Monday, November 18, 2013

I am having this debate in a few days. It is on Paltalk which I have never used before. Please pray for my preparation and use Paltalk.

In Christ
Samuel Green


Zack_Tiang said...

Ijaz Ahmad... oh dear.... =/
I fear the intellectual honesty,but it has been a while since I seen Ijaz.

simple_truth said...

Surely, Samuel, people ( including I ) will be praying for you and your success in defending your position as a testimony to our Lord Jesus Christ.

I will make a note to tune in. Now, I have to set up my Paltalk. At least I have several hours to do it.

Looking forward to the debate. I always appreciate you debating skills and preparation. Now go and "knock 'em dead".

TAREK said...

Please GOD, we will all proclaim the positive outcome of this debate. He likes to repeat and using words out of context, making noises to create confusion , so please call him on those.

Samuel my GOD is with you and the HOLY SPIRIT will do the rest before during and after the debate. Amen
GOD BLESS you all

Unknown said...

Would it be possible to record the debate?

rivan said...

Bro Samuel I recently downloaded paltalk, can u give us your details and the chat room where we can observe this debate. Thanks. I will pray for you. God bless.

Radical Moderate said...

My dear brother Green. if you need help with PT let me know. But after the debate un install it and RUN away from Paltalk :)

Samuel Green said...

You can listen into the debate at:

Social Issues and Politics >> Human Rights >> Answering Christianity

Nakdimon said...

Oh dear... So how did the debate go?

Radical Moderate said...

Samuel Green gave an excellent presentation on the incarnation being foretold in the Old Testament Scriptures by the prophets. To bad it wasted on Ijaz, whos only argument was "It is just silly"

Ijaz quoted Pastor Green from a previous debate where Pastor Green said words to the effect of "To understand the incarnation we must listen to God, and God speaks to us through the prophets". He is actually shocked that Samuel Green would say such a thing and even commented "He actually said this" and then goes on to say that this is confirmation bias.

So Bro Green says that to understand God, we must listen to God, and God speaks through his prophets. Samuel Green quotes in his debate a multitude of Prophets and what they teach on the incarnation and to Ijaz this is confirmation bias. To be honest I don't think Ijaz knows what confirmation bias means.

Moving on, Ijaz then continues to very rapidly ramble on quoting various people from Dr White to Athanasius on the complexity of the nature of God and the incarnation. Of corse know Muslim apologist would be worth his salt if he did not quote liberal scholars like Jimmy Dunn. On this point Ijaz did not disappoint.

Ijaz then concludes his rambling rant with "the incarnation does not make any sense ... it is just silly"

Through out the entire debate, Ijaz never once addressed any of the quotes from the prophets, instead he seemed to go way off the reservation and instead not only misrepresent what Christians believe, but also history as well as what Greek Philosophers, and Greek Mythology teaches.

For some reason Ijaz thinks that Christians having disagreements on doctrinal issues is a sign that Christianity is false. He even made the foolish claim that Christians were killing each other for 425 years before the doctrine of the Trinity was finally solidly established.

I would point out to Ijaz that if Christians disagreeing on doctrinal issues is a sign that our faith is false. Then Islam must be false since it took a few hundred years to establish Aqeda, and Tawheed and even to stamp out the very popular belief that the Quran was created and Allah had NO PARTS.

Radical Moderate said...

Debate review continued.

Ijaz kept asking for any prophet that taught the incarnation. If Ijaz would of been listening to Pastor Greens opening statement which was just peppered with those vary quotes then Ijaz would not have needed to ask such a foolish question.

Ijaz also asked for or said that no Jew believed in a incarnation. He even said something about a WHITE GUY with Blue eyes lol. I guess Ijaz doesnt know that Jesus was a Jew and not a "White Guy", and the early Christians who did believe that Jesus was in fact God in Man where JEWS.

Pastor Green in the Cross X points to Dan 7 as proof that the prophets foretold the incarnation.

Ijaz response, "since the divine figure is GIVEN this authority this means there is a change and so the divine figure can not be God."

During the audience questions I responded to Ijaz's challenge to show him one Jew that believed in a incarnation. I asked Ijaz what he thought about a passage from the Zohar which states, "There is in fact one perfect Man, he is the Metatron, who is YHWH...."

He demonstrates that not only will he throw his own weak methodology out of the window with his response "That is the minority we go with the Majority".

