Daniel 7:14 proves Jesus is God?

Is Daniel 7:14 evidence of Jesus’ divinity?

by Ibn Anwar, BHsc (Hons)

The verse reads as follows :

“He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.”

The Christian Jesus-worshiper will claim that the above verse shows Jesus as deity because it says that everyone will worship him. First of all, notice that the verse says that “all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him”. Does it say that they will worship him? No, it does not. It says that they DID worship him. So it’s not actually talking about everyone from time immemorial to the end of days. The Christian will claim that the verse says that all authority, glory and sovereign power is given to him so that makes him God. Notice that the verse says that authority was given to him. When was Jesus given authority? Authority was given to Jesus approximately 1920 something years ago as Matthew 28:18 says, “Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” When we take Matthew 28:18 into consideration and compare it to Daniel 7:14 we can safely confirm that the latter isn’t referring to the former. The person in Daniel 7:14 was given authority in Daniel’s time or before it, but Jesus was only given authority in his time centuries after Daniel. However, coming back to the first point, does Jesus being worshiped makes him God? First of all, the verse does not have to be translated as worshiped. The New Living Translation translates it as follows:

“He was given authority, honor, and sovereignty over all the nations of the world, so that people of every race and nation and language would obey him. His rule is eternal–it will never end. His kingdom will never be destroyed.”

Obeying Jesus makes him God? Other versions of the Bible render the word as ‘serve’. Serving Jesus makes him God? If that is the case then those who serve in governments around the world must be serving God. How many governments are there in the world? They are all Gods? The clever Christian will say something along the lines of, “Wait a minute, if you go back to the Hebrew the world is yiflichun which comes from palach and rendered as latreuo in the Spetuagint. These are terms that can only be used for God.”

The following is the explanation that I provided in a previous article on this very point:

What does Daniel 7:14 actually say? The verse in English reads as follows:

“And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed.”

The key word in that verse which according to Trinitarians designates Jesus as God is ‘serve’ which according to them is letreuo in the Septuagint. This conclusion is actually inaccurate because there are two readings of the same verse in Greek. The one that is appealed to by Trinitarians is the LXX  manuscript Codex Syro-hexaplaris Ambrosianus 88 reading which is as follows:

καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἐξουσία, καὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη τῆς γῆς κατὰ γένη καὶ πᾶσα δόξα αὐτῷ λατρεύουσα· καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτοῦ ἐξουσία αἰώνιος, ἥτις οὐ μὴ ἀρθῇ, καὶ ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ, ἥτις οὐ μὴ φθαρῇ.

The above reading certainly does have the word λατρεύουσα or latreousa. However, many scholars will argue that a better reading comes from Theodotian’s Greek text which reads as follows:

καὶ αὐτῷ ἐδόθη ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ ἡ τιμὴ καὶ ἡ βασιλεία, καὶ πάντες οἱ λαοί, φυλαί, γλῶσσαι αὐτῷ δουλεύσουσιν· ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτοῦ ἐξουσία αἰώνιος, ἥτις οὐ παρελεύσεται, καὶ ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ οὐ διαφθαρήσεται.

As opposed to the LXX, Theodotian’s text reads douleusousin which comes from douleo. The theologian Sir Anthony Buzzard commenting on this says, “The Septuagint chooses latreuo (worship) in 7:14, but Theodotian, another Greek version of the Old Testament, uses the verb douleuo, a neutral word meaning to serve. The word latreuo, used in the Greek New Testament only of divine service, is not applied to Jesus.”[3] In the same discussion Buzzard cites Professor of New Testament Emeritus at Candler School of Theology, Emory University, Arthur Wainwright who says in his book The Trinity in the New Testament, “there is no instance of latreuein [to do religious service to] which has Christ as its object”. [4] Agreeing with Buzzard, Biblical scholar Dr. T.J. Meadowcroft of the Auckland Bible College says, “Incidentally, in v. 14 θ chooses to translate פלח with δουλεύω, a term which we have noted is more generally applicable than λατρεύω to human relationships of subservience.” [5] Elsewhere he notes that “As a rule, the θ translator follows the sense of the Aramaic closely but not slavishly.” (The θ [theta] symbol represents Theodotian’s Greek text) This means that douleuo is a close rendering of the Aramaic פלח (palach). The Eminent British Biblical scholar and Lightfoot Professor of Divinity Emeritus at the University of Durham, James Dunn unequivocally says, “Cultic worship or service (latreuein, latreia) as such is never offered to Christ…”[6]. In conclusion, Jesus did not receive unique worship as the Father did which clearly shows that he is lower in status to the Father, hence doing away with the Athanasian creed which suggests equality between the two.The verdict is NOT to worship Jesus as one would worship the Creator God.

-end of quote- (taken from Is Jesus God because he was worshiped?)

What about the fact that the verse says that “He was given authority, glory and sovereign power…His rule is eternal–it will never end. His kingdom will never be destroyed.”?

If being given authority, glory and sovereign power with an eternal kingdom makes the person(supposedly Jesus) God, then the saints must be God too! Consider the following verses from the same passage:

“But the saints of the Most High will receive the kingdom and will possess it forever-yes, for ever and ever.’ “(Daniel 7:18)

“until the Ancient of Days came and pronounced judgment in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came when they possessed the kingdom.” (Daniel 7:22)

“And the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High; their kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey them.’ “(Daniel 7:27)

So according to the above verses everything that is given to the person in Daniel 7:14 will be given to the saints too! According to the Christian logic the saints are equally Gods. How many Gods are there exactly?

Jesus is said to reign over everything and sit on a throne and these to the Christian mind, discerned from Daniel 7:13 and other such verses, make him God. Following this logic the saints are yet again promoted to divinity as we read the following:

“I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. ” (Revelation 20:4; See also Revelation 22:5)

The above says that others who will also be sitting on thrones to judge will reign with Jesus for a thousand years, but Revelation 22:5 says they will reign forever and ever. Either way, they must be Gods too according to the Christian line of thought! It is a sad thing that Christians though claiming to be staunch monotheists time and again inadvertently create for themselves a pantheon of Gods and Deities, hence making them polytheists.

Incoming search terms:

  • Latreuo in Daniel 7:14
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

95 Responses to “Daniel 7:14 proves Jesus is God?”

  1. harry says:

    Hi Ibn
    its funny reading these of Muslims claiming to pull apart the bible a book they say is corrupted,how do you know without the real text what is right and wrong?

    there are couple that needs to be considered if you can use the bible to proof your case I can use it to make my case.

    John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      Harry, don’t you know that Christian scholars themselves say that the Bible has been corrupted? Have you been living in the jungle so long that you don’t know this? The following are some of the articles that I have written pertaining to the corruption of Biblical material:
      http://unveiling-christianity......thew-2819/
      http://unveiling-christianity......y-of-luke/
      http://unveiling-christianity......-an-error/
      http://unveiling-christianity......-inspired/

    • rocky says:

      hary , i know you are a jew worshipper, but how did joseph tell the people that virgin mary was carrying yhwh in her womb and that he saw all of this in a DREAM?

      QUOTE:
      “18 And of Jesus Christ, the birth was thus: For his mother Mary having been betrothed to Joseph, before their coming together she was found to have conceived from the Holy Spirit, 19 and Joseph her husband being righteous, and not willing to make her an example, did wish privately to send her away. 20 And on his thinking of these things, lo, a messenger of the Lord in a dream appeared to him, saying, `Joseph, son of David, thou mayest not fear to receive Mary thy wife, for that which in her was begotten [is] of the Holy Spirit….22 ”

      DID josif lie to the people harry? did the people think that jesus was not yhwh in flesh but the biological son of josif? harry was all of israel having dreams like josif? was josif keeping the pregnant “mother of god” hidden from the public? if joseph thought ADULTERY in his mind then what about the people in israel? NOTICE that luke has TOTALLY ommited matthews joseph who thinks mary did adultery?

      • Harry says:

        Hi Rocky

        This is real life lets be real about this and stop looking at the bible just to find a contradiction or some mistake.

        lets look at these scenaros…

        what husband goes around telling everyone his wife is pregnant.

        A woman’s pregnancy is not visual from day one but it is after a number of months 4-6 that she will be showing.Obviously Mary would have made it known to Joseph that she was pregnant and what the Angel said to her

        the normal reaction of a man who feels his wife has cheated is to either allow her to stoned to death or divorce but…God through an Angel and ENCOURAGED him to marry Mary.

        If your wife was pregnant would you be telling everyone in your local area that she is pregnant?

        would she be visiable to the public from day one?

        what we see in Joseph is a man that loved his wife to be, so why should he just open her to shame and death but rather he chose to divorce her with specifying the reason this is real life.

        when talking about the accounts of Matthew and Luke just one writer reveals something and another does not,it does not mean there is a contradiction but rather this is what God wanted those writers to say.

        And to say without prior knowledge that I am “a Jew worshipper” is a naive as you have no idea what I believe.

  2. harry says:

    Hi Ibn
    I’m sorry my last comment posted was not finished, but I will return to my point in regards to Jesus.

    Your point of the word “worship” not mentioned in certain text but is actually the word “serve”

    As Christians we are said serve God and at other times worship God

    I will return to a few scriptures and maybe you can work through them

    Before that let me just say where in the Koran is it stated there is wholesale corruption of bible. And if so what did the original say and was it corrupted before or after Muhammad. Please quote proper sources.

    Ok back to Jesus in the bible
    John 17:5 the glory which I had with you before the world was
    John 18:36 my kingdom is not of this world

    Psalm 2:1-12 who is the Son in this chapter

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      Hello Harry,
      You said: Your point of the word “worship” not mentioned in certain text but is actually the word “serve”

      As Christians we are said serve God and at other times worship God

      I will return to a few scriptures and maybe you can work through them

      My reply:
      No, that’s not my whole point. Please read the article again very carefully. I dealt with the word in question i.e. ‘yiflichun’ in several different ways. Dimissing the suggested translation ‘worship’ in favour of ‘serve’ is not the major point of contention that I made. I have written a whole article on the issue of worship which I cited in the above article. The above article is in fact a continuation of my article on the issue of ‘worship’ given to Jesus. Please refer to the article here http://unveiling-christianity......orshipped/.

      You said:
      Ok back to Jesus in the bible
      John 17:5 the glory which I had with you before the world was
      John 18:36 my kingdom is not of this world

      My reply:
      John 17:5 refers to what is described as ‘glory in prospect’. It isn’t talking about regaining glory that he once had which was then forsaken when he was allegedly incarnated. In fact, in the same passage it says in verse 20 that Jesus prays “for those who are to believe in me through their (apostles’) word”. Here we see Jesus praying for those who are not even born yet and verse 22 says about these unborn followers: “I have given them the glory which you have given me.” Similarly, the concept of being given something is prospect is seen in Matthew 25:34 which says, “inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.”In God’s plan Jesus already had glory before his existence began in this world (Matthew 1:1) and he was simply asking for that which God had in store for him before he existed. If that glory mentioned in John 17:5 makes Jesus God, then the believers and disciples must be equally God because we see that that same glory (doxazo) is given to them in verse 22 in the same chapter. Recall Isaiah 48:11, “For my own sake, for my own sake, I do this. How can I let myself be defamed? I will not give my glory to another.” Clearly, that glory which Jesus was given and shared with the disciples isn’t the glory of God.

      What about the statement “my kingdom is not of this world”? Well, that just proves that Jesus isn’t God!Everything belongs to God and His dominion(kingdom) is over all including the earth as Psalm 24:1 says, “The earth belongs to the Lord, and everything in it — the world and all its people.”

      What about Psalm 2:1-12? You’re thinking of the verse, “I will proclaim the LORD’s decree: He said to me, “You are my son;today I have become your father.” First of all, nowhere does the chapter identify the son as God. Secondly, many interpreters see this as a reference to David. Even if I were to agree with you for the sake of argument that it’s about Jesus look at what it says, “I will proclaim…You are my son, today I have become your father.” This means that this son is not God’s eternal son because he was only proclaimed the Father’s son in the future. He BECAME God’s son. God is eternal and cannot BECOME eternal. Become necessarily implies a beginning. Jesus’ sonship has a beginning, hence he is not eternal which then brings us to the necessary conclusion that he is not God.

  3. Harry says:

    Hi Rocky
    it’s interesting reading your comments on Joseph and Mary I was thinking when Mary was told she would have a Son through the power of Holy Ghost there are a couple of things that should be mentioned.

    1. how long is before a woman begins “to show” women can go a good 4-5 months before anything is seen by others

    2. Would Joseph go around stating he and Mary are not actually married and guess what “she’s pregnant”

    3. God was the one through an Angel that commanded Joseph to take Mary as his wife

    4. silence from one writer does not mean there is a contradiction

  4. rocky says:

    “18 And of Jesus Christ, the birth was thus: For his mother Mary having been betrothed to Joseph, before their coming together she was found to have conceived from the Holy Spirit, 19 and Joseph her husband being righteous, and not willing to make her an example, did wish privately to send her away. 20 And on his thinking of these things, lo, a messenger of the Lord in a dream appeared to him, saying, `Joseph, son of David, thou mayest not fear to receive Mary thy wife, for that which in her was begotten [is] of the Holy Spirit….22 ”

    NOW I challenge anyone to find in luke where josif wished to SEND mary away because he thought that she did ADULTERY.
    LOOK again at what matthew said

    “…and not willing to make her an example, did wish privately to send her away.”

    josif thought THAT the child in marys WOMB was illigitamate/bastard/not his.

    did josif have FAMILY /FREINDS ? WERE THEY present on his engagement and wedding day?

    ” according to Matthew, Joseph had already taken Mary as his wife before Jesus was born, although Joseph was not yet having sex with Mary (Matthew 1:24-25). The Jewish institution of marriage in the first century, although differing from the modern institution, at least included the man taking his wife into his house. So, according to Matthew, Joseph was living in the same house, in the same town, with Mary. And this is corroborated by Matthew’s need to say that Joseph wasn’t having sex with Mary before Jesus was born – as the common matrimonial home would have provided the opportunity for Joseph to have regular access to Mary for sexual intercourse. ”

    so josif WAS, ACCORDING to matthew , living in the same house as mary.

    was his friends and relatives aware of this? ofcourse they were.
    so they all assumed that the child born to mary was josifs child this would be natural assumption considering that mary and josif were living in the same house and that not all of israel HAD DREAMS that yhwh dwelt in marys womb.

    accoridng to matthew, the josif , mary and jesus DEPARTED from israel when jesus WAS 2 YEARS OLD. so what did the people think the origin of jesus was IN the 2 years?

    like i said before, did everyone have DREAMS like josif that yhwh was born of a woman? and if a few did, wouldn’t they CONSIDER these dreams as satanic dreams considering that it is disgusting blasphemy in judaism to cliam that yhwh takes on flesh/meat?
    and what is even worse is that you are saying it is a BABY who god is incarnating into.

    NOW look at lukes claims

    he makes the NEW BORN baby jesus the focal point in the temple
    he says that john the baptist leaped forward in his mothers womb when his mother heard marys voice
    luke has totally taken out matthews josif who thinks mary did sin.

    but the question is this

    how does

    ” i had a dream about mary’s pregnancy, the child is from the holy ghost”

    pROVE in anyway that the DREAM is authentic? lets assume that people started to spread claims about mary having extra marital relations

    how IN ANYWAY does the information in the gospels help RESCUE mary? the gospels help gossip and rumour to spread

    for example

    “stop escusing your wifes crimes with lies ,joseph”

    “we found out that mary was away for about 3 months”

    “56 And Mary stayed with her about three months, and {then} returned to her home”

    the passage in isaiah would be no help because jews who read hebrew know that the lady in isaiah is already pregnant and is about to give birth.

    here is the funny bit, all the people must have thought jesus was BORN the natural way until some unknown writer of matthews gospel claimed that he was born of a virgin 40 years after jesus’ death lol.

    just look at luke alone and see IF THERE IS EVEN A HINT thAT JOSif was doubtful or he had thoughts that mary had extra marital relationship before “their coming together”

    • harry says:

      Hi Guys
      this is quite funny Ibn Anwar says “The gospel authors probably did not have access to the account that is found in the Qur’an which explains the issue away”

      The problem with that is the Koran was written 600 years after Jesus and the source of Jesus speaking from the cradle is over 150 years after Jesus

      Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ…how could the gospel writers read something that came into being in the middle of the 2nd century

      Quran

      “ But she pointed to the babe. They said: “How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?” He [Jesus] said: “I am indeed a servant of Allah: He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet; And He hath made me blessed wheresoever I be, and hath enjoined on me Prayer and Charity as long as I live; (He) hath made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable; [Quran 19:29] ”

      The gospel of the infancy of Jesus Christ

      3. Mary, I am Jesus the Son of God, that word which you brought forth according to the declaration of the angel Gabriel to you, and my Father has sent me for the salvation of the world.

      And another thing is how Luke 8:1-3 describe Jewish as ministering to Jesus and following him and his disciples helping them with their substance

      Luke 24:10 It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.

      Joanna is married and she is at the tomb with the other ladies.

      I will get back to you

      • rock says:

        “Luke 24:10 It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles. ”

        told what? that mary was carrying a god in her womb for 9 months and that joseph was not the real father?
        No one believes the women (Luke 24:11, 25, 37-38)

        mark said that mary thought that jesus lost it.

        you ‘re assumin qur’aans VERSION is 600 years after the versions in the gospels

        my questions

        1. WAS EVERYTHING in ORAL traditions in the first 1st century ,AMONG THE christians, WRITTEN down on paper?

        2. what method do you use to find out that ONE STORY is AUTHENTIC and another is FALSE?

