants to go that route - this makes his case even worse, because the Arabs of that time period were PAGAN. This is confirmed in Muslim sources themselves. The whole reason we're told that Mohammad was commissioned by Allah was to bring the people of Arabia out of idolatry to the worship of one God. If the Jews who had arrived in Arabia prior to Mohammad had indeed adopted the RELIGIOUS beliefs and practices of their Arabian neighbours, then they were PAGANS. Well done Abu.}

To correct you on a number of appeals to ad ignorantium, to begin with the reference which says they found little study among them, would refer to the fact that not all of the Essenes were studied. These persons are refugees carrying remnants of what they could, fleeing from religious persecution by the Romans and Pharisees. When we look at the area of Qumran, we see that they hid their manuscripts and writings, if that is the case, whatever study they *had* done, were now safely tucked away, thus logically speaking *it would not be among them*. So claiming that they had little study among them *at one point* does not negate the fact that they were studied enough to disagree and disassociate themselves with the Pharisees.

As for them having the Talmud, sorry but my reference did not indicate that. Try again. Lying won't help you here.

As for the point they assimilated into Arab culture, this isn't to prove they are *Muslim*. That would be a non sequitur argument, rather I am saying they took on an Arab identity, thus negating or atleast for us modern day researchers, negating their Jewish lineage. Which is odd because if they were the Pharisees or the Sadducees they would have kept their identity, pridefully in the least. Unless of course this was a Judaic sect that wasn't focused on race based salvation, see Acts 15.

As for Muhammad {saw} adopting the traditions of the pagans, that's as false as you can get. When the Jews began to worship YHWH, I don't see you saying anything of that God being the wife of another Pagan Goddess, Ashera pre-proto Judaic tenets. So your argument is cyclic. Sorry, try harder ignoramus.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Aron,

{let me ask you why should we bother answering your entire video when you can;t even get one simple fact correct that Ignatius predated the council of nicea}

I didn't say otherwise in my video.

{and he already believed the deity of Christ.}

I didn't say otherwise in my video.

{so in reality you are the one who lacks credibility because you still use the same argument even though we proved the deity of Christ predate it though Ignatius, who are first gen of Christians.}

I didn't say Ignatius wasn't from the first century. Also you are mistake, after the disciples, came the era of the apostles, after the apostles came the presbyters, after the presbyters or rather along with the presbyters we have the Patristics. With that in mind, James is appealing to a man towards the latter of the Presbyters but who was a Patristic, if he appealed to earlier Apostles like Paul, then his argument would be valid by some 40 years earlier.

{James white is saying that you are using same old mistakes again and again without realising that you messed up in your history on when deity of Christ was established. we are talking about first gen Christians using Ignatius here}

Ignatius' works are based on the Pauline Epistles written some 40 years before his own Epistles, in the letters of Ignatius that James references, it's littered throughout with Pauline quotes. It's like me saying that Harry Potter was popular in 2012 so it had to be in existence since 2000, when all I had to do was point to that the Harry Potter & the Sorcerer's Stone existed long before that. That by itself, is demonstrable and logical, his logic however was to point to the Harry Potter and Half Blood Prince, a later writing, when he could have simply pointed to the first.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Derek,

{Apart from all the ad-hom at the start your points are retarded.}

Calling James to be honest for attacking the wrong person in two videos he made public, is ad hominem? Calling someone to be honest for attacking the wrong person is ad hominem? Please explain that logic.

{Paul quoting the pre-pauline hymn according to your words supposedly proves that there were "previous revealed scriptures".}

No, there is a dichotomy, either Paul is referencing earlier scripture (which is common for him) or he is referencing, or rather directly using uninspired hymns as scripture, if that is the case he took what was uninspired random preaching and made it into something holy. Yet scripture is that we is from a divine source. See the cyclic argument? Good.

{Well what that means when the Quran quotes the disbelievers, they're quotations also had to be either previous divine scriptures, or they were the "uninspiried words of men" as you level at Paul.}

Sorry, but the Qur'an is known as the Kalamullah or the words of Allaah and this is Allaah's narration of what those persons said and did, thus it fits the Al Bihar of the Qur'anic language.

{Oh wait you didn't think about that.}

I did, see my answer above.

{But remember this is all a smoke screen and a diversion, CC. You still can't show one group of first century believers who believed like Muslims do today.}

Ebionites, Essenes, some Gnostics, some Coptic Infancy Narratives.

{It's time to put the white flag up. Or are you going to continue the intellectual dishonesty?}

What dishonesty? I cite all my sources and unlike James, I don't *attack* people or watch a 40 minute video and confuse who made it.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Derek,

{Judiazers did not claim divinity of Jesus? Provide Evidence.}

Judaizers = Jews. Thought this was basic knowledge? They weren't called Christians for a specific reason you know...

{"Other groups at that time". Since we are referring to the first decade after Jesus, please provide Evidence, of the supposed other "GROUPS (PL)" Judiazers is one GROUP. Now list the others.}

See the 40+ in the Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis.

{Well I hope someone covers all the errors.}

Already covered all of James'.

{But just these were enough to make me stop watching.}

Your lack of education stopped you from watching? God forbid that happens again! (Intended sarcasm).

{Thanks for nothing.}

You're welcomed.

{Thanks for failing to prove there was even ONE Muslim in the first century or the first decade.}

Already did in last response.

Lleychino said...

@ CallingChristians.com
It wasnt me who said that, I only quote what Royalson asked.
Let's assume that you are right.

Please tell me. Are these group SUPERIOR than Christianity today? Since your Allah says that they would be superior until the day of resurrection.
If you are so ignorant of the fact, Christians who believe in the Diety of Christ are still superior to all religion today.
PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU DISAGREE SO I CAN LAUGH AT YOUR IGNORANCE.

Lleychino said...

A question I want any muslim to answer. But I already know you have no clue so let me teach you a bit.

You keep on calling Jesus the Messiah. DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT MESSIAH MEANS?

You cannot call Jesus the Messiah without saying He is divine.

For your info, to be the Messiah means to be the Anointed One and He is the anointing. To whom the fullness of Godhead dwells (Colossians 2:9).

Also, what does Isa mean?

Can you see that we don't believe in the same Jesus?

Your Isa is a myth. Someone who never existed.

curly said...

** My primary language, American Sign Language. it is not English in my previous comment. Sorry, everyone!

Billy said...

RyanS wrote: If the claims of Islam are not true, will you be honest enough to admit that Muhammad is a liar?

Mohammad: "I have fabricated things against God and have imputed to Him words which He has not spoken." (Al-Tabari 6:111)

Mohammad, the false prophet, himself admitted that he was a liar.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Ryan S

"Since you will not find these answers , because again if after 1400 years of Islamic scholership has not found proof for any of these claims, will you be honest enough to admit it? That if the claims of Islam are not true then Muhammad is a liar?"

Ryan S, please examine your question again. You said that there is no FOUND proof of the claim in the Quran. I am still researching so I will continue to see if there is any historical evidence for the claim in the Quran, but lets for the sake of argument say we have absolutely no historical evidence for the Quranic claim. But does that mean that because we have no historical evidence of such a group that held the muslim view of Jesus (pbuh), therefore, there was not any group in history that held the muslim view of Jesus (pbuh). You will surely agree that that would be absurd. What happens in history, and the historical evidence we have with us today surely are not perfectly in tune. Are you willing to claim that every single group that held any view of Jesus (pbuh) was recorder in history, again no. So if we do not have any evidence in history, that does not mean the Quran was lying, beause there is a possibility that the Quran may have brought information to light that was not kept in historical records. Your probably thinking now that I must be following the Quran blindly. No, rather, I studied the Quran, its claims, and through careful research, reasoning, and spiritual satisfaction by being a muslim, I am convinced that Islam is the true religion. Therefore, I do not need everything that the Quran claims to be recorded in history, because we both know that we are constantly finding new things in history that we were unaware of before.

Anthony Rogers said...

In response to the fact that the apostle James provides no basis for believing that anyone believed in the Isa of the Qur'an before Muhammad created a new religion and decided to give Jesus a part in it, CC said: "The word kurious [sic] used means master, much like how we say Mr. or Mister or Teacher today, see Genesis 23."

The word curios was used in both a secular [i.e. master] and a religious [i.e. Lord] sense (see e.g. Balz & Schneider, "kurios," EDNT, Vol. II), and it is clearly in the latter sense that it was used for Jesus in James' epistle.

See the following two posts for starters:

James' High Christology - Part I

James' High Christology - Part II

As you will find to also be the case on the other issues you tried to address, the latter of which I will leave to Royalson to correct you on, you are way out of your depth here, CC.

Radical Moderate said...

@Callinghimself AKA ABU SHUJAB

You wrote...

"So you presuppose I'm trying to get hits, rather than show *my* side of the argument? On what basis is that statement made?"

Yeah I have you recorded setting up the debate and where you say words to the affect of "I want to debate you so I can get tens of thousands of HITS"

Also on your own website you have posted how your site and video's have gotten thousands of views and HITS.

o you even think when you lie or does it just come as easy as breathing.

CallingHimself aka Abu Shujab then writes...

"Well that proves your statement from above to be incorrect, proof by contradiction and you contradicted yourself."

So you look for insults where none exist and now contradictions where none exists.

YOu have\had your own youtube page where you posted a few of your pathetic video's and the only people who would watch them where people that I sent. LOL

So you now post your pathetic video's on Muslimbychoice youtube page in the hopes that his pathetic viewers will watch them.

You then write...

"Good to hear you laughed, no wonder you removed your commentary, shall I reference your statement from my 3rd question where you state the answer was the Pharisees? Or did you *forget* that?"

LOL actaully I was working on a take two of the the comentary, wasnt happy with the recording of the first but I got bored going through your nonsense, dishonesty and mis representation of yoru own sources. Maybe I will finish up and repost it now. InSha ISA.

Oh btw where is the debate on yoursite where is your comentary?

Serioulsy kid, education is waisted on you give it up so some other more deserving student can take advantage of it. Your just a vessel made for common use, not for honor.

Radical Moderate said...

Everyone look at Callinghimself how he LIES with out even knowing it, and just looks for insults when none exist.

He writes...

"I do not know who Abu Shujab is. Please fix this statement or atleast apologize for name calling. You can't be this lowlye"

FIrst he lies by saying he does not know who Abu Shujab is, when he knows very well that it was his old nick on Paltalk.

THen he calls it a insult to call him by his old nick.

Man this dude is just OFF.

Pathetic

Anthony Rogers said...

curios = Kurios (darn spell checker)

CallingChristians.com said...

@Anthony Rogers,

{In response to the fact that the apostle James provides no basis for believing that anyone believed in the Isa of the Qur'an}

Sorry, but your context is incorrect, I am referring to james as in white, not james the half brother of Jesus. What indicated to you otherwise?

{before Muhammad created a new religion and decided to give Jesus a part in it, CC said: "The word kurious [sic] used means master, much like how we say Mr. or Mister or Teacher today, see Genesis 23."}

The word Kurios as given in the NT is not of the same context as that of Adonai in the OT. Thought you knew this?

{The word curios was used in both a secular [i.e. master] and a religious [i.e. Lord] sense (see e.g. Balz & Schneider, "kurios," EDNT, Vol. II), and it is clearly in the latter sense that it was used for Jesus in James' epistle.}

Sorry, this by scholars, is termed, the word study fallacy. I don't want to have to explain something this basic to you. See William D. Barrick's work on this topic for some elucidation, or if you're frugal or arrogant, I can send a basic introductory book on the fallacies of exegetical sciences which every beginner makes. Not a problem.

{As you will find to also be the case on the other issues you tried to address, the latter of which I will leave to Royalson to correct you on, you are way out of your depth here, CC.}

Sorry Anthony, time to get off of your high horse, tame your superiority complex, telling me a word can be used in two contexts isn't new nor elucidating, it's weak scholarship. Refer to the word study fallacy, and then try with something more intelligible.

What poor scholarship from you. Shame really.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Royalson,

Your entire rant boils down to two points, which thankfully, you've summarized:

{The assumptions are that (1) Epiphanius's writings have been preserved sufficiently to quote them as reliable and trustworthy accounts of who the Ebionites and Essenes were. (2) That the Essenes and the Ebionite group he wishes to identify as the muslim followers of Jesus (those who believed in the virgin birth of Christ) fulfilled all the other criteria that I mentioned.}

Based on this, let's recall somethings here. My use of the Panarion, was to demonstrate this piece of information:

"And at first, as I said, Ebion declared that Christ if the offspring of a man, that is of Joseph. For a while now, however, various of his followers have been giving conflicting accounts of Christ, as though they have decided on something untenable and impossible themselves."

With that in mind, your three comments are thoroghly refuted. It wasn't a belief set in stone and it is alleged he believed such a thing, clearly his followers did not. As for them believing in Matthew and of the other inane claims you made, we read:

"And since we do not seem to have any writings from anyone who belonged to the group, we cannot be certain either. This lack of primary source material is much to be regretted. Surely some of these people wrote treatises that advanced their views and defended them as necessary. But as no such writing survives, we must base our understanding on the words of their opponents, sometimes taking their claims with a pound of salt. Since some of these reports are inconsistent with others, it may be that there were a variety of Ebionite groups, each with its own distinctive understanding of some aspects of their faith." - Lost Christianities, B. Ehrman, pg 100.

Funny though Royalson, I asked RM 5 times who the group was and twice he said it was the Pharisees, or do you seem to forget that? Is he wrong or right? Were they the ones who had little study of the Bible and migrated to Arabia? He said yes, twice by name. Which is more believable, your friends drunker stupor or the Essenes as I demonstrated previously?

Your hypocrisy is quite funny.

Deleting said...

@curly- I'm on my iPhone and the stupid thing won't let me copy/paste but I need to correct something. The gospel of barnabus comes along in the 16 century-ish, therefore mohammad had no chance to copy anything from it. He couldn't have even if he wanted to. The earliest copy is in Spanish, a language he would have had little, if any, exposure to.

Derek Adams said...

CallingChristians,

Your response is so embarrassing it actually doesn't require a response, I will highlight why:

"Sorry, but the Qur'an is known as the Kalamullah or the words of Allaah and this is Allaah's narration of what those persons said and did, thus it fits the Al Bihar of the Qur'anic language."

"Ebionites, Essenes, some Gnostics, some Coptic Infancy Narratives."

"Judaizers = Jews. Thought this was basic knowledge? They weren't called Christians for a specific reason you know..."

"See the 40+ in the Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis."

Enough said.

Just to clarify a few of the statements for the Christians.

He is asserting 40 different Christian sects existed in the first decade of Jesus death. (That is the question of mine he is responding to).

He is also asserting, coptics, essences, ebionites and *some gnostics* were Muslims and the true followers of Jesus.

He thinks that "Judiazers" are merely "Jews", after he listed the Judiazers as one of many "groups" who accepted Jesus in the first decade after Jesus in his video.

He thinks that it's okay for Allah to quote the words of disbelievers without their words becoming or being divine scripture before hand, but he doesn't think that's okay for Paul to quote pagan poets or believers.

Well it's been fun. But unfortunately you have no evidence for anything you say. And not one historian accepts your claim that Coptics and Gnostic groups were Muslims, nor do they accept any anachronism you make about Jews. Nor do any of your "references" or "encyclopedic references". Not a *single* proves even *one* group had Muslim beliefs.

CallingChristians, It's time to put up the white flag. You can continue your false pursuit of trying to convert Christians to known rhetoric and lies, or you can grow some intellectual balls and become part of Academia.

You ought to be really called "CallingTaqiya".

Derek Adams said...

Samatar said:

"But does that mean that because we have no historical evidence of such a group that held the muslim view of Jesus (pbuh), therefore, there was not any group in history that held the muslim view of Jesus (pbuh). You will surely agree that that would be absurd. What happens in history, and the historical evidence we have with us today surely are not perfectly in tune. Are you willing to claim that every single group that held any view of Jesus (pbuh) was recorder in history, again no. So if we do not have any evidence in history, that does not mean the Quran was lying, beause there is a possibility that the Quran may have brought information to light that was not kept in historical records."

Samatar I won't accuse you of being dishonest, but this is a false analogy. But how can a serious person even DARE compare this to other groups of Jesus?

Firstly this is not just ANY random group of followers claiming to adhere to the teachings of Jesus, this is the VERY DISCIPLES of Jesus himself.

So yes of course you would expect a RECORD of those CLOSEST to Jesus, or the appointed successors to those who followed the disciples of Jesus. And you would not expect their message would be destroyed within 10 years of Jesus leaving. Maybe try reading the Quran aswell, the helpers of Jesus would be made dominant until the day of Resurrection.

Further more apart from trying to compare the very first disciples of Jesus and their successors with just any random group in the world claiming to adhere to Jesus teaching, you should have thought more carefully.

We are not merely asking for EVIDENCE of the supposed existance of Muslim followers of Jesus, but we are claiming not only is their *no evidence* we are claiming that it is entirely CONTRADICTORY to the evidence THAT WE DO HAVE.

Whether you look at Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Thomas, Peter, Paul, James, ANY gnostic text, any coptic text.

NONE of them have a Muslim conception. So don't claim we are merely saying we want X and you need to provide X. No we are saying, Quran asserts X and we find NON-X.

That which contradicts the Quran exists.

Whether you go to the NT, or the Gnostics or any 'set of heretics' it ALL contradicts the Quran.

So please don't compare apples and oranges samatar


-Dk
www.AnsweringAbraham.com

Anthony Rogers said...

CC said: "Sorry, but your context is incorrect, I am referring to james as in white, not james the half brother of Jesus. What indicated to you otherwise?"

CC, it is obvious you were not referring to James White in the context of the remark I was replying to. Here is the statement you were answering:

{4. James - Was a slave of God and the LORD Jesus Christ, beliving in His death, resurrection and Deity.}

And here is how you replied:

"The word kurious used means master, much like how we say Mr. or Mister or Teacher today, see Genesis 23."

From this it is more than apparent what to me "indicated otherwise" than that you were referring to White. The statement "slave of God and the Lord Jesus Christ" comes from James 1:1, not James White.

CC said: "The word Kurios as given in the NT is not of the same context as that of Adonai in the OT. Thought you knew this?"

That's just plain ignorant. The Greek equivalent for Adonai is kurios, as witness the LXX throughout. The same goes for the NT writers, for whom the word Kurios was used not only to speak of master-slave relationships but also the Lord God in relation to man. In this they follow exactly the program of the LXX translators. Get a clue.

In response to the following words of mine: {The word kurios was used in both a secular [i.e. master] and a religious [i.e. Lord] sense (see e.g. Balz & Schneider, "kurios," EDNT, Vol. II), and it is clearly in the latter sense that it was used for Jesus in James' epistle.}

You said: "Sorry, this by scholars, is termed, the word study fallacy. I don't want to have to explain something this basic to you. See William D. Barrick's work on this topic for some elucidation, or if you're frugal or arrogant, I can send a basic introductory book on the fallacies of exegetical sciences which every beginner makes. Not a problem."

If I am a beginner, then the above remarks are an indication that you haven't even started. There is nothing in Barrick's discussion of such a fallacy that even remotely applies to what I pointed out. Barrick as well as every scholar recognizes that the word kurios is the Greek equivalent for Adonai even as it is for adon/adoni. He is also aware that it is used in both ways in the New Testament. The point I made is that the meaning is determined by usage, i.e. how a word is used in a particular context. The way James THE HALF-BROTHER OF JESUS used the word for Jesus AND the Father in his epistle makes it painfully obvious that the word was being used in the highest sense. This is not a word-study fallacy; it is a simple recognition that the meaning of a word that has a range of meanings/applications is determined by the context. Unfortunately for you, the context in which Jesus is identified by James as Lord - on a par with the Father (1:1), and with "the Glory" in apposition to it (2:1, "the Lord, the Glory") - shows that he was identifying Jesus as YHWH/Adonai. Read the articles I linked so you can catch up.

By the way, if you were actually familiar with the work of Bill Barrick, you would not have actually made such a dumb mistake. The following article shows that he is more than aware of the YHWH/Adonai/Kurios connection:

Psalm 23

In light of all this, I would call you a sophomore, but I wouldn't want to offend sophomores.

Anthony Rogers said...

BTW, just to remind you of what you missed out on when you didn't actually read Barrick's article on Exegetical Fallacies, here is how he concluded the relevant section on word-study errors:

"In order to pursue proper word studies, the student must emphasize current usage in a given context (usus loquendi). Any linguistic aids are virtually useless apart from the author’s context."

Clearly, both in the articles I told you to go read on James High Christology and in our discussion here, this is exactly what I argue for, not against.

Deleting said...

Witness said, " That means the domain is available for Oxford Union President Nadir Ahmed ;-)"

Oh no. I'm not going to check that....
Wait....yes I will.

Being gulliable is such a hardship!
:D

lol it.

Radical Moderate said...

Royalson\Anthony and Everyone else.

I think there is something seriously wrong with CallingHimself aka Abu Shujab.

CC, calls Royalson a liar for referring to him by his old Paltalk Nick, Abu Shujab. He denies even knowing who that person is and is insulted for being called by that nick.

He quotes sources out of context, he misuses and miss applies those sources and then projects his errors on Antony Rogers for accurately using those sources.

He makes the bizarre claim that he was referring to Dr James White and not James the Just the half-brother of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. There by misquoting, miss using and misapplying his own writing.

He then responds to me with this
"shall I reference your statement from my 3rd question where you state the answer was the Pharisees? Or did you *forget* that?"

What’s funny here is that he is referencing a debate we had on paltalk in which he made the preposterous claim that The Essenes Migrated to Arabia after the Jewish Wars, and it was this group of Jews who believed that Jesus was the pre mohamed Islamic followers of Jesus.

He bases this on a quote from the Jewish Enclycopedia or Clair Tinsdale.

The JE states words to the effect that there were a group of Jews who immigrated to Arabia after the Jewish wars, "they brought with them Limited knowledge of the Talmud and bible and produced no Talmudic authority accept what Mohamedian Authors considered". (Whatever that means)

CC somehow interprets this to mean that they were the Essenes. How he comes this conclusion I have no idea.

So he asks me the question who this group of Jews could be in the Cross X.

I respond "Why couldn’t it be the Pharisees" that is the question and answer he is referring to.

This debate was a month or so ago, I have had the debate up on my youtube channel a few days after the debate. He still has not posted it on his site or MuslimbyChoices youtube channel and he acts like if he does reference it, somehow this would be damaging to me??????

You can listen to it here.

CallingHImself AKA Abu Shujab Cross X

On his website he claims “•We’ve since had over 10,000+ views in our few months of operation, our articles and videos have gathered thousands of views and we look forward to what the future rings.”

One only has to look at the number of views on his youtube video’s to see this is an outright lie. But the funny thing is, he simply does not understand simple human nature.

He ranted one night how Turritin Fan had blocked him from commenting after getting frustrated with his nonsensical claims. But here is the funny thing.

He moderates his comments claiming “I have to because of getting spammed by Christians and all the vulgar things they post.”

If that was true he would be posting those comments saying “look at the vulgar Christians.” But more importantly people are not going to go to a blog, take the time to write a comment only to not have it posted in a timely fashion. People will get frustrated and bored and not return or recommend his blog.
Something he fails to comprehend.

So my challenge to CallingHimself aka Abu Shujab prove your claim publish your analytics.

Well I think its safe to say this guy is WAY OFF THE RESERVATION when it comes to logical and honest thought.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Radical Moderate,

[Yeah I have you recorded setting up the debate and where you say words to the affect of "I want to debate you so I can get tens of thousands of HITS"]

A debate with you, how does this include the discourse between James and I? Unless you *are* James or you speak on *his* behalf, a statement made towards a discussion with *you*, does not apply to *him*. Get off of your high horse.

{Also on your own website you have posted how your site and video's have gotten thousands of views and HITS.}

Gathered atleast 2500+ views from the videos posted by MBC, made by me, gathered over 11,500+ hits since some 3 months, I'd call that being quite honest.

{CallingHimself aka Abu Shujab then writes...}

I don't know who Abu Shujab is. I am sorry but insisting on calling me by a name I have never used or by a title I don't own is quite pathetic and childish.

{So you look for insults where none exist and now contradictions where none exists.}

Telling you that your own statements conflict within themselves = insults? Do you need a dictionary or perhaps an ailment for appeal to emotion?

{YOu have\had your own youtube page where you posted a few of your pathetic video's and the only people who would watch them where people that I sent. LOL}

A video about you = 10 hits.
A video about someone actually known = 1,200 hits.

See how that works?

{So you now post your pathetic video's on Muslimbychoice youtube page in the hopes that his pathetic viewers will watch them.}

Actually, I don't post my videos there. He picks and chooses from whatever I do to be put.

{LOL actaully I was working on a take two of the the comentary, wasnt happy with the recording of the first but I got bored going through your nonsense, dishonesty and mis representation of yoru own sources. Maybe I will finish up and repost it now. InSha ISA.}

That doesn't answer my question. How are the Pharisees the group who migrated and had lesser if any study of the Bible known among them which Islamic authors agreed with?

{Oh btw where is the debate on yoursite where is your comentary?}

Not on my site.

{Serioulsy kid, education is waisted on you give it up so some other more deserving student can take advantage of it. Your just a vessel made for common use, not for honor.}

You spoke of insulting people above and here you contradict yourself by insulting me. How manly of you. Does it make you feel powerful to insult a 20 year old on the internet?

CallingChristians.com said...

@Radical Moderate,

I once held you to be in a position of being capable of literacy. However I would now like to recant that position based on the following inane, if not absurd statements:

{Everyone look at Callinghimself how he LIES with out even knowing it, and just looks for insults when none exist.}

It's an insult to purposely call someone by the wrong title or name, especially repeatedly and in public. I assumed you know this. Perhaps a lesson or two in public decorum might be of benefit to you?

{FIrst he lies by saying he does not know who Abu Shujab is, when he knows very well that it was his old nick on Paltalk.}

That wasn't my previous name on Paltalk. My previous name is entirely different: Abu Shujaah is not Abu Shujab , either you're faking ignorance or really can't read.

Yes, you are quite pathetic RM.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Derek Adams,

{Enough said.}

I don't see how any of the above comments made by me warrant no response. If you're unable to answer, just say so, rather than denying to answer.

{He is asserting 40 different Christian sects existed in the first decade of Jesus death. (That is the question of mine he is responding to).}

I said the Panarion highlighted a route back to some 40 groups, if not more of early Messianic Jewish groups that later made themselves extant in named groups within his work. Please study the Panarion before commenting further, thanks.

{He is also asserting, coptics, essences, ebionites and *some gnostics* were Muslims and the true followers of Jesus.}

Actually, no this isn't my assertion, but thanks for putting words in my mouth. That in itself warrants your premises void of any real value.

{He thinks that "Judiazers" are merely "Jews", after he listed the Judiazers as one of many "groups" who accepted Jesus in the first decade after Jesus in his video.}

Please reference the minute and second in my video which says so. In fact I am willing to have you swear by the Holy Spirit, if you so dare that I stated such a thing in my video. Can you do so? Or do you know you've lied?

{He thinks that it's okay for Allah to quote the words of disbelievers without their words becoming or being divine scripture before hand, but he doesn't think that's okay for Paul to quote pagan poets or believers.}

Incorrect, see what I wrote previously, the words of the Qur'an or the words in the Qur'an are the Kalamullah, Allaah narrates the sayings of disbelievers in the past, present and future. It his God's narration or God's way of telling us what has happened.

{Not a *single* proves even *one* group had Muslim beliefs.}

Quite funny, but to reject, which is what you did is neither a refutation nor a response, but an act of intellectual dishonesty and cowardice to dismiss academic references and citations and the premises derived from them.

{CallingChristians, It's time to put up the white flag. You can continue your false pursuit of trying to convert Christians to known rhetoric and lies, or you can grow some intellectual balls and become part of Academia.}

I'm quite sure you're an avid intellectual, after all, you've quoted extensively from....well no one and you've done a fantastic job replying...wait no, trying to reply...wait no...well you've done a fantastic job denying everything I said, stated yourself you won't respond and now you're running away. Fine by me.

{You ought to be really called "CallingTaqiya".}

Earlier you called for me to grow some, and I quote, "intellectual balls", is name calling part of what you wanted me to learn?

CallingChristians.com said...

@Anthony Rogers,

{CC, it is obvious you were not referring to James White in the context of the remark I was replying to. Here is the statement you were answering}

Sorry, but now you're simply confusing yourself Anthony. You're cross referencing three different conversations with three different people and I myself as far as the comments display, was not discussing this topic with you, but discussing White. In that regard I don't hold you to be Royalson, so if you'd like to actually discuss something someone else stated, then make that explicit, otherwise cutting and pasting other's statements from a conversation riddled with multiple persons isn't going to benefit either of us.

{That's just plain ignorant. The Greek equivalent for Adonai is kurios, as witness the LXX throughout.}

It isn't ignorant, but rather contextual, were the Jews from Alexandria who translating their codex (whichever that may be), from your understanding, relegating their God, to a Master? No. So it's called contextual analysis, why would you think just because the Jews use a term for their God, that it gives you precedence to use their application for their scripture (of proportional relevance) to that of your faith? As I said this is clearly the word study fallacy.

{The same goes for the NT writers, for whom the word Kurios was used not only to speak of master-slave relationships but also the Lord God in relation to man. In this they follow exactly the program of the LXX translators. Get a clue.}

Two completely different religions, using two complete different sent of contexts. Does this then mean that in Bereishit 23, Abraham is then a God, and the Jews when translating were referencing him as such? Of course not, look at any of the exegetical commentaries by Orthodox Jews, see Rashi's for example. Your claim is very inconsistent.

{If I am a beginner, then the above remarks are an indication that you haven't even started. There is nothing in Barrick's discussion of such a fallacy that even remotely applies to what I pointed out.}

Really? Then let's see, you claim that the Jews of a different religion to Christianity, use a word to describe their God, therefore if you use that some word to describe something in your religion, then it also means that person is a God. From those premises, let's see what William D. Barrick says:

"Word studies are popular, easily obtained from available resources and an easy way to procure sermon content. However, word studies are also subject to radical extrapolations and erroneous applications. Though we might decry over-emphasis on philology or etymology, we must recognize that the choice of individual words was significant to the writers of Scripture. It is legitimate for the exegete to ask, “Why did the writer choose this term as opposed to one of its synonyms?”

and further on:

"To pursue proper word studies, the student must emphasize current usage in a given context (usus loquendi). Linguistic aids are
virtually useless apart from the author’s context."

With this in mind, the Jews used it in relation to their religion, doctrine and understanding of the language. You then take what they translated, out of context and apply it to your faith. Again removing the author's intent. Clearly, the word study fallacy.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Anthony Rogers,

{Read the articles I linked so you can catch up.}

Already answered this above, perhaps if you also read Nida, "Contemporary Linguistics", page 84, you'd come across a more expansive delineation of the word study fallacy for a simple minded person like yourself, it's termed the Basic Meaning Fallacy, one of the many ways your perversion of Adonai is used:

"The first fallacy is an assumption that each word has a basic meaning that exists in every context in which it is used."

See:

"An English example of this phenomenon would be to start with the verb “bank” in a sentence such as “I will bank my most recent paycheck,” and give the verb the basic meaning of “to deposit funds in a bank.” This basic meaning would then be applied to the noun “banker” by giving it the meaning of “one who deposits funds in a bank.” Yet this definition is entirely misleading because it gives the impression that everyone who deposits money in a bank account can be called a “banker.” Words that share a common root often have some relationship in meaning, but that relationship is determined by examining how the words are used, rather than assuming a relationship based upon a shared root. The meaning of a word is not controlled by its root." - Hebrew and Greek Word Study Fallacies, page 8, Benjamin J. Baxter.