So Ijaz asks for one Jew, I provide that one Jew and he just dismisses that one Jew as the minority. Not only that, but since Ijaz relies on scholars like Jimmy Dunn and others he ignores the majority position of those scholars because they all teach that Jesus Christ was crucified and died on the Cross.

Over all Pastor Green did a excellent job demonstrating the deity and incarnation of Christ from the Old Testament. To bad his debate opponent was not up to he task of engaging the topic.

Radical Moderate said...

Other notes on the debate.

From the start Ijaz demonstrated his immaturity when before the start of the debate. Ijaz was on the microphone and made a really inappropriate remark.

He said that Sammi Zatari was messaging him on Facebook and then read the message.

"Sammi said 'I think Pastor Green is a very good looking bloke I wonder if he is single"

Ijaz continued with his immaturity during the debate. At one point Ijaz responds to a question from Pastor Green saying "That is a very good question I congratulate you for asking such a question."

It's to bad that Pastor Green could not congratulate Ijaz for giving a good answer. But such is the world of Ijaz.

Ijaz was extremely nasty through out the entire debate, saying words to the effect that Pastor Green did not know what exegesis was, and that he really needs to study such a topic etc...

Anthony Rogers said...

Although I was busy working and have not yet heard the debate, the feedback I have received indicates that while Samuel gave a clear and lucid opening his opponents case was scatterbrained and lacking in structure rendering much of what he said unintelligible. This drawback on the part of Samuel's interlocutor hampered the rest of the debate and left few people with any lasting impression that any serious argument(s) against the incarnation was/were put forward. I also heard that the Muslim opponent was very insulting at a number of points and that Samuel was his usual congenial self.

Apart from Samuel's involvement I would probably take no interest in this debate. The Muslim opponent has proven himself time and time again to be eminently ignorable.

Several people recorded the debate and it should be up soon.

Samuel Green said...

Thanks for the comments. Yes, I thought I gave a good opening presentation but did not answer about 1/3 of Ijaz's issues well. I think the problem was:
1. His quotes appeared quickly on the screen and there were lots of them so I found it hard to assess them all.
2. The points he made had an element of truth but were gross exaggerations. You do not need to know anything to make these points but you need to know something to answer them accurately.
But overall I was happy with the debate.

rivan said...

Thanks Radical for the review. Waiting for the debate to be up. Could not listen to it coz of the time zone :( said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

@ RAdical

hey radical apparently Ijaz claims that you said james white was a liberal scholar on his site ROFL when you said james dunn was. i am gonna question his intellect now

Anthony Rogers said...

Your slanderous comment that Sam, Radical Moderate, and yours truly "threatened to rape you" is not what I would call kind, but it does give significant insight into your personal psychology and is one reason I largely ignore you. The statement "gird up your loins" is a Biblical idiom and has nothing to do with the perverted interpretation you imputed to me. Your subpar performance in all your debates and posts is another reason you are safely ignored.

Out of courtesy to Bob Siegel, a good Christian gentlemen and friend, I actually listened to the debate he had with you. I loved every minute of it and would encourage everyone to listen to it here.

Which is More Reliable? The New Testament or the Qur'an?

In my humble opinion, the same guy you once called "functionally retarded" (another example of your overflowing kindness) did a superb job of refuting you. I am sorry that this will come at the cost of your over-inflated ego, but Shadid did a much better job than you. There can't be anything more ego-bursting than to be routed by someone who is "functionally retarded".

As for your misuse of Tertullian, I find it appalling that you would even try to palm it off as academic. You obviously have not understood the man. There isn't a SINGLE competent and unbiased scholar who would support your interpretation. Anyone can read in context and see that Tertullian is contrasting the revealed wisdom of God with the world's wisdom. According to the former the incarnation and crucifixion are true wisdom, the very means by which God defeated Satan and overcame death FOR guilt-ridden sinners. According to the latter, on full display in pagans like Marcion (and his Muslim counterparts), the gospel of Jesus Christ is foolishness.

Not only is this the clear meaning of Tertullian in De Carni Christi, the same teaching is found throughout the writings of Tertullian. Only that reasoning that takes the true God and His revelation as the final reference point in all predication leads to true knowledge (credo ut intelligam). The starting point and epistemological method of those who still languor under the noetic effects of sin only lead to chaos and old night.