        3.LIES were not PASSED in oral traditions in the 1st century AMONG the christians?

        4. is it not possible for an OLD oral tradition to SURVIVE in ANOTHER Language ?

        5. DOES not your new testament QUOTE from jewish oral traditions NOT found IN THE torah i.e different versions of stories about MOSES not FOUND IN the torah?

        6. The pharisees could say the same about jesus , that he came 1500 years after moses and that the pharisees ORAL LAWS GO all the way back to moses and jesus is a peasant from galilee who doesn’t know what he is talking about.

      • Ibn Anwar says:

        What is funny is that you have the presumption that the four canonical gospels have set things straight once and for all and have perfect records of Jesus’ life. You assume that because the narrative of Jesus’ speech in his infancy is found in a “later” gospel(arabic infancy gospel) that renders it inauthentic. What you fail to appreciate is that traditions that did not reach the authors of the gospels may very well have reached later authors of other works. What you also fail to recognise is that the Qur’anic narrative differs from that given in the Arabic infancy gospel with regards to Jesus’ ability to speak as an infant. The following is the scribal note at the beginning of the Arabic Infancy Gospel which says that “Jesus spoke, being in the cradle, and said to his mother, “I am Jesus, the Son of God, the Word, which you have borne as the angel Gabriel announced to you”. (Parrinder, G. (1965). Jesus in the Qur’an. London: Faber and Faber Limited. p. 78) The Qur’anic description of Jesus’ speech differs dramatically:
        “But she pointed to the babe. They said: “How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?” He [Jesus] said: “I am indeed a servant of Allah: He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet; And He hath made me blessed wheresoever I be, and hath enjoined on me Prayer and Charity as long as I live; (He) hath made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable.”
        In the Qur’anic description Jesus speaks to others(apart from Mary) in order to defend his mother from the accusations of others whilst in the Arabic Infancy Gospel Jesus speaks to his mother directly and no one else in declaring that he is the Son of God etc.”. Further more, the Infancy Gospel’s description tends to be interpreted by scholars as “Jesus speaking at a later age, though still in his minority”. (Ibid., p. 79) Thus, the narrative in the Arabic Infancy Gospel is not necessarily a miracle of a child speaking and the wording certainly disagrees with the Qur’anic narrative.

      • Ibn Anwar says:

        An important point to notice is that Harry has failed to account for Joseph’s abrupt disappearance in the gospels’ accounts.

      • rocky says:

        I am pi ssed off at the double standards of these PATHETIC christian missionaries.

        matthew PLACES roman guards IN an EVENT which says that DEAD zombies CAME OUT of thier TOMBS and roamed israel

        here is farrell tills discussion on it

        http://www.theskepticalreview......imes2.html

        ONE VARIANT VERSION SAYS

        that WHEN jesus was nailed on the cross , THE SAINTS CAME OUT OF THEIR TOMBS

        mr till writes:

        If it is omitted, the text has a much more likely meaning.

        And the tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallens asleep were raised, and coming forth out of the tombs, they entered into the holy city and were revealed to many. And the centurion and those guarding Jesus seeing the earthquake and the things taking place they feared exceedingly, saying, Truly this one was [the] son of God.

        This reading is according to Hendrickson’s Interlinear translation with the suspected interpolation of “after the rising of him” omitted. One who reads this can easily see that Matthew was undoubtedly going all out to pour on the miraculous events to explain why the centurion and his soldiers would have been so terrified. If they had merely witnessed an earthquake that shook open some tombs in which all the bodies buried there remained, I doubt that this would have terrified them. No, more likely “Matthew” meant for his readers to think that the centurion and his soldiers had seen the earthquake shake open tombs from which bodies arose and entered into the city. At any rate, the text, as it is now written, clearly says that the centurion and the soldiers saw the earthquake and what took place, so Turkel cannot make the earthquake an insignificant, unnoticed event, and if the “many saints,” whenever they came forth, whether then or after the resurrection of Jesus, went into the city and appeared to “many,” Turkel cannot, with a straight face, say that this was “defintely not” an event “of public note and exposure.”

        Now WHERE was this STORY known in jerusalem?
        why is it MISSING from ALL the other gospel accounts?
        john says that he was an EYEWITNESS to the crucifixion, WHY did he OMIT this MIRACULOUS event WHICH CAUSED the roman GUARDS to say that jc was son of god?
        THE POINT IS
        just because a STORY is being parroted from ONE MOUTH to another and then penned some 40 years later on papper DOESN’T MEAN it is authentic even if it FALLS in CLOSE to the time of jesus/apostles FOR we learn that jews WERE able to SPREAD claims about jesus IN jesus day and also spread CONSPIRACY THEories WHICH were “widely KNOWN” according to matthew.

        the point is these stories cleary were not MUTAWATTIR , and only 1 writer Adds it to his account , he writes in an UNKNOWN location for an UNKNOWN audience , and we don’t even KNOW how close he was to the original followers of jesus and whether they CONFIRMED the stories.

        luke says , that he used his UNKNOWN AUTHENTICATION methods to verify the stories told about jesus/deciples and it is no suprise he drops matthews claim that saints came out of thier graves.

        if you notice something
        in the gospels when there is APOLOGETIC value to the stories the christian authours INCLUDE it in thier accounts , but with the claims of matthew , they do not include it.

        POINT IS

        information WRITTEN in the 1st hundred YEARS OF christianity DOES NOT MEAN IT IS AUTHENTIC

        what is WORSE is that THERE IS NO complete manuscript of ANY of the gospels DATED TO EARLY first century, marks greek manuscripts are very very LATE.

    • harry says:

      Hi Rocky
      I don’t have to prove the dream is authentic because the koran believes there was a virgin birth,the fact is how do we get a human being with only 23 chromosomes?

      we don’t have a problem with the silence of Joseph in the gospel because there are many men who are not active in their children’s lives and so silence in the gospel does not equal a contradiction.

      there are many things that are not spoken about in the koran in detail does that mean contradiction?

    • harry says:

      Hi Rocky

      you said “you ‘re assumin qur’aans VERSION is 600 years after the versions in the gospels”

      please explain to me when you think the koran came about?

      if you want to debate properly i will do one section because I haven’t even started yet, and you think you know what I believe and you have no idea.

      I will debate you on one topic at a time you name it

      • rocky says:

        who do you think you are? if you want to debate WHY don’t you attempt to take on brother Ib Anwar who has the LANGUAGE skills which i don’t. why should i debate with you people, i don’t trust you people one bit. you DISTORT english translations even though you don’t KNOW greek /hebrew. I’M A LEARNER NOT A DEBATER.

  5. rocky says:

    QUOTE:
    Serving (עָבוֹד ‘avod) is what a servant (עֶֽבֶד ‘ĕvĕd) does. Is it true to say that a servant worships his master/owner as a god? Of course not; he just WORKS for him. The Hebrew root עבד (“to work”) is used on numerous occasions throughout the T’nach, both in the sense of “working” for a master or employer and also in the sense of “working” for God and the Aramaic root פלח is used similarly nine times in the Aramaic passages of Daniyyél (2:4b-7:28) and Ezra (4:8-6:18, 7:12-26). This is yet another example of the way christian translators cunningly employ English usages from the 17th century, which their unwitting contemporary readers are—quite understandably—unfamiliar with, to mislead and deceive them.

    Note that, as I mentioned in Post #12, the Aramaic root עבד, although consisting of exactly the same three letters, actually has the slightly different meaning “to do” or “to make”; for example, it has this meaning in the only Aramaic verse in the entire N’viyim division of the T’nach—

    כִּדְנָה֙ תֵּֽאמְר֣וּן לְה֔וֹם אֱלָ֣הַיָּ֔א דִּֽי־שְׁמַיָּ֥א וְאַרְקָ֖א לָ֣א עֲבַ֑דוּ יֵאבַ֧דוּ מֵֽאַרְעָ֛א וּמִן־תְּח֥וֹת שְׁמַיָּ֖א אֵֽלֶּה׃

    “This is what you are to tell them: ‘The gods that didn’t make the heavens and the earth will be destroyed from the earth and from below these heavens….’ ” (Yirm’yahu 10:11)

    end quote

    • harry says:

      Hi Rocky

      I don’t know if you understand what I was speaking but lets look at the word in regards to the word serve in Daniel 7:14

      pelach
      pel-akh’
      (Chaldee); corresponding to H6398; to serve or worship: – minister, serve.

      the truth is the person this text is speaking about will rule forever!!! so they will either serve or worship Jesus forever.

      • rock says:

        “the truth is the person this text is speaking about will rule forever!!! so they will either serve or worship Jesus forever.”

        1.i SHOWED you HOW THE WORD is USED in the toraH AND also how it was USED in aramaic, did you do the same?

        2.you pulled a christianizing of the term from your h6398

        3. what you are doing is LIKE using arabic UNDERSTANDING of 3abd and IMPOSING it unto the hebrew word.

        4. Notice that your h6398 uses the word OR and now your mind can’t decide whether it will be worshipped / served. funny

        “But the saints of the Most High will receive the kingdom and will possess it forever-yes, for ever and ever.’ “(Daniel 7:18)

        So what will the people DO FOR the saints , harry?
        play tiddlywinks?

        “And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed.”

        “But the saints of the Most High will receive the kingdom and will POSSESS it forever-yes, for ever and ever.’ “(Daniel 7:18)

        “And the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High; their kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey them.’ “(Daniel 7:27)

        dominion EVERLASTING …KINGDOM WILL NOT BE DESTROYED

        this does not mean that the guy is ETERNAL with his KINGDOM, but the INHERITANCE from one to ANOTHER will PREVENT the kingdom from being DESTROYED.

        THEIR kindom shall be an everlasting kindom… DOMINIONS/RULERS SHALL…

        did the 3 gods in trinity come down as 3 men , harry?

      • rock says:

        “And all rulers shall serve and obey Him.”

        actually we saw how jesus was DESTROYED by the jews and governed by them in the new testament. we saw how disguising yourself as a GARDNER to avoid your killers from FINDING you again proves that RULERS did not FEAR god in flesh, but god in flesh FEARED rulers LOL
        WE saw thAT ACCORDING TO THE gospel of matthew SOME dOUBTED. the message of protestant christ was just not convincing and paul himself says

        “It was necessary that the word of God should first
        have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge
        yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles”

        and ACTS confirms that the message was taken to gentiles because the jews WERE NOT buying into christian claims .

        LOOK AGAIN

        “And the kingdom, and the dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom which is under all the heavens shall be given to him.”

        THE jews did not BELIEVE this, according to mark , the jews TURNED crowds AGAINST jesus in 2 DAYS. so they did not SEE ANYTHING given to jesus

        WERE’RE TALKING ABOUT MAJORITY OF THE JEWS REJECTED jesus and his message.

      • Ibn Anwar says:

        This was my response to a comment made by Rocky on my article on ‘worship’:
        You have already cited Daniel 7:27 which does away with claims that ‘palach’ is only given to God. In the same chapter, verse 27 we find that ‘palach’(יִפְלְח֖וּן/yiflechun) is given to the saints. The JPS translates the verse as follows:
        And the kingdom and the dominion, and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High; their kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey them.’
        Both the Revised Standard Version and the English Standard Version agree with the final third person plural pronoun.

      • rocky says:

        the jesus of the Qur’aan was SAVED BY ALLAH just like ALLAH saved him MANY TIMES BEFORE from the hands of the jews. the jesus of the bible died , in the EYES OF THE people, as a blasphemour, a wonderful message for LIARS to spread about ALLAHS apostle.

        what is even more disasterous for pauline christianity is that according to mark jesus says that his followers WILL be persecuted, yet in daniel

        “And all rulers shall serve and obey Him.”

        YES they were PERSECUTED fOR TRYING to prevent the LIES that jesus was a sacrifed god and that he was a blasphemour who WENT against the torah. they were Muslims

        “And all rulers shall serve and obey Him.”

  6. rocky says:

    jesus was called josephs son LOL

    so one day in jesus’ late thirties he decides to drop the bomb and say that he was begotten of the holy ghost god and father god and the people got it all wrong lol. lord, liar or lunatic? LUNATIC

    the koranic story in which baby jesus speaks to DEFEND his mum makes better sense .

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      Joseph was most probably a fictional character invented by the gospel writers as apologetic material for Jesus’ exceptional birth and the lack of accusers from Mary’s fellow countrymen regarding carrying a baby without a father(i.e. adultery). The gospel authors probably did not have access to the account that is found in the Qur’an which explains the issue away. In absence of the narrative of Jesus defending her mother against the accusations of her people the gospel authors created a character named Joseph. With him in the picture the readers will not have the chance to wonder why Mary didn’t get accused of adultery for carrying a baby without a father. The strongest proof that Joseph is a mythical character is his stark absence in the later stages of Jesus’ life. We would read of Mary and his brothers, but never Joseph. Mary would go around speaking and wantin to see Jesus unaccompanied by her supposed husband Joseph. This is unheard of in Jewry society in Jesus’ days. Much like the Islamic tradition, Jewish women did not go around unaccompanied by their husbands or immediate relatives(if she were not married yet). However, we see Mary going around either with Jesus’ ‘brothers’, disciples or other women called Marys. Joseph is to never appear again anywhere in the story when Jesus begins his ministry. This shows that Joseph’s function as an apologetic defense of Mary’s honour ceased to be relevant, hence his disappearance later.

      • harry says:

        Hi Rocky

        in reply to

        “Luke 24:10 It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles. ”

        you said…

        told what? that mary was carrying a god in her womb for 9 months and that joseph was not the real father?
        No one believes the women (Luke 24:11, 25, 37-38)

        this is not talking about Mary carrying a god in her womb. This is talking about the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and how the angel spoke to them at the tomb

        you spend so much time trying to find mistakes and contradictions that if you just read the gospel accounts things will make sense

        what conversation can you see in these verses that gives you the understanding that Mary was talking about a pregnancy?

        Luk 24:11 And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not.
        Luk 24:12 Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass.

        so then after they spoke didn’t Peter run down to the tomb and…

        Joh 20:2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.
        Joh 20:3 Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre.

        So now we have John running with Peter to the tomb,if the book of Luke said it was Peter alone ran to the tomb then we would have a problem

        What the ladies were talking about was the empty tomb…Resurrection!

      • harry says:

        Hi Ibn

        This is funny you say that Joseph is “Joseph was most probably a fictional character invented by the gospel writers”

        This man is written in the genealogy of Jesus Christ and like I said to Rocky, there are many men that are not mentioned in their children’s lives simply they are separated from the mother, which is why we have single parents families the father is alive but not around

        silence in scripture is not opportunity for Muslims to cry contradiction, what about the wife of Job she is mentioned once or twice in the whole book Job 2:9.

        The wife of Ezekiel no mention of her until God says he will take away the desire of your eyes. Ezekiel 24:15-18

        I don’t see a genealogy for Muhammad in the koran anywhere neither in the Hadiths,how do we know where he is come from.

        And also if all the Arabians were idol worshippers before Muhammad how on earth is his dad’s name called “slave of Allah” then how Allah be the true god

    • rocky says:

      lol, i already knew WHAT THE passage said about women informing about their claims to have seen jc. BUT WHAT I thought you were doing was playing the christian game of INFORMING more than what they have SEEN i.e informing about OTHER things aswell.

      don’t tell me that i don’t know about the passage when i have COLLECTIONS of debates destroying christians in trying to RECONCILE the ressurection accounts. i have them on c drive.

  7. harry says:

    Hi Rocky

    I notice your comment…did the 3 gods in trinity come down as 3 men , harry?

    we don’t believe in 3 gods I don’t where you get that from in any case the koran in the English translation says

    “They do blaspheme who say: God is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One God. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.” (Koran 5:73)

    “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.” (Koran 4:171)

    the word trinity is not in the original arabic text so how did it get there?

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      Harry, the translation that you have provided for the Qur’an in Surah al-ma’idah, verse 73 is not entirely accurate. The verse should read as “They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity…”. Allah is not a translatable word. The word for God in Arabic is ‘ilah’, not Allah. Allah is a specific name belonging to God. In any case, you’re charging that the translation got it wrong with regards to the word Trinity which in your view is not found in the Arabic. First of all, it is clear that your language mastery is quite limited. The word Trinity is derived from the Latin Trinitas which was first used by the lawyer, Tertullian. The word Trinitas in latin literally means ‘threeness’ or the number three. It is related to the word ‘trinus’ and accordingly William Young’s Latin dictionary defines a Trinitarian as ‘qui trinas personas in uno Deo esse credunt’. The Arabic word used in that verse is ‘thalathatin’ which means three or it can be correctly rendered as trinity which does mean three.

      • harry says:

        Hi Ibn
        I do know that the Trinity was first coined by Tertullian and the word is derived from the latin word Trinitas but…in Sura 5:73 the Arabic word used is thalithu thalathatin which means “the third of three”.

        This word Trinity is not the Arabic text but rather..The Arabic word for the “Holy Trinity” is “al-thaaluuth al-aqdas”, pronounced ath-thaaluuth al-aqdas..

        This is verse is not speaking against the Trinity but those that believe in 3 gods

        You probably thought I didn’t know what I was talking but I am not going to try and use the “stupid” while referring to what you think but I just want to be to debate others with respect.