Clearly you're out of your league and I pray you educate yourself one day.

{By the way, if you were actually familiar with the work of Bill Barrick, you would not have actually made such a dumb mistake. The following article shows that he is more than aware of the YHWH/Adonai/Kurios connection}

That doesn't help your case, he's not using it to demonstrate that Adonai = Jesus in Psalms 23. He's using it to demonstrate that confusion comes out of this understanding by Christians, uneducated, much like yourself:

'The LORD” is the traditional rendering of the Tetragrammaton (hwhy = YHWH) first employed the Septuagint translators
because of a misinterpretation and misapplication of the Third Commandment.36 In public reading there is no way for the
hearer to know whether the divine title thus represented is Yahweh (LORD: hwhy = YHWH/Yahweh) or Adonai (Lord: yn"doa] =
“Master/Lord”). Translating both with the same word contributes to a confusion of divine names. Ambiguity = -0.5 point.
"

How funny, his argument, referenced by you, supports my case. Brilliant work Anthony, would you like to continue aiding my argument? Please do, it's a pleasure.

{In light of all this, I would call you a sophomore, but I wouldn't want to offend sophomores.}

When all else fails and you are unable to respond, it's always good to engage in ad hominem and character assassination. Stay true to your religion Anthony, you're doing just fine.

If you didn't get that, it was sarcasm.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Anthony Rogers,

{BTW, just to remind you of what you missed out on when you didn't actually read Barrick's article on Exegetical Fallacies, here is how he concluded the relevant section on word-study errors:}

"In order to pursue proper word studies, the student must emphasize current usage in a given context (usus loquendi). Any linguistic aids are virtually useless apart from the author’s context."

Good to see you know how to quote something. Unfortunately, this does not aid your argument.

Your argument is as such:
If the Jews used this word as Lord (divine entity).
And I use it to denote my divine entity.
Then we both agree on my belief as being right.

No sir, as William D. Barrick demonstrates, it must be used in the given context and certainly, the Jews who translated the LXX, knew very well that they used Adonai with two special meanings, which from your citation of William's works on Psalms 23, does lend to much confusion.

Good job refuting yourself. I actually admire you now. Please do reply. Thanks.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Radical Moderate,

{I think there is something seriously wrong with CallingHimself aka Abu Shujab.}

Mocking my name intentionally and then persisting in attributing a name to me which I never sanctioned myself is quite petulant, no? I don't consider myself to be Christian, therefore, logically speaking, how can I be calling....."myself". I mean if you were trying to demean or insult me, atleast try to make it.....logical. I'd give you points if you had tried, but that's just....embarrassing.

As I also pointed out above, before your comment was approved by the moderator, my name was never Abu Shujab but Abu Shujaah which is also spelt Abu Shuja'ah on other places on the internet, but never, Abu Shujab , I do not know who this is.

{CC, calls Royalson a liar for referring to him by his old Paltalk Nick, Abu Shujab. He denies even knowing who that person is and is insulted for being called by that nick.}

Was never my name as shown above. Which means everything of me that Royalson knows is either from you, or you yourself and Royalson both can't read properly.

{He quotes sources out of context, he misuses and miss applies those sources and then projects his errors on Antony Rogers for accurately using those sources.}

Confirmation bias, as demosntrated in my aforementioned comment to Anthony, I clearly display his argument's inconsistency and irrelevancy. Of course though, as Royalson has to cheerlead for you, you must also become a cheerleader for Anthony. How cute, three internet Christians needs to cheerlead each other's hivemind to discuss their faith with a 20 year old. Beautiful.

{He makes the bizarre claim that he was referring to Dr James White and not James the Just the half-brother of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. There by misquoting, miss using and misapplying his own writing.}

Actually, no. Anthony cross referenced my statement from an entire different conversation from which I was having with him. I was discussing two James' simultaneously, unless he made it explicit to whom he was referring, I continued with the understanding that we were discussing the same James with him.

{He bases this on a quote from the Jewish Enclycopedia or Clair Tinsdale.}

Who is Tinsdale? I referenced Clair Tisdall. I publicly deny using any reference to a Tinsdal in any of my debates. Your deceit knows no bounds.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Radical Moderate,

{The JE states words to the effect that there were a group of Jews who immigrated to Arabia after the Jewish wars, "they brought with them Limited knowledge of the Talmud and bible and produced no Talmudic authority accept what Mohamedian Authors considered". (Whatever that means)}

Two problems>
(1) Incorrect quote.
(2) You admit to not understanding what they're saying.

If (1) and (2) are the case, then you're appealing to damnant quod non intelligunt, you're arguing against what you don't understand. How can a grown man, an adult do such a thing and then feel prideful of it? Shameful really.

{CC somehow interprets this to mean that they were the Essenes. How he comes this conclusion I have no idea.}

Again, you have no idea, yet I provided a narrative in point by point form during our debate. So again, you debated against something you didn't understand or had no idea of.

{I respond "Why couldn’t it be the Pharisees" that is the question and answer he is referring to.}

Actually, this wasn't your answer, to reference your statement from the debate, it was the, "Pharisees as said twice by you, after being asked who was the group some 5 times.

{On his website he claims “•We’ve since had over 10,000+ views in our few months of operation, our articles and videos have gathered thousands of views and we look forward to what the future rings.”
One only has to look at the number of views on his youtube video’s to see this is an outright lie.}

How does website views, equate YT video views? I only started making videos one month ago. Three of which made it to MBC's channel of which we have a total of 2500 views for my first videos.

{So my challenge to CallingHimself aka Abu Shujab prove your claim publish your analytics.}

You can go to YouTube and see the videos themselves, see right below on MBC's uploads, the views for the videos. Note, I didn't say the videos got 10,000 views, I said the website got 11, 600 views since this year began. Before I upload it, I want you to write that you swear by the Holy Spirit that I don't have 10,000 or more views for 2012 on my website thus far. Do it and you'll have it ASAP.

It's always hilarious to see a grown man arguing with a 20 year old to save face. Kind of pathetic, but I'll give you some pity though, you need a hobby.

Anthony Rogers said...

CC, all your meandering came down to this basic misunderstanding and misrepresentation of my claim. You attributed to me the following argument:

"If the Jews used this word as Lord (divine entity).
And I use it to denote my divine entity.
Then we both agree on my belief as being right."

This is the kind of reasoning I see Muslims engage in all the time, pretending their deity is the same as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob simply because they claim to believe in one God. But this was not my argument. I am not the Muslim here, remember?

My argument, as Barrick's work perfectly supports, is that JEWS, among whom must be counted the author of the epistle of James, used the word kurios in two ways: 1) master; and 2) Lord. The way James, A JEW, used the word kurios in context for Jesus (1:1, 2:1), as well as for the Father (e.g. 3:9), clearly shows in what sense James was using the term. Take the latter for example: are you seriously arguing that James believed God the Father is an earthly slave-master? It takes a Muslim to argue something like this. Oh, that's right...you are a Muslim.

There is not a single Greek lexicon, dictionary, or other standard reference work on Greek grammar that would fail to support my view or that would support yours.

BTW, the quotation from Barrick to the effect that the LXX used kurios to translate both YHWH and Adonai (not to mention other forms of the latter, such as the form used for Abraham in Gen. 23), while it does obscure which one of these underlying Hebrew words was being translated in any given instance for anyone reading it only in Greek, that does not obscure the fact that kurios was frequently used as the equivalent for both divine titles or simply as a title for deity, not only for an earthly person who owns raisin heads (to borrow the endearing term employed by your false prophet). You were the ignoramus who argued that the word Kurios means sir or master, and I was the one who pointed out to you that it also meant more than that in relevant contexts (and as judged by those contexts). Bottom line, as Barrick and every scholar on the planet knows (which excludes you): the word has more than one meaning and was used in more than one way by Jews in the first century. The way it was being used is determined by context. For Jews, their was only one Kurios in heaven, i.e. Adonai/Yahweh. For James to identify the ascended and heavenly Christ as LORD, and for him to call Jesus THE LORD OF GLORY, is proof positive that James was equating Jesus with Adonai/Yahweh and not merely as the owner of indentured servants who feed his camels and get the urine or semen stains out of his clothes.

So, as you can hopefully see by now: it was a foolhardy move to try and take a Christian like Barrick as your helper or friend; we are only friends and helpers of each other.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Anthony Rogers,

{This is the kind of reasoning I see Muslims engage in all the time, pretending their deity is the same as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob simply because they claim to believe in one God.}

Suddenly Jacob, Abraham and Isaac become only your God, don't forget he's also the God of the Jews who also dismiss the Trinitarian godhead dogma.


{But this was not my argument. I am not the Muslim here, remember?}

Just so you understand, you've created a strawman here, first you negate that Abraham believed in a Trinitarian God, then applied your fallacious argument of Kurios upon me, projecting your own inanity. Avoid doing so, it makes your response(s) look weak.

{My argument, as Barrick's work perfectly supports, is that JEWS, among whom must be counted the author of the epistle of James, used the word kurios in two ways: 1) master; and 2) Lord.}

Again, this is clear appeal to the word study fallacy, subletting to the basic meaning fallacy highlighted in my previous comment. You're attributing the meaning of one faith's usage to another faith's. James was not a Jew according to Jews, if he acceded to the Trinitarian dogma, then by the Pharisees, Sadducees and Zealots, even the Essenes he was not a true Jew.

{The way James, A JEW, used the word kurios in context for Jesus (1:1, 2:1), as well as for the Father (e.g. 3:9), clearly shows in what sense James was using the term.}

James may have *come* from the Jews, but just as Paul, if his belief was Trinitarian, then this is not *from* Judaism. Show me any pre 1 CE orthodox Judaic document that labels YHWH one of three persons or belonging to a godhead. Since you can't, you're forcibly saying James was a Trinitarian Jew, that believed like an ignoramus that the word Kurios specifically meant God and had no other meaning. Also, there is no empirical evidence that *James* authored his epistle, no first century manuscript or second century manuscript, so give me some empirical evidence he wrote it. Otherwise, you're also basing your beliefs on another irrational dogma.

{There is not a single Greek lexicon, dictionary, or other standard reference work on Greek grammar that would fail to support my view or that would support yours.}

Again, they do, see Strong's Greek lexicon, where the word means Master or Sir, but also God, and that is because it was termed so by the Jews of Alexandria in their translation, otherwise the more explicit term for a non-Judaic translation from Alexandria would be that of theos and no well learned person would dare disagree.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Anthony Rogers,


{You were the ignoramus who argued that the word Kurios means sir or master, and I was the one who pointed out to you that it also meant more than that in relevant contexts (and as judged by those contexts).}

Incorrect, I never asserted that it didn't mean Lord, in fact I'd like for you to show me where I made such a statement. Rather my argument is that because the Jews used kurios and it meant Lord to them in a divine sense, does not mean that they believe in the same concept of God as you and therefore you thinking that using the same word vindicates your belief leads us to the understanding that you are appealing to the word study fallacy, especially to that of the basic meaning fallacy.

To summarize:
(1) I didn't deny two meanings.
(2) I acknowledged two meanings existed.
(3) The Jews used it for a doctrinal reason.
(4) The Christians use it for a differing doctrinal reason.
(5) The doctrines of Jews and Christians are not the same.
(6) To appeal to (4) saying it agrees with (5) is the word study fallacy.
(7) From which the basic meaning fallacy is attributed to the argument from (6).
(8) This is accurate as you demonstrated both fallacies by claiming James was a Jew.
(9) If James was an orthodox Jew that held that Kurios meant one of the Trinitarian Godhead, provide empirical evidence.
(10) Following the proof of proof by contradiction, since (9) cannot be proven.
(11) Or since you cannot prove that Jews and Christians have the same doctrine of God (Godhead vs non-Godhead), then by very definition of the Judaic belief of God, your argument is rendered invalid.

Try harder.

kenmehms said...

Well done Anthony Rogers.

Please carry on posting CC, Sammatar etc, your comical responses are giving my friends and I a great laugh!

Radical Moderate said...

@Callinghimself

Thank you for proving my point. You look for insults where none exist.

Your response

"That wasn't my previous name on Paltalk. My previous name is entirely different: Abu Shujaah is not Abu Shujab , either you're faking ignorance or really can't read"

So you knew very well that Royalson was referring to your old paltalk nick. Instead of correcting him on the spelling, you instead imagine an insult where none exists.

You aslo wrote...

"Gathered atleast 2500+ views from the videos posted by MBC, made by me, gathered over 11,500+ hits since some 3 months, I'd call that being quite honest."

Really, because when you made that claim on your blog, I checked your video's all accept one where under 100 views, and the only one that had over a few hundred was the one about James White.

You then write...
"A video about you = 10 hits.
A video about someone actually known = 1,200 hits."

First the video about me was posted on your youtube page, not MBC and it had over 30 views. I can account for at least 20 of the people who viewed those video's.

This tells anyone including the Muslima's with half a brain that when you post video's on your YouTube page and on your site alone you got very limited views.

In other words no one watched the video because no one goes to your site.

You also made some grandiose threat when confronted about the video's pathetic performance "I can put it on MBC YouTube page and get a lot more HITS".

Again demonstrating that it is MBC and not YOU that generates the traffic.

Finally I have run the analytics on your site and here is what we have.

Your site is ranked

3,073,011 (as a comparison this Blog AM is ranked 298,875) the lower the number the better.
100 percent of your search driven traffic comes from an Arabic search word. Don’t know what it is because I don't read squiggly lines.

This tells me that the only people interested in your rants are Muslims. Proving you’re just calling yourself and no one else.

But we already knew this because of the poor showing of your video’s on your own YouTube site that’s why you had to post them to MBC you tube page.

Compete.com pops up a message when analyzing your site…
“Sorry,
we do not have Site Profile data for:
callingchristians.com
The site may have little traffic or we may not have a statistically relevant sample to project the traffic with.”

Compare that to this site AM
Which had over 14,000 unique visitors last month and is ranked 121,860.

Google Ad Planner does not even see you,
“Ad Planner could not locate sufficient data to display for domain: callingchristians.com”

Again compare that to the AM site
Unique visitors (estimated cookies) 39K
Unique visitors (users) 17K
Reach 0.0%
Page views 120K
Total visits 61K
Avg visits per cookie 1.6
Avg time on site 6:30

So no one is really interested in you or what you have to say.

Radical Moderate said...

@CallingHimself aka ABU SHUJAHH or however you spelled it

You accuse Royalson of Insulting you for mis spelling your old nick on Paltalk.

But then you insult him by calling him a ignoramus.

You wrote to him...

"As for Muhammad {saw} adopting the traditions of the pagans, that's as false as you can get. When the Jews began to worship YHWH, I don't see you saying anything of that God being the wife of another Pagan Goddess, Ashera pre-proto Judaic tenets. So your argument is cyclic. Sorry, try harder ignoramus"

Good to know you have such high standards for the Kuffar and such patheticaly low standards for yourself. But hey look who your rolemodle is.

YOu live up to his standard by just going to the bathroom the Islamic way. Thats so spiritual.

Anthony Rogers said...

CC, Notwithstanding the fact that you clearly implied that the word kurios was not used by first century Jewish speakers as a title for deity, since you have conceded that the word is in fact a divine title (and not just a term used in a secular sense for owners of slaves), and have tacitly given up on James as someone who denied the deity of the LORD Jesus in a lame attempt to justify your rebellion against Christ and to prop up your tottering idol, I won't begrudge your claim that you never argued this.

However, in beating a retreat on the above issues, you have now made the ill-informed and confident assertion that the Trinity is not a part of OT religion. In light of this, I would like to challenge you to debate the topic. I will happily come on Paltalk, where I hear you like to thrash about, and take you to school. I will also then happily post it here on Answering Muslims.

To narrow it down, here is the question I would like to debate: "Does the OT Teach that the Angel of the LORD is a Distinct Divine Person in the Godhead?" (For a reference to what I am talking about see Exodus 3:2 for starters.)

In other words, "Calling Christians," this Christian is calling you out. What do you say?

Radical Moderate said...

@CallingHIMSELF

You wrote...

"I don't consider myself to be Christian, therefore, logically speaking, how can I be calling....."myself"."

You really are slow arent you.

Your nick is CallingChristians, well your not calling any of us with your nonsensical and bizzare argumentation.

I know you think you have someting but you put a lot of effort into nothing.

Really man your not convincing us your not Calling Christians, your just trying to convince yourself of your un belief and others who already do not believe and are looking for an excusse to justify their un belief.

Thats why your nick should be and will always be to us "CALLING YOUR SELF"

You mis use and mis apply your own sources.

Take for instance in our debate, you sited Israel Nolls or however you spell his name. (Let me guess your going to respond with "I have no idea who that is" when you know perfectly well who I am talking about.)

The funnything is the part you sited was him stating what he was going to argue against, not what he was arguing in favor of.

You say you "Created a narrative". No you created a pre suposition that consisted of round pegs, then tryied to insert those round pegs into square holes of weak assumptions.

Radical Moderate said...

I second the debate challange with Anthony Rogers.

Royal Son said...

CallingChristians, I have to give you credit for at least trying. I'm rather disappointed however in your lack of ability to provide substantial arguments. Let's address your responses before moving on to the other points raised in the debate with Radical Moderate.'

You said:

@Royalson,

{CallingChristians accuses James White of having no credibility when Abu Shujab}

I do not know who Abu Shujab is. Please fix this statement or atleast apologize for name calling. You can't be this lowly.


My Response: First of all, I'm not resorting to name calling. I may have made a spelling error, so I'm going to ask you to settle this one for me - Are you the person who debated Radical Moderate? If not, here's the deal, whoever it was that debated him uses a nick that is either Abu Shujab or Abu Shujah or something close to that. Since more than one person seems to be using the title CallingChristians (as it belongs to your group) I am trying to make a distinction here of persons. No need to get offended. If you're not the person that Radical Moderate debated, then you need not worry. Perhaps you're not aware of the nicks that your friend takes on Paltalk.


You said:
{1. My response: Actually there were the Zealots also. But hey, no biggie.}

See my statement, "according to the Catholic Encyclopedia", I also referenced precisely where the Catholic Encyclopedia said so. So my statement is already qualified, to prove me wrong, go to my referenced in the encyclopedia, and show where I purposely left out the Zealots or the *many* other groups not mentioned. Did you want me to mention all the other groups during a 15 minute introduction? Or is it that I mentioned some groups from a source which qualified my statements that has upset you?


My Response:Ah ok, so I guess you are the guy who debated Radical Moderate then since you attribute the action of referencing to yourself. Please tell us the correct spelling of your Paltalk nickname so everybody knows who you are. And yes I am aware that you took the nick CallingChristians on the debate, but I'm talking about the other nicknames you use. Regarding the reference in the Catholic Encyclopedia,here is what it actually says:

"Essenes; One of three leading Jewish sects mentioned by Josephus as flourishing in the second century B.C., the others being the Pharisees and the Sadducees." Source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05546a.htm

The Catholic Encyclopedia thus is not talking about the leading sects at the time of Jesus, but in the 2nd century BC - two centuries before Jesus! So, no sir, your statements are not qualified. They only show that the Essenes were one of three main sects that flourished in the 2nd Century BC.

The same page from the Encyclopedia states: "They are styled Essæi by Philo, who derives it from hosios, "holy", and Essæi and Esseni by Josephus. Their numbers according to both authors was about 4000 and their chief place of residence along the west side, but away from the shore, of the Dead Sea. They also dwelt in other, but mostly secluded, parts and small towns of Palestine; yet some were found in cities. The sect arose about 150 B.C. (the first-named Essene is Judas, 110 B.C.) and disappeared towards the end of the first century A.D."

The Catholic Encyclopedia gives us two interesting pieces of information here: (1) That the sect numbered around 4000 and (2) They disappeared towards the end of the first century. Now I predict that Abu will interpret this to mean that the Essenes disappeared from Judea and migrated to Arabia. But that's not what the text says. It simply says they disappeared. There's no more record of them! Yet you want to take a quote from the Jewish Encylopedia which never mentions the Essenes, and state that the group that migrated must have been them!

Royal Son said...

Let me throw something else into the mix for you Abu. Apart from the three sects that you mention, there are of course many other Jews who did not even affiliate themselves with those three sects. Why do you automatically assume that the Jews who migrated to Arabia must have been the Essenes and not simply a composite group of Jews of various sects and affiliations. In fact, the same Encyclopedia states the following about the sects of Judaism following the destruction of the Second Temple:

"While Christianity thus asserted itself as the new Kingdom of God, the Jewish theocracy, guided by leaders unable "to know the signs of the times", was hastening to its total destruction. The Romans came, and in A.D. 70 put an end forever to the Jewish Temple, priesthood, sacrifices, and nation, whereby it should have become clear to the Jews that their national worship was rejected of God. In point of fact, Judaism, shorn of these its essential features, soon

"assumed an entirely new aspect. All the parties and sects of a former generation vanished; Pharisees and Sadducees ceased to quarrel with each other; the Temple was supplanted by the synagogue, sacrifices by the prayer, the priest by any one who was able to read, teach, and interpret both the written and the oral law. The Sanhedrin lost its juridical qualification, and became a consistory to advise people in regard to the religious duties. Judaism became a science, a philosophy, and ceased to be a political institution" (Schindler, "Dissolving Views in the History of Judaism")."

So now, please do tell me Abu, how it is that since as the Encyclopedia mentions via Schindler, disagreements among the sects diminished, and the factions themselves pretty much dissolved that you are in a position to positively identify that the people who migrated to Arabia were the Essenes. Why could it not simply be Jews from this new non-sectarian generation? It seems to me that this group no longer wished to hold onto their former divisive ways. Such is understandable in light of the collective persecution they suffered at the hands of the Romans - tragedy breeds unity. In other words, when people encounter a calamity together, it is quite often observed that they lay aside past differences and work together to build a better future. The losing of previously held traditions, practices, and identity would certainly comport with the notion of this group of Jews who assimilated into Arabic culture would it not? For some reason, you seem to think that a bunch of Xenophobic, nationalitic Jews who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls were more likely to have abandoned those scrolls, forgotten all their past oaths to preserve their teachings and writings, and take on Arabic identity. Very unusual.

Royal Son said...

Let us not ignore however, that the Catholic Encyclopedia, in referring to these three main sects of 2nd century BC, appeals to the works of Josephus, the very works which tell us of a fourth sect later on in Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII, Chapter 1, Section 1:

"Such were the consequences of this, that the customs of our fathers were altered, and such a change was made, as added a mighty weight toward bringing all to destruction, which these men occasioned by their thus conspiring together; for Judas and Sadduc, who excited a fourth philosophic sect among us, and had a great many followers therein, filled our civil government with tumults at present, and laid the foundations of our future miseries, by this system of philosophy, which we were before unacquainted withal, concerning which I will discourse a little, and this the rather because the infection which spread thence among the younger sort, who were zealous for it, brought the public to destruction."

Then in section 2 and 6:
"2. The Jews had for a great while had three sects of philosophy peculiar to themselves; the sect of the Essens, and the sect of the Sadducees, and the third sort of opinions was that of those called Pharisees; of which sects, although I have already spoken in the second book of the Jewish War, yet will I a little touch upon them now.

6. But of the fourth sect of Jewish philosophy, Judas the Galilean was the author. These men agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord. They also do not value dying any kinds of death, nor indeed do they heed the deaths of their relations and friends, nor can any such fear make them call any man lord. And since this immovable resolution of theirs is well known to a great many, I shall speak no further about that matter; nor am I afraid that any thing I have said of them should be disbelieved, but rather fear, that what I have said is beneath the resolution they show when they undergo pain. And it was in Gessius Florus's time that the nation began to grow mad with this distemper, who was our procurator, and who occasioned the Jews to go wild with it by the abuse of his authority, and to make them revolt from the Romans. And these are the sects of Jewish philosophy."

This sect of Jews was probably among the fiercest of resistance forces met by the Romans. Now, I am not suggesting that the Zealots make a positive identification match to the group of Jews who migrated to Arabia after the destruction of the Second Temple. However, I think you are making a huge mistake in trying to do so with the Essenes. You have provided zero evidence for your conclusion.

Royal Son said...

You wrote:

{2.My response: Actually, all we know is that after the destruction of the second temple, there is no more record of the Essenes. Abu never established that the Essenes migrated at all instead of being exterminated under the siege of the Romans.}

Incorrect, I demonstrated that they were *not* only found in Qumran, but that they were found *throughout* Judea and were known to travel to other towns and cities, hence why we know now that some of them married and had children and why their ideology spread to other towns and cities. We know they migrated to *Arabia* because a large Judaic group *with their beliefs* were there at the same time Qumran was attacked, if that is the case, please give me the name of a Jewish group, which migrated during the time just before the 2nd temple was destroyed who held similar beliefs to the Essenes. Simple, no?


My Response:

No. We know they migrated to Arabia becaus a large Judaic group with their beliefs? What beliefs? The Jewish Encyclopedia never mentioned what their beliefs were! And especially it did not mention the beliefs of this migrating group with respect to Jesus! This is why you failed miserably in the debate Abu. You never once were able to show what the beliefs of this group were regarding Jesus. In the debate your attempts were so feeble to address the criteria it was like watching a train wreck in slow motion. Your arguments truly went off the rails into the twilight zone.

Here's a basic summary of your attempts at showing the beliefs of the Essene's Jesus:

1. That Jesus was born of a virgin - Well they wrote the DSS which contains Isaiah 7:14 therefore they believed Jesus was born of a virgin!

My resposne:

How on earth does Isaiah 7:14 in the Dead Sea Scrolls, written by the Essenes prove that they believed that Jesus was born of a virgin ?? I couldn't believe it when you offered up this kind of argumentation. Having Isaiah 7:14 in one's canon does not indicate one's interpretation of that verse. To be sure, the Pharisees had Isaiah 7:14 in their canon, yet did they believe that Jesus was born of a virgin? Absolutely not! According to your own Qur'an, Mary's own countrymen thought she had conceived Jesus out of wedlock:

Surah 19:28 - O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a wicked man nor was thy mother a harlot. (Pickthall)

In fact a large number of Jews will argue that the word translated Almah simply means young woman and not virgin. Now I myself don't agree with their argumentation because the text very clearly shows that this is referring to a sign, a miracle, and a woman simply giving birth would not do justice to the intention of the author stating that such a miracle/sign be given. Added to this of course are the other passages in scripture that show by way of context that a virgin is implied by the very use of the same word. What I'm saying is that a lot of other Jews will insist upon the bad argumentation of simply a natural birth in Isaiah 7:14, so why not also the Essenes? You failed to demonstrate any positive evidence that the Essenes themselves believed in a virgin birth, and that the birth was of the Messiah and that such a Messiah was Jesus! Not only so, but the Dead Sea Scrolls were COPIES of manuscripts, so while they may certainly have written those copies, it does not mean that the original writings which pre-date the Dead Sea Scrolls were written by them, for the originals obviously came centuries beforehand.

Royal Son said...

2. That Jesus was not crucified - According to Israel Knohl, the concept of a rising and dying messiah was not found in early judaism.

Now I found this argumentation perplexing to say the least. For Israel Knohl states in his very book, the Messiah before Jesus the following:

"In this book I intend to counter these claims. I propose to show that Jesus really did regard himself as the Messiah and truly expected the Messiah to be rejected, killed, and resurrected after three days, for this is precisely what was believed to have happened to a messianic leader who had lived one generation before Jesus."

According to Knohl, Jesus had a self-expectation of dying and rising Messiah because a Messianic leader had risen from the dead, a generation before Jesus. Guess which sources he uses to come to this conclusion Abu? The Dead Sea Scrolls! That's right, the author you appealed to, has a theory that the Dead Sea Scrolls teach the concept of a dying and rising Messiah, and so while you would say that this concept was foreign to Judaism, Knohl points out that it certainly wasn't foreign to the writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls. And who were the writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Abu? Oh that's right, the Essenes!

Royal Son said...

Now look, I'm not expecting you to believe everything Israel Knohl says. In fact, I find his views to be pretty radical and out in left-field. But if you're going to use his work to try to substantiate your case, then please understand what the man teaches and believes.

Was the concept of a dying and rising Messiah foreign to Judaism? I do not believe so at all. In fact, when we look at some Jewish sources, it is quite telling that the concept of a dying and rising Messiah is alive and well in their historical writings:

* Rabbi.Johanan said: For the sake of the Messiah. What is his [the Messiah's] name? …The Rabbis said: His name is ‘the leper scholar,’ as it is written, Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted. (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 98b)

* Zohar (400 BCE): There is in the Garden of Eden a palace named the Palace of the Sons of Sickness. This palace the Messiah enters and He summons every pain and every chastisement of Israel. All of these come and rest upon Him. And had He not thus lightened them upon Himself, there had been no man able to bear Israel’s chastisements for the transgressions of the law; as it is written, ‘Surely our sicknesses he has carried.’

* Midrash Ruth Rabbah, 2.14 (650-900 CE): ”‘Come hither’ draw near to the throne ‘and dip thy morsel in the vinegar,’ this refers to the chastisements, as it is said, ‘But he [Messiah] was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities.’”

Royal Son said...

3. That Jesus was not Divine - D. Proving that Jesus was not divine, the DSS is the Old Testament that the Pharisees and Sadducees used at that time, and which had later had produced under 2 Kings Chapter 22 for us. The DSS agrees largely with the Septuagint in some areas and it does agree with the Masoretic text.

The your candid mention of the Septuagint calls into question your assumptions of scriptural interpretation, as it is plain to see that Jewish groups were not confined to the Dead Sea Scrolls or the rendering thereof.

You went on to mention in the debate that the only point of disagreement between the Jews and Essenes is found in The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis regarding the timing of festivals.

If that were the case, then what did the Pharisees believe about Jesus:

[1] Jesus was not the Messiah
[2] Jesus was not born of a virgin
[3] Jesus was not Divine
[4] Jesus was crucified
[5] Jesus did not rise from the dead.
[6] Jesus was not a messenger of God.
[7] Jesus was not a prophet

If you seriously want to consider the Essenes as possible candidates for pre-Mohammad Isalmic followers of Jesus and yet will use Epiphanius to propagate the idea that the only point of disagreement between the Essenes and the Pharisees was the timing of Festivals then you have a major problem (surprised anyone?):

Let's put this into perspective now. If the Essenes believed the same things as the Pharisees except for the timing of festivals then the Essenes likewise believed:

[1] Jesus was not the Messiah
[2] Jesus was not born of a virgin.
[3] Jesus was not Divine
[4] Jesus was not crucified
[5] Jesus did not rise from the dead.
[6] Jesus was not a messenger of God.
[7] Jesus was not a prophet

You see Abu, you can quote sources all you like all day long, but eventually, you are going to have to step back and say "Hey, this just isn't working."

Throughout the entire debate you never quoted from a single Essene text to show their beliefs of Jesus. You have provided NOTHING to show whether they even believed Jesus existed!

Maybe you could start there! This is how you can build your case Abu. First demonstrate that they actually believed in Jesus Himself. THen show other quotes from the Essenes about them having a positive view of Jesus. Then build it up to show quotes about them regarding him as a Messiah, that he was born of a virgin, that He was not crucified, that He was not Divine. And so on. This is what you need to do if you want us to take you seriously.

Royal Son said...