As Tertullian himself said in one of his other justly famous writings:

"For philosophy is the material of the world’s wisdom, the rash interpreter of the nature and dispensation of God. Indeed heresies are themselves instigated by philosophy… What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What has the Academy to do with the Church? What have heretics to do with Christians? Our instruction comes from the porch of Solomon, who had himself taught that the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart. Away with all attempts to produce a Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic Christianity! We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after receiving the gospel! When we believe, we desire no further belief. For this is our first article of faith, that there is nothing which we ought to believe besides." (The Prescription Against Heretics, VII.)

As you can see, you haven't stumbled onto anything brilliant in your misuse of Tertullian. You have only demonstrated once again your incompetence. So by all means share the quote from Tertullian with all your friends. It is like putting a gun in the hands of toddlers. Don't blame me when one of them tries to use it and gets hurt.

In order to catch you up to speed, and in order to show you what kindness really looks like, I have two copies of the late Princeton theologian B. B. Warfield's book, Studies in Tertullian and Augustine, and would more than happily send you one free of charge. Drop me a line in my e-mail.

Sam said...

I see that the Muhammadan Ijaz tried to do a hit and run, but not before Anthony pwned him to the shame of that deceptive Muhammadan.

And speaking about deception, Ijaz lied through his teeth in his debate when he claimed that the hadith which says that ar-Rahman created Adam in his image means that his false god created Adam in Adam's image. Here is a lengthy quote from another Muhammad which exposes and shames this deceiver for thinking he could get away with such lies:

Likewise, we affirm that, “Allah created Adam in His image.”21 This hadith was collected by Ahmad bin Hanbal and others.

In another narration, “[…] in the image of ar-Rahman.”22

As collected by ad-Daraqutni, Abu Bakr an-Najjad23, Abu ‘Abdullah bin Battah24, and others. (Kitab al-I’tiqad: By Imam Abu al-Husain Muhammad bin al-Qadhi Abu Ya’la al-Farra’ al-Hanbali, verification of the text and commentary by Shaikh Muhammad bin ‘Abd ar-Rahman al-Khumaiyis (Associate Professor at Muhammad bin Sa’ud University), translated by Amr bin Jalal Abualrub [Madinah Publishers and Distributors, First edition 2012], pp. 21-22)

21 Collected by Ahmad in, Musnad Abu Hurairah, 14/45, hadith 8291, by al-Bukhari in, Kitab al-Isti’than, 4/135, hadith number 6227, Abdullah bin Ahmad said, “It was written in the books of my father (Ahmad bin Hanbal), ‘And his height was 60 cubits’, but I am not sure if he narrated it to us or not.” This addition is also found in al-Bukhari’s Sahih.

Shaikh al-Islam Ibn Tayimiyyah said, “There was no dispute among the Salaf in the first three generations that the pronoun is referenced to Allah as has been elaborated in many different ways from the Sahabah, and the context of all the ahadith point to that.” (Bayan Talbis al-Jahmiyyah, Ibn Taymiyyah, with verification by Dr. ‘Abd ar-Rahman al-Yahya, 2/356) Ahl as-Sunnah affirm Allah’s attribute of having an Image and believe in it; they profess that it should be accepted as is, without denying, altering or describing it, and without likening it to His creation. Al-Aajurri said, after narrating the hadith of the image, “This is from the traditions that Muslims are obligated to believe in, without saying, how, or why. Rather, it is accepted with submission and belief that it is true, and by refraining from trying to explain it, as has been said by the Muslim Imams who passed.” (Ash-Shari’ah, by al-Aajurri, 2/106)

Imam Ahmad spoke on this topic and said about the hadith of the image, “We accept the hadith as is [without explaining its essence].” Because of that, Imam Ahmad used to rebuke those who interpret the hadith of the Image and who ascribe the pronoun to other than Allah. He said in the narration of Abu Talib, “Whoever says that Allah created Adam in Adam’s shape is a Jahmi, because what shape did Adam have before he was created?” (Ibtal at-Ta’wilat, 1/75). This is a warning from Imam Ahmad, that whoever interprets the pronoun to be other than referring to Allah will have followed the path of the Jahmiyyah. Ibn Qutaibah said, “As I see it, and Allah knows best, is that to have an image is not stranger than having two hands, fingers and eyes, but these attributes are familiar because they were mentioned in the Qur’an, unlike the image which is unfamiliar because it was not mentioned in the Qur’an [but only mentioned in the ahadith]. However, we believe in both [types of report], we do not ascribe any specific essence or resemblance to these attribute[sic].” (Ta’wil Mukhtalif al-Hadith, pg. 261)

Continued in the next post.