    • rock says:

      “we don’t believe in 3 gods I don’t where you get that from in any case the koran in the English translation says”

      ofcourse you are believers in 3 gods. each gods are SEPERATE from each other. for example, the father POURS his wrath UNTO himself or his son? does he POUR it UNTO the sons cosmic /spiritual form? now tell me in what language this means that the ONE who is POURING on the son is 3 persons in 1 item? and then you have the spirit god who has his own functions . 1 member of the trinity DIES meaning the son in spiritual form is FORSAKEN by the father ,all this is trinitarian polytheism. you also say that each of these gods are CO-EQUAL so there is nothing unique among them except that the boss in the GANG is the father god to whom the other 2 are slaves/subservient .

      how in GOD ALMIGHTIES good earthcan one say that you people worship 1 God? when the son is forsaken then his other co equal attributes become disfunctional i.e he can not give out his mercy and love like the father god because the father god is pouring his wrath unto the son . only the father is capable of giving out his love and mercy at the time he is pouring his wrath unto the son. seriously man, this all sounds like polythiestic to me.

  8. harry says:

    to Rocky

    so one day in jesus’ late thirties he decides to drop the bomb and say that he was begotten of the holy ghost god and father god and the people got it all wrong lol. lord, liar or lunatic? LUNATIC

    am I right in saying that you think Jesus is a lunatic?

    Luk 4:17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
    Luk 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
    Luk 4:19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
    Luk 4:20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
    Luk 4:21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

    I was hoping you are not a true Muslim because they think no such thing of Jesus

    • harry says:

      Hi Ibn Anwar

      I have not run away from answering about Joseph in the gospels why does it matter so much to you that Joseph is not spoken about?

      Luke 2:16 he was there when Jesus was a babe

      Matthew 2:11-14 He was there in the house when the wise men came

      Luke 2:42 he was there when Jesus was twelve years old.

      Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

      There are many fathers today as you know that are alive but present or active in their children’s lives

      Or didn’t it occur to you that Joseph might be dead and that Mary is a single mother.

      I used the a couple of examples that related to my point that were rejected

      1. Why wasn’t Job’s wife mentioned through the whole of the book apart from the first couple of chapters?

      2. Why didn’t we hear anything of the wife of Ezekiel until the day God said she would die.

      3. What about Bartholomew mentioned as one of the disciples but I have not read of him doing anything.

      Because they were not mentioned does that mean there is a problem?

      • Ibn Anwar says:

        Yes, you were running away from answering about Joseph and only upon further prodding that you are compelled to provide some kind of a response. Let us reproduce what I’ve said so far about Joseph:
        Joseph was most probably a fictional character invented by the gospel writers as apologetic material for Jesus’ exceptional birth and the lack of accusers from Mary’s fellow countrymen regarding carrying a baby without a father(i.e. adultery). The gospel authors probably did not have access to the account that is found in the Qur’an which explains the issue away. In absence of the narrative of Jesus defending her mother against the accusations of her people the gospel authors created a character named Joseph. With him in the picture the readers will not have the chance to wonder why Mary didn’t get accused of adultery for carrying a baby without a father. The strongest proof that Joseph is a mythical character is his stark absence in the later stages of Jesus’ life. We would read of Mary and his brothers, but never Joseph. Mary would go around speaking and wantin to see Jesus unaccompanied by her supposed husband Joseph. This is unheard of in Jewry society in Jesus’ days. Much like the Islamic tradition, Jewish women did not go around unaccompanied by their husbands or immediate relatives(if she were not married yet). However, we see Mary going around either with Jesus’ ‘brothers’, disciples or other women called Marys. Joseph is to never appear again anywhere in the story when Jesus begins his ministry. This shows that Joseph’s function as an apologetic defense of Mary’s honour ceased to be relevant, hence his disappearance later.

        —————————-
        Harry said:
        This is funny you say that Joseph is “Joseph was most probably a fictional character invented by the gospel writers”

        This man is written in the genealogy of Jesus Christ and like I said to Rocky, there are many men that are not mentioned in their children’s lives simply they are separated from the mother, which is why we have single parents families the father is alive but not around

        silence in scripture is not opportunity for Muslims to cry contradiction, what about the wife of Job she is mentioned once or twice in the whole book Job 2:9.

        The wife of Ezekiel no mention of her until God says he will take away the desire of your eyes. Ezekiel 24:15-18

        I don’t see a genealogy for Muhammad in the koran anywhere neither in the Hadiths,how do we know where he is come from.

        And also if all the Arabians were idol worshippers before Muhammad how on earth is his dad’s name called “slave of Allah” then how Allah be the true god

        My reply:
        First of all, the geneology given in Matthew and Luke do not belong to Jesus, but rather to Joseph. You do realise that Mary conceived without a father, hence Joseph isn’t actually Jesus’ parent. To trace Jesus’ geneology back to David and make the claim that he’s the “seed” of David through Joseph is disingenuous. Secondly, just because a particular individual is mentioned in a geneology in the Bible that is no proof that he actually existed. We know for a fact that the gospel writers made up information in order to posit certain theological motives that they favoured(http://unveiling-christianity......y-of-luke/).

        You said that silence in scripture is not opportunity for Muslims to cry contradiction, but I have not claimed that there is a contradiction. Where in fact did I say “contradiction”? You are reading into things that are not there. The following is what I actually wrote:
        Joseph was most probably a fictional character invented by the gospel writers as apologetic material for Jesus’ exceptional birth and the lack of accusers from Mary’s fellow countrymen regarding carrying a baby without a father(i.e. adultery). The gospel authors probably did not have access to the account that is found in the Qur’an which explains the issue away. In absence of the narrative of Jesus defending her mother against the accusations of her people the gospel authors created a character named Joseph. With him in the picture the readers will not have the chance to wonder why Mary didn’t get accused of adultery for carrying a baby without a father. The strongest proof that Joseph is a mythical character is his stark absence in the later stages of Jesus’ life. We would read of Mary and his brothers, but never Joseph. Mary would go around speaking and wantin to see Jesus unaccompanied by her supposed husband Joseph. This is unheard of in Jewry society in Jesus’ days. Much like the Islamic tradition, Jewish women did not go around unaccompanied by their husbands or immediate relatives(if she were not married yet). However, we see Mary going around either with Jesus’ ‘brothers’, disciples or other women called Marys. Joseph is to never appear again anywhere in the story when Jesus begins his ministry. This shows that Joseph’s function as an apologetic defense of Mary’s honour ceased to be relevant, hence his disappearance later.

        -end of quote-

        You try to reconcile the apparent difficulty by equating Joseph’s abrupt disappearance with the scarce occurrence of Job’s wife in the book of Job and Ezekiel’s wife in Ezekiel. the comparison fails when we take into consideration the fact that neither Ezekiel’s nor Job’s wives had much bearing on their lives as men of God during their own dispensations. Joseph with regards to Jesus on the other hand is supposed to be important enough that Jesus’ heritage is traced through him(the said geneology). Further more, Joseph was supposed to have been with Mary and the baby Jesus when the magis came to “worship” or pay their respects to him. If the magis had done that in front of Joseph, one would expect Joseph to be a believer and a lover of the mother of the one that is believed in he would have been around. At the very least he should have been at Jesus’ supposed crucifixion. In addition, we know according to the gospels Mary had several exchanges with Jesus during his ministry and on one occasion she went to see Jesus with Jesus’ brothers, but Jesus refused to greet her and declared that his disciples are his mother and brothers. Where is Joseph? I have already stated that 2000 years ago in Jewry Jerusalem, married Jewish(and also non-Jewish) women of the lower class were not in the habit of going around without the company of their husbands. Husbands were their protectors in those days. Knowing intimately the miraculous nature of Jesus’ birth, Joseph should have been a strong supporter of Jesus, but there is absolutely no evidence of that as he simply abruptly disappears in the narratives when Jesus’ ministry began. Joseph serves two major theological purposes in the myth concocted by the gospel authors. Firstly, as I have already discussed he is used in order to provide an explanation to the apparent absence of opposition to Mary’s conception of Jesus without a father. Secondly, Joseph is used as a tool to bridge the gap between Jesus and David in an attempt to legitimise the claim that Jesus is the rightful heir to David’s throne in line with centrist Christian eschatology.

        With regards to Prophet Muhammad’s genealogy I would agree with you that we do not have exact information on it given in the hadith literature. The Qur’an is of course silent of it because the Qur’an isn’t a biographical sketch on the Prophet’s s.a.w. life and history. The absence of Prophet Muhammad’s genealogy is not a disadvantage in any shape or form, however it should be noted that Jewish authorities themselves affirm that Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. is a descendant of Ishmael as are all Arabs as religious historians will tell you (Refer to http://unveiling-christianity......s-promise/).

        ——————————–
        Now compare the above with the following latest “rebuttal” by Harry:

        Hi Ibn Anwar

        I have not run away from answering about Joseph in the gospels why does it matter so much to you that Joseph is not spoken about?

        Luke 2:16 he was there when Jesus was a babe

        Matthew 2:11-14 He was there in the house when the wise men came

        Luke 2:42 he was there when Jesus was twelve years old.

        Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

        There are many fathers today as you know that are alive but present or active in their children’s lives

        Or didn’t it occur to you that Joseph might be dead and that Mary is a single mother.

        I used the a couple of examples that related to my point that were rejected

        1. Why wasn’t Job’s wife mentioned through the whole of the book apart from the first couple of chapters?

        2. Why didn’t we hear anything of the wife of Ezekiel until the day God said she would die.

        3. What about Bartholomew mentioned as one of the disciples but I have not read of him doing anything.

        Because they were not mentioned does that mean there is a problem?

        ——————————

        I believe any reasonable reader can see that Harry has failed to address a single one of the points that I have made and it is evident that he is either blind or obstinately refuse to recognise that I have answered and explained every single one of the questions posed in his latest response before he even posed them in it. It is utterly sad that Harry thinks he’s got something when in fact he has nothing. Notice also that he has completely and conveniently ignored the refutations that I’ve given to him on other points e.g. Trinity mentioned in the Qur’an or not.

  9. Ibn Anwar says:

    Harry said:
    This is funny you say that Joseph is “Joseph was most probably a fictional character invented by the gospel writers”

    This man is written in the genealogy of Jesus Christ and like I said to Rocky, there are many men that are not mentioned in their children’s lives simply they are separated from the mother, which is why we have single parents families the father is alive but not around

    silence in scripture is not opportunity for Muslims to cry contradiction, what about the wife of Job she is mentioned once or twice in the whole book Job 2:9.

    The wife of Ezekiel no mention of her until God says he will take away the desire of your eyes. Ezekiel 24:15-18

    I don’t see a genealogy for Muhammad in the koran anywhere neither in the Hadiths,how do we know where he is come from.

    And also if all the Arabians were idol worshippers before Muhammad how on earth is his dad’s name called “slave of Allah” then how Allah be the true god

    My reply:
    First of all, the geneology given in Matthew and Luke do not belong to Jesus, but rather to Joseph. You do realise that Mary conceived without a father, hence Joseph isn’t actually Jesus’ parent. To trace Jesus’ geneology back to David and make the claim that he’s the “seed” of David through Joseph is disingenuous. Secondly, just because a particular individual is mentioned in a geneology in the Bible that is no proof that he actually existed. We know for a fact that the gospel writers made up information in order to posit certain theological motives that they favoured(http://unveiling-christianity......y-of-luke/).

    You said that silence in scripture is not opportunity for Muslims to cry contradiction, but I have not claimed that there is a contradiction. Where in fact did I say “contradiction”? You are reading into things that are not there. The following is what I actually wrote:
    Joseph was most probably a fictional character invented by the gospel writers as apologetic material for Jesus’ exceptional birth and the lack of accusers from Mary’s fellow countrymen regarding carrying a baby without a father(i.e. adultery). The gospel authors probably did not have access to the account that is found in the Qur’an which explains the issue away. In absence of the narrative of Jesus defending her mother against the accusations of her people the gospel authors created a character named Joseph. With him in the picture the readers will not have the chance to wonder why Mary didn’t get accused of adultery for carrying a baby without a father. The strongest proof that Joseph is a mythical character is his stark absence in the later stages of Jesus’ life. We would read of Mary and his brothers, but never Joseph. Mary would go around speaking and wantin to see Jesus unaccompanied by her supposed husband Joseph. This is unheard of in Jewry society in Jesus’ days. Much like the Islamic tradition, Jewish women did not go around unaccompanied by their husbands or immediate relatives(if she were not married yet). However, we see Mary going around either with Jesus’ ‘brothers’, disciples or other women called Marys. Joseph is to never appear again anywhere in the story when Jesus begins his ministry. This shows that Joseph’s function as an apologetic defense of Mary’s honour ceased to be relevant, hence his disappearance later.

    -end of quote-

    You try to reconcile the apparent difficulty by equating Joseph’s abrupt disappearance with the scarce occurrence of Job’s wife in the book of Job and Ezekiel’s wife in Ezekiel. the comparison fails when we take into consideration the fact that neither Ezekiel’s nor Job’s wives had much bearing on their lives as men of God during their own dispensations. Joseph with regards to Jesus on the other hand is supposed to be important enough that Jesus’ heritage is traced through him(the said geneology). Further more, Joseph was supposed to have been with Mary and the baby Jesus when the magis came to “worship” or pay their respects to him. If the magis had done that in front of Joseph, one would expect Joseph to be a believer and a lover of the mother of the one that is believed in he would have been around. At the very least he should have been at Jesus’ supposed crucifixion. In addition, we know according to the gospels Mary had several exchanges with Jesus during his ministry and on one occasion she went to see Jesus with Jesus’ brothers, but Jesus refused to greet her and declared that his disciples are his mother and brothers. Where is Joseph? I have already stated that 2000 years ago in Jewry Jerusalem, married Jewish(and also non-Jewish) women of the lower class were not in the habit of going around without the company of their husbands. Husbands were their protectors in those days. Knowing intimately the miraculous nature of Jesus’ birth, Joseph should have been a strong supporter of Jesus, but there is absolutely no evidence of that as he simply abruptly disappears in the narratives when Jesus’ ministry began. Joseph serves two major theological purposes in the myth concocted by the gospel authors. Firstly, as I have already discussed he is used in order to provide an explanation to the apparent absence of opposition to Mary’s conception of Jesus without a father. Secondly, Joseph is used as a tool to bridge the gap between Jesus and David in an attempt to legitimise the claim that Jesus is the rightful heir to David’s throne in line with centrist Christian eschatology.

    With regards to Prophet Muhammad’s genealogy I would agree with you that we do not have exact information on it given in the hadith literature. The Qur’an is of course silent of it because the Qur’an isn’t a biographical sketch on the Prophet’s s.a.w. life and history. The absence of Prophet Muhammad’s genealogy is not a disadvantage in any shape or form, however it should be noted that Jewish authorities themselves affirm that Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. is a descendant of Ishmael as are all Arabs as religious historians will tell you (Refer to http://unveiling-christianity......s-promise/).

    Harry said:
    And also if all the Arabians were idol worshippers before Muhammad how on earth is his dad’s name called “slave of Allah” then how Allah be the true god

    My reply:
    Who says that all Arabs were idol worshippers? There were monotheistic Arabs who did not worship idols such as Waraqah bin Naufal. Why is his father’s name Abdullah(slave of Allah)? If you have actually read about Islam you would not have asked such a silly question that is raised by missionaries in an attempt to negate Allah. The Qur’an has plenty of verses where the idolaters are said to admit and recognise that Allah is the creator of the universe, though they worship the idols because in their view that was a legitimate way of getting close to Allah. The Arab pagans worshipped Allah alongside idols because they had lost their way since Ishmael’s time(Ishmael was indeed a monotheist as both Christians and Jews will agree) just as according to the Bible Aaron, Moses’ brother lost his way and worshipped the golden calf and called it YHWH in Exodus as well as Solomon who according to the Bible also became an idolater.

    For your information the Arab Christians refer to Arabic Bibles that do use Allah as a reference to God. For example in Genesis 1:1 the Arabic Bible has the verse as, “fil bad’i khalaqa Allah samawati wal ardh”(فِي الْبَدْءِ خَلَقَ اللهُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأَرْضَ). Further more, Allah is the term used for God in Aramaic which was Jesus’ native language. The word in Aramaic is ܐܠܗ spelled with ‘aleph lamed heh’ which is to be pronounced as ALLAH exactly as how it is pronounced in Arabic(Refer to the peshitta in 1 Corinthians 8:4, Ephesians 2:12, 2 Thessalonians 2:4).

  10. Ibn Anwar says:

    Harry wrote:
    Hi Ibn
    I do know that the Trinity was first coined by Tertullian and the word is derived from the latin word Trinitas but…in Sura 5:73 the Arabic word used is thalithu thalathatin which means “the third of three”.

    This word Trinity is not the Arabic text but rather..The Arabic word for the “Holy Trinity” is “al-thaaluuth al-aqdas”, pronounced ath-thaaluuth al-aqdas..

    This is verse is not speaking against the Trinity but those that believe in 3 gods

    You probably thought I didn’t know what I was talking but I am not going to try and use the “stupid” while referring to what you think but I just want to be to debate others with respect.

    My reply:
    Do not pretend as if you know Arabic Harry because it is quite evident that you do not. If you had known even basic Arabic you would not have continued addressing me as ‘Ibn’ rather than Ibn Anwar. Ibn in Arabic means ‘son of’. If my nick name was Son of Anwar no thinking person would only address me as ‘Son of’ e.g. Hello Son of. That would be ridiculous. Thus one can safely conclude that you do not know Arabic.