To continue on however, in point of fact, what you did was mockingly laugh at Radical Moderate in the debate for not realising how far Qumran was from Judea, and that their settlement in Qumran was some kind of proof that these guys would have made a mass migration to Arabia. You asked him if he had even seen a map of Qumran and Judea, when actually sir, it seems that you were the one that hadn't seen a map of the area since Qumran is actually a Judean town located on the southeastern border of the nation! Secondly, as Radical Moderate pointed out, your darling scholar Robert Eisenman stated that the Essenes were a group of nationalistic, xenophobic Jews. On such a basis, it was very unlikely that they were simply going to abandon Judea and migrate thousands of miles to Arabia. Thirdly, this group as you believe, wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls. You want us to believe that they would simply leave their scrolls behind as if they didn't matter, and just wander off to Arabia? Are you even aware of the vows that the Essenes took upon themselves and placed upon their fellow converts? Let me help you out:

"that he will be perpetually a lover of truth, and propose to himself to reprove those that tell lies; that he will keep his hands clear from theft, and his soul from unlawful gains; and that he will neither conceal any thing from those of his own sect, nor discover any of their doctrines to others, no, not though anyone should compel him so to do at the hazard of his life. Moreover, he swears to communicate their doctrines to no one any otherwise than as he received them himself; that he will abstain from robbery, and will equally preserve the books belonging to their sect, and the names of the angels (5) [or messengers]. These are the oaths by which they secure their proselytes to themselves."
Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book II, Chapter VIII, Section 7.

Ladies and gentlemen, can you see the pure desperation of CallingChristians? He wants us to believe that this sect of Jews who took oaths to preserve their teachings would simply leave their writings, the Dead Sea Scrolls in the caves of Qum'ran, travel all the way to Arabia and take on the customs of the Arabs.

Royal Son said...

You said:
{3.My response:Nor is there any record of the Essenes migrating to Arabia! Quite simply, the Jewish Encyclopedia which he cites states that there is no clue as to the origin of the Jews who migrated to Arabia!}

My point is simple, during the time of the 2nd temple, we have 3 main groups which we can single out one. By a simple process of elimination we can logically deduce who that group was, no? So if the Pharisees and their beliefs were known at that period not to be widespread in Arabia, then the group isn't the Pharisees. If the Sadducees and their beliefs were known at that period not to be widespread in Arabia, then the group isn't them. Yet we know a *group* did migrate, so out of 3 we have 2 eliminated, I hope you're good with Math, as that leaves as with 1. Since this 1 other group, the Essenes had their beliefs spotted in Arabia, and we know a group migrated, putting the evidences together, it points to them. Problem?


Big problem. Because your math is filled with unproven assumptions. I hope you're good with Math also:

Abu provides 0% evidence that the Essenes left Judea during or after the Roman Siege instead of being slaughtered.
Abu provides 0% evidence that the Essenes went to Arabia during or after the Roman Siege.
Abu provides 0% evidence that the group that migrated to Arabia was not a mixture of Jews from various backgrounds.
Abu provides 0% evidence that the group that migrated to Arabia believed the same things as the Essenes believed.
Abu provides 0% evidence that the group that migrated to Arabia believed Jesus was the Messiah.
Abu provides 0% evidence that the group that migrated to Arabia believed that Jesus was a prophet.
Abu provides 0% evidence that the group that migrated to Arabia believed that Jesus was not Divine.
Abu provides 0% evidence that the group that migrated to Arabia believed that Jesus was not crucified.
Abu provides 0% evidence that the group that migrated to Arabia believed that Jesus was not resurrected.
Abu provides 0% evidence that the group that migrated to Arabia believed that Jesus existed.
Abu provides 0% evidence that the group that migrated to Arabia were waiting for the coming of Mohammad.


I'm going to go easy and stop here. There are more items I could add to the list, but for the sake of time, let's do a quick running total:

0%+0%+0%+0%+0%+0%+0%+0%+0%+0%+0% = 0%

WOW.

How long are you going to keep us in suspense Abu? We're still waiting for you to produce the goods, but all you're providing is a string of assumptions.

Royal Son said...

Let's move on. You said:

{4. My response: If as Abu believes, the Essenes were the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls, then a group which had limited bible knowledge does not sound like the Essenes. One would expect that those who wrote this collection of copies of biblical manuscripts to be intimately familiar with the knowledge of the bible. The Talmud was an authority for the Pharisees, and concluding that assimilation into pre-Mohammad Arabic culture makes one a Muslim is laughable. Firstly, Adopting culture and customs does not automatically infer the religious beliefs of that community, but supposing Abu wants to go that route - this makes his case even worse, because the Arabs of that time period were PAGAN. This is confirmed in Muslim sources themselves. The whole reason we're told that Mohammad was commissioned by Allah was to bring the people of Arabia out of idolatry to the worship of one God. If the Jews who had arrived in Arabia prior to Mohammad had indeed adopted the RELIGIOUS beliefs and practices of their Arabian neighbours, then they were PAGANS. Well done Abu.}

To correct you on a number of appeals to ad ignorantium, to begin with the reference which says they found little study among them, would refer to the fact that not all of the Essenes were studied. These persons are refugees carrying remnants of what they could, fleeing from religious persecution by the Romans and Pharisees. When we look at the area of Qumran, we see that they hid their manuscripts and writings, if that is the case, whatever study they *had* done, were now safely tucked away, thus logically speaking *it would not be among them*. So claiming that they had little study among them *at one point* does not negate the fact that they were studied enough to disagree and disassociate themselves with the Pharisees.


This is rather amusing to watch. You state that not all Essenes were studied. How do you know that? Have you read the oaths? I quoted them above. The way they SECURED proselytes was to ensure that they would be diligent to preserve the teachings. But, ok you want to suggest that some Essenes basically threw the towel in and ignored the oaths and thus became unstudied in the scriptures but not too unstudied to disassociate themselves with the Pharisees. Again, more assumptions, zero evidence. What's to say it wasn't a subset of Pharisees then that were not as studied as others from their sect? What's to say it wasn't a bunch of Jews as the Catholic Encyclopedia describes, who put aside their old divisive traditions? You want the audience to believe you that this group of Essenes would just "tuck their scriptures away" and abandon them completely. I must say, there is only one line in your argumentation that I do find compelling -that it is a group of people who would willingly cast aside the scriptures, vows, and diligent practices that you would identify as Muslims.

You said:
As for them having the Talmud, sorry but my reference did not indicate that. Try again. Lying won't help you here.

Royal Son said...

My response:
Accusing me of lying now are you? Interesting. Folks, I invite you all to watch the debate between Abu (CallingChristians) and Radical Moderate. You will see the quote from his reference in the Jewish Encyclopedia speaking about the Talmud. Here it is:

"Nothing certain is known as to the time of Jewish immigration into Arabia; but from various passages in the Mishnah (Shab. vi. 6; Ohalot xviii. 10) may be inferred the existence of Jewish settlements in northern Arabia (?ijaz) shortly after the destruction of the Second Temple. There is no doubt that whatever civilization existed in these parts in the first six centuries of the present era was fostered by the Jews. They evidently brought some knowledge of the Bible, the Talmud, and the prayer-book with them; but it does not appear that regular study had found a home among them, nor did they produce any rabbinic authority beyond those so considered by Mohammedan authors. Yet this sufficed to give them a much higher moral standing than that of their Arab neighbors."

It's unfortunate Abu that you're not even familiar with the very references that you quote in debate. I'm not sure if you just repeat the quotes because you think it makes you sound like you know what you are talking about. In actual fact, you seem to be ignorant of the material itself.

You said:
As for the point they assimilated into Arab culture, this isn't to prove they are *Muslim*. That would be a non sequitur argument, rather I am saying they took on an Arab identity, thus negating or atleast for us modern day researchers, negating their Jewish lineage. Which is odd because if they were the Pharisees or the Sadducees they would have kept their identity, pridefully in the least. Unless of course this was a Judaic sect that wasn't focused on race based salvation, see Acts 15.


Unfortunately, which ever way you want to slice it Abu, the prospect is not good for you. If these people were "losing their identity" as you say, losing their Jewish lineage, then how can you even begin to suggest that these were the Muslim followers of Jesus? What leads you to make this positive identification match? Something's not squaring up here Abu. Jesus Himself was a Jew, and according to you, they were abandoning the very roots that Jesus Himself had. It's funny how you talk about the losing of identity and yet are able to positively identify them as the Essenes. How do we know it wasn't Sadduccees or Pharisees or Zealots who were "losing their identity"? How do we know it wasn't a mixed of all kinds of groups whose differences had diminished as the Catholic Encyclopedia suggests? You see, you're actually making your job a lot harder. Now you point to Acts chapter 15. Do you consider Acts chapter 15 to be reliable? You gave no verses, you quoted nothing. What am I supposed to do with this?

Royal Son said...

Interesting that Acts 15 has Paul and Barnabas appointed together by the Church to speak with the chief priests and elders in Jerusalem in response to their teaching that circumcision was necessary for salvation (verses 1 and 2):

1 Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. Is it this same Barnabas that wrote the Gospel of Barnabas that you like Abu? Of course, Paul and Barnabas did have a disagreement as we read later in the chapter, but that was over whether to take Mark on the journey or not, not over theological disputes:

36 Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, "Let us go back and visit the brothers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing." 37 Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, 38 but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work. 39 They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus, 40 but Paul chose Silas and left, commended by the brothers to the grace of the Lord. 41 He went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.

So is it that Barnabas you believe in Abu? A co-worker with Paul?

You said:
As for Muhammad {saw} adopting the traditions of the pagans, that's as false as you can get. When the Jews began to worship YHWH, I don't see you saying anything of that God being the wife of another Pagan Goddess, Ashera pre-proto Judaic tenets. So your argument is cyclic. Sorry, try harder ignoramus.


My Response:
You completely misunderstood what I was saying. Even though I could have gone down the track of showing pagan practices that Mohammad adopted I was not even making such a claim. Slow down and read what is being said. You stated in the debate that this group of Jews adopted the practices of their Arab neighbours as per the Jewish Encyclopedia. You concluded that they were waiting for the coming of Mohammad. Yet we know what pre-Mohammad Arabia looked like. It was pagan. So, I'm asking you - Did this group of Jews adopt the RELIGIOUS practices of the Arabs? If your answer is yes, then that would make them pagans. That is the logical conclusion.

If your answer is NO, (which would seem to be a back-pedal from your position in the debate) then it has no bearing on which sect this group came from, or even whether they came from a sect at all. In fact, one more assumption you make is that when the Jewish Encyclopedia mentions a GROUP of Jews that it equates to a SECT of Jews. Huge assumption there. Where do you get the idea that the groupwhich migrated was composed purely of a single sect let alone that sect being the Essenes? You're going to have to pick up your game Abu, this is not looking good for you at all.

Royal Son said...

Now we get to your next post on the Ebionites.

You wrote:

Your entire rant boils down to two points, which thankfully, you've summarized:

{The assumptions are that (1) Epiphanius's writings have been preserved sufficiently to quote them as reliable and trustworthy accounts of who the Ebionites and Essenes were. (2) That the Essenes and the Ebionite group he wishes to identify as the muslim followers of Jesus (those who believed in the virgin birth of Christ) fulfilled all the other criteria that I mentioned.}

Based on this, let's recall somethings here. My use of the Panarion, was to demonstrate this piece of information:

"And at first, as I said, Ebion declared that Christ if the offspring of a man, that is of Joseph. For a while now, however, various of his followers have been giving conflicting accounts of Christ, as though they have decided on something untenable and impossible themselves."

With that in mind, your three comments are thoroghly refuted. It wasn't a belief set in stone and it is alleged he believed such a thing, clearly his followers did not. As for them believing in Matthew and of the other inane claims you made, we read:

My Response:

What's the matter Abu? Didn't you want to quote the rest of what Epiphanius says there? Look's like I have to do your work for you again. Let's read your quote with what follows after it:

3,1 And at first, as I said, Ebion declared that Christ is the offspring of a man, that is, of Joseph. For a while now, however, various of his followers have been giving confl icting accounts of Christ, as though they have decided on something untenable and impossible themselves. (2) But I think it may be since they were joined by Elxai—the false prophet < I mentioned earlier > in the tracts called “Sampsaeans,” “Ossenes” and “Elkasaites”—that they tell an imaginary story about Christ and the Holy Spirit as he did.

Outstanding Abu! So these guys were following a false prophet called Elxai. Care to tell us about this false prophet? How about the book of Elxai? Was it a book sent down from Allah? If these Ebionites were Muslims, what are they doing following this prophet and this book?

Now let's see what some of these “conflicting accounts of Christ are”. You seem to be suggesting that such conflicts imply that some believed that Jesus was indeed born of Mary in a virgin birth. Let's see:

3,311 For some of them even say that Adam is Christ—the man who was formed first and infused with God’s breath.12 (4) But others among them say that he is from above; created before all things, a spirit, both higher than the angels and Lord of all; and that he is called Christ, the heir of the world there.13 But he comes here when he chooses,14 as he came in Adam and appeared to the patriarchs clothed with Adam’s body.

So there you have it Abu – the conflicting accounts of the Ebionites NOWHERE MENTION A BELIEF IN A VIRGIN BIRTH. Here are your options:

1. Born naturally of man's seed (Ebion's view)
2. Adam is Christ, the first man formed by God.
3. Created before all things, a spirit both higher than the angels and Lord of all.

Enlighten us PLEASE Abu, which of these views is correct? I'm really enjoying this.

Royal Son said...

Here comes the bombshell though, let's look at what Epiphanius says next about their beliefs:

And in the last days the same Christ who had come to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, came and donned Adam’s body, and appeared to men, was crucified, rose and ascended. (6) But again, when they choose to, they say, “No! The Spirit—that is, the Christ—came to him and put on the man called Jesus.”15 And they get all giddy from making different suppositions about him at different times.

Christ had come to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? Hmm, John 8:58 anyone?

He came and put on Adam's body, appeared to men, was CRUCIFIED, rose and ascended ? Or was it the man Jesus who was put on by Christ, i.e. that Jesus and Christ were two distinct persons? Christ put on Jesus, and it was Jesus that was crucified and not Christ?

Abu, are you getting a headache now? Which of the views put fourth do you subscribe to?

1. Christ put on Adam and was crucified?
2. Jesus was crucified but not Christ?

Attempting to do some damage control, you tried to invoke Bart Ehrman, hoping he'd come to your rescue, your quote reads:

"And since we do not seem to have any writings from anyone who belonged to the group, we cannot be certain either. This lack of primary source material is much to be regretted. Surely some of these people wrote treatises that advanced their views and defended them as necessary. But as no such writing survives, we must base our understanding on the words of their opponents, sometimes taking their claims with a pound of salt. Since some of these reports are inconsistent with others, it may be that there were a variety of Ebionite groups, each with its own distinctive understanding of some aspects of their faith." - Lost Christianities, B. Ehrman, pg 100.

Basically, what you're telling me is that you have NO IDEA what the Ebionites really believed. If that's the case Abu, then stop trying to insist that they were the pre-Mohammad Islamic followers of Jesus! Your quote from Bart Ehrman works against you and tells you that you have no way to make such an identification! Congratulations for destroying your entire case. Not only would his words apply to the Ebionites but to the Essenes as well, whose teachings on Jesus you have not provided any primary sources for.

Royal Son said...

You said:

Funny though Royalson, I asked RM 5 times who the group was and twice he said it was the Pharisees, or do you seem to forget that? Is he wrong or right? Were they the ones who had little study of the Bible and migrated to Arabia? He said yes, twice by name. Which is more believable, your friends drunker stupor or the Essenes as I demonstrated previously?

Your hypocrisy is quite funny.


My response:

What is funny is how you flip/flop between the Essenes and the Ebionites. You're not sure which ones were the Muslim followers of Jesus but if it's not one, then surely it must be the other, right?

The Pharisees would have made much more convincing candidates for having travelled to Arabia. I know of one particular Pharisee who did migrate to Arabia, his name was Saul of Tarsus! Of course, this was a different time period, but let's really let call it like it is. You think it is unlikely that Pharisees could be poorly studied in the bible, I'll let the gospel of Matthew speak:

Chapter 22, verses 41-46:

41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 "What do you think about the Christ ? Whose son is he?" "The son of David," they replied. 43 He said to them, "How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him 'Lord'? For he says, 44 " 'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet." ' 45 If then David calls him 'Lord,' how can he be his son?" 46 No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions.

I think that since they got so many things wrong about Jesus then yeah, it's very plausible indeed that you'd have a Pharisees who were not well studied, migrating to Arabia. If you think it could happen to the diligent Essenes, why not the Pharisees?

Royal Son said...

You said:

{1. Ebionites - Denied the virgin birth.}

Lies, see the Epiphanius of Salamis, it's well known this was a belief held by some, others did not hold this belief.


My Response: As I have demonstrated, the “differences” do not include a virgin birth, they include saying Christ is Adam, or that Christ put on Jesus or that He was born through natural means. Those are the options. If you can give me a quote mentioning the belief in the virgin birth attributed to the Ebionites then you'll have a point. Until then, your point is lost.

You said:{2. Essenes - Elimintated before the end of the first century.}

Existed during the time of Jesus, fulfills most criteria. If they were eliminated before or right after Jesus you would have a point, otherwise you don't.


My response: As I have already demonstrated from the Catholic Encyclopedia itself, the Essenes disappeared toward the end of the first century. There's no further record of them. You have only presented a string of assumptions without a shred of evidence. Your point is lost.

You said:{3. Gospel of Barnabas - Denies the messiahship of Jesus.}

It doesn't, have you read it?


My response:

This reminds me of the time you asked Radical if he had ever seen a map of Qurman and Judea to see how far away they were from one another, when one is a city and the other is the COUNTRY that Qumran is located inside!!

But to answer your question, yes I have read the Gospel of Barnabas. The fact that you deny that this gospel denies the Messiahship of Jesus tells me that you yourself have not read it! Allow me to educate you:

Chapter 42: Then the disciples wept after this discourse, and Jesus was weeping, when they saw many who came to find him, for the chiefs of the priests took counsel among themselves to catch him in his talk. Wherefore they sent the Levites and some of the scribes to question him, saying: "Who are you?"
Jesus confessed, and said the truth: "I am not the Messiah." They said: "Are you Elijah or Jeremiah, or any of the ancient prophets?" Jesus answered: "No." Then said they: "Who are you? Say, in order that we may give testimony to those who sent us." Then Jesus said: "I am a voice that cries through all Judea, and cries: "Prepare you the way for the messenger of the Lord," even as it is written in Esaias;."

Your point is lost.

You said:

{4. James - Was a slave of God and the LORD Jesus Christ, beliving in His death, resurrection and Deity.}

The word kurious used means master, much like how we say Mr. or Mister or Teacher today, see Genesis 23.


My Response:

It can mean master in a generic context, but in a religious context it refers to the one true God. James calls Himself a slave of God and the Lord Jesus Christ. James further on refers to Jesus as “our glorious Lord” or “Lord of Glory”. Do you think that these titles refer to a mere human master?

I don't believe I have to add much here as Anthony has already more than adequately refuted you claims on this point. I recommend you read his articles. Incidentally, it was rather interesting to observe the behaviour of Muslims in the two “Answering Christianity” rooms on Paltalk. Of course, one of those rooms has since been shut down because the owner was arrested as a federal prisoner. Anyhow, when I went in there under the nick-name - “Abdul Isa” I was dotted, and warned that I'd be banned for having such a blasphemous nickname. The Answering Christianity room which ended up being shut down would bounce me on sight. The other room ended up bouncing me also. So what do you think Abu? Is the name Abdul Isa (slave of Isa) a blasphemous title? How would you feel about saying that you are a slave your glorious Lord Mohammad? Please feel free to let all your shirkiness out.

Your point is lost.

Royal Son said...

You said:
{5. Gnostics - Believe Jesus could not be crucified because He was too divine to have physical flesh. Believed that the creator is an evil demi-urge.}

Not all, again, you're generalizing groups that had vastly different beliefs with titles being given to them by patristic authors who often conflicted on which group believed what.


My Response: Tell me which gnostic group did not have these views about the creator God. I want to know about such groups you feel that had the same view of Jesus that you do as a Muslim. But since you already concluded that it's only the Ebionites or Essenes, and since none of the gnostic groups fulfill the criteria I have given, your point is lost.

You said:
{6. Pharisees - Ordered the death of Jesus, fully believing it had taken place, denied His messiahship, and virgin birth.
7. Sadducees - Denied the resurrection.}

These two opposed Christ.


My response:

Finally, we can agree on something! AlhamdulIsa!

You said:
{I too am eager to hear the answer. SO PLEASE DO ANSWER AND STOP RUNNING AWAY.}

The Ebionites or the Essenes are the most probable answers


Nope, not even on the radar dude. You did not fulfill the criteria for the Ebionites, the Essenes, or ANY of the other groups or texts. Like Anthony said, you are way out of your depth. The Historical Isa is nowhere to be found.

Royal Son said...

And ladies and gentlemen, we return to my original post where I challenged Osama Abdallah, Samatar, Kangaroo, and now Calling Christians to show us a single group in history which were the pre-Mohammad Islamic followers of Jesus.

I put forward the criteria. 2 out of the 4 muslims did not respond at all. 1 said he knew of no historical evidence of this "prevailing group" who believed in the muslim Isa that the qur'an speaks of. The remaining 1 muslim believes that it's either the Essenes or Ebionites. He's not sure which one, but it hopefully is one of them. He tried his best with smoke and mirrors, but never established a single one of the criteria for either of the two groups.

Let us watch now and see once the dust has settled if Abu begins to actually all the criteria for either of the groups.

Here is the set of criteria once again:

1. The true Messiah
2. Born of a virgin
3. Not crucified
4. Not the son of God
5. Not divine
6. A mighty messenger of God

Abu, Osama, Kangaroo, and Samatar, it's your move.

Aqsa_Brigades said...

@Anthony Rogers,

{CC, Notwithstanding the fact that you clearly implied that the word kurios was not used by first century Jewish speakers as a title for deity}

Incorrect, that's now what I said. Refer to my argument once more Mr. Roger, I said Jewish translators may have meant to use it in such a light, but they doing so, does not mean if someone else uses the term, it automatically assumes the Judaic context.

{However, in beating a retreat on the above issues, you have now made the ill-informed and confident assertion that the Trinity is not a part of OT religion. In light of this, I would like to challenge you to debate the topic.}

Sure.

{I will happily come on Paltalk, where I hear you like to thrash about, and take you to school. I will also then happily post it here on Answering Muslims.}

Deal. After May the 25th I am free, you can contact me via callingchristians@gmail.com to confirm details.

{To narrow it down, here is the question I would like to debate: "Does the OT Teach that the Angel of the LORD is a Distinct Divine Person in the Godhead?" (For a reference to what I am talking about see Exodus 3:2 for starters.)}

Sure.

{In other words, "Calling Christians," this Christian is calling you out. What do you say?}

I don't see why not. You have my email, I am free anytime after the 25th of May.

Aqsa_Brigades said...

@Radical Moderate,

{@Callinghimself}

More name calling?

{So you knew very well that Royalson was referring to your old paltalk nick.}

Abu Shujab is not my old Paltalk nickname nor a name I have ever held. Why do you persist on inferring it is *my* name?

{Instead of correcting him on the spelling, you instead imagine an insult where none exists.}

Correcting him? Can't he read for himself and see the name, after all it's there in the first video debate and it should be easily accessible via Paltalk to search.

{Really, because when you made that claim on your blog, I checked your video's all accept one where under 100 views, and the only one that had over a few hundred was the one about James White.}

Both Jams White videos reached 1,000 + with the last reaching some 500 views, that is 2,500 over all. Is basic math hard for you?

{First the video about me was posted on your youtube page, not MBC and it had over 30 views. I can account for at least 20 of the people who viewed those video's.}

Cool, so I have a YT channel with a video about a nobody, have few hits, as I said, a video of a nobody, who wants to see that?

{In other words no one watched the video because no one goes to your site.}

Willing to swear by the holy spirit that I don't have 11,,600+ views RM? Since 2012, if you are truthful, then do it.

{Again demonstrating that it is MBC and not YOU that generates the traffic.}

Are they not my videos?

{100 percent of your search driven traffic comes from an Arabic search word. Don’t know what it is because I don't read squiggly lines.}

Actually most of my views come from Canada and USA. Again, can you swear by the Holy Spirit that 100% of my traffic comes from Arab lands?

Come on Radical, swear by the Spirit, what are you afraid of, if you're truthful, there should be no problem...

CallingChristians.com said...

@Royalson,

Thanks for 18 comments, which I'm really not interested in responding to. If you wish post them to my website and I'd be willing to discuss them there. Besides for wholly misrepresenting my statements and positions, I don't have the time to write responses to one man's fanciful ideas of what he *thinks* I said or assumes what sources I utilized.

If you're willing, your comments will be approved on my website, and we can discuss that there. Thanks for atleast doing Radical's job for him, I know he needed help forming intelligible premises, still doesn't refute me though.

Looking forward to see what you will do.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Royalson and @Radical Moderate:

http://callingchristians.com/2012/04/17/radical-moderate-needs-help/

Feel free to spam your 18 comments here, we'd discuss it then. Thanks.

Radical Moderate said...

@Calling Him Self

Accuses me of the following.

Two problems>
(1) Incorrect quote.
(2) You admit to not understanding what they're saying.

When I gave the following paraphrase of the Jewish Encyclopdia.


"{The JE states words to the effect that there were a group of Jews who immigrated to Arabia after the Jewish wars, "they brought with them Limited knowledge of the Talmud and bible and produced no Talmudic authority accept what Mohamedian Authors considered". (Whatever that means)}


Here is the actual quote...

I will bold the part I left out.

"They evidently brought some knowledge of the Bible, the Talmud, and the prayer-book with them; but it does not appear that regular study had found a home among them, nor did they produce any rabbinic authority beyond those so considered by Mohammedan authors."

So my question to ABu and the rest of the stuido audiance where did I provide a Inacurate Quote?

He next states
"(2) You admit to not understanding what they're saying."

I think you are the one who does not understand what the JE is saying.

Tell me what did they mean by

"nor did they produce any rabbinic authority beyond those so considered by Mohammedan authors"

Calling Him Self also said

"Actually, this wasn't your answer, to reference your statement from the debate, it was the, "Pharisees as said twice by you, after being asked who was the group some 5 times."

Ok so we agree I said it was the Pharasies ok AND? LOL I posted the debate and the CROSS X section for people to go and listen to it themselves. Something you have FAILED TO DO..

OH well I'm going to let My BRother ROyalson take you apart now.

I hope you accept Anthony Debate challange it will make your humulation complete.

Radical Moderate said...

Well everyone looks like CallingHimself went back to talking to himself on his blog. Guess we wont be hearing from him anymore.

Someone posted a article on the CC blog about our little interaction.
I'm not sure if he posted it or if someone else posted it. The author is "Ijaz Ahmad" but the writer refers to "Br Ijaz"

Hey did you guys know that Radical Moderate is not my real name. He made it a point to mention that.

He also made sure to mention the city I worked, and in what industry I worked in and the company I work for is Saudi Arabian aligned. Don't know why that is relevant to anything unless in his personal attack against me he is hoping to get me fired. FINACIAL JIHAD

He also wrote that I...

"he's gone off into a tirade of personal attacks, sinking so low as to actually mock his accent, among other lowly comments on the Islamic hate website, Answering Muslims::"

Personal attacks? He calls Royaslon a liar a few times, he calls him a ignoramious but I peronaly attacked him?

Ok POT MEET KETTLE

I mocked his accent??? Only thing I did was acuretly represent the way he prounuced a word so I guess that is mocking his accent.

And of corse this is a hate website.

He then goes on to what he calls my extreamist ally "Royalson (not real name).

What Royalson is not Royalsons realy name either. I'm shocked now Royalson how come you never told me.

He continues on...
"decided then, that he needed to cover for Radical Moderate's racial hatred and petulant name calling,"

I dont recall calling the young man any names. I didn't call him an ignoramious, I called his arguments pathetic his website pathetic his vain attepmpt to get attention PATHETIC. But I don't recall calling him any personal names.

Maybe someone could point out where I did that?

He or someone else continues...

"Strangely enough, Royalson's idea of discussing a topic, is to flood 18 comments on a random page wherever he finds Br. Ijaz posting. Instead of responding to a flood of 18 random comments, we're leaving the floor open, an invitation of sorts, for Royalson, to continue saving face for Radical Moderate and he's free to post his comments on the debate topic of the Essenes under this post."

Here that Royaslon you can go and post comments on his site. Kind of funny since he hardly ever allows anyone to post comments and when he does its like days or weeks latter.

He will just accuse you of spaming him lol.

He has a lattest comment section on his blog. He only has one or two Muslims commenting on a few of his posts. One fo those muslims is IBN ANWARE lol.

WEll I told you guys this one was fun didn't I.

Royal Son said...

Abu, I have no intention to bring this discussion over to your website. There's a much wider audience here. This is where it started, and this is where it will end.

Face it, you were completely inept to fulfill the criteria that I laid out for you from the beginning.

Samatar, Kangaroo, and Osama, how about you guys? Still have a pulse?

Anthony Rogers said...

[My original comments will be in bold, CC's replies will be italicized, and my rejoinders will be normal.]

CC, Notwithstanding the fact that you clearly implied that the word kurios was not used by first century Jewish speakers as a title for deity

Incorrect, that's now what I said. Refer to my argument once more Mr. Roger, I said Jewish translators may have meant to use it in such a light, but they doing so, does not mean if someone else uses the term, it automatically assumes the Judaic context.

I already said I won't begrudge the point, but since you are still carping, do you think James' context was Sub-Saharan Africa or was it more firmly situated somewhere near the North Pole? Did he get his "context" of understanding the meaning of the word from Eskimos or Hotentots or Native Americans or Bedouin Arabs?

For my part, I hold the wild-eyed and outlandish idea that it was a Judaic context.

And by the way, since you got so bent out of shape when Royalson and Radical misspelt your name, should I likewise come unglued since you have now misspelt my name? Should I say that you are either trying to attack me or that you can't read (of course we already know the latter is true, but for altogether different reasons).

{However, in beating a retreat on the above issues, you have now made the ill-informed and confident assertion that the Trinity is not a part of OT religion. In light of this, I would like to challenge you to debate the topic.}

Sure.

Groovy.

{I will happily come on Paltalk, where I hear you like to thrash about, and take you to school. I will also then happily post it here on Answering Muslims.}

Deal. After May the 25th I am free, you can contact me via callingchristians@gmail.com to confirm details.

Shucks. No one likes a cliff-hanger. But I will be ready at that time as well, LORD Jesus willing.

{To narrow it down, here is the question I would like to debate: "Does the OT Teach that the Angel of the LORD is a Distinct Divine Person in the Godhead?" (For a reference to what I am talking about see Exodus 3:2 for starters.)}

Sure.

Great.

{In other words, "Calling Christians," this Christian is calling you out. What do you say?}

I don't see why not.

You will see why after May 25th. :)

Royal Son said...

Looking forward to that debate between Abu and Anthony.

David, do you think you could maybe do a show one time on ABN on "The Search for the Historical Isa" ?

Radical Moderate said...

Calling Him Self, aka ABU Shujah (or however you spell it) is now Aqsa Birgade.

So you now want to carry this convo to your blog with 11 thousand views and only a few comments away from this blog that on this thread alone has had over 118 comments?

I don't think Royalson is interested in generating the traffic you are so desperate for.