Sam said...

Continued from the previous post.

Here is the rest of the quote:

22 Also collected by Ibn Abi ‘Asim in, as-Sunnah, 2/229, al-Baihaqi in, al-Asma’ wa as-Sifat, pg. 371, Ibn Khuzaimah, at-Tawhid, hadith number 41, 1/85, al-Ajurri in, ash-Shari’ah, pg. 315.

Ibn Hajar said in, al-Fat-h, 5/183, “Al-Maziri and those who followed him have rejected the authenticity of this addition, meaning, ‘On the image of ar-Rahman’; since what has been established in most of the hadith‘s chains of transmission is, ‘Allah created Adam in His shape.’, Then he said, ‘If it is authentic, then it is taken in a way that befits Allah’s majesty.”

[Ibn Hajar continued by saying], “I say: the addition was collected by Ibn Abi ‘Asim in, as-Sunnah, as well as at-Tabarani, with a chain of narration leading through Ibn ‘Umar, and the narrators are all trustworthy. Ibn Abi ‘Asim also collected it using the chain of narration passing through Abu Yunus from Abu Hurairah, with a wording which refutes al-Maziri’s opinion [that the word, ‘Ar-Rahman’ is not established in the hadith]. It says, ‘Whoever fights should avoid [hitting] the face, because man’s image in ar-Rahman’s image.’ Is-haq al-Kawsaj said, “I heard Ahmad say, ‘This hadith is authentic.’ [My father said], ‘Such a person has lied, and this is the exact statement that the Jahmiyyah said.’” (al-Fat-h, 5/183)

23 He is the Imam, the hadith scholar, the jurist, the Mufti, the Shaikh of ‘Iraq, Abu Bakr, Ahmad bin Salman bin alHasan bin Isra’il al-Baghdadi al-Hanbali an-Najjad. He was born in 253 Hijri and died in the year 348 Hijri. Refer to, as-Siyar, 15/502, and Mukhtasar as-Siyar, 2/125, number 3158.

24 He is the Imam, the role model, the worshipper of Allah, the hadith scholar, the Shaikh of ‘Iraq, Abu Abdullah, ‘Ubaidullah bin Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Hamdan al-‘Akbari al-Hanbali, also known as, Ibn Battah. He died the year 387 Hijri. Refer to, Siyaru A’lam an-Nubalaa, 16/529, number 389. (Ibid., pp. 21-23)

And here is a link to a clip of Hamza Yusuf admitting that this is the majority view of Muslim scholars throughout the ages:

Lord willing, there will be more to come for this deceptive Muhammadan who thinks he will can lie like his prophet did and get away with it.

Anthony Rogers said...

A few more observations:

1. Notice that Ijaz did not provide a link to his debate with Bob. I wonder why? (He better hurry up and get out in front of this debacle and post the debate on his website before people realize how depressed he is over his performance.)

2. Ijaz lied about Samuel saying he wasn't pleased with his performance. In fact, what Samuel said is that he was pleased overall with how things went.

3. Ijaz also lied when he said the following:

"These are just shoddy excuses to cover the fact that as the Pastor [i.e. Samuel Green - AR] himself admits, and praise be to God he’s stated this, he didn’t respond to even 1/3 of my points during the debate, which led to a frustrating period for him during the cross fire period.

In fact, this is a complete falsification of what Samuel said. Samuel said that he did not answer about 1/3 of the issues well. The way Ijaz states it Samuel said he did not answer EVEN 1/3 of Ijaz's questions. In other words, he twists Samuel's words to mean that he did not answer 2/3 of his questions.

This guy is too dishonest to take seriously. No wonder he erased his own comment. He doesn't even take himself seriously enough to leave his lying remarks up for all to see. LOL

Anthony Rogers said...

edit: De Carne Christi

Anonymous said...

@ all
here is the link about iljaz vast misrepresentation and lies

Zack_Tiang said...

Make a comment regarding Ijaz's misrepresentation of people's comments on this page...
Guess I was too optimistic that he would allow my comment to be posted. =/