    Your latest comment is nothing short of a clownish response. You are responding to what I said as if we were discussing Surah 5:73 and the concept of the Trinity itself with regards to the Qur’an and how it portrays the concept. That was not the issue that you raised initially. You did not even cite Surah 5:73 in your initial clown-like question about the Trinity so as to discuss the correctly or erroneous Quranic depiction of the Trinity . Let us reproduce that initial comment of yours:

    we don’t believe in 3 gods I don’t where you get that from in any case the koran in the English translation says

    “They do blaspheme who say: God is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One God. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.” (Koran 5:73)

    “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.” (Koran 4:171)

    the word trinity is not in the original arabic text so how did it get there?

    -end of quote-

    Even a child will know that in the above comment you were not asking about the correct representation of the Trinity or lack thereof in the Qur’an. Rather you were asking about the word/term itself that is used. Your initial contention was that “the word trinity is not in the original arabic text so how did it get there?”. It had nothing to do with whether the Qur’an correctly explains the Trinity. Once again you were contending that the Arabic text does not use the term Trinity, but something else. With regards to that contention I produced the following response:

    Harry, the translation that you have provided for the Qur’an in Surah al-ma’idah, verse 73 is not entirely accurate. The verse should read as “They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity…”. Allah is not a translatable word. The word for God in Arabic is ‘ilah’, not Allah. Allah is a specific name belonging to God. In any case, you’re charging that the translation got it wrong with regards to the word Trinity which in your view is not found in the Arabic. First of all, it is clear that your language mastery is quite limited. The word Trinity is derived from the Latin Trinitas which was first used by the lawyer, Tertullian. The word Trinitas in latin literally means ‘threeness’ or the number three. It is related to the word ‘trinus’ and accordingly William Young’s Latin dictionary defines a Trinitarian as ‘qui trinas personas in uno Deo esse credunt’. The Arabic word used in that verse is ‘thalathatin’ which means three or it can be correctly rendered as trinity which does mean three.

    -end of quote-

    I believe you realised that you were soundly refuted and so in embarrassment you’re trying to shift the topic to something else and distract people’s attention from your ignorance. Yet, in your latest response you continue with your utter ignorance and claim that “This word Trinity is not the Arabic text but rather..The Arabic word for the “Holy Trinity” is “al-thaaluuth al-aqdas”, pronounced ath-thaaluuth al-aqdas..”. This is the height of foolishness. I have already explained to you that the word Trinity literally means THREE in Latin. The words used in the two verses from Surah al-Ma’idah and al-Nisa’ are ‘thalathatun’ which means three. The meaning corresponds with the meaning of the word Trinity(trinitas), hence linguistically it is legitimate to translate the Arabic word used as Trinity in English. Let us now move on to whether the Qur’an has correctly depicted the Trinity. You claim that the Qur’an is wrong because it says that ‘God is the third of three’ and that in your view means that the Qur’an isn’t condemning the concept of the Trinity but rather those who believe in three gods. Firstly, the Qur’an does not say that God is the third of the three only(faqat). The Arabic phraseology used is simply an expression which means ‘one of three’. If I said ‘inna ahmad rabi’u al-arba’atin’ I would be in fact saying that verily ahmad is one of four. Further more, the Qur’an does not identify the exact details of the Trinity because there are many forms of the Trinity and theological beliefs among hundreds and thousands of different Christian groups. Do you expect the Qur’an to be a theological text book that expounds every single doctrinal belief in the many dimensions of Christianity? The Qur’an could have been that way, but Allah in His divine wisdom decided to tackle every single possible conception of the Trinity and other Christian theological beliefs in one shot. That is the Qur’an is essentially condemning the idea of ‘plurality’ in God. The moment you have more than one then you have already gone astray. That is the point of the Qur’an that you have missed. Whether Christian Trinitarians say they believe in three gods or not in their speech is inconsequential. That is because Islam perceives Trinitarians as worshipping three gods as do Christian Unitarians like Sir Anthony Buzzard and Jewish scholars as well. No amount of word juggling and acrobatics can remove you from worshipping more than one god in the Trinity. In any case, even if I were to agree with translating the verse literally as ‘the third of three’ the Qur’an still stands undefeated. The description given in fact does not inaccurately captures the Trinity concept that is found in the Athanasian creed. The third of the three which is the Holy Spirit is said to be fully almighty God. So how is the Qur’an wrong in saying they say ‘Allah(who is God) is the third of three’? In the end you have absolutely no case against the Qur’an. For more information on the multiple different ways different Trinitarians conceive of the Trinity refer to http://unveiling-christianity......mes-white/

    • harry says:

      Hi Ibn Anwar

      1.you said… Firstly, the Qur’an does not say that God is the third of the three only(faqat). The Arabic phraseology used is simply an expression which means ‘one of three’

      Picknall

      They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three; when there is no Allah save the One Allah. If they desist not from so saying a painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve.

      Yusuf Ali

      They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.

      Shakir

      Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah is the third (person) of the three; and there is no god but the one Allah, and if they desist not from what they say, a painful chastisement shall befall those among them who disbelieve.

      2. and you said…Further more, the Qur’an does not identify the exact details of the Trinity because there are many forms of the Trinity and theological beliefs among hundreds and thousands of different Christian groups

      there are no different types of trinity when we are talking about Christianity there is only The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost everything is false

      3.and you said…Whether Christian Trinitarians say they believe in three gods or not in their speech is inconsequential. That is because Islam perceives Trinitarians as worshipping three gods as do Christian Unitarians like Sir Anthony Buzzard and Jewish scholars as well. No amount of word juggling and acrobatics can remove you from worshipping more than one god in the Trinity.

      If Islam perceives that Christians worship three gods then Islam can’t be from God because if the koran can’t even explain what we believe then I’m not surprised you try to cover that up with the “many forms of trinity”

      because you can’t understand something you throw it out as being false

      4. you said…Do you expect the Qur’an to be a theological text book that expounds every single doctrinal belief in the many dimensions of Christianity?

      well what is Theology all about? you should be able to explain from the Koran it is obvious they are not in the same league. you want to pull the bible to bits trying to find every mistake

      I think the koran should come under the microscope if you are going to come against the Christians belief of the Trinity at least come up with what we really believe.

      we don’t need to make a case against the koran because the verse when it says when it says “the third of three” is not talking about the Holy Ghost who is mentioned third in the Trinity but I thought according to Islam the Angel Gabriel was the Holy Ghost

      And if you say the Gabriel is the Holy Ghost we have a problem because lots of Muslims have said that Muhammad is the comforter.

      John14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
      John15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

      and if Gabriel is the Holy Ghost then there is something else to think about

      Luk 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

      why didn’t Gabriel say I will come upon thee?

      • Ibn Anwar says:

        Harry wrote:
        1.you said… Firstly, the Qur’an does not say that God is the third of the three only(faqat). The Arabic phraseology used is simply an expression which means ‘one of three’

        Picknall

        They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three; when there is no Allah save the One Allah. If they desist not from so saying a painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve.

        Yusuf Ali

        They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.

        Shakir

        Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah is the third (person) of the three; and there is no god but the one Allah, and if they desist not from what they say, a painful chastisement shall befall those among them who disbelieve.

        My reply:
        Why are you repeating yourself? I have already explained the above in full which you have NOT ADDRESSED:
        I believe you realised that you were soundly refuted and so in embarrassment you’re trying to shift the topic to something else and distract people’s attention from your ignorance. Yet, in your latest response you continue with your utter ignorance and claim that “This word Trinity is not the Arabic text but rather..The Arabic word for the “Holy Trinity” is “al-thaaluuth al-aqdas”, pronounced ath-thaaluuth al-aqdas..”. This is the height of foolishness. I have already explained to you that the word Trinity literally means THREE in Latin. The words used in the two verses from Surah al-Ma’idah and al-Nisa’ are ‘thalathatun’ which means three. The meaning corresponds with the meaning of the word Trinity(trinitas), hence linguistically it is legitimate to translate the Arabic word used as Trinity in English. Let us now move on to whether the Qur’an has correctly depicted the Trinity. You claim that the Qur’an is wrong because it says that ‘God is the third of three’ and that in your view means that the Qur’an isn’t condemning the concept of the Trinity but rather those who believe in three gods. Firstly, the Qur’an does not say that God is the third of the three only(faqat). The Arabic phraseology used is simply an expression which means ‘one of three’. If I said ‘inna ahmad rabi’u al-arba’atin’ I would be in fact saying that verily ahmad is one of four. Further more, the Qur’an does not identify the exact details of the Trinity because there are many forms of the Trinity and theological beliefs among hundreds and thousands of different Christian groups. Do you expect the Qur’an to be a theological text book that expounds every single doctrinal belief in the many dimensions of Christianity? The Qur’an could have been that way, but Allah in His divine wisdom decided to tackle every single possible conception of the Trinity and other Christian theological beliefs in one shot. That is the Qur’an is essentially condemning the idea of ‘plurality’ in God. The moment you have more than one then you have already gone astray. That is the point of the Qur’an that you have missed. Whether Christian Trinitarians say they believe in three gods or not in their speech is inconsequential. That is because Islam perceives Trinitarians as worshipping three gods as do Christian Unitarians like Sir Anthony Buzzard and Jewish scholars as well. No amount of word juggling and acrobatics can remove you from worshipping more than one god in the Trinity. In any case, even if I were to agree with translating the verse literally as ‘the third of three’ the Qur’an still stands undefeated. The description given in fact does not inaccurately captures the Trinity concept that is found in the Athanasian creed. The third of the three which is the Holy Spirit is said to be fully almighty God. So how is the Qur’an wrong in saying they say ‘Allah(who is God) is the third of three’? In the end you have absolutely no case against the Qur’an.

        You wrote:
        2. and you said…Further more, the Qur’an does not identify the exact details of the Trinity because there are many forms of the Trinity and theological beliefs among hundreds and thousands of different Christian groups

        there are no different types of trinity when we are talking about Christianity there is only The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost everything is false

        My reply:
        I have already referred you to a whole article which I dealt with this very issue. Evidently, you have ignored it completely. The following is from the article:
        I was actually deliberating on whether I should dignify Dr. White’s response or not. Some of my friends said that I should whilst others said it would be a waste of time. Eventually, as you can see I decided to go for it lest I be deemed defeated. If I had remained silent without any response whatsoever it might have seemed that I gave in to Dr. White’s assessments thus rendering my article on the issue moot. I do not want people to get misled by Dr. White’s apparent eloquence if I can help it. Let us begin with the reply.

        *In the article I will make time frame citations to the video response so that the readers will be able to refer back to the video if they need to.

        Listening to Dr. White’s response one gets the impression that he tries to treat the article as if its focus is on the doctrine of the Trinity per se. Anyone who has read the article carefully will be able to see that it isn’t so. Although the article mentions the Trinity a few times its main focus is on Jesus being a man and what that entails. I have tried to show in the article that precisely three verses found in the Old Testament disqualify Jesus as God. I did not discuss the details of the Trinity as a doctrine, but tried to show that if Jesus isn’t God then there is no Trinity.

        At the beginning of the response Dr. White said that I am, “a gentleman that has misunderstood in a serious manner my teaching on the subject of the incarnation.” Instead of naming my supposed erronuous understanding immediately after that accusation he somewhat goes off on a tangent and starts to accuse the Muslim masses of ignorance regarding the Trinity and spent sometime on that in a way that may lead the viewers to think that he is elaborating on my supposed misconception when in fact he isn’t. He says that the Muslims’ misunderstanding is, “…not because of a lack of clarity on our part.” He does concede however that there are Christians who themselves do not really comprehend the concept but coated it with diplomatic words instead saying, “granted I’m sure they have to deal with Chritians who are somewhat less than accurate in their understandig of the Trinity. There are Christians like that.”

        Dr. Anis Shorrosh recently convicted for arson is a Christian theologian and he wrote in his book The Liberated Palestianian that he is thankful to the Father for dying for his sins. I had the opportunity to discuss Christian beliefs with Pastor Iben Arang of the Anglican Cathedral of St. Mary the Virgin in Kuala Lumpur which is situated just beside the Sultan Abdul Samad building and the Merdeka Square both of which are popular tourist sites in the city. Pastor Iben explained the Trinity to me in this way, “In the past there was the Father, then he decided to come as the Son(about 2000 years ago) and now we have the Holy Spirit with us.” Basically, what he was saying is that the Father came down to be the Son and then the Son after His crucifixion came back as the Holy Spirit who now resides with us. So they are all basically the same guy. And then he went on to say that Muslims don’t undersand this and think that he worships multiple Gods when in reality they are just the same guy. Can we describe these understandings or rather misunderstandings on the Christians’ part as merely “less than accurate” ? What do you think? I challenge anyone to go and talk to 30 or more Trinitarians who do not know each other and see how many of them are consistent with one another in their understanding.

        I have been talking to Christians for the past 6 years or so and honestly I have encountered numerous different understandings on what the Trinity stands for. As an example, many a time sincere Trinitarians would unknowingly resort to modalism to prove Jesus’ divinity. In fact, I was in Royalson’s room on paltalk last week which is called “Christians pray for Muslims” under the social issues, human rights section with over 60 people in it most of whom were Christians discussing Christian beliefs. One Arab Christian came up and actually gave a modalist perspective and the whole room cheered him on even after I explained that he has committed a heresy according to Trinitarian belief. It would then appear that we Muslims are not the only ones who do not really comprehend the Trinity.

        Dr. James White however, is of the opinion that the Trinity is simple. In fact he says in his response, “The reality is the doctrine of the Trinity is fairly easily defined and has been around for a long long time, therefore, to understand what it’s saying is not that difficult…” Notice that he says the doctrine has been around for a long time and therefore(because of that) it is easy to understand. Hindu anthropomorphism and pantheism have been around longer than the Trinity and yet if you were to ask 30 Hindus hardly anyone will be able to provide a cogent answer because Hinduism is simply a mess and the people make up their own gods whenever they wish. Prolonged period of time does not necessitate easeness in comprehension. If it did we wouldn’t find Christians(many Christians even learned ones) stumbling all over the place trying to explain the Trinity to themselves and others. Dr. White suggests that we go to systematic theologians for correct understanding of the Trinity. The rule of thumb is of course to go to the experts. No problem. Let’s go to an expert in the field and see what he says about the Trinity. How about we look at the words of Dr. Millard Erickson who’s a professor of Systematic Theology at Western Seminary, Portland, Oregon. He was also professor of theology at Bethel University seminary and also taught at Baylor University. He writes,

        “This doctrine in many ways presents strange paradoxes…It is a widely disputed doctrine, which has provoked discussion throughout all the centuries of the church’s existence. It is held by manywith great vehemence and vigor. These advocates are certain they believe the doctrine and consider it crucial to the Christian faith. Yet many are unsure of the exact meaning of their belief. It was the vey first doctrine dealt with systematically by the church, yet it is still one of the most misunderstood and disputed docrines. Further, it is not clearly or explicitly taught anywhere in scripture, yet it is widely regarded as a central doctrine, indispensable to the Christian faith. In this regard, it goes contrary to what is virtually an axiom[that is, a given, a self-evident truth] of biblical doctrine, namely, that there is a direct correlation between the scriptural clarity ofa doctrine and its cruciality to the faith and life of the church.” [1] (emphasis added)

        So according to the above testimony from a prominent theologian the Trinity is widely disputed and misunderstood. This is something that should not exist if indeed as Dr. White claims, “it is fairly easily defined”.

        Dr. White then goes on to say that, “at least, you can go back to 15, 16, 17 hundred years and find a lot of consistency in what is being said on the central issues.” Yet, Dr. Erickson glaringly says that it is widely disputed and misunderstood! But anyway, let us say for the sake of argument that Dr. White is correct in his estimation. What I would like to know is why does he not trace it back to the early initial years of Christianity? If you trace the Trinity back 1700 years ago there’s a gap of over three hundred years! Where was the Trinity in those first three hundred years? I would suggest people purchase Prof. Bart Ehrman’s Lost Scriptures and Lost Christianities for in depth information on other theological ideas that existed in the early years of Christianity and got stamped out by what eventually became “Orthodoxy”. In fact, Dr. White somewhat seems to be echoing the words of the Catholic encyclopedia which says regarding the Trinity,

        “There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century. It was only then that what might be called the definitive Trinitarian dogma ‘One God in three Persons’ became thoroughly assimilated into Christian life and thought … it was the product of 3 centuries of doctrinal development.” [2] (emphasis added)

        So who brought and defined the Trinity? Which or what Prophet? NONE! This doctrine was developed by men who are now regarded by mainstream Christians as Church Fathers or early Christian theologians at the expanse of other concepts that existed at that time that are now deemed heretical. One cannot help but compromise strict adherence to the so called idea of sola scriptura(only scripture) in order to arrive at the Trinity. For if you only went by scripture without the assistance of theologians you will miss the Trinity and may come up with other strange doctrines concerning God. Thus, the Trinity depends on the tradition of men which is rather ironic for the Protestants who oppose Catholocism because of its dependance on the “tradition of men”.