But tell you what. I will talk to Royalson, not promising anything but I might be able to convince him to take this to your turf, if you can prove you can generate the same audiance.

So have your Muslim viewers post the same amount of comments that have been posted on this thread and I think I might be able to convice him to pursue you as you retreat to your lare.

CristoTeAma said...

I'm not Schollar, but i have noticed that CallingChrsitians believes that if he writes anything in response even if it is ilogical, by addig some sentences like "try harder" it's enough to proof. lol

Royalson and Radical gave you some lessons and now you run :S

CallingChristians.com said...

@Royalson,

{Abu, I have no intention to bring this discussion over to your website. There's a much wider audience here. This is where it started, and this is where it will end.}

So we're going to have an informal discussion on something that limits the amount of posts I can make and they have to be approved,as opposed to a dedicated post where I can sit, have you post, no one else posting and have a proper discussion?

{Face it, you were completely inept to fulfill the criteria that I laid out for you from the beginning.}

Sorry, but again, get off of your high horse, spamming 18 comments and then randomly deciding I should respond to your arguments on behalf of RM, is a bit fanciful, no? I'll respond to you entirely on my website, and I'll post some of the responses here. I don't have the time to limit the amount of characters to each post for your behalf as 20 other people join in a conversation here.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Royalson,

You said:
The Catholic Encyclopedia thus is not talking about the leading sects at the time of Jesus, but in the 2nd century BC - two centuries before Jesus! So, no sir, your statements are not qualified. They only show that the Essenes were one of three main sects that flourished in the 2nd Century BC.

My response:
Actually, if you were to read, and I do hold you to be literate, the Encyclopaedia does state the time frame in which they were most active:

"The sect arose about 150 B.C. (the first-named Essene is Judas, 110 B.C.) and disappeared towards the end of the first century A.D."

Thus putting them before, during and after Jesus' time. Directly where we want them.
You said:
The Catholic Encyclopedia gives us two interesting pieces of information here: (1) That the sect numbered around 4000 and (2) They disappeared towards the end of the first century. Now I predict that Abu will interpret this to mean that the Essenes disappeared from Judea and migrated to Arabia. But that's not what the text says. It simply says they disappeared. There's no more record of them! Yet you want to take a quote from the Jewish Encylopedia which never mentions the Essenes, and state that the group that migrated must have been them!

My response:
The Jewish encyclopedia simply states they disappeared, therefore there exists an open conclusion as to their demise. We know *why* they disappeared, but what does it mean that they disappeared? Does that mean they all died out? That they left? You are presupposing that the conclusion is set. Therefore I'm asking for you to demonstrate where Josephus explicitly states he knows their conclusion, rather than giving an ending which is open to discussion.

With that in mind, we know a group of Jews near the end of the 1st century AD migrated to Arabia in which Islamic authors agreed with, so do Muslims agree with the Pharisees, Zealots or Sadduccees?

Wt

CallingChristians.com said...

@Royalson:


As I continue, the question begs itself, you wrote 10,000 words in roughly 18 comments on behalf of Radical Moderate, is it that he couldn’t continue this discussion himself that you are relegated to doing his work for him, or is it that he’s too inept that you’re having to find yourself defend his positions publicly? I don’t understand, but I do seek to understand the great interest you’ve taken in the personal life of Radical, not foregoing the fact that you also aided him in a video commentary . So Royalson, why the personal interest? Why do your boss’ job for him?
So you asked why it is that I limited myself to three sects when I knew that there were more. Again there were many sects to choose from and many sects to throw into the discussion. However I was limited to a 15 minute debate under which the topic revolved around one group. For what it’s worth I didn’t have to present a comparison among any other Judaic groups, I could have stuck to what the topic asked, the Essenes. However for the sake of argument, I decided to compare and contrast the other major Judaic sects at that time. Here is the statement you made:
“Why do you automatically assume that the Jews who migrated to Arabia must have been the Essenes”
This is your first problem of many. I didn’t automatically assume anything. In fact, if you were capable of being literate, which I do again, hold you to be, the topic was centered on this group, if I didn’t discuss this specific group, then the topic would have been lost. So which is it, was it that you wanted me to choose a group that did not confer with the topic at hand, or is the problem that I did stick to the topic and discuss the group on which the criteria were laid? If the former or the latter is the case, then what exactly are you arguing?
Also, I didn’t randomly select a group, besides the fact that the debate was centered on this group, I opened with a narrative, wherein each preceding premise led to the next. Therefore establishing a base case of sorts. This base case allowed me to then bring into the discussion other groups, which I limited to two based on time (which for some reason you assume I should have discussed all other groups) and I qualified the use of these specific two other groups, the Pharisees and Saduccees based on the reference from the Catholic Encyclopedia which put these specific three at this point in time, that is before, during and after Jesus’ mission.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Royalson,


Also, I didn’t randomly select a group, besides the fact that the debate was centered on this group, I opened with a narrative, wherein each preceding premise led to the next. Therefore establishing a base case of sorts. This base case allowed me to then bring into the discussion other groups, which I limited to two based on time (which for some reason you assume I should have discussed all other groups) and I qualified the use of these specific two other groups, the Pharisees and Saduccees based on the reference from the Catholic Encyclopedia which put these specific three at this point in time, that is before, during and after Jesus’ mission.
As for your quote, I suggest you properly read it, again context is everything and it states:
The Romans came, and in A.D. 70 put an end forever to the Jewish Temple, priesthood, sacrifices, and nation, whereby it should have become clear to the Jews that their national worship was rejected of God. In point of fact, Judaism, shorn of these its essential features, soon assumed an entirely new aspect. All the parties and sects of a former generation vanished; Pharisees and Sadducees ceased to quarrel with each other; the Temple was supplanted by the synagogue, sacrifices by the prayer, the priest by any one who was able to read, teach, and interpret both the written and the oral law.
You’re telling me that the group which migrated was a vast group of varying forms of Judaism. Again, I’m going to ask you to prove that the group, which apparently assimilated all of Judaic beliefs and ironed out their issues with each other, then migrated to Arabia, where their views fit perfectly with the budding Islamic faith. What’s the name of this group? What are their texts? Why did they have little study among them of the Torah, if it is that they were comprised of all the major sects (wouldn’t that imply that they should have the converse, i.e., superior knowledge?). Why did they migrate to Arabia if they had already assimilated with each other in Judea? Your alternate argument to the migration of the Essenes leaves more open ended questions, as opposed to actually solving any. What is worse on your behalf, is that you can’t make up your mind, so you can’t specify one group, you’re throwing multiple groups into the air and claiming that they all are the ones who migrated, see your quote here:
“Now, I am not suggesting that the Zealots make a positive identification match to the group of Jews who migrated to Arabia after the destruction of the Second Temple. However, I think you are making a huge mistake in trying to do so with the Essenes.”
With this quote in mind, and as laughable as it is, I want you to specify, which group migrated? Was it an amalgamation of several groups or was it this one group, the Zealots? You haven’t provided any evidence to qualify either group A (the assimilated group of Jews) or for group B (the Zealots). You have provided zero evidence, all you’ve done is called other groups names. Which is fine, I can call other groups as well, but how does that prove by the standards you laid down, that they were the ones who migrated:

Here is the set of criteria once again:

1. The true Messiah
2. Born of a virgin
3. Not crucified
4. Not the son of God
5. Not divine
6. A mighty messenger of God

This was the criteria for the group you set down in a later post, with this criteria in mind, by the groups you are suggesting, which are either (1) An assimilated group of Pharisees, Zealots, Saduccees, Essenes who had little study of the Torah and agreed with Islam or (2) The Zealots who had little study of the Torah and agreed with Islam, were the ones to migrate to Arabia. Where is your evidence?

CallingChristians.com said...

@Royalson,


You said:
No. We know they migrated to Arabia becaus a large Judaic group with their beliefs? What beliefs? The Jewish Encyclopedia never mentioned what their beliefs were! And especially it did not mention the beliefs of this migrating group with respect to Jesus! This is why you failed miserably in the debate Abu. You never once were able to show what the beliefs of this group were regarding Jesus. In the debate your attempts were so feeble to address the criteria it was like watching a train wreck in slow motion. Your arguments truly went off the rails into the twilight zone.
My response:
It’s a bit ignorant to state I didn’t demonstrate what their beliefs were, in my citation of Clair Tisdall’s works, I noted that he explicitly stated that the group of Jews who migrated to Arabia were in extant agreement with Muhammadan (Muslim) authors. If that is the case and we look at the beliefs and sub beliefs of some of the sects within the Essenes, Pharisees, Saduccees and Zealots, we can eliminate one by one who agreed with Islamic beliefs. Three of those 4 groups rejected Christ as a Messiah, three of which you believe migrated to Arabia (as either an assimilated group) or the Zealots themselves as you stated earlier. If that is the case, by the condition that they agreed that Jesus was not the Messiah as opposed to the Essenes who did, which one agrees with Islamic belief? You continue to assert I didn’t demonstrate what the beliefs of the Essenes were, but I did, in fact, I referenced their ideology directly from the Catholic Encyclopedia, the very same link you gave earlier:
They worshipped one God, Creator and Ruler of all things, omnipotent and omniscient. Moses was held in very high esteem and to blaspheme his name meant death. An all-disposing Fate was admitted, yet free will, apparently, was not denied.
As well as with Clair Tisdall’s quote, that they agreed with Islamic belief, i.e. Mohammedan authors, then we have their beliefs. If I were to say X group agreed with Christians, do I have to sit and list the belief of X, or is it not understood that what Christians believed, the group X also believed? See, this is your problem, you’re wanting for someone to have to explain things a child could grasp, I’m not here to spoon feed you. Debates are about question your opponent’s argument, not about your opponent having to sit and teach you basic comprehension skills. Quite a poor showing from you.

Radical Moderate said...

ohh CC or Abu Shujab or Alaqsa Birgade is still at it.

He writes...

"So we're going to have an informal discussion on something that limits the amount of posts I can make and they have to be approved,as opposed to a dedicated post where I can sit, have you post, no one else posting and have a proper discussion?"

LOL the funny thing is that he has to approve all of Posts there by limiting Royalson.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Royalson,

You said:
How on earth does Isaiah 7:14 in the Dead Sea Scrolls, written by the Essenes prove that they believed that Jesus was born of a virgin ?? I couldn't believe it when you offered up this kind of argumentation. Having Isaiah 7:14 in one's canon does not indicate one's interpretation of that verse. To be sure, the Pharisees had Isaiah 7:14 in their canon, yet did they believe that Jesus was born of a virgin? In fact a large number of Jews will argue that the word translated Almah simply means young woman and not virgin. Now I myself don't agree with their argumentation because the text very clearly shows that this is referring to a sign, a miracle, and a woman simply giving birth would not do justice to the intention of the author stating that such a miracle/sign be given. Added to this of course are the other passages in scripture that show by way of context that a virgin is implied by the very use of the same word. What I'm saying is that a lot of other Jews will insist upon the bad argumentation of simply a natural birth in Isaiah 7:14, so why not also the Essenes? You failed to demonstrate any positive evidence that the Essenes themselves believed in a virgin birth, and that the birth was of the Messiah and that such a Messiah was Jesus! Not only so, but the Dead Sea Scrolls were COPIES of manuscripts, so while they may certainly have written those copies, it does not mean that the original writings which pre-date the Dead Sea Scrolls were written by them, for the originals obviously came centuries beforehand.

As for your first question, the matter is simple, if the Essenes were the group who by and large did accept the Messiah, and we know they did as they were awaiting him, also their writings indicate that James the Just, i.e. Jesus’ half brother at some point either led or stayed with them, indicate that they did accept the Christ. Seeing as this can be seen from my aforementioned premise, and taking into consideration that the group which migrated did accept Islamic theology (see: Clair Tisdall’s quote), we can therefore merge these two views in line with our preceding premises to produce a singular conclusion (remember, several premises provide one conclusion, this is basic logic), from this we conclude that the group was the Essenes.

In fact, we can assert from other scholars of note that some believed the Essenes to be the cradle of Christianity:

The monastery [at Qumran, adjacent to the caves where the scrolls were found], this structure of stone that endures, between the waters and precipitous cliffs, with its oven and its inkwells, its mill and its cesspool, its constellations of sacred fonts and the unadorned graves of its dead, is perhaps, more than Bethlehem or Nazareth, the cradle of Christianity.” - Edmund Wilson, The Scrolls from the Dead Sea (New York: Oxford, 1955), p. 104.

With that in mind, if Christians believe that Christ was born of a virgin and we know that they do, seeing as the Jewish encyclopedia stated they strictly believed in one God and that Clair Tisdall, indicates the Essenes agreed with Mohammadan (Islamic) authors, we have all the evidence we need. Now you just have to provide the same evidence for the two groups you named: (1) An assimilated group of Pharisees, Zealots, Saduccees, Essenes who had little study of the Torah and agreed with Islam or (2) The Zealots who had little study of the Torah and agreed with Islam, were the ones to migrate to Arabia. Where is your evidence?

You need to qualify your statements as I have mine.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Royalson,

Your next line of reasoning, is indeed peculiar to say the least, you open with saying:

Now I found this argumentation perplexing to say the least. For Israel Knohl states in his very book, the Messiah before Jesus the following: "In this book I intend to counter these claims. I propose to show that Jesus really did regard himself as the Messiah and truly expected the Messiah to be rejected, killed, and resurrected after three days, for this is precisely what was believed to have happened to a messianic leader who had lived one generation before Jesus."”.

What I as citing was the majority view, resting on the lack of authentic historical documents which provide a first person verbatim source:

Jesus, they claim, could not have foreseen his rejection, death, and resurrection, as “the idea of a suffering, dying, and rising Messiah or son of Man was unknown to Judaism.”6 It follows that in the opinion of these scholars, all accounts of Jesus foretelling his rejection, death, and resurrection lack any historical basis whatsoever.7 These things, they assert, were only ascribed to him after his death.

Which was based on the following statement:
Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, p. 31. See also Vermes’s words: “Neither the suffering of the Messiah, nor his death and resurrection appear to have been part of the faith of first-century Judaism.” G. Vermes, Jesus the Jew (Philadelphia, 1981), p. 38.

Also see, for reference, a critiquing of the Messiahship and early Christian beliefs:
Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimnis, pp. 82–92; Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, p. 31; idem, The History of the Synoptic Tradition (Oxford, 1963), p. 152.

Which follows through on Bultmann’s arguments. Your next argument however concedes to my opinion:

Now look, I'm not expecting you to believe everything Israel Knohl says. In fact, I find his views to be pretty radical and out in left-field. But if you're going to use his work to try to substantiate your case, then please understand what the man teaches and believes.

Of course I don’t hold to everything he says to be true or valid, however I was referencing his agreement on his statement of the beliefs of the other scholars on this issue regarding Christ’s messiahship, this Is why I referenced that particular statement. However you’ve found yourself in a conundrum with the references you’ve cited. In relation to Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 98b, it does not reference a dying and then rising Messiah, it references a leper, was your Christ a leper? Also, quote the passage in context, they mentioned other plausible Messiahs who were not lepers, such as Shiloh, Haninah, Yinnon, Menahem. Was your Christ any of these men? Did all of these men rise and suffer as you are proposing?
As for the Messiah suffering in your references, it’s simple, let’s examine what it refers to, that is a leper Christ. Was your Christ a leper? Looking at the other two citations, they reference Yeshayahu 53, see:
“ And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him ill; if his soul makes itself restitution, he shall see children, he shall prolong his days, and God's purpose shall prosper in his hand.”

Was your Christ ill and had children? He lived many days and ruled God’s kingdom? Nope.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Radical Moderate,

ohh CC or Abu Shujab or Alaqsa Birgade is still at it.

So I corrected you on my proper title and you persist in insulting me by intentionally perverting my name. Either that or you have dyslexia, which is it?

LOL the funny thing is that he has to approve all of Posts there by limiting Royalson.

Nope, if he posts once I can allow all his comments thereafter to be "trusted" and therefore he can post as he wills, when he wills.

Don't speak from ignorance. Why does Royalson have to defend your debate on your behalf? To much of a coward to do so on your own? Can't face a 20 year old? Too funny.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Royalson,

This statement of yours makes no sense:

” The your candid mention of the Septuagint calls into question your assumptions of scriptural interpretation, as it is plain to see that Jewish groups were not confined to the Dead Sea Scrolls or the rendering thereof. “

Working on what is comprehensible English from your response, we note that you are mistaken. The Jews had the Oral Tradition and at this point, the Essenes had the DSS which does agree quite largely with the Masoretic text, based on the Oral tradition. I see nowhere where the Septuagint can claim superiority.

As for what the Pharisees and Essenes believed, in relation to my reference of the Panarion, please take my statements into context. This was to bolster the understanding that they were indeed followers of the Law of Moses. That they agreed on the Torah’s text, to qualify this statement, see my following which I said in the debate when I mentioned this point:

Can I use the Hebrew Old Testament to show they believed in a Messiah which agrees with the Islamic view? Yes, primarily because of two reasons. Therefore, since the Essenes differed with the traditions of the Pharisees, thus this became the major point of distinction between them, RM has to agree that we can use the OT to understand their view of the Messiah, otherwise he would have to provide a reason why we cannot use the OT, which they wrote to derive their understanding of the Messiah. If his reason is because they differed with the major sect of the Pharisees, then this is a hypocritical point, as jesus also did so: See Matthew 15:1-9.

My statement therefore was not to examine their theological differences on the Messiahship but to examine whether they agreed on the Torah or not.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Royalson,

You said:

Throughout the entire debate you never quoted from a single Essene text to show their beliefs of Jesus. You have provided NOTHING to show whether they even believed Jesus existed!

Actually, I did, I quoted from the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic text, as for proving that they believe Jesus existed, I did, see:

“The monastery [at Qumran, adjacent to the caves where the scrolls were found], this structure of stone that endures, between the waters and precipitous cliffs, with its oven and its inkwells, its mill and its cesspool, its constellations of sacred fonts and the unadorned graves of its dead, is perhaps, more than Bethlehem or Nazareth, the cradle of Christianity.” - Edmund Wilson, The Scrolls from the Dead Sea (New York: Oxford, 1955), p. 104.

Reading is important, especially when since I reference my sources. This is so you could use them to, hope you knew that, but as you have displayed, it looks very much as if you didn’t. Also, examining your other points, I demonstrated that they functioned and lived in places beyond Jerusalem, that they were populous throughout Judea and as far as history is concerned they were found to be in Egypt and Greek later on, in Greece they were called Pythagoreans, in Egypt they were called the Therapeuts, and in Syria there name was retained Essenes.

This is so because of Josephus’ statement:

The Essenes also, as we call a sect of ours, were excused from this imposition. These men live the same kind of life as do those whom the Greeks call Pythagoreans, concerning whom I shall discourse more fully elsewhere.

A group carrying the same beliefs also found in Egypt, my evidences are clear and I assumed Radical knew these things as did you, but I suppose your knowledge stops where Radical tells you to. Therefore their dispersal was beyond Judea, but I specified to Arabia as this is what the debate was on, I could have pointed to any of the other nations mentioned previously. I know where Qumran is, my point was simple, do you think if they could have ventured as far as Qumran that they stopped and couldn’t go an inch further? It was a rhethorical question meant to evoke an intelligible response from Radical, unfortunately, you’re still singing his song from his line of reasoning and are unable to pick up the context in which I am phrasing my arguments. Appeal to ad ignorantium indeed. The Essenes couldn’t magically go further than Qurman, right? That’s why people with their beliefs ended up in Arabia, Sham, Greece. If you still don’t get it, that was sarcasm.

Note now, how absurd your reasoning is, not once did I reference Robert Eisenman in this argument, I may have only referenced his name once but not in this argument. Rather, what I will say is that if they were in fact xenophobic and nationalistic, then they wouldn’t have had left Jerusalem, they would have fought for Jerusalem. They wouldn’t have left their home and migrate to a despot area on the borders of their nation. As well as, in terms of timing, Islam came later, some few centuries after their migration to Arabia, so that does not mean the Jews who directly migrated at 70 to 99 AD were the ones whom Islamic authors later met. It would have been their children/ descendants, who would not have been nationalistic.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Royalson,

In fact, Josephus in War of the Jews, Book 2, Chapter 8, paragraph 4, he states:

They have no one certain city, but many of them dwell in every city; and if any of their sect come from other places, what they have lies open for them, just as if it were their own; and they go in to such as they never knew before, as if they had been ever so long acquainted with them. For which reason they carry nothing at all with them when they travel into remote parts, though still they take their weapons with them, for fear of thieves. Accordingly, there is, in every city where they live, one appointed particularly to take care of strangers, and to provide garments and other necessaries for them. But the habit and management of their bodies is such as children use who are in fear of their masters.

Indeed they were travelers to many unknown lands and thereby not restricted only to Judea.
As for your referencing of Josephus’ recalling of their oath, it’s an incorrect reading as these are command for a new convert to their group. Your referencing was to demonstrate they could not share their beliefs with anyone based on this statement:

nor discover any of their doctrines to others”, which is funny because that’s not what it means, see the proper paragraph which reads that this is what they are teaching a person new to their faith, how can they teach and at the same time not teach to someone new (previously not) of their faith?

Furthermore, what it actually means is that he is not supposed to hide anything from his own sect not to explain/ spread/ discover any of their secrets or personal beliefs to anyone else.
As for taking oaths, nothing in those “oaths” stated that they’d be unable to migrate, nor assimilate into another culture, please specify where in the oath that it says that, as Josephus states that they wandered into cities with nothing of their own and had a person from their sect dress them, if they were dressing people who came with nothing, whose dress were they using? Simple! The people’s dress of that city, i.e. that culture. Your argument is invalid.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Royalson,
Now let’s switch your own criteria on you:

Big problem. Because your choice of either an amalgamated group of Jews or the Zealots, is filled with unproven assumptions. I hope you're good with Math also:

Royalson provides 0% evidence that the amalgamated group of Jews or the Zealots left Judea during or after the Roman Siege instead of being slaughtered.

Royalson provides 0% evidence that the amalgamated group of Jews or the Zealots went to Arabia during or after the Roman Siege.

Royalson provides 0% evidence that the amalgamated group of Jews or the Zealots that migrated to Arabia was not a mixture of Jews from various backgrounds who agreed with Islamic authors and had little stud of the Torah.

Royalson provides 0% evidence that the group that migrated to Arabia believed the same things as the amalgamated group of Jews or the Zealots believed.

Royalson provides 0% evidence that the amalgamated group of Jews or the Zealots that migrated to Arabia believed Jesus was the Messiah.

Royalson provides 0% evidence that the amalgamated group of Jews or the Zealots that migrated to Arabia believed that Jesus was a prophet.

Royalson provides 0% evidence that the amalgamated group of Jews or the Zealots that migrated to Arabia believed that Jesus was not Divine.

Royalson provides 0% evidence that the amalgamated group of Jews or the Zealots that migrated to Arabia believed that Jesus was not crucified.

Royalson provides 0% evidence that the group that migrated to Arabia believed that Jesus was not resurrected.

Royalson provides 0% evidence that the amalgamated group of Jews or the Zealots that migrated to Arabia believed that Jesus existed.

Royalson provides 0% evidence that the amalgamated group of Jews or the Zealots that migrated to Arabia were not waiting for the coming of Mohammad.


I'm going to go easy and stop here. There are more items I could add to the list, but for the sake of time, let's do a quick running total:

0%+0%+0%+0%+0%+0%+0%+0%+0%+0%+0% = 0%

Wow, you’re 0 for 0 Royalson, good job so far!

Royal Son said...

Abu said:

@Royalson,

{Abu, I have no intention to bring this discussion over to your website. There's a much wider audience here. This is where it started, and this is where it will end.}

So we're going to have an informal discussion on something that limits the amount of posts I can make and they have to be approved,as opposed to a dedicated post where I can sit, have you post, no one else posting and have a proper discussion?


My response:

It started here. It will end here. You might as well quit crying over it. I don't know why you talk about being restricted. You have been allowed to post your responses to this blog. Get over it. I'm not going to waste my time on your website.

Abu said:
{Face it, you were completely inept to fulfill the criteria that I laid out for you from the beginning.}

Sorry, but again, get off of your high horse, spamming 18 comments and then randomly deciding I should respond to your arguments on behalf of RM, is a bit fanciful, no? I'll respond to you entirely on my website, and I'll post some of the responses here. I don't have the time to limit the amount of characters to each post for your behalf as 20 other people join in a conversation here.


David and the other admins of this blog had no problem with my "spam". It's quite ironic that you call it spam, when the owners are completely fine with allowing my posts through. What's even more hilarious is that you want me to transfer my 'spam' to your site. No sir. Your website does not interest me. No more advertising please. Thank you.

Radical Moderate said...

Hey Abu welcome back still calling yourself I see. Part 1

You wrote in response to my boss Royalson…

“As for your first question, the matter is simple, if the Essenes were the group who by and large did accept the Messiah, and we know they did as they were awaiting him, also their writings indicate that James the Just, i.e. Jesus’ half brother at some point either led or stayed with them, indicate that they did accept the Christ.”


My Response:
The Pharisees were awaiting the Messiah so how come they didn’t accept Jesus? The Sadducees the Zealots were also all awaiting the Messiah. As a matter of fact there were several false Messiahs after Jesus. People followed them into the desert, and they took part in rebellions. So why could the Essenes not have believed in one of those Messiahs?

How do you know they accepted anyone as their Messiah? How do you know they accepted Jesus as their messiah and which of the two or possibly three Messiahs (that Essenes were awaiting ) was Jesus?

From my opening statement a quote from Gheza VerMes
“two, and once possibly even three Messiahs. The lay King-Messiah, otherwise known as the ‘Branch of David’, the ‘Messiah of Israel’, the ‘Prince of [all] the Congregation’ and the ‘Scepter’, was to usher in, according to the sect’s book of Blessings, ‘the Kingdom of his people’ and ‘bring death to the ungodly’ and defeat ‘[the kings of the] nations’…”

And

“The ‘Messiah of Aaron’ was to be the final Teacher, ‘he who shall teach righteousness at the end of days’ (CD VI, 11). But he was also to preside over the battle liturgy (1QM XV, 4; XVI, 13; XVIII, 5) and the eschatological banquet (1QSa 11, 12–21). It seems that there are some allusions suggesting that the eschatological High Priest was expected to undergo suffering and humiliation before being glorified (see 4Q471b, 491 fr. 11, 541, fr. 9).”
Vermes, Geza (2004-06-24). The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (p. 86). Penguin UK. Kindle Edition.

If you say Jesus was The Messiah of Aaron then the Essenes would have believed that he was the FINAL teacher so No Mohamed.

If you say he is the Messiah of the Branch of David then who did Jesus kill?

Again from my opening statement, translation of 4q285 fr7
““[As it is written in the book of] Isaiah the Prophet, [The thickets of the forest] will be cut [down with an axe and Lebanon by a majestic one will f] all. And there shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse […] the Branch of David and they will enter into judgement with […] and the Prince of the Congregation, the Br[anch of David] will kill him […by strok]es and by wounds. And a Priest [of renown(?)] will command […the s]lai[n] of the Kitti[m…]”

Vermes, Geza (2004-06-24). The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (p. 189). Penguin UK. Kindle Edition.

Radical Moderate said...

Response to Calling Himself part 2

You also made the absurd claim that
“, also their writings indicate that James the Just, i.e. Jesus’ half brother at some point either led or stayed with them, indicate that they did accept the Christ.”

My response:

What writings? Name me one scroll from the DSS find or a fragment that mentions James. I have translations of both the biblical texts as well as the non-biblical texts. I challenge you to produce one.

Can you do that can you provide any proof to your preposterously absurd claims?

I also brought up in my opening…
“Another interesting point about the Essenes and their Messiah is that this Messiah would go to WAR as previously mentioned. The war would last years, and in the final 33 years of War, we read that in the 9th year the Messiah will go against the Sons of Ishmael and Keturah.

“during the ninth, against the sons of Ishmael and Keturah.”
Vermes, Geza (2004-06-24). The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (p. 167). Penguin UK. Kindle Edition.

So according to you, a group of Jews immigrated to Arabia and adopted the customs and names of the Arabs, you then claim that these Jews were the Essenes.

Their own writings state that the Messiah will go to war with the Arabs in the 9th year. How is adopting the customs, dress and names of Arabs equate to going to war? When did the Essenes and their Messiah go to War with the Arabs?

So in conclusion Abu, it is not enough for you to state that the Essenes where awaiting a Messsiah since every sect of Judaism in the first century was awaiting the Messiah. Instead you must produce from their writings something which you clearly have not read how Jesus fits into what their expectations where in this Messiah.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Royalson,

As for your appeal to authority on the oaths they took, it’s quite fanciful, not all of them would have had the same amount of knowledge. This is a fact, they would have differed in terms of knowledge and understanding of their own doctrine, especially as Josephus in Chapter 7, Paragrpah 13, where they have children and wives, would their children and wives know as much as their husbands? Would they know as much as their husband’s teachers? Think.

Then give an educated response.

I read the oaths, which one of their oaths spoke that they were scribes or studiers of the law? None. Which of their oaths dictated that they stud y the law? None. So what oaths are you saying I am ignoring? What oaths indicate that they had to study the law as you state? Again, more assumptions, zero evidence.

As for them abandoning their traditions, where did I indicate that they did this? I said they assimilated with the Arabs, just as much as they did in the other cities and nations they ventured to, Greece, Egypt, Syria. If you don’t comprehend what cultural assimilation is, then I’d be willing to take you to my previous college and have you sit in a class where we were educated in these things. Not a problem.

You said:
You want the audience to believe you that this group of Essenes would just "tuck their scriptures away" and abandon them completely. I must say, there is only one line in your argumentation that I do find compelling -that it is a group of people who would willingly cast aside the scriptures, vows, and diligent practices that you would identify as Muslims.

That’s what they did, they hid their scriptures from being destroyed and today that’s why we have them. So no, I don’t want my audience to believe me, I want them to believe the manuscripts of the DSS which exist today because of them, implausibly as you implied, “tucking away their scriptures”. As for the group which migrated to Arabia being unlearned in the reading of the Torah, I’ll use your argument against you.

It’s plausible by your argument as you claim they only kept their doctrine to themselves, therefore to others they would seemed unlearned of their scriptures, as it would not be preached to them. Thanks for proving my argument for me. Now to turn it on you, can you demonstrate if according to you the amalgamated group of Jews or the Zealots held such a belief or were unlearned in the teaching of the Torah?

CallingChristians.com said...

@Royalson,

As for your statement that they had the Talmud, and you using this excerpt:

but from various passages in the Mishnah (Shab. vi. 6; Ohalot xviii. 10) may be inferred the existence of Jewish settlements in northern Arabia (?ijaz) shortly after the destruction of the Second Temple.

Yes, Ijaz is my name, inform your boss, Radical of that please, thanks. As for this quote, I think you need to learn to read, it doesn’t say they wrote this into the Talmud, rather the converse is present, that the Talmud records groups of Jews migrating to Arabia.

How this proves they had the Talmud is beyond me. Even your other reference is worse:

. They evidently brought some knowledge of the Bible, the Talmud, and the prayer-book with them

They had knowledge of the Talmud, how does that mean they brought the Talmud with them? They evidently had to know of the Talmud which was used by the Pharisees, the very next statement from your reference, clearly destroys any notion that they had the Talmud with them:

but it does not appear that regular study had found a home among them, nor did they produce any rabbinic authority

How could they have the Talmud, but then not produce any Rabbinic authority. The Talmud is from Rabbinic authority. Your argument is self contradicting. Clearly.
It’s unfortunate Royalson, that you’re not familiar with the very references that you quote for your argument. I’m not sure if you just repeat whatever you heard me saying because you think it makes you sound like you know what you’re talking about. In actual fact, you seem to be ignorant of the material itself.

As for your argument that the prospect of the Essenes assuming other identities (which is proven true, in Greece the Pythagoreans, in Egypt the Therapeuts, and in Syria the Essenes) as being not a good prospect. Then you have much to study. What you consider Jewish and what we consider Jewish is not the same. Recall, I spoke in terms of lineage, as assimilation would mean that they intermixed in copulation with the local inhabitants of their immediate environment to which they settled in.

That does not negate them being Muslim followers of Jesus, as we don’t hold Christ to be in Jew in terms of religion, that’s a Christian belief, not Islamic.
If Jesus was a Jew, as you so presuppose, then he would not have killed himself, nor would Jesus as a Jew claim to be God, as this is blasphemy and one is to be stoned for such a claim. Nor can Jesus be a religious Jew and at the same time bring a new religion, that of Christianity.

Also, your argument of Acts 15 is irrelevant to our discussion. I am showing from that Chapter that race based salvation isn’t a belief held by all Messianic Jewish sects as is the ruling of James the Just. Other than that I have no idea why you’re discussing this chapter.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Royalson,

You claim:
You stated in the debate that this group of Jews adopted the practices of their Arab neighbours as per the Jewish Encyclopedia.

Actually no, I said they assimilated with the Arab peoples. This whole premise, has the modus operandi that the person understands cultural assimilation, norms and values within societies, that is you atleast studied some form of Semitic anthropology.

Which, I very much doubt on your behalf, whether Semitic or otherwise. They assimilated as I explained above by intermarrying for copulation with the local inhabitants of their immediate habitat.

It has nothing to do with adopting religion or cultural practices, it has to do with them continuing the survival of their group by establishing new colonies in previously unsettled land, by copulating with the local populace.

Therefore, for my intents and purposes, demonstrating that they did not believe in salvation through race or by birth.

As for this statement of yours:

. In fact, one more assumption you make is that when the Jewish Encyclopedia mentions a GROUP of Jews that it equates to a SECT of Jews. Huge assumption there. Where do you get the idea that the groupwhich migrated was composed purely of a single sect let alone that sect being the Essenes?”.

You did the same, as you singled out the Zealots and then you changed your mind and said it could have been an amalgamated group of Jews. So applying your own argument on yourself, where do you get the idea that this group was a single sect or comprising of several sects? You’re going to have to pick up your game Royalson, your Kurios Radical isn’t going to be pleased.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Royalson,

You claimed:

What's the matter Abu? Didn't you want to quote the rest of what Epiphanius says there? Look's like I have to do your work for you again. Let's read your quote with what follows after it

Actually, to the contrary, I
specifically pointed out why I didn’t take Epiphanius’ statement seriously:

"And since we do not seem to have any writings from anyone who belonged to the group, we cannot be certain either. This lack of primary source material is much to be regretted. Surely some of these people wrote treatises that advanced their views and defended them as necessary. But as no such writing survives, we must base our understanding on the words of their opponents, sometimes taking their claims with a pound of salt. Since some of these reports are inconsistent with others, it may be that there were a variety of Ebionite groups, each with its own distinctive understanding of some aspects of their faith." - Lost Christianities, B. Ehrman, pg 100.

So in answer to your question, the assertions of Epiphanius point to some subsects within their group, they may be inaccurate or they may even be made up, as the patristic sources hold no consistency towards their belief. The only consistent point as I indicated was that at one point some of them held Christ to be conceived of a man, which was later retracted by other followers.
Basically, what my quotes means is that I have a pretty strong idea of what the Ebionites believed, but the inconsistent attributions of incorrect doctrinal teachings by proto-orthodox Christians who fought them, and burned their books, is a problem for you all. While I can assert certain beliefs were consistent due to Patristic sources being in some agreement, where they differ I can easily dismiss as being inconsistent and thus lacking reliability. Thus it aids me in making a specific identification as to their beliefs by way of proof by contradiction or by negating the set of beliefs uncommon to their universal set of beliefs.

As for your statement:
You think it is unlikely that Pharisees could be poorly studied in the bible, I'll let the gospel of Matthew speak: Chapter 22, verses 41-46:

You’d need to do better than that as Matthew 1:1 opposes Matthew 22, in being that there is a contradiction which I expound more upon in this article from my website:

whosoever wrote Matthew 22, really had not seen Matthew 1, as it argues Jesus is the son of David:
This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
Whereas Matthew 22 argues that Jesus is not the son of David, but the Lord of David, Matthew 1 argues that Jesus is the son of David and has no mention of him having lordship over anyone. It’s one mistake to have an epistle contradict a gospel, but to have a gospel contradicting itself, let alone the very first verse of the New Testament? Highly appalling to say the least.


Of which you can read in its entirety here: http://callingchristians.com/bible/

CallingChristians.com said...

@Royalson,

You claimed:
As I have demonstrated, the “differences” do not include a virgin birth”.

Please learn to read:

3,1 And at first, as I said, Ebion declared that Christ is the offspring of a man, that is, of Joseph. For a while now, however, various of his followers have been giving confl icting accounts of Christ, as though they have decided on something untenable and impossible themselves.

As this quote clearly points out, this was a belief of some, but they varied in this belief after sometime.

This was my point:

Existed during the time of Jesus, fulfills most criteria. If they were eliminated before or right after Jesus you would have a point, otherwise you don't.”.

Your counter argument was this:

As I have already demonstrated
from the Catholic Encyclopedia itself, the Essenes disappeared toward the end of the first century. There's no further record of them. You have only presented a string of assumptions without a shred of evidence. Your point is lost.
”.

My response is simple, they disappeared from Judea, and that is well known, however we know they reappeared according to Josephus in Syria, Greece and Egypt under varying names and sometimes, under the same name. Your statement that there exists no further record of them, is due to your own ignorance of Josephus’ writings, which clearly contradict you entirely.

As for your statement of:

But to answer your question, yes I have read the Gospel of Barnabas. The fact that you deny that this gospel denies the Messiahship of Jesus tells me that you yourself have not read it! Allow me to educate you”.

I have read it and the answer to your claim is simple, just as how you interpret Jesus saying he is not good: "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone., similarly using the same line of reasoning that Christians employ in this verse, Jesus is pointing out that he is the Messiah but not the Messiah whom they wish to have, he is merely as he says:

I am a voice that cries through all Judea, and cries: "Prepare you the way for the messenger of the Lord," even as it is written in Esaias;."

He’s one messenger, preparing the way for the messenger next to come.

Again, I’m using the same line of reasoning that Christians such as yourself use to interpret Mark 10:8. If my reasoning is false, then simply accept that Jesus is admitting he isn’t good and only God is, otherwise if that verse is claiming he is God, then the verse from the Gospel of Barnabus is claiming he is the Messiah. Same line of reasoning, shouldn’t be a problem for you.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Royalson,

As for your claim:

It can mean master in a
generic context, but in a religious context it refers to the one true God.


Actually no, as indicated in Bereishit 23, it means Master, not Lord as in a divine being. Also, to recall, this is the base word fallacy, a sub fallacy of the word study fallacy. If the Jews used a certain word in one way according to their understanding for their religious purposes, you cannot apply such an understanding to an entirely different faith. To prove me wrong, demonstrate for me how your use of this term does not contravene the word study fallacy, something which Anthony has thus failed to do despite his rabid ranting, much like yours.

This concludes my response to the inane and inept, Royalson, slave of Radical, as he is arguing for Radical, who is at present, unable to do anything more than mock my accent.

I therefore hope that Royalson can fulfill the following criteria that the (a) amalgamated group of Jews or (b) the Zealots as he stated could have been the groups who migrated to Arabia, fulfill the following criteria:

1. The true Messiah
2. Born of a virgin
3. Not crucified
4. Not the son of God
5. Not divine
6. A mighty messenger of God

If not, then he concedes that it was either the Ebionites or the Essenes whom I have established clearly held these beliefs.
Royalson, minion of Radical, it’s your move.

Radical Moderate said...

@Calling Himself, or is it Abu Shujas or Abu Shujab, or Alaqsa Birgade?

You wrote...

"So I corrected you on my proper title and you persist in insulting me by intentionally perverting my name. Either that or you have dyslexia, which is it?"

So you have a Title now. Should I call you Sir, or Your Royal Highness or My Liege. LOL a title lol.

You make this to easy, really man your taking all the fun out of it.

You also wrote...

"Why does Royalson have to defend your debate on your behalf? To much of a coward to do so on your own? Can't face a 20 year old? Too funny. "

Yeah I'm afraid of you thats why I have debated you twice.

I'm just enjoying watcing Royalson take you apart, and to be honest he is much better at it then I.

No big deal. See I'm not a Muslim so I'm not pridefull like you are. So your appeal to pride well its just a projection of your ego.

Royal Son said...

Abu wrote:

Actually, if you were to read, and I do hold you to be literate, the Encyclopaedia does state the time frame in which they were most active:

"The sect AROSE about 150 B.C. (the first-named Essene is Judas, 110 B.C.) and DISAPPEARED towards the end of the first century A.D."


My Response:

Abu, it's not talking about when they were most active, it's stating when they existed!

Abu wrote:
Thus putting them before, during and after Jesus' time. Directly where we want them.
You said:
The Catholic Encyclopedia gives us two interesting pieces of information here: (1) That the sect numbered around 4000 and (2) They disappeared towards the end of the first century. Now I predict that Abu will interpret this to mean that the Essenes disappeared from Judea and migrated to Arabia. But that's not what the text says. It simply says they disappeared. There's no more record of them! Yet you want to take a quote from the Jewish Encylopedia which never mentions the Essenes, and state that the group that migrated must have been them!

My response:
The Jewish encyclopedia simply states they disappeared, therefore there exists an open conclusion as to their demise. We know *why* they disappeared, but what does it mean that they disappeared? Does that mean they all died out? That they left? You are presupposing that the conclusion is set. Therefore I'm asking for you to demonstrate where Josephus explicitly states he knows their conclusion, rather than giving an ending which is open to discussion.


My Response:
When the Catholic Encyclopedia states that the sect arose about 150 B.C, the natural interpretation is that the sect originated at that time. When it states that they disappeared towards the end of the first century, in the context of mentioning when they arose, the natural interpretation is that the sect ceased to exist. It does not mean they moved out from one region to another region. They are off the radar. There is no more record of them.

Now I find it interesting that you try to place the burden upon me to show that the Essenes did not survive past the end of the first century even though the quote provided in the Catholic Encyclopedia indicates such. Allow me to remind you Abu that the burden of proof is upon YOU that this group of Jews were the Essenes. I keep asking you to do this and you continue to evade it. I am not going to allow you to simply avoid your responsibility. In your debate with Radical Moderate, you even explained that the debate itself came about because of your claim that you could demonstrate in a matter of a few minutes that the Essenes were the pre-Mohammad, Islamic followers of Jesus. You have not only failed to do that both in the debate with Radical Moderate, but also here in written format. You have not been able to get past the first marker, which is to clearly demonstrate that the Jews who migrated to Arabia following the destruction of the second temple were the Essenes.

Abu wrote:
With that in mind, we know a group of Jews near the end of the 1st century AD migrated to Arabia in which Islamic authors agreed with, so do Muslims agree with the Pharisees, Zealots or Sadduccees?


My Response:

Wrong. The quote from the Jewish Encyclopedia states that this groups produced no RABBINICAL authority beyond that which was CONSIDERED by the Mohammaden authors. It's amazing how you change "considered" to "agreed with". And who are the "Mohammaden" authors Abu? Were they people who lived at the time of Mohammad? That's a long time AFTER the destruction of the Second Temple.

Royal Son said...

Next we read in the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia the following: "The attitude of Jesus and his disciples is altogether anti-Essenic" (Jewish Encyc.). The strict silence about any Messias is due partly perhaps to the secrecy of the Essenes and mainly no doubt to His rejection by their chronicler, Josephus. In fine, our present knowledge of the Essenes is slight and not at all trustworthy, as its sources as scanty, coloured, and unreliable. " Source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05546a.htm

Interestingly, the Catholic Encyclopedia refers to the Jewish Encyclopedia. Let us see what the Jewish Encyclopedia has to say about Jesus and His disciples:

While the Essenes in general were not only healers and wonder-workers but also doers of works of charity, there was aroused in Jesus, owing to his constant contact with suffering humanity, a deep compassion for the ailing and the forsaken (Matt. xiv. 14, xv. 32). With this there came to him the consciousness of his mission to bring good tidings to the poor (Luke iv. 16-30, vii. 22) and to break down the barrier which Pharisaism had erected between the Pharisees as the better class of society and the 'Am ha-Are?, the publicans and fallen ones (Matt. ix. 10-13, xi. 19, and parallels; Luke vii. 36-50). This was a great departure from Essenism, which, in order to attain a higher degree of pharisaic sanctity, kept its adherents entirely apart from the world, in order that they might not be contaminated by it. Jesus, on the contrary, sought the society of sinners and fallen ones, saying, "They that are whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance" (Luke v. 31-32; comp. parallels). No wonder that, when performing his miracles, he was believed to be in league with Satan or Beelzebub, the spirit of uncleanness, rather than to be filled with the Holy Spirit (Mark iii. 22 and parallels). This anti-Essenic principle, once announced, emboldened him to allow the very women he had cured to accompany him and his disciples—in sharp contrast to all tradition (Luke viii. 1-3); and they repaid his regard with profound adoration, and subsequently were prominent at the grave and in the resurrection legend.

Another departure from pharisaic as well as Essenic practise was his permission to his disciples to eat with unwashed hands. When rebuked he declared: "Whatsoever from without entereth into the man can not defile him, but that which proceedeth out of the man [evil speech], that defileth the man" (Mark vii. 15 and parallels)—a principle which scarcely implied the Paulinian abrogation of the dietary laws, but was probably intended to convey the idea that "the profane can not defile the word of God" (Ber. 22a). Source: http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8616-jesus-of-nazareth

The Jewish Encyclopedia you wanted to appeal to about this group of Jews who took on Arab culture states that Jesus and His disciples' practices were Anti-Essene!

Furthermore, as I stated before, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, a lot of the distinctions between the sects diminished following the destruction of the Second Temple, thus it is entirely plausible that the group of Jews who migrated to Arabia at this time likewise dropped a lot of these distinctions. You ask if the Muslims agreed with the Zealots, Pharisees, or Saduccees. Sir, I don't think that Muslims agree with ANY sect of Judaism. Again, the producing a rabbinical authority considered by Mohammaden authors does not equal mohammaden authors agreeing with everything those Rabbinical authorities have to say. And again, you assume that the group which travelled was purely of one sect, namely the Essenes, rather than a group of Jews from various walks of life, learning to live together. I'm sorry Abu, but you have not produced anything credible at this point. Even the Jewish Encyclopedia refutes you, calling Jesus and His Disciples anti-Essene.

Royal Son said...

Abu wrote:
As I continue, the question begs itself, you wrote 10,000 words in roughly 18 comments on behalf of Radical Moderate, is it that he couldn’t continue this discussion himself that you are relegated to doing his work for him, or is it that he’s too inept that you’re having to find yourself defend his positions publicly? I don’t understand, but I do seek to understand the great interest you’ve taken in the personal life of Radical, not foregoing the fact that you also aided him in a video commentary . So Royalson, why the personal interest? Why do your boss’ job for him? So you asked why it is that I limited myself to three sects when I knew that there were more. Again there were many sects to choose from and many sects to throw into the discussion. However I was limited to a 15 minute debate under which the topic revolved around one group. For what it’s worth I didn’t have to present a comparison among any other Judaic groups, I could have stuck to what the topic asked, the Essenes. However for the sake of argument, I decided to compare and contrast the other major Judaic sects at that time.

My Response:
I find the discussion fascinating. I enjoy refuting you. Radical is my friend and brother in Christ and it is a pleasure to contribute to this discussion. I acknowledge that debates are time-restricted, but this is no excuse for your poor arguments. You implied that there were only 3 sects in the game, and by way of your desperate and illogical reasoning, you "eliminated" two of them and thus concluded that the migrating group were the Essenes. Now you are not restricted to the constraints of time in this written public forum as you were in the oral debate. Therefore, you have the opportunity now to retract your ridiculous arguments and conclusion and work through all the other sects and demonstrate to us why none of them could possibly have constituted the group which made it's way to Arabia post 70AD.

Abu wrote:
Here is the statement you made:
“Why do you automatically assume that the Jews who migrated to Arabia must have been the Essenes”
This is your first problem of many. I didn’t automatically assume anything. In fact, if you were capable of being literate, which I do again, hold you to be, the topic was centered on this group, if I didn’t discuss this specific group, then the topic would have been lost. So which is it, was it that you wanted me to choose a group that did not confer with the topic at hand, or is the problem that I did stick to the topic and discuss the group on which the criteria were laid? If the former or the latter is the case, then what exactly are you arguing?


My Response:
Abu, whether or not the topic is centered on this group does not clear you of the charges of your assumptions. The Jewish Encyclopedia states that there was no clue as to their orgin, yet you claim a positive identification. Where is the side-by-side comparison of this migrating group, their beliefs, and their practices along with the Essenes? I cannot believe we are this far into the discussion and you have yet to provide such a comparison.

As far as the criteria are concerned - you made no attempt to provide source material which explained the belief of the Essenes. I want to see these beliefs. Show me some creeds. Show me some commentaries. Please Abu, bring the goods.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Radical Moderate,

So it seems you decided to double team a 20 year old. I have to hold two lengthy discussions with both you and Royalson? Either make up your minds or none of you will get responded to. Who is the person who is carrying on this discussion with me? Is it Royalson or Radical Moderate?

"The Pharisees were awaiting the Messiah so how come they didn’t accept Jesus? The Sadducees the Zealots were also all awaiting the Messiah. As a matter of fact there were several false Messiahs after Jesus. People followed them into the desert, and they took part in rebellions. So why could the Essenes not have believed in one of those Messiahs?"

All of Judaism was awaiting a Messiah, but each to their own understanding of the Torah. I suggest you read up on some of the historical information on the Essenes which is provided online as to what their criteria for a Messiah was or who a Messiah should have been to them. They expected several Messiahs, with varying degrees of responsibilities.

How do you know they accepted anyone as their Messiah? How do you know they accepted Jesus as their messiah and which of the two or possibly three Messiahs (that Essenes were awaiting ) was Jesus?.

We know that they accepted the Christ as their Messiah as that was the tie to the Jewish groups which migrated to Arabia and had agreements with later Islamic authors, that being we agreed on who the Christ was. As I stated above, a Christ is simply an annointed one, and the Jews expected many Messiahs, however there is one Messiah in particular they are awaiting.

If you say Jesus was The Messiah of Aaron then the Essenes would have believed that he was the FINAL teacher so No Mohamed.

There is no evidence which indicates that final Messiah = No more Prophets. The titles and acts of each are different according to the Judaic narrative. He would have been the final Messiah of their people, which we as Muslims would accept.

If you say he is the Messiah of the Branch of David then who did Jesus kill?

Have you read the Old Testament, or is that a different God?

Again from my opening statement, translation of 4q285 fr7

That quote/ reference neither aids nor detracts from your argument. If you're randomly going to be quoting from a book, atleast try to make it relevant to the argument.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Radical Moderate,

What writings? Name me one scroll from the DSS find or a fragment that mentions James.

See:
‘It would thus seem that the Qumran community was equivalent to the ‘early Church’ based in Jerusalem ö the ‘Nazoreans’ who followed James, ‘the Lord’s brother’. Indeed, the ‘Habakkuk Commentary’ states explicitly that Qumran’s ruling body, the ‘Council of the Community’, was actually located at the time in Jerusalem.And in Acts 9:2, the members of the ‘early Church’ are specifically referred to as ‘followers of the Way’ ö a phrase identical with Qumran
usage.’ - Eisenman, James the Just in the Habakkuk Pesher, pages 7 - 10 and The Habakkuk Commentary, 12.

You claim:
Their own writings state that the Messiah will go to war with the Arabs in the 9th year. How is adopting the customs, dress and names of Arabs equate to going to war? When did the Essenes and their Messiah go to War with the Arabs?.

Which of the three Messiahs are you referring to that was supposed to go to war? Using Vermes book, since, well that's all you're willing to reference, state which of the three Messiahs that was to come that you think was supposed to go to war and then demonstrate from the DSS that the Messiah you chose (with evidences) was supposed to go to war. Simple, right?

You claim:
Instead you must produce from their writings something which you clearly have not read how Jesus fits into what their expectations where in this Messiah.

Simple, miracle birth:
4Q534 or 4QMess ar)
[V5/522, GM/263, WAC/428]
"He is the Elect One of God. His birth and the exhalation of his breath [are from God]" - Fits the Islamic narrative that the Christ is the chosen one of God (Messiah) and his birth is from God, i.e. Christ is known as the Word of God.

Fits our narrative and in numerous areas of the DSS. Problem?

CallingChristians.com said...

@Royalson,

Abu, it's not talking about when they were most active, it's stating when they existed!.

Exactly, which is what I am stating, you are making the claim that they were irrelevant or didn't exist at a particular point in time. I am pointing out the opposite, they lived before and during and after Christ's mission. What's the problem?

When the Catholic Encyclopedia states that the sect arose about 150 B.C, the natural interpretation is that the sect originated at that time. When it states that they disappeared towards the end of the first century, in the context of mentioning when they arose, the natural interpretation is that the sect ceased to exist. It does not mean they moved out from one region to another region. They are off the radar. There is no more record of them.

What natural interpretation? Are you just making these things up as they go along? Disappeared doesn't mean ceased to exist, as we know they continued to flourish according to Josephus' statements:

The Essenes also, as we call a sect of ours, were excused from this imposition. These men live the same kind of life as do those whom the Greeks call Pythagoreans, concerning whom I shall discourse more fully elsewhere."

On what planet does disappear mean 'cease to exist'? Are you saying that something which does not appear is therefore not in existence? Does basic English make itself scarce to your understanding?

Now I find it interesting that you try to place the burden upon me to show that the Essenes did not survive past the end of the first century even though the quote provided in the Catholic Encyclopedia indicates such..

Actually, the quote you provided from the CE, states they disappeared, whereas from Josephus we know a sect with the same beliefs and kind of life, thrived in other areas. Disappeared does not mean cease to exist. Please explain, using common sense, if you can how disappearing means ceasing to exist.

Just to explain how stupid you sound, let's examine Judges 6:21, where the term disappeared is used:

Then the angel of the LORD touched the meat and the unleavened bread with the tip of the staff that was in his hand. Fire flared from the rock, consuming the meat and the bread. And the angel of the LORD disappeared..

Does that mean, by your logic, which you used above that the Angel of the Lord ceased to exist? Or are you going to say this meaning of ceasing to exist only applies to a quote that only you can interpret?

CallingChristians.com said...

@Royalson,


Allow me to remind you Abu that the burden of proof is upon YOU that this group of Jews were the Essenes. I keep asking you to do this and you continue to evade it. I am not going to allow you to simply avoid your responsibility..

Actually, for the converse, you claimed that the Zealots or a group of amalgamated Jewish sects, were the ones to migrate to Arabia, the burden on proof is actually on you who lays claim to this statement. I don't see why it should be on me. I already debated this topic, you're the one claiming to have two entirely different groups that according to your logic are the most plausible choices. Therefore my claim is already laid, since you're now presenting your claim(s), the evidence(s) are upon you to provide.

Wrong. The quote from the Jewish Encyclopedia states that this groups produced no RABBINICAL authority beyond that which was CONSIDERED by the Mohammaden authors. It's amazing how you change "considered" to "agreed with". And who are the "Mohammaden" authors Abu? Were they people who lived at the time of Mohammad? That's a long time AFTER the destruction of the Second Temple.

Just to educate you, as I know your partner and Kurios, Radical didn't spoon feed you well enough during your time together. When it says that Mohammadan authors considered that their works are Rabbinical, it means that Mohammadad authors, who by the way are Muslim authors, considered that group's works to be fit of the understanding that they are Rabbinical or as it were, authoritative in the Judaic faith because they were complicit with their understanding of what was Judaic. It's amazing that you can quote something and then complete elude yourself from the understanding of it. For your own sake, I want you to explain that quote for us yourself. Try to do it. Please do, I want you to make a bigger idiot out of yourself.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Royalson,

To begin with, your quote is completely irrelevant, am I supposed to believe everything they Jewish Encyclopedia spews on Christian doctrine? If that is what you would have me believe than I do suppose you accept their views on Christ as well, or do you only use them when you can ignore their contexts?

The Jewish Encyclopedia you wanted to appeal to about this group of Jews who took on Arab culture states that Jesus and His disciples' practices were Anti-Essene!.

Based on the Jesus of the NT and since you are appealing to the Jewish Encyclopedia's use of the NT, let's see what the JE final conclusion on those books are:

Unhistorical Character of the Gospels.
As a matter of fact, the discrepancies in the records extend over all parts of the Four Gospels and invalidate the claim of historicity advanced for Mark or for any other of the gospels.....Most incompatible with the Jewish mode of thinking and speaking is the story, in Matt. i. 18-23 (with which Luke i. 27, 34, ii. 5, and iii. 23 were afterward harmonized), of his conception by the virgin from the Holy Ghost ("Ruaḥ" = "Spirit," being feminine both in Hebrew and Aramaic). ....Mythical as is this story at the beginning of Mark......

As we can see and I'll leave this here for you, http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11498-new-testament , while you reference the JE as a historical source, if we follow through on your sources, the JE itself, clearly states that the NT narratives are unhistorical and duly mythical. With that in mind, when the JE contrasts the personhood of Christ and other peoples/ groups, by extension they by their standards are comparing myths with history. Do you agree with their comparison of the NT myth and their history?

You ask if the Muslims agreed with the Zealots, Pharisees, or Saduccees. Sir, I don't think that Muslims agree with ANY sect of Judaism.

Then why did you present the case of the Zealots and the amalgamated Jewish group and spent 3 entire posts purporting the argument that your theory could be valid, that these were the groups which migrated? In essence, you're conceding that you can't defend your position. I accept your concession.

Again, the producing a rabbinical authority considered by Mohammaden authors does not equal mohammaden authors agreeing with everything those Rabbinical authorities have to say..

Explain that logic for us. If Islamic authors agree that this group/ sect's writings were Rabbinical (i.e. Authoratitive Judaic works) on what grounds do you claim otherwise?

Even the Jewish Encyclopedia refutes you, calling Jesus and His Disciples anti-Essene..

Which is based on their understanding that they are comparing the Essenes with a mythical work of writings. So I would agree that they consider Jesus to be anti-Essene on the condition they judged this based on the NT (which they quoted and referenced as evidence for their claim), which they later then declared to be mythical, spurious and unhistorical.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Royalson,

So you're teaming up with Radical Moderate, to debate a 20 year old on a topic you claim that Radical defeated me in. So therefore, what is your reason for arguing? As it stands now, he's jumped into the game and also has begun responding to my comments. So is it now that you have decided to debate me on the same topic or is it that you are aiding Radical in his rabid argument against me, or is it then that you just want to team up to argue with a 20 year old who has seemingly touched a bit too many nerves?

As far as the criteria are concerned - you made no attempt to provide source material which explained the belief of the Essenes. I want to see these beliefs. Show me some creeds. Show me some commentaries. Please Abu, bring the goods.

What about them do you want to see?
That they believed the Messiah (annointed/ chosen one) was from the word/ speech of God in birth?

4Q534 or 4QMess ar)
[V5/522, GM/263, WAC/428]
He is the Elect One of God. His birth and the exhalation of his breath [are from God]
.

That the Messiah would do miracles by God's will and the Messiah would be supported by the Holy Spirit?

CD, Cairo Damascus; 4Q265Ð73; 5Q12; 6Q15
And He made known to them His Holy Spirit by the hand of HisMessiah and He showed the truth.
[V5/128; contrast GM/34: ÒHe taught them by the hand of the anointed ones through his holy spirit and through seers of the truth.]


What else do you want? Don't be as foolish as Radical and don't think I have Vermes' book or Tov's. I have both, with all the scrolls on them, and I do have all of Vermes', you'd better ask RM to buy his books for you because I'm going to quote extensively from both of their works just for the fun of it now.

Royal Son said...

Abu said:
@Royalson,


Also, I didn’t randomly select a group, besides the fact that the debate was centered on this group, I opened with a narrative, wherein each preceding premise led to the next.


Sorry, which narrative did you open with? I do not recall you providing one. As for each premise leading to the next, no sir, they do not each lead to the next. Your self-concocted syllogism does not bear sound reasoning.

Premise #1: There were three main sects at the time of Jesus: The Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes.
CHALLENGE1: There was a fourth main sect, the Zealots.
CHALLENGE2: There were many other smaller sects also.
CHALLENGE3: The distinctions between a lot of these sects diminished after the destruction of the Second Temple.

Premise #2: A group of Jews travelled to Arabia shortly after the destruction of the second temple.
CHALLENGE4: A group does not equal a sect. For all we know there could have been many different kinds of Jews involved in the migration.

Premise #3: There was no record of the Pharisees or Sadducees travelling to Arabia.
CHALLENGE5: Nor was there any record of the Essenes travelling to Arabia.
CHALLENGE6: Since a lot of sects lost their distinctions following the destruction of the second temple, it would stand to reason that the group of Jews that migrated comprised Jews who did not necessarily insist on any sectarian affiliation.

Conclusion: Therefore there's only one sect left, the Essenes.
I think not!

Abu said:
Therefore establishing a base case of sorts. This base case allowed me to then bring into the discussion other groups, which I limited to two based on time (which for some reason you assume I should have discussed all other groups) and I qualified the use of these specific two other groups, the Pharisees and Saduccees based on the reference from the Catholic Encyclopedia which put these specific three at this point in time, that is before, during and after Jesus’ mission.


My Response:
Even if there were only three main sects (there were four), it does not negate the existence of those smaller sects. Time contraints in debate? Not an excuse. You cannot form inaccurate syllogisms and blame it on time contraints.

Royal Son said...

Abu said:
As for your quote, I suggest you properly read it, again context is everything and it states:
“The Romans came, and in A.D. 70 put an end forever to the Jewish Temple, priesthood, sacrifices, and nation, whereby it should have become clear to the Jews that their national worship was rejected of God. In point of fact, Judaism, shorn of these its essential features, soon assumed an entirely new aspect. All the parties and sects of a former generation vanished; Pharisees and Sadducees ceased to quarrel with each other; the Temple was supplanted by the synagogue, sacrifices by the prayer, the priest by any one who was able to read, teach, and interpret both the written and the oral law.”
You’re telling me that the group which migrated was a vast group of varying forms of Judaism. Again, I’m going to ask you to prove that the group, which apparently assimilated all of Judaic beliefs and ironed out their issues with each other, then migrated to Arabia, where their views fit perfectly with the budding Islamic faith. What’s the name of this group? What are their texts? Why did they have little study among them of the Torah, if it is that they were comprised of all the major sects (wouldn’t that imply that they should have the converse, i.e., superior knowledge?). Why did they migrate to Arabia if they had already assimilated with each other in Judea?