        The Encyclopedia Brittanica tells us that, “…in Christian doctrine, the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead. Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament. The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies…” [3] (emphasis added)
        “Belief in God as Three-in-One is as old as Christianity itself. The word Trinity doesn’t appear as a theological term till near the end of the second century. It was first used as ‘Trias’ by Theophilus, the Bishop of Antioch in AD. 180 and later by Tertullian as Trinitas to signify that God exists in three persons. * * * Trinity is a mystery as well as a doctrine, which is beyond our intuitive recognition and faculty. One God in Three persons, that is the mystery of the Holy Trinity.” [4]

        Dr. White continues lambasting the Muslims, “why are there such confusion on the part of Muslims on the subject?” Well, perhaps it is because Christians themselves are confused as illustrated? If you have been discussing with Christians you will inadvertantly encounter this very common script from them which goes somewhere along the lines of, “You cannot understand because you do not have the Holy Spirit!” This is essentially what Lehman Strauss says, “The Apostle Paul wrote, ”And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh . . . ” (I Timothy 3:16). Confessedly, by common consent the Incarnation of Jesus Christ is outside the range of human natural comprehension and apprehension. It can be made known only by Divine revelation in the Holy Scriptures, and to those only who are illumined by the Holy Spirit.” So this idea of Jesus becoming man cannot be understood by the human mind, but rather by divine intervention! It goes without saying that the same is true for the Trinity. If that is the case why complain when Muslims don’t understand as understanding is contingent on divine revelation via the dwelling of the Holy Spirit? However, this standard would appear to fail even Christians themselves! Paul says, “no one can say,”Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.”(1 Corinthians 12:3) So it is only by the Holy Spirit one can say Jesus is Lord. I am quite certain that both Dr. Anis Shorrosh and Pastor Iben Arang being confirmed Christians have said on numerous occassions that ‘Jesus is Lord’ which indicates the presence of the Holy Spirit with/in them according to 1 Corinthians 12:3. If that is the case one would expect correct understanding of the crucial Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Yet, as we have illustrated they do not grasp it even then. So is the Holy Spirit a failure? What is it?

        Dr. White then continues, “I think Islam forces the confusion upon them through its misrepresentation of the doctrine…certainly the Qur’an never identifies the doctrine of the Trinity in ny accurate fashion, and to an depths watsoever.” Does Islam really mispresent the Trinity? I would ask Dr. White to please get hold of Dr. Louay Fatoohi’s book The Mystery of the Historical Jesus for clarification and to stop making basless remarks on this. Afterall, Dr. White enjoys reiterating that he goes back to Islamic sources to try his level best not to misrepresent Islam. Shabir Ally had explained what the Qur’an says regarding Christian theology to Dr. James White in their debates yet Dr. White repeats the same thing again and again. It gets boring after a while. In any case I find it totally ironic(bordering on hypocrisy) that he accuses the Qur’an of not presenting an accurate or in-depth description on the Trinity as if that affects its integrity when that is PRECISELY the problem that Christians face with the New Testament, nay the Bible(s)! We have already seen the words of Dr. Millard Erickson who elsewhere in the same book says, “For here is a seemingly crucial matter where the Scriptures do not speak loudly and clearly.” [5] Roger Olson and Chris Hill mention, “Nowhere is it clearly and unequivocally stated in scripture.” [6] Shirley Guthrie who is a professor of Systematic Theology at Columbia Theological Seminary puts it even more bluntly,

        “The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity. Neither the word “Trinity” itself nor such language as “one-in-three”, “three-in-one, one “essence” (or “substance”), and three “persons” is biblical language. The language of the doctrine is the language of the church taken from classical Greek philosophy… The doctrine of the Trinity is not found in the Bible…” [7]

        The fact that the Trinity is neither clearly nor explicitly taught in the Bible is also observed in mainstream works like The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology and The New International Dictionary of New Testament Testament Theology.

        In no more than 2 minutes and 35 seconds Dr. James White has dug a rather deep hole for himself. Need I go on? Well, if I didn’t I would seem cheeky and I don’t want to be perceived as cheeky. So, let’s proceed.

        Dr. James White then goes on to mention Ahmed Deedat who he says misrepresented the Trinity. Whether he did or not is none of my concern and I’m not sure why he’s even bringing Ahmed Deedat to the table. Nowhere in my article did I allude to Deedat’s arguments. I have watched most of Ahmed Deedats talks and debates. I have hardly found instances where he actually used any of the three verses that I have employed in my article to disprove Jesus’ alleged divinity. Anyway, let’s move on.

        At 3:18 to 3:34, Dr. White reads Numbers 23:19(God is not a man…nor the son of man) and says that he has used this many times when talking to Mormons. I am glad that he has done so because now we do not have to bicker over the translation which will be important later.

        At 5:00, he states that that what I have written displays, “fundamental misunderstanding on the part of Muslims when Christians speak of the incarnation of Jesus Christ.” He then says that the logos took on the flesh at 5:27.

        At around 6:35 onwards he reads what I wrote,

        God did not actually become man. What happened was that God manifested Himself in the flesh. So the verse does not contradict the fact that Jesus was both man and God at the same time.

        This argument is favoured by apologists like VenomFangX. It basically postulates that God dwelt in the human cocoon made of flesh and that the flesh itself was not divine and God certainly did not transform into the flesh.

        After reading that at 6:50 he blasts me with the accusation, “tremendous amount of confusion on the part of the author.” First of all, it’s not even my view to begin with. I was merely reporting what the Trinitarian Christians propose and in this instance I named VenomFangX whom I spoke to on this very subject two days before I wrote the article. Dr. White accuses me of “TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF CONFUSION”, yet if you listen carefully he does not actually show you clearly where the supposed confusion is. He then goes on to explain from 7:05 onwards that, “we affirm that the human nature that Jesus represents to us, the logos, the word became flesh. That human nature is a true human nature. He was truly human. It wasn’t just uh an outward cocoon indwelt by deity.” Where did I write that the cocoon was meaningless flesh that was not fully and truly human simply indwelt by the deity??? You can see how Dr. White has started a straw man. What does reincarnation mean? Lehman Strauss in his Why God Became Man? article writes at the beginning, “It is derived from the Latin in and caro (flesh), meaning clothed in flesh, the act of assuming flesh” In other words, the flesh was like a cocoon! So where is the error in what I wrote? Nowhere!

        At 7:26 to 7:28 he reads the part where I wrote, “the flesh itself isn’t divine” to which he remarked, “well, of course not.” And then he goes onto say that this is one of the early errors in Christology that was rejected. He then further argued that, “The incarnation is not that God ceased to be God and became flesh. It is not that you have the deity here and the flesh here and becomes an intertwining so that you have 50% God and 50% man. So, there is a fundamental confusion on the part of Ibn Anwar here.” I challenge anyone to show me where I said that God ceased to be God and became flesh and that when the incarnation happened it was 50% God and 50% man! Where did I say any of those things? Nowhere! Again…straw man.

        From 9:30 onwards he claims that I have misrepresented his position in the debate he had with Sami Zaatari when they were discussing the incarnation. He is referring to my mentioning of Sami’s debate with him in the UK in my article. He then says, “Lord willing the actual debate footage is finally going to be delivered to us hopefully in the near future so that we can finally provide to everyone as we wanted to all along.” What the heck is this guy on about? What jungle has he been living in? The debate has been out for about three months now! Everyone can watch it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....annel_page.

        From 10:15 to 10:23, he repeats again the straw man that, “it is not 50% God and 50% man and so to assert that I was saying that is completely inaccurate. The essential nature of God did not change.” He then says, “He does not cease being all powerful, He does not cease being eternal(11:03 to 11:04) etc. in the incarnation.” For one more time, where in the world did I assert that in the incarnation it was divided to 50% God and 50% man? Am I confused or is Dr. White confused? What about the unchanging essential nature of God in the incarnation according to Dr. White? Well, maybe Dr. White forgot that Trinitarians believe that Jesus lowered himself and became a servant? That is the word used by Trinitarians to describe Jesus’ lowly position before the Father during his ministry e.g. he did not know the hour. Perhaps Dr. White needs to reread his basics.

        From 13:10 to 13:21 he reads the part where I mention that he had a debate with Abdullah Al-Andalus and conceded that the Son of God(who is himself fully God) died. But then he starts the common Trinitarian word gymnastics game. Please watch the part carefully and you will agree with me that what he explains is just pure confusion. He tries to explain that to die does not mean to cease to exist! When the Son died there was no ceasation of existence, but rather he gave his life. It was the giving of life he says. I pray for the day that these folk can speak without tongue in cheek. I never once mentioned anywhere in the article that death = ceasation of existence. This is yet another straw man. At 13:41 he agrees explicitly that Jesus died saying, “of course”, but then he starts talking about caesation and non-ceasation of existence in death again as if that is what I implied!

        At 14:50, he agrees that Christians must accept the position in order to be consistent with their theology. However, he misunderstood what I meant by that. Dr. White thought that I meant the divinity of Jesus. I’ll reproduce the sentences from the article here,

        “Ergo, the death on the cross was not simply experienced by the flesh, but also by the divine part of Jesus. This position has to be accepted by Christians who take him as God so as to remain consistent with their theology as we shall see.”

        Anyone reading that can see that the last sentence is a direct continuation of the previous. What I meant was that Christians must agree that Jesus died bodily and spiritually(the fully God part also) which Dr. White actually agreed to as did Jay Smith whom I cited in the article. What is the point? You will see in a moment.

        At 15:04, he starts to read the paragraph where I mention John 1 and says that it’s a strong text, but then he wonders why Muslims do not engage in stronger texts like Titus 2:13 etc. that prove Jesus’ divinity. He then accused Muslims of borrowing from Jehovah’s Witnesses rather than doing first level research in this subject. Where and what exactly have I borrowed from the JWs in my article?? I did not cite John 1 to try and refute the Trinitarian interpretation on it(that it shows Jesus as divine) as is the assertion made by Dr. White. I have cited it to prove a very crucial point which I will have to reiterate here soon. At 16:10, Dr. White claims that , “It sems that Ibn Anwar thinks that God ceased being God and transmuted into something else. That’s clearly not John’s message…” Not at all. Let me explain the whole excercise here as simply as possible. We have seen that Dr. White, Jay Smith and other Christians believe that when Jesus died it was the so called “God-man” who died i.e. both the man(truly human) and the God(truly God) died in which case they must now agree that the God part was imbued into the flesh since Spirits in reality cannot be harmed by human means, let alone killed. This is what we find in Luke 12:4, ““I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body(soma), and after that have nothing more they can do.” If the body dies, expires or whatever the Spirit does not. If Trinitarians say that God the Son died then the implication of that is that the fully man was indeed the fully God despite their saying that the flesh itself isn’t divine. This then means that God really became man which is in fact the message of John 1:14 provided we accept the Trinitarian understanding of logos = theos and the logos who is theos BECAME flesh. It does not say that the flesh was covering some spirit dwelling inside. Numbers 23:19 clearly negates the idea that theos is a man and yet Trinitarians claim that theos who is logos and vice versa literally became man. Any reasonable person will be able to see that there is a clear contradiction involved. Trinitarians often like to equate certain attributes or titles given to Jesus with those given to God in the Old Testamet then make the conclusion that they’re really the same being which is why they share same attributes and titles. Yet, when we want to apply the same standard with Jesus being A MAN with three explicit verses in the Old Testament saying that God isn’t a man they are not willing to employ that standard anymore and wish to instead get us into a convoluted theological gymnastics. In the video response Dr. White has only really covered the 2nd rebuttal part and left out the other points discussed in the article. I invite the readers to please consider all the points mentioned including the ones that Dr. White thinks he has refuted. Lastly, we come to “The Son of God” which was mentioned earlier. In my article I have illustrated that the verse attacks the idea that Jesus is God in a two-pronged approach. One would be that God isn’t a man which what our discussion has revolved around so far. The other is that God is not the Son of Man. Who is the Son of Man? Jesus! One of the verses used by Trinitarians to prove Jesus is God is Mark 14:62 where Jesus predicts the Son of Man coming in the clouds sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One. Michael Licona a New Testament historian and Christian apologist used this verse to argue for Jesus’ divinity which can be watched here. How can the verse prove Jesus is God when Numbers 23:19 clearly says that God is NOT the Son of Man? More than 80 times Jesus is called the Son of Man why should Numbers 23:19 not be applied to Jesus? The reason is because if it is applied to Jesus, he ceases to be God and Trinitarians obviously will not stand for that. I would like to thank Dr. James White for taking the time to respond to my article and brother Sami Zaatari for continuing to post my articles on his website.

        Notes:

        * Dr White says that Jesus, the Son of God who is God the second person died and so the Father was there to look after the universe. In his response he expanded on this and included the Holy Spirit. What he has done is reduced the Trinity to only two persons at least at the time of the death of “the Son” on the cross. What was the son doing if he did not cease to exist before he was “reincarnated”? Was sleeping? In addition, saying that the second person who is fully God died goes against 1 Timothy 6:16, “He alone has endless life and lives in inaccessible light. No one has ever seen him, nor can anyone see him. Honor and eternal power belong to him! Amen” Dr. White also stated at 11:03 to 11:04 that God is eternal. To be eternal is to never experience death. Everybody knows that. If 1 Timothy 6:16 is about the Father and not Jesus then Jesus is also disqualified as God or maybe he will have to be demotted to a lesser position by Trinitarians and those who worship him. That is because the verse identifies that He(God) alone(monos) has endless life(athanasian).

        References:

        [1] Millard J. Erickson. God in Three Persons, A Contemporary Interpretation(1995). Grand Rapids: Baker Books. p. 11

        [2] The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIV. p. 295

        [3] Encyclopaedia Britannica, Volume 11. p. 928

        [4] http://www.christiancadre.org/topics/trinity.html

        [5] Millard J. Erickson. Op. Cit. p. 108-109

        [6] Roger E. Olson, Christopher A. Hall. The Trinity(2002). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. p. 1

        [7] Shirley C. Guthrie. Christian Doctrine(1994). Louisville, Westminster: John Knox Press. p. 76-80

        -end of article-

        You wrote:
        we don’t need to make a case against the koran because the verse when it says when it says “the third of three” is not talking about the Holy Ghost who is mentioned third in the Trinity but I thought according to Islam the Angel Gabriel was the Holy Ghost

        My reply:
        The above shows that you actually have a low IQ. You are demanding that the Qur’an address Christian Christian beliefs directly and I propose that it does by identifying the deification of the third in the three and you instead argue that isn’t the third supposed to be the angel Gabriel according to the Qur’an? The Qur’an isn’t affirming that the third in the trinity is the angel gabriel who is god. Rather it is refuting the Christian deification of the third in the three. Failing to understand this simplest of things is indicative of your lack of intelligence.

        You wrote:
        Luk 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

        why didn’t Gabriel say I will come upon thee?

        My reply:
        Thank you for supplying information that refutes your doctrine. Luke 1:35 says that Jesus is “the son of God” BECAUSE OF/AS A RESULT OF(dia in Greek) the way he was conceived, that is, via the intervention of God through the Holy Spirit. That means that his sonship had a beginning and he was not eternally pre-existent as the ‘Son of God’ i.e. the second in the triune godhead. There goes your doctrine into the garbage bin due to your own effort. Congratulations.

  11. The Bull says:

    Ibn Anwar wrote: “The Christian Jesus-worshiper will claim that the above verse shows Jesus as deity because it says that everyone will worship him. First of all, notice that the verse says that “all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him”. Does it say that they will worship him? No, it does not. It says that they DID worship him. So it’s not actually talking about everyone from time immemorial to the end of days.”

    A: This verse is PROPHECY. i.e. God shows you the future and so from your reference point the event DID happen. If you cross reference this verse to Phillipians 2:10,11 you will see that the context is EVERYONE. Also cross reference to Rev. 20:12 with Daniel 14:10. The context is the final Judgement is it not??

    The fact remains, from time immemorial or not…Jesus is still worshipped by Gods people in a future time in an everlasting kingdom; you can’t change that.

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      The Bull, do you think I do not know that Christians take the verse as a prophecy? I was simply stating the fact that the verse says that the subject was worshipped and not that he will be worshipped which may lead one to the understanding that Jesus was not really envisioned here at this point. However, even if it does indeed refer to Jesus as he is worshipped that in no way makes him God which is the essential point of the whole discussion in the article. You have not refuted my main contentions. I have already explained Philippians 2:10 and 11 to you last year. There is no need to repeat it here.

    • roco says:

      “The fact remains, from time immemorial or not…Jesus is still worshipped by Gods people in a future time in an everlasting kingdom; you can’t change that.”

      daniel, unknown fellow, writing in an unknown location, to UNKNOWN jews, talks about his dream he is having in his brain in aramaic language.european polythiests christianize the whole damn dream for no good reason.it doesn’t even say that it (dream) was revealed from god, yet you can totally hijack it with your christian polythiesm. anything which sounds polythiestic in torah christians get happy. don’t you known that other pagan literature also has many juicy polythiestic ideas in that era whihc daniel was written in? I AM sure daniel ENVISION THAT the ppl who would kick START the SERVING OF THIS king would be the jews themselves, yet how well does this “prophecy” fit jews serving jesus in the days of jesus? IF YOU WERE THERE ,YOU would aknowledge that no jews served jesus and none considered him a messiah , and WHAT IS even worse is that crowds of righteous ppl saw him as an ORDINARY MAN

      “But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins,” he then said to the paralytic, “Rise, take up your bed and go home.” And he rose and went home. When the crowds saw it, they were in awe, and they glorified God who had given such authority to MEN.”

      did these men SEEM like they were SERVING or turning jeezuz in to a god?did they say “he fits daniel like a PUZZLY piece”? do you christians not see that it is your knowledge of daniel which is allowing you to FIT it in jesus, it DEFINATELY DID not fit jesus in his time . read your BS about “in a FUTURE” AND LOOK at the massive GAP between the FORGERY called daniel and jezuz krist.