My Response:

Abu, there's something you fail to grasp. I'm going to repeat myself again with the hope that it may perhaps stick this time. A group can comprise persons of varying backgrounds. There need not be a name for such a group. A group does not equate to a sect. You're asking me for their texts. I don't know what their texts were apart from a prayer book, Talmud, and I guess some biblical manuscripts. Are you asking me for texts that they had which identified which sect they were from and what their creeds were? I don't have any. Do you? Remember, this entire debate was whether the ESSENES were the pre-Mohammad Islamic followers of Jesus. I have yet to see ANYTHING that identifies this migrating group as being the Essenes and not some other bunch of Jews comprising of various groups, whether they be main sects, smaller sects, or both. I have no need to make a positive identification of this group as belonging to any particular sect. The burden of proof was never upon myself nor Radical Moderate. The burden of proof has always been for you to demonstrate that the Essenes were the pre-Mohammad Islamic followers of Jesus. Since you included the matter of this migrating group as an essential component to your presentation it naturally follows that you need to bring positive proof that the migrating group was purely comprised of the Essenes. You have not been able to do that. You have not shown the teachings of this migrating group. You have not shown what their beliefs were. I want to see some sources please.

Royal Son said...

Abu said:

Your alternate argument to the migration of the Essenes leaves more open ended questions, as opposed to actually solving any. What is worse on your behalf, is that you can’t make up your mind, so you can’t specify one group, you’re throwing multiple groups into the air and claiming that they all are the ones who migrated, see your quote here:
“Now, I am not suggesting that the Zealots make a positive identification match to the group of Jews who migrated to Arabia after the destruction of the Second Temple. However, I think you are making a huge mistake in trying to do so with the Essenes.”
With this quote in mind, and as laughable as it is, I want you to specify, which group migrated? Was it an amalgamation of several groups or was it this one group, the Zealots? You haven’t provided any evidence to qualify either group A (the assimilated group of Jews) or for group B (the Zealots). You have provided zero evidence, all you’ve done is called other groups names. Which is fine, I can call other groups as well, but how does that prove by the standards you laid down, that they were the ones who migrated:


My Response:
Again, the burden of proof does not rest with me but with yourself. You have to establish your case that the group which Migrated was the Essenes. You have not managed to do that. I'm glad you say that this alternative position produces more questions. Understand Abu, that while I never claim to make a positive identification of the group, for I do not need to, you do. You are the one establishing that the Essenes were the pre-Mohammad Islamic followers of Jesus, so this question about name identification and texts applies to you. You fix a name to the group. Why Abu? And what texts did this migrating group have that identified them as the Essenes? The Jewish Encyclopedia already states that the migrating group's origin cannot be traced.

Abu said:
Here is the set of criteria once again:

1. The true Messiah
2. Born of a virgin
3. Not crucified
4. Not the son of God
5. Not divine
6. A mighty messenger of God

This was the criteria for the group you set down in a later post, with this criteria in mind, by the groups you are suggesting, which are either (1) An assimilated group of Pharisees, Zealots, Saduccees, Essenes who had little study of the Torah and agreed with Islam or (2) The Zealots who had little study of the Torah and agreed with Islam, were the ones to migrate to Arabia. Where is your evidence?


My Response:
Again, the burden of proof for identification rests upon you. Nothing you have brought forth identifies who this group comprised. The Jewish Encyclopedia likewise states that there's basically no way to identify their origin. You don't believe that, and believe that it is definitely the Essenes. In light of this I expect you to bring something that positively identifies this group. I realize that I am repeating myself here but hopefully you will begin to take this on board.

Royal Son said...

Abu said:

You said:
No. We know they migrated to Arabia becaus a large Judaic group with their beliefs? What beliefs? The Jewish Encyclopedia never mentioned what their beliefs were! And especially it did not mention the beliefs of this migrating group with respect to Jesus! This is why you failed miserably in the debate Abu. You never once were able to show what the beliefs of this group were regarding Jesus. In the debate your attempts were so feeble to address the criteria it was like watching a train wreck in slow motion. Your arguments truly went off the rails into the twilight zone.
My response:
It’s a bit ignorant to state I didn’t demonstrate what their beliefs were, in my citation of Clair Tisdall’s works, I noted that he explicitly stated that the group of Jews who migrated to Arabia were in extant agreement with Muhammadan (Muslim) authors. If that is the case and we look at the beliefs and sub beliefs of some of the sects within the Essenes, Pharisees, Saduccees and Zealots, we can eliminate one by one who agreed with Islamic beliefs.


My Response:

You're getting confused. In the debate you did not cite Clair Tisdall to say that the migrating group agreed with Muhammadan (Muslim)authors. You cited Clair Tisdall to show a link between the Essenes and Muslims, i.e. that both have been labelled as a heretical sect of Judaism, the former by Christian Scholars (whom you did not name), and the latter by Clair Tisdall. That argument in itself collapses because even if that were the case, two heretical groups branching from the same source do not by necessity have the same beliefs.

As for the Jewish Encyclopedia, it does NOT state that the migrating group agreed with Islamic beliefs. It says they produced no Rabbinical authority beyond that which was considered by Mohammedan authors. Your making logical leaps by changing quotes to fit things that you want them to say but they do not say. Again, if these "Mohammedan authors" were Muslims as you seem to assert then this is centuries later on down the track. There is a time-gap of several centuries. You need to grasp this basic fact. Arabia at the time of the destruction of the Second Temple was PAGAN, not Islamic.

The only talmudic authority that is mentioned by name is the Talmud! Do Muslims follow the Talmud? Abu, this is really getting quite sad.Your house of cards collapses with the very quote you appeal to in order to build your case!

Abu said:

Three of those 4 groups rejected Christ as a Messiah, three of which you believe migrated to Arabia (as either an assimilated group) or the Zealots themselves as you stated earlier. If that is the case, by the condition that they agreed that Jesus was not the Messiah as opposed to the Essenes who did, which one agrees with Islamic belief?


My Response:

You say three of the four groups rejected the Messiah. Why not four out of the four? You have not demonstrated from the writings of the Essenes that they even believed that Jesus was the Messiah at all! Secondly, as I have been mentioning again and again - there were more Jews than simply these 4 sects. Thirdly, the only Rabbinical authority mentioned in the quote is the Talmud which Muslims reject! Stop saying that the group agreed with Islamic beliefs when this is plainly not the case!

Royal Son said...

Abu wrote:

You continue to assert I didn’t demonstrate what the beliefs of the Essenes were, but I did, in fact, I referenced their ideology directly from the Catholic Encyclopedia, the very same link you gave earlier:

“They worshipped one God, Creator and Ruler of all things, omnipotent and omniscient. Moses was held in very high esteem and to blaspheme his name meant death. An all-disposing Fate was admitted, yet free will, apparently, was not denied.”


My Response:

Tsk tsk, Abu. You knowingly ommitted a part of that quote. Let's quote the encyclopedia at the same position you did from beginning to end and see what you left out:

"They worshipped one God, Creator and Ruler of all things, omnipotent and omniscient. Moses was held in very high esteem and to blaspheme his name meant death. The sun was held in such reverence as to awaken a suspicion of idolatry. An all-disposing Fate was admitted, yet free will, apparently, was not denied."

Now why would you intentionally leave that out Abu? Could it be due to a verse that you know very well from your own Qur'an?

"And of His portents are the night and the day and the sun and the moon. Adore not the sun nor the moon; but adore Allah Who created them, if it is in truth Him Whom ye worship. " - Surah 41:37 (PICKTHALL).

Abu wrote:

As well as with Clair Tisdall’s quote, that they agreed with Islamic belief, i.e. Mohammedan authors, then we have their beliefs. If I were to say X group agreed with Christians, do I have to sit and list the belief of X, or is it not understood that what Christians believed, the group X also believed? See, this is your problem, you’re wanting for someone to have to explain things a child could grasp, I’m not here to spoon feed you. Debates are about question your opponent’s argument, not about your opponent having to sit and teach you basic comprehension skills. Quite a poor showing from you.


My Response:

Again, the quote is from the Jewish Encyclopedia, not Clair Tisdall. Secondly, it says considered, not agreed with. Thirdly, the only Rabbinical authority mentioned is the Talmud which Muslims reject. Fourthly, these Mohammaden authors you speak of would not hit the scene until some five centuries later. That is unless you believe that it is speaking of Mohammedan authors living at the time of this group who migrated. If that is the case, please tell me who these authors were and what their writings were.

Royal Son said...

Abu said:
As for your first question, the matter is simple, if the Essenes were the group who by and large did accept the Messiah, and we know they did as they were awaiting him, also their writings indicate that James the Just, i.e. Jesus’ half brother at some point either led or stayed with them, indicate that they did accept the Christ. Seeing as this can be seen from my aforementioned premise, and taking into consideration that the group which migrated did accept Islamic theology (see: Clair Tisdall’s quote), we can therefore merge these two views in line with our preceding premises to produce a singular conclusion (remember, several premises provide one conclusion, this is basic logic), from this we conclude that the group was the Essenes.


My Response:

Are you telling me that because a Jewish group is expecting a Messiah that it would mean they consider Jesus to be that Messiah? WOW.
Are you telling me that because James the Just stayed with a group of Jews, that they accepted Jesus as the Messiah? WOW.
Two more assumptions there Abu, still no substance. Please provide the source that speaks of James staying with the Essenes by the way, not that it proves their belief in Jesus as the Messiah. Clair Tisdall may have labelled Islam as a heretical form of Judaism. That does not in any way mean that they agreed with the beliefs of the Essenes whom you assert have always been labelled the same way by Christian Scholars.

Abu said

In fact, we can assert from other scholars of note that some believed the Essenes to be the cradle of Christianity:

“The monastery [at Qumran, adjacent to the caves where the scrolls were found], this structure of stone that endures, between the waters and precipitous cliffs, with its oven and its inkwells, its mill and its cesspool, its constellations of sacred fonts and the unadorned graves of its dead, is perhaps, more than Bethlehem or Nazareth, the cradle of Christianity.” - Edmund Wilson, The Scrolls from the Dead Sea (New York: Oxford, 1955), p. 104.


My Response:

The cradle of Christianity? Haha, that belief in the death, resurrection, and Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ? Oh dear, Abu. You've gone and faceplanted yourself again!

Abu said:

With that in mind, if Christians believe that Christ was born of a virgin and we know that they do, seeing as the Jewish encyclopedia stated they strictly believed in one God and that Clair Tisdall, indicates the Essenes agreed with Mohammadan (Islamic) authors, we have all the evidence we need. Now you just have to provide the same evidence for the two groups you named: (1) An assimilated group of Pharisees, Zealots, Saduccees, Essenes who had little study of the Torah and agreed with Islam or (2) The Zealots who had little study of the Torah and agreed with Islam, were the ones to migrate to Arabia. Where is your evidence?

You need to qualify your statements as I have mine.


My Response:

Sorry Abu but that's just wishful thinking. Let me ask you something. Do you have ANY writings from the Essenes on their beliefs about Jesus?

CallingChristians.com said...

@Royalson,


Sorry, which narrative did you open with? I do not recall you providing one.

Go listen to my opening statement, where the narrative is intiated here:

"Essentially, the Essenes in someway had to concur with these three points, of which are also the Islamic view. My position tonight, then has to be that they did believe that he was born of under some form of a divine circumstance, he was not in himself a divine being and was not crucified or risen after said act. To begin with proving this, we must establish a proper narrative.
In summation my narrative is as such:
"

To which I then made 12 distinct points, each successive point based on the previous point, ending with my quote from Matthew. Either you did not listen to the debate or you are ignorant of my comments during the debate.

"As for each premise leading to the next, no sir, they do not each lead to the next. Your self-concocted syllogism does not bear sound reasoning."

Please demonstrate where my arguments were either paradoxical or contradictory and I would like that to be done using logic.

"Premise #1: There were three main sects at the time of Jesus: The Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes.
CHALLENGE1: There was a fourth main sect, the Zealots.
CHALLENGE2: There were many other smaller sects also.
CHALLENGE3: The distinctions between a lot of these sects diminished after the destruction of the Second Temple.
".

Easily answered, Challenge 1 is a pseudo challenge, how many sects was I supposed to compare and contrast the Essenes with? I cited one source with gave a specific number of sects, suitable for the debate topic and followed through on the premises it laid forth. So you can prove me wrong by either demonstrating that there was a specific number I needed to appeal to in order to then move on as stipulated by the topic, or tha I had to compare and contrast any groups at all.

"Premise #2: A group of Jews travelled to Arabia shortly after the destruction of the second temple.
CHALLENGE4: A group does not equal a sect. For all we know there could have been many different kinds of Jews involved in the migration.
".

In this case it involves a sect, as the JE explicitly states that Islamic authors agreed with this group's beliefs thus demonstrating a monolithic ideology among them. The JE does not indicate that their beliefs were sporadic and spurious.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Royalson,

"Premise #3: There was no record of the Pharisees or Sadducees travelling to Arabia.
CHALLENGE5: Nor was there any record of the Essenes travelling to Arabia.
".

Actually, we do have information to the contrary:

"The story which relates the flight of the original Christian community from Palestine has an evident counterpart in the departure of that community from Jerusalem to Pella accounted in Eusebius and in Epiphanius...It is, moreover, an interesting point that Eusebius seems to say or to imply that this appeal was the indirect cause of the action resulting in the murder committed by the Jews, of James, the brother of Jesus, who was the head of the Christian community of Jerusalem. The hypothesis can at least be envisaged that the attempts of some members of the Christian community in question to obtain help from the Romans, or arrive at an understanding with them, may on the whole have worsened the position of this community, and finally rendered it untenable, making flight necessary. Our text seems to indicate that, as a result, Jewish Christian communities were formed in the Mosul district and in the Jazira (or in Arabia)" - (Pines S. The Jewish Christians of the Early Centuries of Christianity according to a New Source. Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Volume II, No.13; 1966. Jerusalem, pp. 21-23)

and as I indicated earlier Josephus indicates that this sect, the Essenes also spread to Greece and Syria, Egypt as well:

The Essenes also, as we call a sect of ours, were excused from this imposition. These men live the same kind of life as do those whom the Greeks call Pythagoreans, concerning whom I shall discourse more fully elsewhere.".
You claimed:
"CHALLENGE6: Since a lot of sects lost their distinctions following the destruction of the second temple, it would stand to reason that the group of Jews that migrated comprised Jews who did not necessarily insist on any sectarian affiliation.".

So where is the evidence of this amalgamated group of Jews who had little study of the Torah and only produced Rabbinic authority which later Muslim authors agreed with? You have to demonstrate that this group as you have claimed were either the Zealots or the amalgamated group of Jews who comprised of many groups, but somehow had little study of the Torah among them.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Royalson,

"Even if there were only three main sects (there were four), it does not negate the existence of those smaller sects. Time contraints in debate? Not an excuse. You cannot form inaccurate syllogisms and blame it on time contraints.."

You seem to be highly uneducated, so I'll demonstrate your silly ideas to you. This is how your logic flows:

CC quotes a source referencing his group and two others.
He compares and contrasts his group with the two others.
CC was wrong in doing the above two premises.
He was wrong because he should have used another sources which mentioned a larger amount of groups and compare and contrasted them all.
He was supposed to use a source I (Royalson) approve of and compare and contrast groups I (Royalson) decide that should have been.

It's called the fallacy of confirmation bias. You don't like that I established a base case (see the principle of mathematical induction), where you establish a base case, you can provide more than one base cases (as I did, I gave two groups) and then I proceeded from their with my proof. This is basic in the laws of logic and I was under no duress to compare any another amount of groups, it had to be my opponent, since he is arguing in the negative, that he had to provide groups which negate my positive affirmation and I had to defend my position. Instead, you've assumed the positive , claiming that you have a group and it was not the Essenes, seeing as the focal point of the topic of discourse was the Essenes, then you've taken the onus to demonstrate that your theory is superior to mine. However as demonstrated above, you are incapable of doing so, you have yet to provide any evidence that it was an amalgamated group of Jews or the Zealots.

A piss poor showing from you and I don't think you understand how logic works.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Royalson,

"A group does not equate to a sect. You're asking me for their texts. I don't know what their texts were apart from a prayer book, Talmud, and I guess some biblical manuscripts."

Their beliefs were monolithic, as we have noted from Clair Tisdall, and as he states, this was a group which according to Christendom, functioned more on non-canonical codices:

"Muhammad seems to have understood most of the Jewish legend correctly – The original sources of the Qur'an, Clair Tisdalle, page 30.

So we know it was not a group that Christians in themselves accepted as being adverse to Judaic narratives and we can understand what kind of group of Jews were present in Arabia at this time:

"We now turn to the Jews from whom Muhammad borrowed so very much that his religion might almost be described as a heretical form of later Judaism. In Muhammad's time the Jews were not only very numerous but also very powerful in various parts of Arabia. No doubt many of them had settled in that country at different times, when fleeing from the various conquerors - Nebuchadnezzar, the successors of Alexander the Great, Pompey. Titus, Hadrian, and others who had overrun and desolated Palestine. - The original sources of the Qur'an, Clair Tisdalle, page 15.

You claimed:
"Are you asking me for texts that they had which identified which sect they were from and what their creeds were? I don't have any. Do you? Remember, this entire debate was whether the ESSENES were the pre-Mohammad Islamic followers of Jesus.".

Following from this point, since you've acknowledged that the debate was on the Essenes, and I did speak on the Essenes, why do you insist on me comparing the Essenes with other groups beyond examining the Essenes themselves, your position thus far is contradictory:

Why did you choose the Essenes as opposed to another group?.
I didn't, I was speaking on the debate topic which you acknowledge, which contradicts with your other claim:

Why didn't you speak more on other groups besides the Essenes?.
Because the debate topic as you have rightly acknowledged was on the Essenes.

So either you make up your mind or you continue to bask in your own cyclic inanity.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Royalson,

"I have yet to see ANYTHING that identifies this migrating group as being the Essenes and not some other bunch of Jews comprising of various groups, whether they be main sects, smaller sects, or both.".

I have, I indicated that these people agreed with Muslim authors and held beliefs that were considered heretical to Judaism, wherein I did cite where they did believe that the Messiah would have a miraculous birth from a word of God, as I reference the complicit MSS for that belief previously.

"I have no need to make a positive identification of this group as belonging to any particular sect. The burden of proof was never upon myself nor Radical Moderate.".

Incorrect, I did my part, I established my base case, provided contrast and comparison with other groups, used online sources widely available to all and established my position using sequitur arguments. You on the other hand, as demonstrated above have reached a conundrum:

Why did you choose the Essenes as opposed to another group?.
I didn't, I was speaking on the debate topic which you acknowledge, which contradicts with your other claim:

Why didn't you speak more on other groups besides the Essenes?.
Because the debate topic as you have rightly acknowledged was on the Essenes.

So either you make up your mind or you continue to bask in your own cyclic inanity.

With that in mind, you then had to negate my position, I took the affirmative, it is then Radical's place or seeing as you need to help him now, it's now your place to negate my premises either by way of proof by contradiction or by following through my argument and then showing where my premises are non-sequitur thus I produced an incorrect conclusion. Instead you've decided that you can produce other theories, affirming the positive position that they were the group(s) to migrate.

Your two groups were either the Zealots as you have stated or the amalgamated Judaic group which comprised of the Zealots, Pharisees and Saduccees yet they had little study of the Bible among them.

Ergo, the onus is on you to provide your evidences as you've now taken the affirmative position.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Royalson,

Here is the set of criteria once again:

1. The true Messiah
2. Born of a virgin
3. Not crucified
4. Not the son of God
5. Not divine
6. A mighty messenger of God

This was the criteria for the group you set down in a later post, with this criteria in mind, by the groups you are suggesting, which are either (1) An assimilated group of Pharisees, Zealots, Saduccees, Essenes who had little study of the Torah and agreed with Islam or (2) The Zealots who had little study of the Torah and agreed with Islam, were the ones to migrate to Arabia. Where is your evidence?

You claimed:
Again, the burden of proof for identification rests upon you. Nothing you have brought forth identifies who this group comprised. The Jewish Encyclopedia likewise states that there's basically no way to identify their origin.

With this in mind, recall that instead of arguing the negative your position was to infer that it could have been other groups beside the Essenes, that isn't my position that is yours. You then selected two groups which I mentioned previously. Seeing as you did so, using your own criteria, the onus is on you to defend that position and argument. Now it's either you admit your argument is wrong and concede it is absurd or you prove that it was either one of those two groups under the listed criteria above.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Royalson,

"You're getting confused. In the debate you did not cite Clair Tisdall to say that the migrating group agreed with Muhammadan (Muslim)authors. You cited Clair Tisdall to show a link between the Essenes and Muslims, i.e. that both have been labelled as a heretical sect of Judaism, the former by Christian Scholars (whom you did not name), and the latter by Clair Tisdall. That argument in itself collapses because even if that were the case, two heretical groups branching from the same source do not by necessity have the same beliefs."

Incorrect, this only goes on to demonstrate your lack of intellectual capacity, I know what I quoted as I have my written opening statement in front of me. The link I drew between the "Mohammadan" authors, it is from Clair:

"We now turn to the Jews from whom Muhammad borrowed so very much that his religion might almost be described as a heretical form of later Judaism. In Muhammad's time the Jews were not only very numerous but also very powerful in various parts of Arabia. No doubt many of them had settled in that country at different times, when fleeing from the various conquerors - Nebuchadnezzar, the successors of Alexander the Great, Pompey. Titus, Hadrian, and others who had overrun and desolated Palestine." - The Original Sources of the Qur'an, Clair Tisdall, page 15.

You claimed:
"As for the Jewish Encyclopedia, it does NOT state that the migrating group agreed with Islamic beliefs. It says they produced no Rabbinical authority beyond that which was considered by Mohammedan authors. Your making logical leaps by changing quotes to fit things that you want them to say but they do not say. Again, if these "Mohammedan authors" were Muslims as you seem to assert then this is centuries later on down the track. There is a time-gap of several centuries. You need to grasp this basic fact. Arabia at the time of the destruction of the Second Temple was PAGAN, not Islamic."

This is where your integrity stops or your lack of thinking is displayed. They did agree with Islamic beliefs, as the Mohammadan (derogatory term for Muslim) authors, accepted only their writings as authoritative. This would mean that they have to be complicit with their writings, otherwise they would not have seen them as being authoritative in the Judaic faith, as we Muslims accept that the Jews were once guided by Prophets and they are Ahlul Kitab, so they would have had authoritative writings.

"The only talmudic authority that is mentioned by name is the Talmud! Do Muslims follow the Talmud? Abu, this is really getting quite sad.Your house of cards collapses with the very quote you appeal to in order to build your case!"

Incorrect, they state that this group knew of the Talmud, it did not say this group carried the Talmud with them, nor wrote the Talmud themselves, otherwise as the Muslim authors would not have accepted their writings as authoritative, theologically wise. Therefore, sir, my house of cards didn't collapse, but yours did, through poor comprehension.

"You say three of the four groups rejected the Messiah. Why not four out of the four? You have not demonstrated from the writings of the Essenes that they even believed that Jesus was the Messiah at all! Secondly, as I have been mentioning again and again - there were more Jews than simply these 4 sects."

We know they are accepted the Christ because of their writings and beliefs as the scholars have noted:

“The monastery [at Qumran, adjacent to the caves where the scrolls were found], this structure of stone that endures, between the waters and precipitous cliffs, with its oven and its inkwells, its mill and its cesspool, its constellations of sacred fonts and the unadorned graves of its dead, is perhaps, more than Bethlehem or Nazareth, the cradle of Christianity.” - Edmund Wilson, The Scrolls from the Dead Sea (New York: Oxford, 1955), p. 104.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Royalson,

Now why would you intentionally leave that out Abu? Could it be due to a verse that you know very well from your own Qur'an?

"And of His portents are the night and the day and the sun and the moon. Adore not the sun nor the moon; but adore Allah Who created them, if it is in truth Him Whom ye worship. " - Surah 41:37 (PICKTHALL).


I left it out because while the Encyclopedia claims that, I haven't seen any other scholar whether Tov, Vermes, Eisenmann or otherwise claim that they worshipped the sun, not even the Panarion nor does Josephus' writings state such a thing. Therefore I regard it as lacking evidence.

"Encyclopedia, not Clair Tisdall. Secondly, it says considered, not agreed with. Thirdly, the only Rabbinical authority mentioned is the Talmud which Muslims reject. Fourthly, these Mohammaden authors you speak of would not hit the scene until some five centuries later. That is unless you believe that it is speaking of Mohammedan authors living at the time of this group who migrated. If that is the case, please tell me who these authors were and what their writings were."


Incorrect, they state that this group knew of the Talmud, it did not say this group carried the Talmud with them, nor wrote the Talmud themselves, otherwise as the Muslim authors would not have accepted their writings as authoritative, theologically wise. Therefore, sir, my house of cards didn't collapse, but yours did, through poor comprehension.

"You say three of the four groups rejected the Messiah. Why not four out of the four? You have not demonstrated from the writings of the Essenes that they even believed that Jesus was the Messiah at all! Secondly, as I have been mentioning again and again - there were more Jews than simply these 4 sects."

We know they are accepted the Christ because of their writings and beliefs as the scholars have noted:

“The monastery [at Qumran, adjacent to the caves where the scrolls were found], this structure of stone that endures, between the waters and precipitous cliffs, with its oven and its inkwells, its mill and its cesspool, its constellations of sacred fonts and the unadorned graves of its dead, is perhaps, more than Bethlehem or Nazareth, the cradle of Christianity.” - Edmund Wilson, The Scrolls from the Dead Sea (New York: Oxford, 1955), p. 104.

Radical Moderate said...

@Radical Moderate, Response to ABU PART 1
You wrote…

so it seems you decided to double team a 20 year old. I have to hold two lengthy discussions with both you and Royalson? Either make up your minds or none of you will get responded to. Who is the person who is carrying on this discussion with me? Is it Royalson or Radical Moderate?

My Response
It’s you who needs to make up his mind. You have been crying for the past few days for me to chime in, when I was more than happy to watch my brother Royalson tear you apart. Now that I do, you cry that I am. Make up your mind do you want me to take you to task or Royaslon?

You wrote…
All of Judaism was awaiting a Messiah, but each to their own understanding of the Torah.

My Response
Well Duhh isn’t that what I said? Repeating or rephrasing what I have written is not a response to what I have written.
You also wrote…

. I suggest you read up on some of the historical information on the Essenes which is provided online as to what their criteria for a Messiah was or who a Messiah should have been to them. They expected several Messiahs, with varying degrees of responsibilities

My Response
First I have read the “Historical information” some of it online most in books. Obviously you have not done that. I have read the translations of their own writings, something you have not done.

It also should be noted that modern Pharasitic Jews are awaiting two Messiahs, a priestly and a King Messiah. Something you are clearly unaware of.
Secondly prove they were awaiting “several Messiahs”? I can prove from their source material and actual Scholars who have worked on the DSS manuscripts that they were awaiting definitely two Messiah’s (a priestly and king Messiah) with a possible third, however most scholars believe the third reference is to the founder of the community or sect.
see Vermes, Geza (2004-06-24). The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (p. 87). Penguin UK. Kindle Edition.

Radical Moderate said...

Response to ABu Part 2

So again the question that you keep avoiding. Which of these two or three or if you can prove several Messiahs did Jesus fulfill?

Pleas answer the question abu and bring something other than speculation.

You then Speculate when you write…
We know that they accepted the Christ as their Messiah as that was the tie to the Jewish groups which migrated to Arabia and had agreements with later Islamic authors, that being we agreed on who the Christ was. As I stated above, a Christ is simply an annointed one, and the Jews expected many Messiahs, however there is one Messiah in particular they are awaiting.

My Response
Who thinks like this? Abu you say that the Jews of Arabia where Essenes (NO PROOF) with all the evidence of who the Essenes where pointing to the opposite conclusion. You then claim to “KNOW” that these fictitious Esseian Arabian Jews believed that Jesus was one of several Messiahs that they were waiting for in the first century. You base this because Arabian Jews agreed with Islamic scholars. Can you demonstrate from any written source that the Jews of Arabia believed that Jesus was one of as you claim several Messiahs that the Esseneians of 1st century Judea where waiting for?

So far the only thing I have seen is that the Islamic scholars agreed with the Jews, that there is one God, that Mosses was a prophet etc… Nothing about Jesus.

You again avoid the question and demonstrate that you have no idea what the Essenes believed when you write…

There is no evidence which indicates that final Messiah = No more Prophets. The titles and acts of each are different according to the Judaic narrative. He would have been the final Messiah of their people, which we as Muslims would accept.

My Response
Abu tell me was Jesus the Messiah from Aaron who the Essenes where waiting for?

You continue to avoid the question and demonstrate a total lack of reason when you write…
Have you read the Old Testament, or is that a different God?

That quote/ reference neither aids nor detracts from your argument. If you're randomly going to be quoting from a book, atleast try to make it relevant to the argument.


My Response
Yes I have read the TANAK obviously you haven’t but what does that have to do with my Quote of 4q285 fr7. Really abu if your going to make random statements then at least try to make it relevant to the topic.

My quote of 4q285 fr7 demonstrates that the awaited Messiah from the Branch of David would kill someone. So I ask you AGAIN, if Jesus is the Messiah from the branch of David then who did he kill?

CallingChristians.com said...

@Radical Immoderate,

It’s you who needs to make up his mind. You have been crying for the past few days for me to chime in, when I was more than happy to watch my brother Royalson tear you apart. Now that I do, you cry that I am. Make up your mind do you want me to take you to task or Royaslon?

This is incorrect, at first I questioned why Royalson was doing for job for you. When Royalson continued, I again, questioned both of you on him doing your job for you. I preferred you, whom I debated, argue with me on these things, rather than your minion.

Well Duhh isn’t that what I said? Repeating or rephrasing what I have written is not a response to what I have written.

It was a notion you were working towards, which I had already stated in our debate, see my debate statement:

"Ironically, Jews really could be called "Messianic Jews." One of Maimonides' classical "13 Principles of Faith" is:
I believe with complete faith in the coming of the Messiah, and even though he may delay, nevertheless I anticipate every day that he will come."-
Rabbi Bentzion Kravitz.

"First I have read the “Historical information” some of it online most in books. Obviously you have not done that. I have read the translations of their own writings, something you have not done."

I'm sorry reading one book by Vermes doesn't qualify as having read a vast wealth of historical information.

Secondly prove they were awaiting “several Messiahs”? I can prove from their source material and actual Scholars who have worked on the DSS manuscripts that they were awaiting definitely two Messiah’s (a priestly and king Messiah) with a possible third, however most scholars believe the third reference is to the founder of the community or sect.
see Vermes, Geza (2004-06-24). The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (p. 87). Penguin UK. Kindle Edition.


You just proved it for me.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Radical Immoderate,

"So again the question that you keep avoiding. Which of these two or three or if you can prove several Messiahs did Jesus fulfill?"

Jesus according to the Essenes was the Messianic Prophet or the Teacher of Righteousness who was already among them, at their time:

"If it is proper to deduce from these not too explicit data that, if ever expected by the Qumran sect, the messianic Prophet (or prophetic Messiah) was to teach the truth revealed on the eve of the establishment of the Kingdom, it would follow that his part was to all intents and purposes the same as that attributed by the Qumran Essenes to the Teacher of Righteousness. If this is correct, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that at some point of the sect’s history the coming of the Prophet was no longer expected; he was believed to have already appeared in the person of the Teacher of Righteousness." - The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, Geza Vermes, 7th Edition, pg 87.