      DO YOU SEE? his DISTORTION of torah is allowing him to PICK OUT ELEMENTS AND PLACE THEM IN ISRAEL in jc’s time
      now think about this
      if he can do it today to make them FIT with jesus, then what ABOUT MAT, MARK , luke and john?

      • harry says:

        Hi Roco

        can you answer me this question which man on the earth ever has had the authority to forgive sins?

        Mar 2:4 And when they could not come nigh unto him for the press, they uncovered the roof where he was: and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed wherein the sick of the palsy lay.
        Mar 2:5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.
        Mar 2:6 But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts,
        Mar 2:7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?

        They said Jesus was blaspheming for telling the man his sins were forgiven,the problem is this.

        1. If he was blaspheming then Jesus is a sinner and the Koran is lying.

        2. If the scribes are wrong in their accusation then Jesus is God and the koran is still wrong.

        something to think about

    • R says:

      daniel , an UNKNOWN jew, WRITING in an UNKNWON location to UNKNOWN jewish people, about his dream in his mind.
      it doesn’t even say that it (DREAM) is FROM GOD. daniel gives us the impression that the jews will immediately recognise this ONE LIKE A son of man , but how many of you would try to fit it into jezuz if you WERE jesus’ CONTEMPORARY? the jews do not RECOGNISE him as a messiah, his mother (mary) thinks jesus has gone looney (mark),righteous crowds of people see him as an ORDINARY man, not a king to be worshipped /served .

      “But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins,” he then said to the paralytic, “Rise, take up your bed and go home.” And he rose and went home. When the crowds saw it, they were in awe, and they glorified God who had given such authority to MEN.” (Matthew 9:2-8; Mk 2:7). ”

      HOW many of these jews went away home thinking that daniel FIT jesus like a lego piece? if his OWN deciples APOSTATED from him, leaving him for dead on a cross, then HOW MUCH the PUBLIC COMBED through daniel and fit it with jesus like a lego piece? WHY IS IT ALWAYS FITTING the person at a MUCH LATER DATE by distorting the passage LIKE venom fang x ?

      look at this gimp

      “hey man, isacks sacrifice is foreshadowing jesus death on the cross blah blah blah bs”

      notice he is PICKING ELEMENTS AND assuming that those ELEMENTS TOOK PLACE IN ISRAEL in jc’s time? but those elements can easily foreshadodow TEMPLE ANIMAL sacrifices and have absolutely NOTHING TO do with jesus.

      THINK ABOUT IT

      If torah CAN give you christians IDEAS about what YOU THINK took PLACE in israel and if it DIDN’T REALLY take place, then YOU ARE CREATING FICTION HISTORY IN YOUR MINDS. IF YOU CAN do this ABUSE of torah today, then WHAT about unknowns like luk + mat who wanted to portray jc as new moses figure. you really think they didn’t try to historicise torah ideas IN 1st century israel? YOU christian play the game TODAY.

      ..

      • harry says:

        Hi

        What is all the hassle about Jesus fitting into the dreams of Daniel if they don’t relate to Jesus then who is the son of man in Daniel 7:14?

        1. The time: 3rd year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Daniel and other Jews were taken captive by King of Babylon Nebuchadnezzzar

        2.Taken to the place called Shinar

        so we know Daniel was he was a slave in the nation of Babylon

      • rock says:

        harry, maybe you need to get your brain checked ?
        tell me something harry, when jesus went to EXCRETE, did god also go and excrete with him, did god feel excretion pass through jesus’ BODY? or did god have absolutely know feeling of it?

        harry, you pagan christian, your god in meat said to the pharisees that theIR THOUGHT that he was BLASPHEMING was EVIL, I.E thier CLAIMS about jesus forgiving the man = no one else can give this TYPE of forgiveness, but god = EVIL THOUGHT.

        “Your sins are forgiven.” And behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, “This man is blaspheming. [Who can forgive sins but God alone?]” But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, “Why do you think evil in your hearts?”

        WHY DO YOU THINK EVIL in your hearts, wHAT THE HECK was EVIL , harry?

        lets assume harry’s protestant god goes away home without CLARIFICATION, what do we see,

        “When the crowds saw it, they were in awe, and they glorified God who had given such authority to MEN.”

        NOT ONLY do the CROWDS go AWAY thinking that GOD GIVES TO MAN, but they BELIEVE he GIVES TO OTHER than jeeezuz
        ,but protestant jesus FaILED to clarify to them that the authourity he received was UNIQUE and unlike what OTHER MEN receive . so your god is accused of MISLEADING people, do you see protestant human jesus worshipper?

        what is disasterous for you harry is that jesus of luke said

        “father forgive them for they know not what they are doing”

        lol

        this means that jesus’ forgiveness IS NOT COMPARABLE TO the fathers forgiveness and the fathers FORGIVENESS IS GREATER than jesus’ forgiveness .

        • harry says:

          To Rock
          I don’t think you understood what I was actually saying,I have made no comments against you to put you down so I suggest you debate properly
          I’m not going to insult you

          If you understand things don’t think by throwing verbal stones that you will bother me.

          Jesus is who he says he is The Son of God. Remember Jesus is born of a virgin and you say what you want about his mother his birth his father.

          These are the scriptures that you can read and study I don’t read books to find fault…but to learn
          That’s why I appreciate people like Ibn Anwar where I make my point and also learn something
          Read : Genesis 3:15 / Micah 5:2 / Isaiah 7:14
          Isaiah 9:6 /

          I will get back to you and deal with the comments

  12. ROC says:

    daniel , an UNKNOWN jew, WRITING in an UNKNWON location to UNKNOWN jewish people, about his dream in his mind.
    it doesn’t even say that it (DREAM) is FROM GOD. daniel gives us the impression that the jews will immediately recognise this ONE LIKE A son of man , but how many of you would try to fit it into jezuz if you WERE jesus’ CONTEMPORARY? the jews do not RECOGNISE him as a messiah, his mother (mary) thinks jesus has gone looney (mark),righteous crowds of people see him as an ORDINARY man, not a king to be worshipped /served .

    “But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins,” he then said to the paralytic, “Rise, take up your bed and go home.” And he rose and went home. When the crowds saw it, they were in awe, and they glorified God who had given such authority to MEN.” (Matthew 9:2-8; Mk 2:7). ”

    HOW many of these jews went away home thinking that daniel FIT jesus like a lego piece? if his OWN deciples APOSTATED from him, leaving him for dead on a cross, then HOW MUCH the PUBLIC COMBED through daniel and fit it with jesus like a lego piece? WHY IS IT ALWAYS FITTING the person at a MUCH LATER DATE by distorting the passage LIKE venom fang x ?

    look at this gimp

    “hey man, isacks sacrifice is foreshadowing jesus death on the cross blah blah blah bs”

    notice he is PICKING ELEMENTS AND assuming that those ELEMENTS TOOK PLACE IN ISRAEL in jc’s time? but those elements can easily foreshadodow TEMPLE ANIMAL sacrifices and have absolutely NOTHING TO do with jesus.

    THINK ABOUT IT

    If torah CAN give you christians IDEAS about what YOU THINK took PLACE in israel and if it DIDN’T REALLY take place, then YOU ARE CREATING FICTION HISTORY IN YOUR MINDS. IF YOU CAN do this ABUSE of torah today, then WHAT about unknowns like luk + mat who wanted to portray jc as new moses figure. you really think they didn’t try to historicise torah ideas IN 1st century israel? YOU christian play the game TODAY.

    • harry says:

      Hi Roc
      Why is everyone so about this if it is not about then WHO is it referring to?

      1. Jesus came as a sacrifice for mankind
      A picture of this is given in Genesis when Abraham is about to sacrifice Isaac on the altar. The bible says there is a ram (symbol of Christ) that is caught in the thorns this sacrificed instead

      2. Matthew 26:63 the High Priest asked him if he was the Christ,The Son of God
      The word Christ and Messiah mean the same thing. And the High Priest sees Christ and Son of God as the same person

      3. The people that Jesus will rule and reign with Jesus are not going to be on the same level as Jesus but will serve him and they in turn will have authority over others

      4. In Matthew Jesus says he is one coming on the clouds
      Revelation 1:7 says every eye will see him
      3.

      • Ibn Anwar says:

        Harry, I have already dealth with the issue of “sacrifice” for mankind’s sins here:
        http://unveiling-christianity......sacrifice/

        The following are relevant questions on the subject that I posed in another post in the comment section that have gone satisfactorily unanswered:
        1. How can a most loving God require or demand the blood of an absolutely innocent person so as to let free and reward an absolutely guilty and sinful person? Does such a concept stand in the real world? Imagine there’s a judge presiding over a case of 5 murderers and rapists who have raped 50 women and killed all of them. The judge is disgusted by the crimes committed, but he offers a way out for them anyway for some strange reason. The offer is this: “You are all guilty of heinous crimes, but if you accept my son’s sacrifice you will be saved”. The judge then calls the bailiff(like Roman centurions) to go and fetch his 7 year old innocent son from home(children are innocent and guiltless according to Jesus, “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”(Matthew 18:3)) to appear before the court. The innocent little child loves his father so much and is very obedient and the father loves him so much too. But for some weird reason he loves the criminals so much too(John 3:16) and so he says to the son, “My Son, I love you but now you have to die for those men who raped and killed 50 women.” The son wants to be obedient but he’s frightened and so he drops to his knees and says, “Father, let this cup pass from me, but not as I will but as you will”. The Father turns aside and ignores his son’s agonising pleas. The Father then allows the bailiff to take the innocent child out into the busy street and crucify him on a traffic light to die a horrible and painful death. The son in his pain cries out loud, “my father, my father, why have you forsaken me?!?!?”. The father hears his son’s cry, but simply ignores him. Rather, he now turns his utmost attention to the criminals and say this to them, “Do you accept my son’s sacrifice for you?”. The criminals loving life and not wanting punishment answered yes. The father then smiles, give each of them a kiss on the cheek and say, “Go now my beloved children. You are free and you can enter into my house as your sins are now gone and I love you.” Tell me honestly, would you as an individual accept such a scenario? If you were an honest and reasonable person you will say no. In fact, the whole world rejects such a perverted idea. No guiltless child can ever be made to pay for the crimes and sins of another! The concept that you’re trying to sell here essentially says if someone has fever he should not take the necessary medication to relieve himself, rather someone else should take it for him. It is utterly nonsensical. Ezekiel 18 is very clear on who should pay for one’s sins, that is, the person himself and not another.
        2. John 3:16 says that God(the Father) loves the world so much that he gave his son(Jesus). Does the Father love the world more than the son that He would let and plan His son’s own horrible and atrocious demise for the world? If the Father loved the son more than the world would He not have felt like saving the son from even the smallest pain as any loving Father would??
        3. Does the son love the world more than the Father that he is the one who dies in order to supposedly save them? Does not the Father not love the world more or equal to the son? If so, would He not have offered Himself instead of letting His son do it?
        4. If the Father actually loved His son beyond everything would He not have done all that is in His power to save him? Would a loving father shove his son into the path of a moving car to save a baby stranded in the middle of a road or would he go himself if that was the only option?
        5. Matthew 20:28, 1 Timothy 2:6 and other such verses tell us that the death of the son was a ransom for many. The keyword there is ‘ransom’. I take it you know what ransom means. But in case there are those who are not that familiar with the meaning of the word, allow me to clarify. Ransom means to take hold of something in order to gain something else and upon gaining that something else the thing which was held(usually against the subject’s’ will) is released. For example, A kidnapper kidnaps a child from his family and demands a ransom. Upon payment of the ransom the child may be released by the kidnapper. Let us now return to the idea of Jesus being a ransom. According to many early church fathers, Satan held the world in his clutches and so God gave His son as a ransom to alleviate mankind’s state of affair. This concept is despicable on a number of levels. Above all else, it depicts Satan as one who is on equal bargaining ground with God who created him. This is unacceptable and ridiculous. Some modern day Christians prefer to relegate the ‘ransom’ issue to God. That God ransomed Himself. This is unacceptable based on the fact that God is supposed to be loving and not cruel. In addition, if God was all powerful there is no need to pay a ransom to Himself for He owns everything. How can He pay Himself something when in fact everything is already His from the beginning of creation? It makes no sense at all to say that ransom is paid to God by Himself so that men may be saved. So who was the ransom for and was there no other way to pay then through the shedding of the blood of a completely innocent person?
        6. What is the point of repentance if Jesus paid the full price? Repentance will be rendered meaningless if some kind of full payment is already paid and simply accepting that payment lets you off.
        7. Is there forgiveness from God anymore after the alleged blood atonement/payment? How can there be forgiveness anymore after the full price has been paid? It means that God has exacted the full toll and now there is no need to forgive. True forgiveness means to forgive someone without demanding something in return. Why do you like to portray God as Shylock? God is out for a pound of flesh? What an absurd concept! Can you imagine a loving person named John who has been wronged by someone named Jim. People know that one of John’s prominent characteristics is love and forgiveness. But John refuses to accept John’s apology. John will not forgive Jim unless he pays him with something valuable. John says, “I’ll forgive you only if you give me one million dollars. If you can’t give me one million dollars then I was your little child’s blood. If you can’t give me your little child’s blood then you can go to my house and give me my own little child’s blood”. What barbaric doctrines are you giving God?

        You said:
        3. The people that Jesus will rule and reign with Jesus are not going to be on the same level as Jesus but will serve him and they in turn will have authority over others

        My reply:
        Evidently, you have either not read the article above or you just don’t understand straightforward English.

        What about the fact that the verse says that “He was given authority, glory and sovereign power…His rule is eternal–it will never end. His kingdom will never be destroyed.”

        If being given authority, glory and sovereign power with an eternal kingdom makes the person(supposedly Jesus) God then the saints must be God too! Consider the following verses from the same passage:

        “But the saints of the Most High will receive the kingdom and will possess it forever-yes, for ever and ever.’ “(Daniel 7:18)

        “until the Ancient of Days came and pronounced judgment in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came when they possessed the kingdom.” (Daniel 7:22)

        “And the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High; their kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey them.’ “(Daniel 7:27)

        So according to the above verses everything that is given to the person in Daniel 7:14 will be given to the saints too! According to the Christian logic the saints are equally Gods. How many Gods are there exactly?

        Jesus is said to reign everything and sit on a throne. These in the Christian view which are discerned from Daniel 7:13 and other such verses makes him God. Following this logic the saints are yet again promoted to divinity as we read the following:

        “I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. ” (Revelation 20:4; See also Revelation 22:5)

        The above says that others who will also be sitting on thrones to judge will reign with Jesus for a thousand years, but Revelation 22:5 says they will reign forever and ever. Either way, they must be Gods too according to the Christian line of thought! It is a sad thing that Christians though claiming to be staunch monotheists time and again inadvertently create for themselves a pantheon of Gods and Deities, hence making them polytheists.

        • harry says:

          to Ibn Anwar

          you said…1. How can a most loving God require or demand the blood of an absolutely innocent person so as to let free and reward an absolutely guilty and sinful person?

          The same could be said when I’m told by Muslims that someone(an innocent person) took the place of Jesus on the cross

          but to answer to the question the reason this had to happen is because no one can pay for his own

          Isa 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

          God’s standards are high which is why Jesus said…
          Mat 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
          Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

          which is why Jesus was born of a virgin to be a sinless sacrifice for mankind no amount of praying and fasting is going to make us righteous

          2. John 3:16 says that God(the Father) loves the world so much that he gave his son(Jesus). Does the Father love the world more than the son that He would let and plan His son’s own horrible and atrocious demise for the world? If the Father loved the son more than the world would He not have felt like saving the son from even the smallest pain as any loving Father would??

          Ezekiel 18 is all about personal responsibility

          Jesus was raised up because he was righteous and he paid the price for us

          Act 17:31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

          if God was all powerful there is no need to pay a ransom to Himself for He owns everything. How can He pay Himself something when in fact everything is already His from the beginning of creation?

          man sinned in the beginning and gave everything over the devil…

          Luke 4:5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.
          Luke 4:6 And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.

          the devil said it was delivered unto him…by Adam when he sinned.

          legally the devil has access to people’s lives and has dominion over man Jesus came to take back mankind through his sacrifice on the cross

          The price has been paid in full but it does not take affect in a person’s life until they received Jesus as their Lord and Saviour by repentance.

          Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
          Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

      • rock says:

        “…on the same level as Jesus…” do you see the problem readers? this is the BASTARD reading of the text/ rape of the text/INTERPOLATION of it. these people have no shame.

  13. The Bull says:

    R said: “daniel, unknown fellow, writing in an unknown location, to UNKNOWN jews, talks about his dream he is having in his brain in aramaic language.european polythiests christianize the whole damn dream for no good reason.

    Answer:

    “Daniel was a righteous man of princely lineage and lived about 506-538 B.C. He was carried off to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar, the Assyrian, but was still living when Assyria was overthrown by the Medes and Persians. In spite of the “captivity” of the Jews, Daniel enjoyed the highest offices of state at Babylon, but he was ever true to Jerusalem. His enemies (under the Persian monarch) got a penal law passed against any one who “asked a petition of any god or man for 30 days” except the Persian King. But Daniel continued true to Jerusalem. “His windows being open in his chambers towards Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime.”
    —Abdullah Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’an: Text, Translation and Commentary”

    So here you have a Muslim Scholar totally refuting you.

    R said: “it doesn’t even say that it (dream) was revealed from god, yet you can totally hijack it with your christian polythiesm. anything which sounds polythiestic in torah christians get happy”

    Answer:

    Daniel 2:28 : “But there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets, and maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days. Thy dream, and the visions of thy head upon thy bed, are these;” (KJV).