"Abu you say that the Jews of Arabia where Essenes (NO PROOF) with all the evidence of who the Essenes where pointing to the opposite conclusion. You base this because Arabian Jews agreed with Islamic scholars. Can you demonstrate from any written source that the Jews of Arabia believed that Jesus was one of as you claim several Messiahs that the Esseneians of 1st century Judea where waiting for?".

I already demonstrated evidences that they migrated to Arabia:

The Essenes also, as we call a sect of ours, were excused from this imposition. These men live the same kind of life as do those whom the Greeks call Pythagoreans, concerning whom I shall discourse more fully elsewhere.

As well as, we know they agreed with the special birth of the Messiah and that he would be the word of God:

"4Q534 or 4QMess ar)
[V5/522, GM/263, WAC/428] He is the Elect One of God. His birth and the exhalation of his breath [are from God]
".

You claimed:
"So far the only thing I have seen is that the Islamic scholars agreed with the Jews, that there is one God, that Mosses was a prophet etc… Nothing about Jesus."

See my above quotes, thanks.

"My quote of 4q285 fr7 demonstrates that the awaited Messiah from the Branch of David would kill someone. So I ask you AGAIN, if Jesus is the Messiah from the branch of David then who did he kill?"

See Geza Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls Collection, pg 87, 7th Ed., where it is mentioned the Messiah was already among them. Then proceed to page 189, wherein your reference is cited shows a broken verse. Actually, all we have are pieces of a phrase/ sentence that cannot be used to demonstrate that he would kill anyone. However it is from the Masoretic text, and if we approach that text, we see in Yeshayahu 11, it refers to the Messiah leading the Bani Isra'il to victory in conquering all of the Jewish peoples back to Israel, something already prophesied in Yeshayahu 43:5-6.

Also, what do you have to say of this?

": “Neither the suffering of the Messiah, nor his death and resurrection appear to have been part of the faith of first-century Judaism.”" - Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew (Philadelphia, 1981), p. 38.

I suggest you read his other books, because when I start referencing them, you're going to need to read everything he says. To put it lightly, start saving, you're going to need to buy a lot more of his works.

Derek Adams said...

Royalson, you did a great job. But at the same time I am perplexed.

Why are you still interacting with CallingChristians dudes?

The man still hasn't given one reference that says those groups were Islamic or Muslim.

Not even the ENCYCLOPEDIA which HE APPEALED to says these are Muslims.

And an Encyclopedia is NOT a scholarly source to begin with.

But since he wants to appeal to it, he is shooting himself in the foot.

This is why CallingChristians is not a historian nor should he pretend to be one.

But I am not only asserting he is not a historian.

I am asserting he is knowingly lying.

He knows no Islamic group existed. He has zero evidence. And the whole responding by rambling and ad-hom , adnausem is just a smoke screen gentlemen.

Royal Son said...

Abu said:

@Royalson,

Your next line of reasoning, is indeed peculiar to say the least, you open with saying:

“ Now I found this argumentation perplexing to say the least. For Israel Knohl states in his very book, the Messiah before Jesus the following: "In this book I intend to counter these claims. I propose to show that Jesus really did regard himself as the Messiah and truly expected the Messiah to be rejected, killed, and resurrected after three days, for this is precisely what was believed to have happened to a messianic leader who had lived one generation before Jesus."”.

What I as citing was the majority view, resting on the lack of authentic historical documents which provide a first person verbatim source:

“Jesus, they claim, could not have foreseen his rejection, death, and resurrection, as “the idea of a suffering, dying, and rising Messiah or son of Man was unknown to Judaism.”6 It follows that in the opinion of these scholars, all accounts of Jesus foretelling his rejection, death, and resurrection lack any historical basis whatsoever.7 These things, they assert, were only ascribed to him after his death.”

Which was based on the following statement:
Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, p. 31. See also Vermes’s words: “Neither the suffering of the Messiah, nor his death and resurrection appear to have been part of the faith of first-century Judaism.” G. Vermes, Jesus the Jew (Philadelphia, 1981), p. 38.


My Response:

Admit it Abu, you cited a sentence in Israel Knohl's work, without even realising the intent of his book! Now it's funny that you appeal to a view which rests on the "lack of authetic historical documents which provide a first person verbatim source" as you say. Let's test your consistency Abu - Do you have authentic historical documents which provide a first person verbatim source for the Essenes? You talk about going with the majority view.

Let me test you on this line for consistency also - Do the majority of Scholars consider the Essenes to be the one sect to have migrated to Arabia prior to Mohammad ? Do the majority of scholars consider the death of Jesus Christ by way of crucifixion to be a historical event?

Royal Son said...

Abu said:
Also see, for reference, a critiquing of the Messiahship and early Christian beliefs:
Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimnis, pp. 82–92; Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, p. 31; idem, The History of the Synoptic Tradition (Oxford, 1963), p. 152.

Which follows through on Bultmann’s arguments. Your next argument however concedes to my opinion:

“Now look, I'm not expecting you to believe everything Israel Knohl says. In fact, I find his views to be pretty radical and out in left-field. But if you're going to use his work to try to substantiate your case, then please understand what the man teaches and believes.”

Of course I don’t hold to everything he says to be true or valid, however I was referencing his agreement on his statement of the beliefs of the other scholars on this issue regarding Christ’s messiahship, this Is why I referenced that particular statement. However you’ve found yourself in a conundrum with the references you’ve cited. In relation to Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 98b, it does not reference a dying and then rising Messiah, it references a leper, was your Christ a leper? Also, quote the passage in context, they mentioned other plausible Messiahs who were not lepers, such as Shiloh, Haninah, Yinnon, Menahem. Was your Christ any of these men? Did all of these men rise and suffer as you are proposing?
As for the Messiah suffering in your references, it’s simple, let’s examine what it refers to, that is a leper Christ. Was your Christ a leper? Looking at the other two citations, they reference Yeshayahu 53, see:
“ And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him ill; if his soul makes itself restitution, he shall see children, he shall prolong his days, and God's purpose shall prosper in his hand.”

Was your Christ ill and had children? He lived many days and ruled God’s kingdom? Nope.


My Response:

Ok, so you copy/pasted a reference and quote from the back of Knohl's book - The Messiah before Jesus. Abu do you even realise what you're doing here? Your spitting out these references as if they're supposed to bolster your case. Again, take the time to read what Israel Knohl is saying. Why do you think his book is called the Messiah before Jesus? Because he believes that there was a Messiah before Jesus,one generation beforehand, beleived by the writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Essenes) as a rising and dying Messiah! Do you believe Israel Knohl's position? Do you find his arguments credible? If not, then why do you keep quoting the guy when his position goes squarely against your thesis?

Now you quoted for me the reference, so I'm going to ask you Abu, have you read Bultmann's work? Have you read "Theology of the New Testament" ? have you read "The History of the Synoptic Tradition"? Do you think Bultmann's work agrees with the Isa of the Qur'an? Does Bultmann believe in a Christ who performed miracles? Does Bultmann believe Jesus was the prophesied Messiah? Does Bultmann believe that Jesus was born of a virgin? What kind of a Jesus does Bultmann's work present Abu?

I'm asking you this, because it seems that every time you provide a reference and I go to what the reference actually has to say, destroying your case, you tell me that you don't believe it. If you don't find the position convincing, don't quote it or reference it.

Royal Son said...

With regards to Sanhedrin 98b, the purpose if you may recall was not for me to show that Jesus was believed by these Rabbis to be the Messiah, for I certainly do not hold the Talmud as a source of infallible inspiration. It simply is a document the reflects some rabbinical opinions and teachings of its time. Now you said that it does not reference a rising and dying messiah but a leper.

I'm sorry sir but it equates Messiahship to the "leper scholar" being talked about, we read:

Rabbi.Johanan said: For the sake of the Messiah. What is his [the Messiah's] name? …The Rabbis said: His name is ‘the leper scholar,’ as it is written, Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted. (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 98b)

Furthermore, the link to the being named a leper scholar was found in their applying Isaiah 53 to this person because this one who bears the griefs and sorrows of Israel!

We can note that Jesus not only did such, but he likewise mingled with and healed lepers and those of all kinds of diseases. Was Christ ill? Yes, He was dying! I'd call that pretty ill wouldn't you? Did he have children? Yes, spiritually, through the miracle of resurrection. Your questioning reflects the same kind of misunderstanding as Nicodemus in John 3:4:

4 "How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!" 5 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.

You ask me these questions about Jesus if He lived many days and ruled God's kingdom? Well yes, Jesus being resurrected from the dead is now seated at the right hand of GOd, ruling and reigning with Him. Of course the time will come when this kingdom will be fully manifested but not all prophecy need to be fulfilled in His first coming. If you assert that it must then you disqualify Jesus from being the Messiah which you cannot do as a Muslim. I repeat, my citing of these works is not to show that the Talmudic authors believed Jesus to be the Messiah, for they were certainly against Jesus, but the concept of a dying and rising Messiah was certainly not foreign to them. That was my point.

Finally, considering that the group of Jews that migrated to Arabia brought the Talmud with them, you are going to have to demonstrate why you believe such a Talmudic group were Muslim followers of Jesus?

We are this far into the discussion, and you still haven't brought any texts from the Essenes themselves which speak of their beliefs in Jesus. Please do so. Produce the goods!

I want to see the following:

1. Texts from the Essenes that teach that JESUS was the Messiah.
2. Texts from the Essenes that teach that JESUS was born of a virgin.
3. Texts from the Essenes that teach that JESUS was not crucified.
4. Texts from the Essenes that teach that JESUS was not the son of God.
5. Texts from the Essenes that teach that JESUS was not the Divine.

Please show me SOMETHING that the Essenes wrote about JESUS! Stop dancing around these criteria.
If you don't have these, just admit it and concede that you lose the debate.

Royal Son said...

Abu says:
Who is Tinsdale? I referenced Clair Tisdall. I publicly deny using any reference to a Tinsdal in any of my debates. Your deceit knows no bounds.


Abu also says:
"Muhammad seems to have understood most of the Jewish legend correctly – The original sources of the Qur'an, Clair Tisdalle, page 30.

My Response:

According to your own standards Abu, your deceit knows no bounds. What's hilarious is that while you attack Radical's character based upon a misspelling of a name, you actually misspelt the name Radical typed the second time as Tinsdal instead of Tinsdale. Check your statement out. Then in another statement you misspelt the name as Tisdalle. Hilarious.

And stop misrepresenting what Clair Tisdall is saying. If you look at the quote carefully that you've ben referring to, Tisdall is speaking about groups throughout different periods who migrated to Arabia, even centuries before the Essenes came onto the scene, or are you going to tell me that every single group that migrated to Arabia were the Essenes? After all, you're assuming that this group agreed with EVERYTHING that the Mohammaden authors believed. Let's look at the quote once again:

"We now turn to the Jews from whom Muhammad borrowed so very much that his religion might almost be described as a heretical form of later Judaism. In Muhammad's time the Jews were not only very numerous but also very powerful in various parts of Arabia. No doubt many of them had settled in that country at different times, when fleeing from the various conquerors - Nebuchadnezzar, the successors of Alexander the Great, Pompey. Titus, Hadrian, and others who had overrun and desolated Palestine. - The original sources of the Qur'an, Clair Tisdalle, page 15."

Does Clair Tisdall say that Mohammad with everything that these Jews believed? Does it say he borrowed everything from them? No, it says he borrowed so very much. Based upon those words, you have concluded that it means that Mohammaden authors agreed with everything that this group of Jews believed. Are you going to dare to make that same mistake again? If you do, I will take you to task for it!

Notice Clair Tisdall nowhere says Essenes here. These Jews fled from various conquerors. Let's check out the dates: Nebuchadnezzar(605BC - 562BC), Pompey(106BC - 48BC), Titus(31AD - 81AD) Hadrian (76AD - 138AD).

The first big problem you have here is Nebuchadnezzar. His existence predates the Essenes by about 400 years! So there's your proof already my friend of a non-Essene group migrating to Mohammad. It should come as little surprise to us that over the course of 1000 years, such Jews would have adopted Arabian names and assimilated into Arabic culture. Then we have the group that fled Pompey. Now this would put the Essenes at least in the ballpark in terms of existence as a sect. However, if you want to identify this migrating group as the Essenes, you will have to give us positive proof that matches them. Now you have 2 migrating groups of Jews, those from Nebuchadnezzar's time, and those from the time of Hadrian. Now, we come to the migrating group that fled Titus. This is the one you've been focusing on in the debate. However, you've done nothing to positively identify this migrating group either. You see Abu, you are going to have to prove that every group in the equation are purely Essenes. Then you have Hadrian (76AD-138AD). The problem with this is glaringly obvious. This group fled from Hadrian between 130 and 135AD from Jerusalem! Since there were no further records of the Essenes after the destruction of the second temple in 70AD, the group that fled to Arabia from Jerusalem from 130AD - 135AD were obviously not the Essenes!

Royal Son said...

Let's summarise the catastrophe you are in:

4 migrations to Arabia are mentioned by Clair Tisdall.
1 migration occurred before the Essenes existed as a sect.
1 migration occurred after the Essenes had been wiped out.
2 migrations occurred during the times we know that the Essenes existed.

The fact that 2 of the four mentioned migrations involved non-Essene Jews is enough to bury your theories. However, even with the other two, you would have to still provide proof that the migrating groups were Essenes and not any other kind of Jew.
Funnily enough, you also contradict your own position by saying that they agreed with the Mohammadan authors and yet concede that this group was not well studied. So if they were not well studied and Mohammad agreed with all of what they believed (which is not what Tisdall says, then at best, Mohammad/Mohammaden authors agreed with a limited set of doctrines presented to them). Now it is your task Abu to identify which of those doctrines they were. Can you identify that for us? Let's see some evidence. Let's see some manuscripts.

Care to still peddle your wild-eyed theories with no evidence?

Royal Son said...

Abu said:

@Royalson,

This statement of yours makes no sense:

” The your candid mention of the Septuagint calls into question your assumptions of scriptural interpretation, as it is plain to see that Jewish groups were not confined to the Dead Sea Scrolls or the rendering thereof. “

Working on what is comprehensible English from your response, we note that you are mistaken. The Jews had the Oral Tradition and at this point, the Essenes had the DSS which does agree quite largely with the Masoretic text, based on the Oral tradition. I see nowhere where the Septuagint can claim superiority.


My Response:

Ah Abu. It seems that you're a few steps behind so I'll bring you up to speed. The mentioning of the Septuagint was to show that Jews were not confined to the Dead Sea Scrolls readings but also did use the Septuagint. I was not even addressing whether the Septuagint readings are superior to the Masoretic or DSS texts or not. We know that various Jewish groups rejected Jesus as being the Messiah, so an appeal to Isaiah 7:14 as proof that the Essenes believed in the virgin birth of Jesus does not hold water. And by the way, the Dead Sea Scrolls are copies of manuscripts that pre-dated them. I hope you're aware of this. You seriously not trying to assume that the Essenes actually authored Isaiah 7:14 are you?

Abu said:

As for what the Pharisees and Essenes believed, in relation to my reference of the Panarion, please take my statements into context. This was to bolster the understanding that they were indeed followers of the Law of Moses. That they agreed on the Torah’s text, to qualify this statement, see my following which I said in the debate when I mentioned this point:

“ Can I use the Hebrew Old Testament to show they believed in a Messiah which agrees with the Islamic view? Yes, primarily because of two reasons. Therefore, since the Essenes differed with the traditions of the Pharisees, thus this became the major point of distinction between them, RM has to agree that we can use the OT to understand their view of the Messiah, otherwise he would have to provide a reason why we cannot use the OT, which they wrote to derive their understanding of the Messiah. If his reason is because they differed with the major sect of the Pharisees, then this is a hypocritical point, as jesus also did so: See Matthew 15:1-9.

My statement therefore was not to examine their theological differences on the Messiahship but to examine whether they agreed on the Torah or not.


My Response:

Ah, now you want to appeal to the Panarion again. A few posts back you were rejecting Epiphanius' work and used a quote from Bart Ehrman''s book but now you want to invoke him again? You mention that the Essenes differed with the traditions of the Pharisees, and then use the Old Testament to understand their view of the Messiah. Abu you are not making any sense. How can you derive the Essene's view of the MESSIAH by looking at the Old Testament? Where do you get the idea that the Old Testament speaks of the Essene's view of the Messiah? That the Essenes differed from the Pharisees in their traditions does not tell you what their view of the Messiah actually was!

Amazingly however, not long after stating "RM has to agree that we can use the OT to understand their view of the Messiah, you wrote "My statement was not to examine their theological differences on the Messiahship".

Keep contradicting yourself Abu. It's fun to watch.

Again, I'm going to ask you this, and I will keep asking you until you provide the goods - What texts do you have of the ESSENES that explain their views of Jesus? Do you have any?

Royal Son said...

Abu said:@Royalson,

You said:

“ Throughout the entire debate you never quoted from a single Essene text to show their beliefs of Jesus. You have provided NOTHING to show whether they even believed Jesus existed!

Actually, I did, I quoted from the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic text, as for proving that they believe Jesus existed, I did, see:

“The monastery [at Qumran, adjacent to the caves where the scrolls were found], this structure of stone that endures, between the waters and precipitous cliffs, with its oven and its inkwells, its mill and its cesspool, its constellations of sacred fonts and the unadorned graves of its dead, is perhaps, more than Bethlehem or Nazareth, the cradle of Christianity.” - Edmund Wilson, The Scrolls from the Dead Sea (New York: Oxford, 1955), p. 104.


My Response:

Abu, that is NOT a quote from an Essene text. Try again! And by the way, this speaks of Qumran perhaps being the cradle of Christianity, i.e. that faith that was built upon the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ!

Abu said:

Reading is important, especially when since I reference my sources. This is so you could use them to, hope you knew that, but as you have displayed, it looks very much as if you didn’t. Also, examining your other points, I demonstrated that they functioned and lived in places beyond Jerusalem, that they were populous throughout Judea and as far as history is concerned they were found to be in Egypt and Greek later on, in Greece they were called Pythagoreans, in Egypt they were called the Therapeuts, and in Syria there name was retained Essenes.

This is so because of Josephus’ statement:

“The Essenes also, as we call a sect of ours, were excused from this imposition. These men live the same kind of life as do those whom the Greeks call Pythagoreans, concerning whom I shall discourse more fully elsewhere."

My Response:

What? That's your proof? What a let-down. Abu, all that's telling me is that the Greeks refer to a group of people who live in the same way that the Essenes do, and they call them Pythagoreans. That does not make them the same group. If you insist that they are, then I will congratulate you for destroying your case once again. The Pythagoreans were polytheists! Still want to claim that they are the same group? Just because you've got two groups that engage in some similar practices does not make them identical. Abu you really shot yourself in the foot with that one!

Abu said:

A group carrying the same beliefs also found in Egypt, my evidences are clear and I assumed Radical knew these things as did you, but I suppose your knowledge stops where Radical tells you to. Therefore their dispersal was beyond Judea, but I specified to Arabia as this is what the debate was on, I could have pointed to any of the other nations mentioned previously. I know where Qumran is, my point was simple, do you think if they could have ventured as far as Qumran that they stopped and couldn’t go an inch further? It was a rhethorical question meant to evoke an intelligible response from Radical, unfortunately, you’re still singing his song from his line of reasoning and are unable to pick up the context in which I am phrasing my arguments. Appeal to ad ignorantium indeed. The Essenes couldn’t magically go further than Qurman, right? That’s why people with their beliefs ended up in Arabia, Sham, Greece. If you still don’t get it, that was sarcasm.


My Response:

It's funny how you continuously accuse me of ad ignorantium when in actual fact I have to keep cleaning up your mess. Same beliefs in Egypt ? Congratulations, more polytheism. Keep this up Abu, your Imam will be proud. Oh, in case you didn't catch that, it was sarcasm.

Royal Son said...

Abu said:
Note now, how absurd your reasoning is, not once did I reference Robert Eisenman in this argument, I may have only referenced his name once but not in this argument. Rather, what I will say is that if they were in fact xenophobic and nationalistic, then they wouldn’t have had left Jerusalem, they would have fought for Jerusalem. They wouldn’t have left their home and migrate to a despot area on the borders of their nation. As well as, in terms of timing, Islam came later, some few centuries after their migration to Arabia, so that does not mean the Jews who directly migrated at 70 to 99 AD were the ones whom Islamic authors later met. It would have been their children/ descendants, who would not have been nationalistic.


My Response:
Wow, you referenced Robert Eisenman in other arguments but not in this one? Totally amazing Abu. Congratulations. I know you're a cherry picker. You've been picking here and there every time I refute you. Ok, so now if it was the descendents of the migrating persons who met with Mohammad and his Sahaba, you really have no clue as to how close the beliefs of these distinct generations of Jews were do you? In fact, you have no idea which teachings were handed down successfully from one generation to the next all the way to the time of Mohammad do you? You have no idea what views of Jesus if any this migrating group had do you? You have no idea about any of this. Nor do you know what the other migrating Jews taught their children, and what was eventually presented to Mohammad. Interestingly, by this stage, the Jews at the time of Mohammad still had some knowledge of the Talmud, indicating that some of them would have been taught the talmud from previous generations. Whether or not those books still existed in their possession you cannot say. Too many unknowns you have Abu, and this is strongly reflected in the fact that I am still awaiting a shred of manuscript evidence from you about their beliefs of Jesus!

Royal Son said...

Abu said:

@Royalson,

In fact, Josephus in War of the Jews, Book 2, Chapter 8, paragraph 4, he states:

“ They have no one certain city, but many of them dwell in every city; and if any of their sect come from other places, what they have lies open for them, just as if it were their own; and they go in to such as they never knew before, as if they had been ever so long acquainted with them. For which reason they carry nothing at all with them when they travel into remote parts, though still they take their weapons with them, for fear of thieves. Accordingly, there is, in every city where they live, one appointed particularly to take care of strangers, and to provide garments and other necessaries for them. But the habit and management of their bodies is such as children use who are in fear of their masters.”

Indeed they were travelers to many unknown lands and thereby not restricted only to Judea.
As for your referencing of Josephus’ recalling of their oath, it’s an incorrect reading as these are command for a new convert to their group. Your referencing was to demonstrate they could not share their beliefs with anyone based on this statement:

“nor discover any of their doctrines to others”, which is funny because that’s not what it means, see the proper paragraph which reads that this is what they are teaching a person new to their faith, how can they teach and at the same time not teach to someone new (previously not) of their faith?


My Response:

No Abu. You failed again. My referencing the oath was not to demonstrate that they could not share their beliefs with anyone. It was to demonstrate their dilgence to preserving their teachings. But instead you want us to believe that they basically decided to leave their manuscripts in their caves and abandon them, travelling miles away, with no possibility of passing them onto their children. Nice strawman you made.

Abu said:

Furthermore, what it actually means is that he is not supposed to hide anything from his own sect not to explain/ spread/ discover any of their secrets or personal beliefs to anyone else.
As for taking oaths, nothing in those “oaths” stated that they’d be unable to migrate, nor assimilate into another culture, please specify where in the oath that it says that, as Josephus states that they wandered into cities with nothing of their own and had a person from their sect dress them, if they were dressing people who came with nothing, whose dress were they using? Simple! The people’s dress of that city, i.e. that culture. Your argument is invalid.


My Response:

Again, the purpose of using the oaths was to illustrate the seriousness with which they considered their scriptures and their teachings and the preservation thereof. As for the matter of clothing, are you trying to tell me that the Essenes went walking around naked from city to city? Is that what Muslims practice is it? That a person from their sect would dress them simply means that a person from their sect dresses them. Wow, what a tangent, and I STILL haven't seen any manuscript evidence from you on the Essenes' teachings about Jesus.

Radical Moderate said...

@ABU part 1
You continue to stretch the bounds of all reason and logical thought when you make the absurd claim.

Jesus according to the Essenes was the Messianic Prophet or the Teacher of Righteousness who was already among them, at their time:

My Response
Really ABU Jesus is now the Teacher of Righteousness lol.
I’m glad you found a copy of Geza Vermes I found it funny that in the debate you said I don’t know who Geza Vermes is, so at least you did learn something.
To back up your preposterous claim that Jesus was “the Teacher of Righteousness who was already among them, at their time, you give the following Quote”.

"If it is proper to deduce from these not too explicit data that, if ever expected by the Qumran sect, the messianic Prophet (or prophetic Messiah) was to teach the truth revealed on the eve of the establishment of the Kingdom, it would follow that his part was to all intents and purposes the same as that attributed by the Qumran Essenes to the Teacher of Righteousness. If this is correct, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that at some point of the sect’s history the coming of the Prophet was no longer expected; he was believed to have already appeared in the person of the Teacher of Righteousness." - The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, Geza Vermes, 7th Edition, pg 87.

My Response
Abu so you take a quote from Geza Vermes discussing the identity of the “Prophet” mentioned only once and somehow claim this is Jesus? Did you even read previously what Vermes wrote.

“Viewed in the context of inter-Testamental Jewish ideas, the Prophet was to be either an Elijah returned as a precursor of the Messiah (Mal. iv, 5; 1 Enoch xc, 31, 37; Matth. xi, 13; xvii, 12), or as a divine guide sent to Israel in the final days (1 Mac. iv, 46; xiv, 41; Jn. i, 21), no doubt identical with ‘the Prophet’ promised by God to Moses (‘I will raise up for them a prophet like you… He shall convey all my commands to them’, Deut. xviii, 15–18; cf. Acts iii, 22–3; vii, 37). An identification of ‘the Prophet’ with a ‘new Moses’ is supported by the inclusion of the Deuteronomy passage in the Messianic Anthology or Testimonia from Cave 4 (4Q175) as the first of three messianic proof-texts, the second being Balaam’s prophecy concerning the Star to rise out of Jacob (Num. xxiv, 15–17), and the third, the blessing of Levi by Moses (Deut. xxxiii, 11), prefiguring respectively the royal Messiah and the Priest-Messiah.”
Vermes, Geza (2004-06-24). The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (p. 87). Penguin UK. Kindle Edition.

So Abu tell me is the Islamic Jesus, a New Mosses? Is the Islamic Jesus Elijah? Also tell us if Jesus is the “Teacher of Righteousness and he is a Messiah” then who are the other Two Messiahs that they were waiting for?

Abu what you have done, what you did in our debate and what you continue to do is take various quotes by various authors and either make a conclusion that they never would do, or ascribe to them a conclusion that they would never dream of.

So Abu tell me is it Geza Vermes position that Jesus is the Teacher of Righteousness? Is it Robert Eisermens position that Jesus is the Teacher of Righteousness’? How did you conclude that the teacher of Righteousness is in fact Jesus?

Royal Son said...

Abu said:

@Royalson,
Now let’s switch your own criteria on you:

Big problem. Because your choice of either an amalgamated group of Jews or the Zealots, is filled with unproven assumptions. I hope you're good with Math also:


My Response:
Funny how you isolate the Zealots. I simply mentioned them to counter the claim that there were only 3 main sects of Judaism at the time of Jesus. The Catholic Encyclopedia spoke of 3 main sects that were flourishing in the 2nd Century BC. That was a different time period. I actually claimed that the Zealots were the group who migrated to Arabia. In fact I repeatedly claimed that I could not make a positive identification for this group precisely because we are not given any identification of that group in any source. Furthermore, the debate thesis was “Were the ESSENES the pre-mohammad islamic followers of Jesus” You were debating for the affirmative, thus the burden of proof fell upon you to prove that thesis. It was your job to provide the evidence that the group were Essenes.

Abu said:

Royalson provides 0% evidence that the amalgamated group of Jews or the Zealots left Judea during or after the Roman Siege instead of being slaughtered.


My Response:

IRRELEVANT - Not my job to identify the group that left Judea. The group is never identified in any historical source.

Abu said:

Royalson provides 0% evidence that the amalgamated group of Jews or the Zealots went to Arabia during or after the Roman Siege.


My Response:

IRRELEVANT – Not my job to identify the group that went to Arbaia during or after the Roman Siege. The group is never identified in any historical source. Furthermore, there were other migrations to Arabia that clearly were not the Essenes. Again, the burden of proof falls upon you, for you are the one positively asserting that the Essenes were the pre-Mohammad Islamic followers of Jesus. I'm challenging you to prove that positive assertion with evidence. So far, nothing has been brought to the table.

Abu said:

Royalson provides 0% evidence that the amalgamated group of Jews or the Zealots that migrated to Arabia was not a mixture of Jews from various backgrounds who agreed with Islamic authors and had little stud of the Torah.


My Response:

I don't have to. Again, the burden of proof falls upon you. It does not help your case that this group of Jews had little study of the Torah, because that in itself already infers that they brought a limited set of doctrines. Nor have any of your quotes stated that the Mohammaden authors agreed with everything that they did believe. They did have knowledge of the Talmud, which would imply that at least some of them had been taught by their Talmud abiding parents, and them, their parents respectively, and so on. Lastly, nothing here about their beliefs of Jesus.

Abu said:

Royalson provides 0% evidence that the group that migrated to Arabia believed the same things as the amalgamated group of Jews or the Zealots believed.


My Response:

Nor do I have to. The group is unidentifiable. The sources you appealed to stated as such, yet you wish to assert your position with no evidence. Again, learn the simple rules of engagement. It is the duty of the affirmative position to provide a positive case and the burden of proof falls upon them.

Abu said:

Royalson provides 0% evidence that the amalgamated group of Jews or the Zealots that migrated to Arabia believed Jesus was the Messiah.


My Response:

Nor do I have to. Where do you get the idea that this migrating group of Jews believed that Jesus was the Messiah? I never asserted such a thing. But since you believe this, I will again ask you for the manuscript evidence.

Radical Moderate said...

@Abu Part 2

Abu you then continue to make the false claim
I already demonstrated evidences that they migrated to Arabia:

No you didn’t, the only thing you proved is that Jews migrated to Arabia at various points in time fleeing different persecutions going back to Nebechanezer, and took on the culture of the Arabs they lived with who at the time were Pagan. They adopted Arab names, Arab dress, and Arab Customs as their own. That a group of Jews who had limited knowledge of the bible, did not establish regular study who brought a limited knowledge of the Talmud, fled to Arabia after the war of 70 AD. You then just conclude that they were Essenes because they did not produce any Talmudic authority accept what Mohamadian authors considered. You also base your conclusion that Clair Tinsdale called the Mohamadians Jewish Heretics and that Mohamed borrowed so much of his new religion from the Jews of Arabia. That’s an interesting position Abu since I thought Islam came from ALLAH and not from the Jews. Are you saying that Mohamed got revelation from the JEWS?
Abu you then throw in some random quote about the Essenes from I don’t know since you never site a source.

UPDATE My brother Royalson has done a excellent job at exposing this nonsense.

“The Essenes also, as we call a sect of ours, were excused from this imposition. These men live the same kind of life as do those whom the Greeks call Pythagoreans, concerning whom I shall discourse more fully elsewhere.

My Response
What is interesting Abu is that you try to label a group of what can only be realistically and rationally described as “Nominal Jews” to a group of extremely religiously devout, extremely Zionist nationalist,. Everything we know about the Essenes is in direct opposition to Jews in Arabia. Down to the fact that the Jews of Arabia manufactured armor. The Essenes did not manufacture Armor.

Abu you continue with what can only be described as nonsense

As well as, we know they agreed with the special birth of the Messiah and that he would be the word of God:"4Q534 or 4QMess ar)
[V5/522, GM/263, WAC/428] He is the Elect One of God. His birth and the exhalation of his breath [are from God]".


My Response
Yes the Essenes where first century Jews so its good to know they held a first century Jewish idea about the Messiah. And yes it is a 1st century Jewish belief that the Messiah would have a miraculous birth. The Targums also say the Messiah will be the Memra of God. So thanks for proving that for us, what we already know.

Abu You continue on miss Representing Geza Vermes.

See Geza Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls Collection, pg 87, 7th Ed., where it is mentioned the Messiah was already among them. Then proceed to page 189, wherein your reference is cited shows a broken verse. Actually, all we have are pieces of a phrase/ sentence that cannot be used to demonstrate that he would kill anyone. However it is from the Masoretic text, and if we approach that text, we see in Yeshayahu 11, it refers to the Messiah leading the Bani Isra'il to victory in conquering all of the Jewish peoples back to Israel, something already prophesied in Yeshayahu 43:5-6.

My Response
Abu Geza Vermes does not say the Messiah was already with them. Geza Vermes position is that the Prophet only mentioned once is a “Possible Third Messiah” and that he is the Teacher of Righteousness who is the founder of the Community. Now if you want to say the Pre Islamic Jesus lived for 200 to 300 years that would be a new twist. As far as the broken verse there is only two possible ways it could be read. “He killed” or “Had Killed” or as Robert Eiserman has it “He was killed”. So you choose was the Mesiah the branch of David Killed or did he Kill someone. So if you disagree with that then take it up with the scholars who have worked on the DSS scrolls I’m sure they would love to laugh at you just as much as we are laughing at you now.

Radical Moderate said...

@Abu Part 3

You continue to demonstrate your total lack of reading comprehension skills when you write…

. However it is from the Masoretic text, and if we approach that text, we see in Yeshayahu 11, it refers to the Messiah leading the Bani Isra'il to victory in conquering all of the Jewish peoples back to Israel, something already prophesied in Yeshayahu 43:5-6.

My Response

So the Kittim are Jews that are being conquered? Wow stretching the bounds of all reason and logic.

You then ask me

Also, what do you have to say of this?
": “Neither the suffering of the Messiah, nor his death and resurrection appear to have been part of the faith of first-century Judaism.”" - Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew (Philadelphia, 1981), p. 38.


My Response
I do not have to deal with your pathetic attempt to run from the debate topic as well as the topic of this discussion. Whether or not the Jews or the Essenes of the first century believed in the suffering of the Messiah or not is irrelevant to the topic. You have to prove that they believed in JESUS that they knew Jesus and now that he was their righteous teacher and all the other nonsensical claims you continue to make.

With that said I will respond.e Geza Vermes
My brother Royaslon has done an excellent job of proving this claim to be false, but now I will use Geza Vermes and the DSS manuscripts to refute Geza Vermes.

“It seems that there are some allusions suggesting that the eschatological High Priest was expected to undergo suffering and humiliation before being glorified (see 4Q471b, 491 fr. 11, 541, fr. 9).”
Vermes, Geza (2004-06-24). The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (p. 86). Penguin UK. Kindle Edition.

“The editor of the second text, Esther Eshel, proposes the more likely interpretation that the speaker of the hymn is the eschatological high priest, first humiliated by his opponents before sharing the glory of the ‘gods’ or ‘holy ones’.
Vermes, Geza (2004-06-24). The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (p. 342). Penguin UK. Kindle Edition.

You then continue
I suggest you read his other books, because when I start referencing them, you're going to need to read everything he says. To put it lightly, start saving, you're going to need to buy a lot more of his works.

My Response
I find it interesting that you are suggesting I read his other works, when in fact you didn’t even know who he was during the debate. I seriously doubt you have any of his works. However if you do I would suggest that you actually READ and understand what he is writing before you post quotes.
Might I also suggest a few other authors on the DSS find, actual scholars who worked on them not authors who write fiction like Robert Eiserman.

Scholars like Martin G Abeqq, Peter Flint, and Eugen Ulrich.

By the way you keep referencing the DSS as the Masoretic text and you seem to believe that the Masoretic text is superior to the Septuagint reading.

If you actually have Geza Vermes works or get any of the works I have suggested, you’re in for a shocker. But I will leave that for another time.

Royal Son said...

Abu said:

@Royalson,

As for your appeal to authority on the oaths they took, it’s quite fanciful, not all of them would have had the same amount of knowledge. This is a fact, they would have differed in terms of knowledge and understanding of their own doctrine, especially as Josephus in Chapter 7, Paragrpah 13, where they have children and wives, would their children and wives know as much as their husbands? Would they know as much as their husband’s teachers? Think.

Then give an educated response.


My Response:

Now, you would be referring to the subset of Essenes who allowed marriage. Was it that group of Essenes that you believe migrated while the ones holding to celibacy were not involved in the migrattion or do you believe it was a combination of the two? I still have yet to see any manuscript evidence that this migrating group consisted of any Essenes at all. Of course the knowledge of each person would have differed, and the example of wives and children is a good example. However, it would still be the intent of the Essenes to ensure the preservation of their texts and teachings. However, you want us to believe that they simply cast them aside and moved to Arabia. I'm not sure why you come to this conclusion.

Abu said:

I read the oaths, which one of their oaths spoke that they were scribes or studiers of the law? None. Which of their oaths dictated that they stud y the law? None. So what oaths are you saying I am ignoring? What oaths indicate that they had to study the law as you state? Again, more assumptions, zero evidence.


My Response:

"that he will be perpetually a lover of truth, and propose to himself to reprove those that tell lies; that he will keep his hands clear from theft, and his soul from unlawful gains; and that he will neither conceal any thing from those of his own sect, nor discover any of their doctrines to others, no, not though anyone should compel him so to do at the hazard of his life. Moreover, he swears to communicate their doctrines to no one any otherwise than as he received them himself; that he will abstain from robbery, and will equally preserve the books belonging to their sect, and the names of the angels (5) [or messengers]. These are the oaths by which they secure their proselytes to themselves."
Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book II, Chapter VIII, Section 7.

Perpetually a lover of truth: Does that truth include what He considers to be the inspired word of God?

Equally preserve the books belonging to their sect: Just abandon them in caves?

Abu said:
As for them abandoning their traditions, where did I indicate that they did this? I said they assimilated with the Arabs, just as much as they did in the other cities and nations they ventured to, Greece, Egypt, Syria. If you don’t comprehend what cultural assimilation is, then I’d be willing to take you to my previous college and have you sit in a class where we were educated in these things. Not a problem.


My Response: Their scripture is a part of their tradition, and you believe they simply discarded it and left it in caves.

Royal Son said...

Abu said:

You said:
“ You want the audience to believe you that this group of Essenes would just "tuck their scriptures away" and abandon them completely. I must say, there is only one line in your argumentation that I do find compelling -that it is a group of people who would willingly cast aside the scriptures, vows, and diligent practices that you would identify as Muslims. ”

That’s what they did, they hid their scriptures from being destroyed and today that’s why we have them. So no, I don’t want my audience to believe me, I want them to believe the manuscripts of the DSS which exist today because of them, implausibly as you implied, “tucking away their scriptures”. As for the group which migrated to Arabia being unlearned in the reading of the Torah, I’ll use your argument against you.


My Response:

What purpose would it serve the Essenes to abandon their scriptures? Their oath speaks of preserving their books. That doesn't mean storing them thousands of miles away. That means keeping them in your possession so that you can pass them onto the next generation.

Abu said:

It’s plausible by your argument as you claim they only kept their doctrine to themselves, therefore to others they would seemed unlearned of their scriptures, as it would not be preached to them. Thanks for proving my argument for me. Now to turn it on you, can you demonstrate if according to you the amalgamated group of Jews or the Zealots held such a belief or were unlearned in the teaching of the Torah?


My Response: There you've gone and shot yourself in the foot again. So now you're saying that the Mohammaden authors would have considered them unlearned in the scriptures because their teachings would not be preached to them. Haha, so in other words, the Mohammaden authors didn't really get much out of them. So then how can you conclude that they got the beliefs of Jesus out of them? You don't realise how often you keep contradicting yourself Abu. It's quite sad really.

Royal Son said...

Abu said:
@Royalson,

As for your statement that they had the Talmud, and you using this excerpt:

“ but from various passages in the Mishnah (Shab. vi. 6; Ohalot xviii. 10) may be inferred the existence of Jewish settlements in northern Arabia (?ijaz) shortly after the destruction of the Second Temple.

Yes, Ijaz is my name, inform your boss, Radical of that please, thanks. As for this quote, I think you need to learn to read, it doesn’t say they wrote this into the Talmud, rather the converse is present, that the Talmud records groups of Jews migrating to Arabia.


My Response:

Whether or not they physically had the Talmud in their possession is irrelevant. That this generation would have knowledge of the Talmud infers that they had learnt it from their parents. As such, what we do know is that their forefathers followed the Talmud. You ought to know that the Talmud speaks very negatively of Jesus. Still want to insist that this group were followers of Jesus?

Abu said:How this proves they had the Talmud is beyond me. Even your other reference is worse:

“. They evidently brought some knowledge of the Bible, the Talmud, and the prayer-book with them”

They had knowledge of the Talmud, how does that mean they brought the Talmud with them? They evidently had to know of the Talmud which was used by the Pharisees, the very next statement from your reference, clearly destroys any notion that they had the Talmud with them:

“ but it does not appear that regular study had found a home among them, nor did they produce any rabbinic authority”


My Response:

There you go again. You wilfully omit parts of quotes. You did this with the reference to the sun reverence in the Catholic Encylopedia, and you are doing it again here. Why can't you allow the full quote to stand Abu? It does not say tha tthey didn't produce any Rabbinic Authority, it says they didn't produce any Rabbinic authority beyond that which was considered by Mohammaden authors.

Earlier you suggested that this group would have suppressed their teachings from the Mohammedan authors giving the appearance that they were not well studied by way of applying their oath. In doing so, your point about not producing any rabbinic authority is completely negated. You see, you have to invoke the oath of the Essenes in order to try to prove that they didn't have the Talmud, yet you have not even established that this group were the Essenes to begin with!

Abu said:

How could they have the Talmud, but then not produce any Rabbinic authority. The Talmud is from Rabbinic authority. Your argument is self contradicting. Clearly.
It’s unfortunate Royalson, that you’re not familiar with the very references that you quote for your argument. I’m not sure if you just repeat whatever you heard me saying because you think it makes you sound like you know what you’re talking about. In actual fact, you seem to be ignorant of the material itself.


If I was so ignorant of these references, why is it that I have to keep correcting you on the quotes? And again, the fact that this generation in Arabia had knowledge of the Talmud centuries after the migration of their forefathers certainly implies that such Talmudic knowledge had been passed onto them by them. Again, the reference says “no Rabbinic authority beyond that which was considered by Mohammaden authors. That does not mean no Rabbinic authority at all. Please read the sources carefully before you form your arguments.

Royal Son said...

Abu said:

As for your argument that the prospect of the Essenes assuming other identities (which is proven true, in Greece the Pythagoreans, in Egypt the Therapeuts, and in Syria the Essenes) as being not a good prospect. Then you have much to study. What you consider Jewish and what we consider Jewish is not the same. Recall, I spoke in terms of lineage, as assimilation would mean that they intermixed in copulation with the local inhabitants of their immediate environment to which they settled in.


My Response

The Pythagoreans were polytheists.
Just because they may have had some similar practices obviously does not mean they were the same group. You're trying to push the same thing with the Therapeuts. Just because of similarities that existed among them does not mean they were the same group.

I recommend you read up on the differences between the Essenes and the Therapeuts in The Alexandrian Philo Judaeus: The Platonizing Hebraist's Complete Message 1909, page 87 under the heading “III. Therapeut-Essenic Differences”.

As for the Essenes in Syria, if you have compelling evidence that the Essenes migrated there, I would like to see it.

Abu said:

That does not negate them being Muslim followers of Jesus, as we don’t hold Christ to be in Jew in terms of religion, that’s a Christian belief, not Islamic.
If Jesus was a Jew, as you so presuppose, then he would not have killed himself, nor would Jesus as a Jew claim to be God, as this is blasphemy and one is to be stoned for such a claim. Nor can Jesus be a religious Jew and at the same time bring a new religion, that of Christianity.


My Response:

It would be blasphemy for Jesus to claim to be God unless.........He is God! Too bad you made a categorical fallacy and forced the application of a mere creature to Jesus, and yet Abu, there are no texts that you have produced for us so far where the Essenes denied the Deity of Jesus Christ.

Abu said:

Also, your argument of Acts 15 is irrelevant to our discussion. I am showing from that Chapter that race based salvation isn’t a belief held by all Messianic Jewish sects as is the ruling of James the Just. Other than that I have no idea why you’re discussing this chapter.


My Response: My mention of Acts 15 was to test your consistency. If it was good enough for you to quote from to discuss race-based salvation, then how about the rest of what it says? Namely that Barnabas, whom you believe wrote the Gospel of Barnabas, was a co-worker with Paul, whom you despise!

Royal Son said...

Abu said:
@Royalson,
You claim:
“ You stated in the debate that this group of Jews adopted the practices of their Arab neighbours as per the Jewish Encyclopedia.

Actually no, I said they assimilated with the Arab peoples. This whole premise, has the modus operandi that the person understands cultural assimilation, norms and values within societies, that is you atleast studied some form of Semitic anthropology.


My Response:

From your debate with Radical Moderate I quote:”Ultimately they hardly differed from the Arabs whose customs and cultural practices they adopted not only in the matter of tribal life but also in other respects.” Don't tell me you didn't say this in the debate when it's there for everyone to see at http://www.youtube.com/martyrmaker07 at around the 6:45 mark in your opening statement.

Then strangely, you go on to say the following at around the 7:56 mark: “Given historical information that I just provided we know that they agreed on many many principles to the extent that these Jews assimilated a lot into Arab culture.”

Now that's just plain weird Abu, your stating that the assimilation of the group into Arab culture was based upon their agreeing on many principles. With who Abu? With the Mohammaden authors? No, you've already stated that the assimilation took place much earlier in time by marrying into the Arab peoples. So tell me what principles these Essenes as you allege, agreed with the pagan Arabs when they chose to intermarry?

Abu said:Which, I very much doubt on your behalf, whether Semitic or otherwise. They assimilated as I explained above by intermarrying for copulation with the local inhabitants of their immediate habitat.

It has nothing to do with adopting religion or cultural practices, it has to do with them continuing the survival of their group by establishing new colonies in previously unsettled land, by copulating with the local populace.


My Response:
You are refuted by your own words in the debate. I will allow the listeners to decide on that one. Nice try Abu.

Abu said:

Therefore, for my intents and purposes, demonstrating that they did not believe in salvation through race or by birth.


My Response:

I never claimed that the group believed in salvation by race. That is a complete red herring. Total strawman. I'm stating that if they hardly differed from their Arab neighbours and adopted their customs and practices, then you have a problem, because Arabia was pagan in its practice during that time. You have no way to get around this.

Abu said:As for this statement of yours:

“. In fact, one more assumption you make is that when the Jewish Encyclopedia mentions a GROUP of Jews that it equates to a SECT of Jews. Huge assumption there. Where do you get the idea that the groupwhich migrated was composed purely of a single sect let alone that sect being the Essenes?”.

You did the same, as you singled out the Zealots and then you changed your mind and said it could have been an amalgamated group of Jews. So applying your own argument on yourself, where do you get the idea that this group was a single sect or comprising of several sects? You’re going to have to pick up your game Royalson, your Kurios Radical isn’t going to be pleased.


My Response:

I have never made a positive assertion as to who the group was that migrated to Arabia. As I have seen no evidence as to what this group comprised of, I will go with what the Jewish Encyclopedia says on this one in that there is hardly any clue as to their origin. Keep trying Abu.

Royal Son said...

Abu said:@Royalson,

You claimed:

“ What's the matter Abu? Didn't you want to quote the rest of what Epiphanius says there? Look's like I have to do your work for you again. Let's read your quote with what follows after it

Actually, to the contrary, I specifically pointed out why I didn’t take Epiphanius’ statement seriously:

"And since we do not seem to have any writings from anyone who belonged to the group, we cannot be certain either. This lack of primary source material is much to be regretted. Surely some of these people wrote treatises that advanced their views and defended them as necessary. But as no such writing survives, we must base our understanding on the words of their opponents, sometimes taking their claims with a pound of salt. Since some of these reports are inconsistent with others, it may be that there were a variety of Ebionite groups, each with its own distinctive understanding of some aspects of their faith." - Lost Christianities, B. Ehrman, pg 100.


My Response:

I'm not surprised Abu. This is typical of Islamic apologetics, you cherry pick bits here and there which seem to agree with your position and throw out the rest, even if the parts you accept are in the context of or include information that destroys your argument.

Abu said:

So in answer to your question, the assertions of Epiphanius point to some subsects within their group, they may be inaccurate or they may even be made up, as the patristic sources hold no consistency towards their belief. The only consistent point as I indicated was that at one point some of them held Christ to be conceived of a man, which was later retracted by other followers.
Basically, what my quotes means is that I have a pretty strong idea of what the Ebionites believed, but the inconsistent attributions of incorrect doctrinal teachings by proto-orthodox Christians who fought them, and burned their books, is a problem for you all. While I can assert certain beliefs were consistent due to Patristic sources being in some agreement, where they differ I can easily dismiss as being inconsistent and thus lacking reliability. Thus it aids me in making a specific identification as to their beliefs by way of proof by contradiction or by negating the set of beliefs uncommon to their universal set of beliefs.


My Response:

Please demonstrate the contradictory attributions of the Church Fathers regarding the subsets of the Ebionites. Then once you've done that, please demonstrate the belief that ONE subset believed that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary. Please show me your sources so I can see what you take as valid. Simply trying to dismiss Epiphanius shortly after appealing to him in the same breath by invoking Bart Ehrman does not bode well for your credibility, sorry to say.

Royal Son said...

Abu said:

As for your statement:
“ You think it is unlikely that Pharisees could be poorly studied in the bible, I'll let the gospel of Matthew speak: Chapter 22, verses 41-46:”

You’d need to do better than that as Matthew 1:1 opposes Matthew 22, in being that there is a contradiction which I expound more upon in this article from my website:

“ whosoever wrote Matthew 22, really had not seen Matthew 1, as it argues Jesus is the son of David:
This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
Whereas Matthew 22 argues that Jesus is not the son of David, but the Lord of David, Matthew 1 argues that Jesus is the son of David and has no mention of him having lordship over anyone. It’s one mistake to have an epistle contradict a gospel, but to have a gospel contradicting itself, let alone the very first verse of the New Testament? Highly appalling to say the least.

Of which you can read in its entirety here: http://callingchristians.com/bible/


My Response: Jesus being both God and man refutes your argument. As a man, he descended from David. As God, He is His Lord and pre-exists Him. Do yourself a favour and free up the bandwish of your server for more serious objections.

And obviously you would think that the Pharisees are poorly learnt anyway since they misapplied scripture, rejecting Jesus as their Messiah, rejecting Him as being born of a virgin, and believing in his crucifixion!

Royal Son said...

Abu said:@Royalson,

You claimed:
“ As I have demonstrated, the “differences” do not include a virgin birth”.

Please learn to read:

“ 3,1 And at first, as I said, Ebion declared that Christ is the offspring of a man, that is, of Joseph. For a while now, however, various of his followers have been giving confl icting accounts of Christ, as though they have decided on something untenable and impossible themselves.

As this quote clearly points out, this was a belief of some, but they varied in this belief after sometime.


My Response:
And then Epiphanius goes on to EXPLAIN what those differences were, none of which agree with Islam, and at that point you pushed the eject button as your argument took a nose dive into the realm of total destruction.

Abu said:

This was my point:

“ Existed during the time of Jesus, fulfills most criteria. If they were eliminated before or right after Jesus you would have a point, otherwise you don't.”.

Your counter argument was this:

“ As I have already demonstrated
from the Catholic Encyclopedia itself, the Essenes disappeared toward the end of the first century. There's no further record of them. You have only presented a string of assumptions without a shred of evidence. Your point is lost.”.

My response is simple, they disappeared from Judea, and that is well known, however we know they reappeared according to Josephus in Syria, Greece and Egypt under varying names and sometimes, under the same name. Your statement that there exists no further record of them, is due to your own ignorance of Josephus’ writings, which clearly contradict you entirely.


My Response:

Considering that the Pythagoreans believed in Polytheism, and the Therepeuts differed in many respects of practice, please forgive me if I take your claims with a truckload of salt.

Royal Son said...

Abu said:

As for your statement of:

“But to answer your question, yes I have read the Gospel of Barnabas. The fact that you deny that this gospel denies the Messiahship of Jesus tells me that you yourself have not read it! Allow me to educate you”.

I have read it and the answer to your claim is simple, just as how you interpret Jesus saying he is not good: "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone., similarly using the same line of reasoning that Christians employ in this verse, Jesus is pointing out that he is the Messiah but not the Messiah whom they wish to have, he is merely as he says:

“I am a voice that cries through all Judea, and cries: "Prepare you the way for the messenger of the Lord," even as it is written in Esaias;."


My Response:

Hahahaha. Oh man this is hilarious. In order to maintain your position of upholding the Gospel of Barnabas, you actually have to rely upon an alleged Christian argument which you yourself reject as a Muslim! Please be aware that you are comparing apples and oranges, for in the Gospel of Barnabas Jesus positively states that He is not the Messiah. Yet in the Gospels, Jesus does not say “I am not good”, rather He asks a question, “Why do you call me good? There is none that is good but God.” Now was Jesus saying He's not good here? No. In fact, He also refers to Himself as the Good Shepherd. With the Gospel of Barnabas however, Jesus says He is not the Messiah. You want to tell me that “I am not the Messiah” does not mean “I am not the Messiah.” Therefore, not only will I laugh again at your desperate and ridiculous argument, I will ask you where the Qur'an ever refers to anyone but Jesus as the Messiah? Where does the Qur'an call Mohammad the Messiah? Good luck with that one.

Abu said:

He’s one messenger, preparing the way for the messenger next to come.

Again, I’m using the same line of reasoning that Christians such as yourself use to interpret Mark 10:8. If my reasoning is false, then simply accept that Jesus is admitting he isn’t good and only God is, otherwise if that verse is claiming he is God, then the verse from the Gospel of Barnabus is claiming he is the Messiah. Same line of reasoning, shouldn’t be a problem for you.


My Response:

Again, Jesus is not claiming He is not good. He is questioning a person about why they call Him good. Likewise, Jesus is not the messenger preparing the way for Mohammad. This goes back to Isaiah which speaks of preparing the way for YHWH God! Are you calling Mohammad YHWH? Naughty naughty Abu. How many holes are you going to dig for yourself?

Royal Son said...

Abu said@Royalson,

As for your claim:

“ It can mean master in a
generic context, but in a religious context it refers to the one true God.”

Actually no, as indicated in Bereishit 23, it means Master, not Lord as in a divine being. Also, to recall, this is the base word fallacy, a sub fallacy of the word study fallacy. If the Jews used a certain word in one way according to their understanding for their religious purposes, you cannot apply such an understanding to an entirely different faith. To prove me wrong, demonstrate for me how your use of this term does not contravene the word study fallacy, something which Anthony has thus failed to do despite his rabid ranting, much like yours.


My Response:

Abu, I dare you to declare yourself to be a slave of Allah and the glorious Lord Jesus Christ. In fact, make a public declaration on your website that you are such. The Epistle of James not only goes squarely against Islamic theology on the person of Jesus, it also goes against Islam by stating that Isaac was the child of sacrifice, not Ishmael!

Abu said:

This concludes my response to the inane and inept, Royalson, slave of Radical, as he is arguing for Radical, who is at present, unable to do anything more than mock my accent.

I therefore hope that Royalson can fulfill the following criteria that the (a) amalgamated group of Jews or (b) the Zealots as he stated could have been the groups who migrated to Arabia, fulfill the following criteria:

1. The true Messiah
2. Born of a virgin
3. Not crucified
4. Not the son of God
5. Not divine
6. A mighty messenger of God


My Response:

There you have it folks. We got this far with Abu, and he still presenting not a scrap of manuscript evidence showing that the Essenes fulfilled the criteria of the debate. Thank you so much Abu for proving to us once again that Islam does not have the historical Jesus and that you have very little idea of how to debate, insisting the negative side disproves a universal negative instead of you presenting positive evidence to support your thesis “Were the Essenes the pre-Mohammad Islamic followers of Jesus?”

Abu said:

If not, then he concedes that it was either the Ebionites or the Essenes whom I have established clearly held these beliefs.
Royalson, minion of Radical, it’s your move.
My Response:

And once again, he demonstrates his uncertainty as to which of these two groups were the pre-Mohammad Islamic followers of Jesus. It's one or the other. Your presentation was a complete shambles Abu. You have my deepest condolences.

Royal Son said...

Derek, you're right. He hasn't provided a shred of evidence and the joke of it all is that when I call him on it he turns it around and asks me to prove which group migrated to Arabia even though there are no historical sources identifying the group! This has been my position all along. I could care less about a group migrating to Arabia, but Abu used this as an essential component to his debate, even though his presentation concedes that there were other migrations than just this one. So with no positive evidence to identify the group that migrated, nor the groups that migrated at other times, he is simply in desperation mode.

Abu, you failed miserably. There was no prevailing pre Mohammad group that believed in the Islamic Jesus. You are following a myth my friend!

Radical Moderate said...

@Royalson

I almost forgot about this until Proved to us he is a Muslim.

Abu wrote to you...

"Note now, how absurd your reasoning is, not once did I reference
Robert Eisenman in this argument, I may have only referenced his name once but not in this argument."


In a response to me on THIS ARGUMENT Abu Writes...

"What writings? Name me one scroll from the DSS find or a fragment that mentions James.

See:
‘It would thus seem that the Qumran community was equivalent to the ‘early Church’ based in Jerusalem ö the ‘Nazoreans’ who followed James, ‘the Lord’s brother’. Indeed, the ‘Habakkuk Commentary’ states explicitly that Qumran’s ruling body, the ‘Council of the Community’, was actually located at the time in Jerusalem.And in Acts 9:2, the members of the ‘early Church’ are specifically referred to as ‘followers of the Way’ ö a phrase identical with Qumran
usage.’ - Eisenman, James the Just in the Habakkuk Pesher, pages 7 - 10 and The Habakkuk Commentary, 12.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Royalson,

"Admit it Abu, you cited a sentence in Israel Knohl's work, without even realising the intent of his book!".

If you watched the debate, then you would know the opposite is actually the truth. I referenced him a few times in his grasping of the reality of Jesus' life in relation to the Essenes and his functioning among them.

"Now it's funny that you appeal to a view which rests on the "lack of authetic historical documents which provide a first person verbatim source" as you say.

Actually, if you read Israel's book, he states that the view of the majority of scholars are aligned with mines, i.e. no suffering Messiah.

"Let's test your consistency Abu - Do you have authentic historical documents which provide a first person verbatim source for the Essenes? You talk about going with the majority view."

DSS. Simple.

"Let me test you on this line for consistency also - Do the majority of Scholars consider the Essenes to be the one sect to have migrated to Arabia prior to Mohammad ? Do the majority of scholars consider the death of Jesus Christ by way of crucifixion to be a historical event?".

The Essenes also known in Greece as the Pythagoreans, in Egypt as the Therapeuts, and in Syria as the Essenes.So yes, whether you are educated enough to grasp it, they did spread throughout Arabia at varying points in time.

We as Muslims also consider the death of someone in the place of the Messiah to be valid. So someone was crucified, whether or not he's the son of God, a Messiah, a Jewish rebel, a bastard as the Jews claim, or a Prophet is all up for discussion.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Royalson,

"Ok, so you copy/pasted a reference and quote from the back of Knohl's book - The Messiah before Jesus.".

Please don't cast aspersions. Those views are from the introduction. Or for your understanding, in the front of the book.

"Abu do you even realise what you're doing here? Your spitting out these references as if they're supposed to bolster your case.".

They do, I present the case that the Messiah is not one to have been killed and then resurrected, of which Israel states was the majority view in his book.

"Do you believe Israel Knohl's position? Do you find his arguments credible? If not, then why do you keep quoting the guy when his position goes squarely against your thesis?".

Please read his book or watch the debate between your Theos and I, he opens the book by exploring Jesus' time with the Essenes, something which I would agree with.

"If you don't find the position convincing, don't quote it or reference it.".

Those quotes agree with the understanding that there is no historical basis for the claim of a suffering/ dead/ resurrected Messiah, why then, would I not reference them?

CallingChristians.com said...

@Royalson,

"With regards to Sanhedrin 98b, the purpose if you may recall was not for me to show that Jesus was believed by these Rabbis to be the Messiah, for I certainly do not hold the Talmud as a source of infallible inspiration. It simply is a document the reflects some rabbinical opinions and teachings of its time.".

Sorry, let's apply your own criteria on the use of a citation or reference:

"Now you quoted for me the reference, so I'm going to ask you Royalson, have you read the entire Talmudic works? Have you read all of the Talmud ? have you read the Jewish commentaries on the Talmud? Do you think the Talmud's positions agrees with the Jesus of the Bible? Did the Rabbinic Jews believe in a Jesus Christ who performed miracles? Did the Rabbinic Jews believe Jesus was the prophesied Messiah? Did the Rabbinic Jews believe that Jesus was born of a virgin? What kind of a Jesus does the Talmud present Royalson?

I'm asking you this, because it seems that every time you provide a reference and I go to what the reference actually has to say, destroying your case, you tell me that you don't believe it. If you don't find the position convincing, don't quote it or reference it.
"

With that, we have your own argument, collapsing on you.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Royalson,

"Furthermore, the link to the being named a leper scholar was found in their applying Isaiah 53 to this person because this one who bears the griefs and sorrows of Israel!

Please try to understand your own God-man/ Demi-god before arguing with me on him, see verse 10:

" And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him ill; if his soul makes itself restitution, he shall see children, he shall prolong his days, and God's purpose shall prosper in his hand."

So your God made Jesus ill with leprosy is what you're claiming? He was called the leper scholar because he was stricken with the illness.

"We can note that Jesus not only did such, but he likewise mingled with and healed lepers and those of all kinds of diseases. Was Christ ill? Yes, He was dying! I'd call that pretty ill wouldn't you?".

Was he dying of leprosy? What illness was he suffering that caused him to die?

"Did he have children? Yes, spiritually, through the miracle of resurrection. Your questioning reflects the same kind of misunderstanding as Nicodemus in John 3:4."

Please note your logic does not follow through. Either the entire passage points to either spiritual illness and spiritual children or physical illness and physical children. Otherwise, you have to demonstrate where the Jews believed in either or, or neither nor as is the case with your argument.

"I repeat, my citing of these works is not to show that the Talmudic authors believed Jesus to be the Messiah, for they were certainly against Jesus, but the concept of a dying and rising Messiah was certainly not foreign to them. That was my point."

Nothing from Yeshayahu indicates a dying Messiah, suffering perhaps, but dying? No. Cut from the land of the living? Means he was exiled according to the Judaic commentary:

"The tribulations that befell him, for from the beginning, he was cut off and exiled from the land of the living that is the land of Israel for because of the transgression of my people, this plague came to the righteous among them."

Therefore your argument is invalid.

"Finally, considering that the group of Jews that migrated to Arabia brought the Talmud with them."

Nothing indicates they brought the Talmud with them. They had some knowledge of it as the CE indicates but as for bringing it with them? None. Otherwise why would they quote say they had little study of the Torah? That's a contradiction in your reading and thinking.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 310   Newer› Newest»