    You have just wasted my time with your sloppy research. Maybe that is exactly what you intended?

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      I have already told you last year that Abdullah Yusuf Ali is not a Muslim scholar. He is only a translator. A translator is not a scholar. He had no formal training in any Islamic science. It is truly amazing how these people can repeat the same old nonsense even after they have been soundly refuted and they either pretend or continue on blindly thinking they have a good case to present.

      • rock says:

        חָזֵ֤ה הֲוֵית֙ בְּחֶזְוֵ֣י לֵֽילְיָ֔א וַֽאֲרוּ֙ עִם־עֲנָנֵ֣י שְׁמַיָּ֔א כְּבַ֥ר אֱנָ֖שׁ אָתֵ֣ה הֲוָ֑א וְעַד־עֲתִּ֤יק יֽוֹמַיָּא֙ מְטָ֔ה וּקְדָמ֖וֹהִי הַקְרְבֽוּהִי׃ וְלֵ֨הּ יְהִ֤ב שָׁלְטָן֙ וִיקָ֣ר וּמַלְכ֔וּ וְכֹ֣ל עַֽמְמַיָּ֗א אֻמַּיָ֛א וְלִשָּֽׁנַיָּ֖א לֵ֣הּ יִפְלְח֑וּן שָׁלְטָנֵּ֞הּ שָׁלְטָ֤ן עָלַם֙ דִּי־לָ֣א יֶעְדֵּ֔ה וּמַלְכוּתֵ֖הּ דִּי־לָ֥א תִתְחַבַּֽל׃
        13I was dreaming [lit., ‘I was watching nocturnal visions’], and wow! [something] like a human being was coming with the clouds of the sky − he approached the One from the ancient years [lit., ‘days’] and he was brought before Him. 14He gave him dominion, glory and a kingdom, and all peoples, nations, and tongues will serve him; his dominion is an eternal dominion which will not be removed, and his kingdom [is one] that will not be destroyed. (Daniyyél 7:13-14)

        (1) Verse 13 does not talk about “a son of man”; it actually says כְּבַר אֱנָשׁ k’var enash, “[something] like a human being”.

        (2) Verse 14 does not say anything about anyone “worshipping” anybody; the word it actually uses is יִפְלְחוּן yifl’ḥun, “they will serve [in the sense of work for] him”.

        (3) In any case, it didn’t actually happen − it was just a dream!

        .
        why would this guy from the messiah truth forum say “it was JUST A DREAM” AND “IT DIDN’T actually happen”
        because it was A dream, not revealation from god.

      • harry says:

        Hi Ibn Anwar

        I was curious how Muslims scholars have built upon the work of a man that wasn’t a scholar does that mean he was not qualified?

        Among those Qur’an translations which found Saudi favor and, therefore, wide distribution, was the Abdullah Yusuf ‘Ali (1872-1952) rendition[38] that, from its first appearance in 1934 until very recently, was the most popular English version among Muslims. While not an Islamic scholar in any formal sense, Yusuf ‘Ali, an Indian civil servant, had studied classics at Cambridge University, graduated as a lawyer from Lincoln’s Inn in London, and was gifted with an eloquent, vivid writing style. He sought to convey the music and richness of the Arabic with poetic English versification. While his rendering of the text is not bad, there are serious problems in his copious footnotes; in many cases, he reproduces the exegetical material from medieval texts without making any effort at contextualization. Writing at a time both of growing Arab animosity toward Zionism and in a milieu that condoned anti-Semitism, Yusuf ‘Ali constructed his oeuvre as a polemic against Jews.

        Several Muslim scholars have built upon the Yusuf ‘Ali translation.[39] In 1989, Saudi Arabia’s Ar-Rajhi banking company financed the U.S.-based Amana Corporation’s project to revise the translation to reflect an interpretation more in conjunction with the line of Islamic thought followed in Saudi Arabia. Ar-Rahji offered the resulting version for free to mosques, schools, and libraries throughout the world. The footnoted commentary about Jews remained so egregious that, in April 2002, the Los Angeles school district banned its use at local schools. While the Yusuf ‘Ali translation still remains in publication, it has lost influence because of its dated language and the appearance of more recent works whose publication and distribution the Saudi government has also sought to subsidize.

        I thought this was interesting

    • rock says:

      and how does this twat prove that the vision daniel was getting happy about (I was dreaming [lit., ‘I was watching nocturnal visions’], and wow!) in 7:13-14 WAS from god?

  14. rock says:

    have you ever thought of the STUPID links christians make?
    if i said that the KILLING of INNOCENT amalekite SINLESS infants, unborn, babies was foreshadowing jesus’ sinless death on the cross, wouldn’t you call me a lunatic?

    abrahams son was REPLACED with an animal and we read in the torah that the jews OFFERED animals to god FOR GRATITUDE, thANKS giving, and other things. animals were never offered FOR SINS alone, and they were OFFERED were INDIVIDUAL persons sins , sins LIKE murder/rape no animal was OFFERED , but punishment was GIVEN. One can ARGUE that abrahams sacrifice of the animal was FORESHADOWING ALL of this.

  15. rock says:

    isaak NEVER DIES , never is SEPERATED like the trinitarian gods and he (isaak) returns to his father with wounds on his body? NOT!
    ABRAHams journey to the land of moriyah TOOK 3 days . did abraham WHIP , BEAT , SPIT , KICK, BURN , ISAAK ON THE journey to moriyah?
    or was he PRAYING FOR a miracle (IN HIS mind) to RESCUE his son from DESTRUCTION? like i said , pick details and f up the story to fit the MURDER of jesus into it.

  16. rock says:

    king messiah?
    quote:

    Look bad? “The Jews” as you put it denounced Jesus as a “King of the
    Jews,” thereby concurring with Pilate’s findings that Jesus was not
    and never claimed to be (as you concede) the “King of the Jews.”

    “I have found this man has commited no Roman crime. He does not claim
    that he is your king, your Sanhedrin claimed he claimed that and I do
    not beleive them. Is he your king?”

    “We have no king but Caesar, but if you don’t kill Jesus, we’re going
    to tell our mortal enemies and our oppressors that you refused to kill
    him for claiming he was the King of the Jews.”

    “You just publicly declared that you don’t consider him to be the King
    of the Jews; he has publicly declared he is not the King of the Jews;
    and I have officially, publicly declared that he has committed no
    Roman crime. The record is clear, fuck you.”

    “Then we shall riot!”

    “Beside the fact that I already anticipated such a possibility on this
    day particularly, because I’m not a fucking idiot, you mean you’re
    going to riot if I don’t kill the completely innocent man that you all
    agree is not your ‘King’ even though you all supposedly love him so
    much that if you found out that your leaders had conspired to try and
    kill him (as I just told you was precisely what they did) you’d riot
    against them, but now, inexplicably are not going to, because you’re
    all just so susceptible to ‘office politics’ that don’t yet exist?
    Gee, I never thought of that possibility on this the most militarily
    prepared day of the year for such a contingency. GUARDS!”

  17. rock says:

    “Or didn’t it occur to you that Joseph might be dead and that Mary is a single mother.”

    OR DID it occur to you that he found out that his dream was from the devil and privately divorced mary? think about it.

    • harry says:

      To Rock
      How could the dream be from the devil causing Joseph to divorce Mary,when the bible reveals they had other children
      Just because the bible is silent on Joseph does not he has somehow been added to the gospel

  18. Ibn Anwar says:

    Harry wrote:
    Hi Ibn Anwar

    I was curious how Muslims scholars have built upon the work of a man that wasn’t a scholar does that mean he was not qualified?

    Among those Qur’an translations which found Saudi favor and, therefore, wide distribution, was the Abdullah Yusuf ‘Ali (1872-1952) rendition[38] that, from its first appearance in 1934 until very recently, was the most popular English version among Muslims. While not an Islamic scholar in any formal sense, Yusuf ‘Ali, an Indian civil servant, had studied classics at Cambridge University, graduated as a lawyer from Lincoln’s Inn in London, and was gifted with an eloquent, vivid writing style. He sought to convey the music and richness of the Arabic with poetic English versification. While his rendering of the text is not bad, there are serious problems in his copious footnotes; in many cases, he reproduces the exegetical material from medieval texts without making any effort at contextualization. Writing at a time both of growing Arab animosity toward Zionism and in a milieu that condoned anti-Semitism, Yusuf ‘Ali constructed his oeuvre as a polemic against Jews.

    Several Muslim scholars have built upon the Yusuf ‘Ali translation.[39] In 1989, Saudi Arabia’s Ar-Rajhi banking company financed the U.S.-based Amana Corporation’s project to revise the translation to reflect an interpretation more in conjunction with the line of Islamic thought followed in Saudi Arabia. Ar-Rahji offered the resulting version for free to mosques, schools, and libraries throughout the world. The footnoted commentary about Jews remained so egregious that, in April 2002, the Los Angeles school district banned its use at local schools. While the Yusuf ‘Ali translation still remains in publication, it has lost influence because of its dated language and the appearance of more recent works whose publication and distribution the Saudi government has also sought to subsidize.

    I thought this was interesting

    My reply:
    Harry, obviously you have not attended tertiary education. A scholar may refer to texts that are produced by non-scholars if it suits the purpose of his study. To simply say that scholars refer to or build upon the work of a man that in and of itself does not make him a scholar too. Did I claim that he was not a qualified translator? I said he is not a Muslim(Islamic) scholar which your quotation clearly proves you little joker. He was specifically trained in law at Cambdridge. He had no formal training and education in any of the many Islamic sciences such as ‘ulum al hadith, ‘ulum al qur’an, tasawwuf etc. George Sale was the first person to translate the Qur’an into English, but that production of his is no certification of his Islamic scholarship. His interpretations of certain passages and verses of the Qur’an are his own and may not reflect authentic knowledge grounded in traditional/orthodox Islamic exegesis.

  19. Ibn Anwar says:

    Harry wrote:

    to Ibn Anwar

    you said…1. How can a most loving God require or demand the blood of an absolutely innocent person so as to let free and reward an absolutely guilty and sinful person?

    The same could be said when I’m told by Muslims that someone(an innocent person) took the place of Jesus on the cross

    but to answer to the question the reason this had to happen is because no one can pay for his own

    Isa 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

    God’s standards are high which is why Jesus said…
    Mat 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
    Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

    which is why Jesus was born of a virgin to be a sinless sacrifice for mankind no amount of praying and fasting is going to make us righteous

    2. John 3:16 says that God(the Father) loves the world so much that he gave his son(Jesus). Does the Father love the world more than the son that He would let and plan His son’s own horrible and atrocious demise for the world? If the Father loved the son more than the world would He not have felt like saving the son from even the smallest pain as any loving Father would??

    Ezekiel 18 is all about personal responsibility

    Jesus was raised up because he was righteous and he paid the price for us

    Act 17:31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

    if God was all powerful there is no need to pay a ransom to Himself for He owns everything. How can He pay Himself something when in fact everything is already His from the beginning of creation?

    man sinned in the beginning and gave everything over the devil…

    Luke 4:5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.
    Luke 4:6 And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.

    the devil said it was delivered unto him…by Adam when he sinned.

    legally the devil has access to people’s lives and has dominion over man Jesus came to take back mankind through his sacrifice on the cross

    The price has been paid in full but it does not take affect in a person’s life until they received Jesus as their Lord and Saviour by repentance.

    Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
    Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

    My reply:
    You said, “The same could be said when I’m told by Muslims that someone(an innocent person) took the place of Jesus on the cross.”

    The following is the response I gave to The Bull on exactly the same topic:
    Some Muslims do continue to believe that, but I think their position is problematic in light of the fact that there is not a single narration that can be traced back to the prophet Muhammad s.a.w. saying that someone else(e.g. Judas) was crucified in Jesus’ place. The earliest narration in this regard is from Ibn Abbas who related that a certain Tatianos was made to look like Jesus and he was crucified instead. This however, was an Israeliyyat khabr(news/information) that was in circulation during Ibn Abbas’ time and he may have thought that it shed some light on surah al-nisa, verse 157. Such a story is untraceable to the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. You might want to watch the debate Shabir Ally had with Mike Licona on the crucifixion and resurrection where the former discusses this in some detail.

    What does “shubbiha lahum” or made to appear to them really mean in the verse above? Well, it is reasonable to believe that they thought that they(the enemies) were successful in killing Jesus when in fact they had failed. It is possible that Jesus did not really die on the cross and survived the ordeal. I have already discussed this in the article. Please read it if you haven’t already. There is no flaw in my argument as you are dreaming nor did the Prophet receive revelation of another made made to resemble like Jesus. In fact, the idea that someone else was placed in Jesus’ stead is an old Christian idea that can be traced back to perhaps Basilides at least according to Iranaeus in Against Heresies, 1.24.3. Clement of Alexandria however, refuted Iranaeus and said that Basilides rejected the idea that Simon was crucified instead of Jesus. The point however, is that the idea that someone else was put on the cross in Jesus’ place was an early Christian one. An interesting writing that is today called ‘gnostic’ is the Gospel of Thomas which according to some scholars contain traditions that are older than the canonical gospels themselves. Other early Christian writings with a similar theme are the Apocalypse of Peter and the Second Treatise of the Great Seth. Various Christian groups that later became labelled as ‘heretical refused to believe that Jesus was crucified as Methodist Minister and professor of comparative religion, G. Parrinder says in his ‘Jesus in the Qur’an’ on pages 109-110.
    Is it possible to survive the cross? According to Josephus in ‘Life’, 75 it certainly is. Josephus went to Thecoa with Cerealins at the behest of Titus Caesar. On his way back he saw three crucified men that he identified as his friends. They were taken down after Josephus petitioned Titus “with tears in my eyes” on their behalf. Consequently, they were released. Two died later and one recovered. Though Geza Vermes dismisses the ‘non-fatal crucifixion’ scenario as unlikely he does give it space in his recent work ‘The Resurrection as he writes, “Less extreme believers in Jesus’ survival argue that recovery after crucifixion was possible, as it is attested by Flavius Josephus. In his autobiography, Josephus recalls that on an occassion when he was returning to the capital, he saw many crucified Jews by the roadside. Among them he recognized three of his friends who were still alive. On his pleading, Titus, the future emperor, promptly ordered them to be taken down and treated by Roman physicians, and as a result one of the three survived (Life 420).
    Jesus remained on the cross for such a short period of time that Pilate wondered whether he was truly dead when Josephus of Arimathea asked for his body (Mk 15:44).” (Vermes, G. (2008). The Resurrection: history and myth. New York: Doubleday. pp. 145). In the article I mentioned the fact that in the earliest layer of tradition found in the “Q” or “Sayings gospel” neither the crucifixion nor the resurrection is mentioned or alluded to which would be the strangest thing of all if indeed there was such a primary concern in Jesus’ ministry for the crucifixion and resurrection as per canonical gospel presentation. The reasonable conclusion one may draw from this absence is the fact that Jesus’ ministry did not include the primacy of either crucifixion or resurrection. The Didache which is an important late first century or early second century document mentions nothing of the resurrection and it gives no importance to the crucifixion as Aaron Milavec says, “…the theological integrity of the Didache inclines one to assign no special significance to the cross of the crucifixion…”(Milavec, A. (2003). The Didache: faith, hope, & life of the earliest Christian communities. Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist Press. pp. 821). Incidentally, the Didache makes no mention of Jesus being ‘son of God’ and consistently calls him a servant. It also gives a radically different picture of the ‘bread and wine’. It does not incorporate the idea of eating Jesus’ flesh and blood into the ‘bread and wine’ which may be an important clue to the original tradition that was later circumvented and replaced by the idea of consuming flesh and blood. As John Wesley Professor emeritus in early Christianity at the Claremont School of Theology in Claremont, California, Mack Burton says in his ‘Who Wrote the New Testament’, “There is no reference to Jesus’ death as a crucifixion in the pre-Markan Jesus material”. In sum, the Qur’an is not claiming or inventing something novel. Rather, it is restoring that original truth that has since the mid-first century overtaken by layers of false tradition and embellishments.

    -end of quote-

    You said, “but to answer to the question the reason this had to happen is because no one can pay for his own

    Isa 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.”

    My reply:
    Clearly, you did not read my article that I referred you to. The following is an excerpt from the said article which deals with your above claim:
    Christians declare that there is no forgiveness or salvation except through the shedding of blood i.e. sacrifice. They will go on to say that the Islamic idea of God just forgiving a sinner’s sin is unjust and they will then give their rationalisations for saying this. If asked,”Where does it say that God cannot forgive except through some sort of sacrifice?” the Christians will quote,”…Without shedding of blood there is no atonement” (Hebrews 9:22)

    Before I continue , I’d like to put forth several questions for you the readers to ponder on.

    1. If I can show even one instance where God in the Bible forgave a person’s sin without sacrificial rites how will that stand in light of the Christian notion that it is unjust for God to simply forgive?

    2. If it is shown that God can forgive sin without blood sacrifice, what then is the significance of Jesus’ alleged sacrifice?

    3. If it is proven that God had no problem at all in forgiving sins without blood sacrifices then why did he have to crucify His only “begotten” son, Jesus and declare to the whole world that from then onwards the only way to forgiveness is through Jesus’ death? Why would He radically change His nature when it’s stated in Malachi 3:6,”For I am the Lord, I DO NOT CHANGE”?

    Let us now proceed to the textual evidences.

    The book of Jonah, Chapter 3 (In the NKJV, the heading “Nineveh Repents” is given)

    NLT

    Then the Lord spoke to Jonah a second time: “Get up and go to the great city of Nineveh, and deliver the message I have given you.”
    This time Jonah obeyed the Lord’s command and went to Nineveh, a city so large that it took three days to see it all. On the day Jonah entered the city, he shouted to the crowds: “Forty days from now Nineveh will be destroyed!” The people of Nineveh believed God’s message, and from the greatest to the least, they declared a fast and put on burlap to show their sorrow.

    When the king of Nineveh heard what Jonah was saying, he stepped down from his throne and took off his royal robes. He dressed himself in burlap and sat on a heap of ashes. Then the king and his nobles sent this decree throughout the city:

    “No one, not even the animals from your herds and flocks, may eat or drink anything at all. People and animals alike must wear garments of mourning, and everyone must pray earnestly to God. They must turn from their evil ways and stop all their violence. Who can tell? Perhaps even yet God will change his mind and hold back his fierce anger from destroying us.”

    When God saw what they had done and how they had put a stop to their evil ways, he changed his mind and did not carry out the destruction he had threatened.”

    In short, God forgave the people of Nineveh without a single demand for blood sacrifice.

    -end of quote-

    Take heed of the following verses as well:
    “For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgement of God rather than burnt offerings” (Hosea 6:6)
    “To do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice.” (Proverbs 21:3)

    According to your logic righteousness is not possible at all, yet God commanded it anyway. Is this “god” of yours a lunatic? Oh, I know for sure that these people that I have created can never be righteous nor do righteousness, but I am going to tell them to do it anyway because doing righteousness is far better than offering sacrifices to me, though I know they can’t do it. That makes a whle lot of sense Harry lol. Christians are always jokers. It is sad.
    Harry claims that no one can do righteousness(good deeds), but Jesus taught something else:
    “In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.” (Matthew 5:16)

    Is blood the one and only way to acquire forgiveness and atonement? The following is from my article “Forgiveness comes without blood”:
    What exactly is the cause behind the fascination with blood sucking vampires in the western culture that has given rise to a plethora of vampire themed movies like Twilight and the like? Christianity is the predominant religion in the west. It spends so much time talking about drinking blood and its importance for the attainment of “eternal life”. Could it be that this blood based salvation/atonement doctrine is the impetus behind the popular culture phenomenon of vampires? In the vampire myth the creature sustains its existence by consuming blood. In Christian theology to attain eternal life one must accept the blood of Jesus and in Catholicism in particular the partaking of the Eucharist which involves the drinking and eating of the actual blood and flesh of Jesus is foundational. Can you see the parallel? Is it possible that the popular vampire myth has its roots in the Christian obsession with blood? I leave that for the readers to dwell upon. In this article we shall explore the issue of forgiveness in Christianity and if what it teaches is coherent and true or just plain false.

    As we have mentioned above in Christian theology the shedding of Jesus’ blood is foundational. In fact, it is the key to forgiveness and salvation. One Christian blogger named John Chingford wrote an article entitled “Reply to a Rabbi Why There Can’t Be Forgiveness Without Blood Sacrifice” in which he argues for the Christian case that blood is absolutely necessary to render void the sins of man. The Wiersbe Bible Commentary in its commentary on Hebrews 9 says, “God’s principle is that blood must be shed before sin can be forgiven (Lev. 17:11).”[1] The People’s New Testament Commentary on Hebrews 9:22 says, “Without shedding of blood is no remission. Every sin under the law required atonement, and no atonement could be made without blood.” [2] The average Christian says that the only way for sins to be absolved or atoned is through the blood of Jesus.

    When we examine the Bible closely we see that what is preached by Christians and Hebrews 9:22 which says that “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins” are not compatible with the overwhelming verses and passages found in both the Old and New Testaments that convey the idea of forgiveness without the need of anyone’s blood, Jesus or otherwise. In Mark 1:4 we read,

    “John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.”

    This was years before the alleged crucifixion ever took place. There was no blood involved. He was calling for the remission of sins from the baptism of repentance. The People’s New Testament says that John in the above verse, “makes the temple sacrifices unnecessary for forgiveness and reconciliation with God…”[3] which means that blood is not really necessary for forgiveness of sins after all! In the next chapter in Mark 2, verse 5 we read the following,

    “When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”

    Where was the blood atonement to remove the sins of the paralytic? This too took place long before the alleged crucifixion yet he was forgiven! What was the purpose behind the alleged sacrifice of Jesus exactly? Christians tell us that it is to facilitate the forgiveness of sins which is necessary for entrance into paradise. But we have just illustrated with two explicit verses that God is not incapable of forgiving sins without the shedding of blood. Be it the blood of Jesus, sheep, ram, bulls or cows. If God can forgive without blood then that clearly renders the alleged crucifixion redundant and simply cruel, inhumane and barbaric.

    In Luke 15, verses 11 to 32 we read about the parable of the Prodigal Son. In this story the son runs away from the father and goes into difficulty and suffering. He later comes to his senses and makes a return to his father. The father is overjoyed and calls for celebration. The son confesses that he sinned against heaven and against his beloved father, but because of his realisation and repentance the father remarks, “For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found”. This parable captures the true and original teaching of Jesus about forgiveness and atonement. One has only to make a sincere resolution not to commit past errors and sincerely pray and ask God for forgiveness to earn His pleasure and be cleansed of sins. Blood is not necessary for the forgiveness of sins.

    More passages dealing with this issue are cited in Salvation Only Comes Through Sacrifice!

    References:

    [1] Wiersbe, W.W. (2007). The Wiersbe Bible Commentary. Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook. p. 830

    [2] Boring, M.E. & Craddock, F.B. (2004). The People’s New Testament Commentary. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press. p. 701

    [3] Ibid. p. 107

    -end of article-

    You claimed that no one can be righteous by doing works and basically that Jesus was the only perfect man to have ever walked the earth. The following are my responses to the exact same nonsense put forward by Ronald in the comment section of my article “A Critical Study of Isiaah 53”:
    No, the verse that I cited does not only say that Zechariah and Elizabeth were just holy people. Rather it says that they are righteous before God as they have walked on all of God’s commandments doing no wrong(blameless, unblemished). The following is the verse in the original Greek:
    ησαν δε δικαιοι αμφοτεροι ενωπιον του θεου πορευομενοι εν πασαις ταις εντολαις και δικαιωμασιν του κυριου αμεμπτοι

    The keyword in that verse is ἄμεμπτοι (amemptoi) which is derived from memphomai which literally means ‘irreproachable’ and ‘morally pure’. It is because they are morally pure(perfect/blameless/irreproachable) for having followed ‘pasaias tais entolais’ (all the commandments) they are rightly described as dikaioi (righteous). There is no evidence anywhere that either Zechariah or Elizabeth went astray. The evidence that we have testifies that they were perfect. You claimed that Islam believes that no one is perfect. That is totally false. Islam believes that the prophets are perfect including Muhammad s.a.w. and the saints (awliya’) are themselves close to perfection. Christians believe that no one is perfect? I don’t put much stock in what Christians believe mate. If I did I’d be Christian. The problem with fundamentalist Christians like you is that you approach your scriptures with presumptions that are yet unsupported. You understand scripture based on an a priori assumption. That’s a fallacy. We do know that there were people that were perfect besides Jesus. I’ve already mentioned two. Another example of a perfect individual is Job who is described as perfect(tam in Hebrew) by God himself more than once in one chapter. No such example is to be found with Jesus. Then in verse 22 of Job 1 it says that ‘in all of this Job did no sin’ and in verse 5 it speaks of Job making sacrifices for others but he does not make it for himself which shows that he had no sin. So at least until up to the point in Job 1 in Job’s life he was sinless and perfect. He may have slipped later in life but by the time he’s reached the age that is found in Job one he was already an adult(able to conduct sacrifices for others). So until that point in his life which was probably more than 25 years he remained sinless. This means that man can live a sinless life as Ecclesiastes says, “God made men upright” (Ecclesiastes 7:29).

    ———————

    First of all, in English as well as other languages ‘all’ is often used in a restricted sense rather than not. All usually means many or most. For example, I can say that ‘everyone knows Jesus was a good man’. No English professor(my basic degree is in language and linguistics by the way) will take exception to that statement. Further more, he will not have the understanding that I’m claiming that everyone in Africa and in the jungles of the Amazon know who Jesus is. ‘Everyone’ there is used in a general yet restricted sense. We find plenty of examples of this in scripture. For example, if you look at 1 John 2:20 it says about the believer that he knows all things (oidate pantes[you know all things]). I take it you’re a believer. Do you claim to know all things? Jesus was above believers wasn’t he? Did he know all things? No, there was at least one thing he did not know, that is, the hour as he said, “of that hour no one knows, not the angels in heaven or the son, but the Father only.” This is just one example where the word ‘all’ may not mean absolutely everything from A to Z. Likewise, when scripture suggests that all have transgressed or sin it is not actually claiming that absolutely everyone has sinned and fallen as we do find examples of those who did not, some of whom I have already mentioned. Further more, the verse is referring to a specific time period. It says, “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way”. Who’s the ‘we’? Obviously, he was addressing the people of his time. The dead were not of the ‘we’ in that verse. Neither is he referring to people later in the future. The verse does not say that “all have sinned and will sin for all eternity”. It is unfortunate that Christians like you cannot even understand simple tenses.

    ——————-

    I have already stated time and again that Zechariah and Elizabeth both followed all the commandments. Have you not read about David? David is described as one who was chosen by God, a man who was after God’s own heart (After removing Saul, he made David their king. He testified concerning him: ‘I have found David son of Jesse a man after my own heart; he will do everything I want him to do.’(Acts 13:22)). It also says that David a man after God’s own heart will do EVERYTHING I want him to do. That necessarily implies that David would have heeded the most important precepts ordained by God including loving Him with all His heart and soul. Is it impossible for a man to be perfect before God? You claim that it is. Clearly, you have not read the Bible well enough. I have already told you about Job and like a heedless imp you prod along as if I haven’t informed you of him. Look the the following description given to Job:
    “And Jehovah said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job? for there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and turneth away from evil.”(Job 1:8)
    Job in this verse is described by God Himself as perfect. And this is repeated again and again as if once was not enough!
    “There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and turned away from evil.” (Job 1:1)
    “And Jehovah said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job? for there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and turneth away from evil: and he still holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.” (Job 2:3)
    And in verse 22 of chapter 1 the following description is given to him:
    “In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly.”
    Consider also verse 5:
    “When a period of feasting had run its course, Job would send and have them purified. Early in the morning he would sacrifice a burnt offering for each of them, thinking, “Perhaps my children have sinned and cursed God in their hearts.” This was Job’s regular custom.”
    In this verse we see that Job offers burnt sacrifice for his children in thinking that they might have sinned or cursed God in their hearts. The verse shows that he LEAVES HIMSELF OUT of the service. What does that imply? That necessarily implies that his heart was pure and totally devoted to God so that he does not require sacrifice like his children did.
    The whole chapter followed by chapter 2 seem to be about the perfection displayed by Job as testified by God Himself. There isn’t a single chapter where Jesus is described as perfect by God more than once. The point is up till chapter 2 in Job’s life when he was already a grown and mature man he remained faultless and perfect in God’s estimation. This means that the Christian hypothesis that all men are sinners without exception is starkly at odds with their own scriptures.

    —————-

    You cited the following verses:
    Luke 4:5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.
    Luke 4:6 And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.

    My reply:
    Do you really believe in those verses? Those verses necessarily imply that if one goes up to a very high summit one would be able to see every single kingdom on earth. Did you fail science in school? It is impossible to see every single kingdom on earth even if you were on the moon provided that you have ultra superman like vision! The above two verses necessarily imply that the earth is flat, hence one can see every single kingdom on earth from a particular point that is high enough. Christians refute themselves left, right and centre every time they contend a theological point lol.

  20. Ibn Anwar says:

    Harry wrote:
    Hi Roco

    can you answer me this question which man on the earth ever has had the authority to forgive sins?

    Mar 2:4 And when they could not come nigh unto him for the press, they uncovered the roof where he was: and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed wherein the sick of the palsy lay.
    Mar 2:5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.
    Mar 2:6 But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts,
    Mar 2:7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?

    They said Jesus was blaspheming for telling the man his sins were forgiven,the problem is this.

    1. If he was blaspheming then Jesus is a sinner and the Koran is lying.

    2. If the scribes are wrong in their accusation then Jesus is God and the koran is still wrong.

    something to think about

    My reply:
    You assume that the story is historical. But let us for the sake of argument agree for a moment that the story did indeed happen. Does it prove Jesus is God? First of all, why do you rely on the testimony of Jesus’ opponents who were clearly declared by Jesus himself as accursed and deceitful? Why do you build your theological belief on the words of deceivers who hated Jesus? Why don’t you refer to the testimony of the masses who followed Jesus who for example said, “When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men.” They said this after they saw Jesus performing a miracle. They glorified God for giving men(that is Jesus) such authority. They did not glorify God for giving God such authority.

    Can you please show me where in the entire Old Testament God is said to be the only one who can forgive sins? You can’t. There isn’t such a verse anywhere from Genesis to Malachi. How does one charge an action to be blasphemy if it is not specifically identified as such in scripture?

    Was Jesus the only one who was given the authority to forgive sins?
    “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:19)
    “If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” (John 20:23)
    “and forgive us our sins, as we have forgiven those who sin against us.” (Matthew 6:12)

    The above verses refute your clumsy claim and if you were honest and consistent you would actually worship the disciples as Gods along with Jesus which would make you a polytheist.

  21. Kaz says:

    The arguments of Christians completely TRASHED! Lol!

    Hopefully they would open up their mind to just accept the truth and stop believing in falsehood. 🙂

  22. rock says:

    “which is why Jesus was born of a virgin to be a sinless sacrifice for mankind no amount of praying and fasting is going to make us righteous”

    yet when god fills himself in flesh and does his deeds in a human body which has 100 % human nature, god is appeased/pleased? what kind of a god is this? so if god prayed and fast to himself, then he thinks it would make him righteous? does it make sense that he who created prayer and fasting for man

    for example the jews say

    “the obligation of a Jew to pray 3 times-a-day (Daniel 6:3-13), ”

    and then you hear gibberish from your mouth about prayer not making people righteous when god himself says to the jews that prayer is what connects you with god and helps you turn to him when you feel GUILT?
    why when god kills his flesh he is pleased with himself, but when a HUMAN being gives his LIFE up for god and gives up EVERYTHING for god, god isn’t pleased? why does the condition have to be sinlessness which is an IMPOSSIBILITY for the human being?

    why would the CREATOR of VIOLENCE utilize violence and apply it unto himself? which these stupidand pagan STEPS? WHY? why the TORCHER OF his created flesh and making it suffer is very pleasing to him? if human sinners SUFFERED FOR a million years , god is unable to CLEAN them? he only cleans his flesh, locates himself init, gets it torchers, forsakes it, tranfers himself to hell then to heaven and is happy and now you can go on sinning all your life because your DEEDS are VETOED by gods created blood and flesh?

  23. rock says:

    Ezekiel 14:14,20(JPT) – (14) Now should these three men be in its midst-[namely] Noah, Daniel, and Job – they would save themselves with their righteousness, says the Lord God.

    (20) And Noah, Daniel, and Job are in its midst, as I live, says the Lord God, if they will save a son or a daughter; they with their righteousness would save themselves.

    Did you also notice how Ezekiel points out that they would save themselves, i.e., without the need for the blood of an intercessor/savior “saving them”?

    Two different forms of the root verb נצל (nun-tsadi-lamed) are used in the two passages:

    – At Ezekiel 14:14, the phrase is יְנַצְּלוּ נַפְשָׁם (y’natsLU nafSHAM).
    – At Ezeloe; 14:20, the phrase is יַצִּילוּ נַפְשָׁם (yaTSIlu nafSHAM).

    In v. 14, the form is a conjugation of the verb in the plural 3rd-person, future tense, in the pi’EL stem (the active intensive form of the Hebrew verb).

    In v. 20, the form is also a conjugation of the verb in the plural 3rd-person, future tense, except it is in the hif’IL stem (the active causative form of the Hebrew verb).

    Regardless of these grammatical differences, in both cases the meaning is basically that [they] will rescure themselves [from a calamity; unlike the Christian application of “to save {someone from ‘hell’}”]. The message here is that each of them was saved from some punishment of their time – Noah was saved when the earth was destroyed by the Flood; Daniel was saved when Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed by the Babylonians; Job underwent a difficult ordeal, but was later reestablished because he refused to curse God.

    The verb is used many times throughout the Hebrew Bible. Only once in the form and context as in v. 14, and seven times in the form at in v. 20 – 1Samuel 12:21, Isaiah 47:14, Ezekiel 14:16, 18, 20(x2), 2Chronicles 32:15.

    Causative Mood

    In the causative mood and active voice the subject of the verb causes the action of the verb – “Jacob caused him to cut a tree.” In the causative mood and passive voice, the action is caused to be imparted on the subject of the verb – “Jacob was caused to be cut.” Each of these verb forms also have a name.

    Causative active – hiphil

    Causative passive – hophal

    Intensive Mood

    The intensive mood intensifies the action of the verb. When the verb is used in the intensive it may be translated as “slashed.” “Jacob slashed a tree” is intensive mood and active voice and “Jacob was slashed” is the intensive mood and passive voice.

    ..

    harry ,go do some browsing on christian apologetic websites and then come back here with your responses. i’ve just proven to you that you are false witness for christ REPEATING christian LIES .

  24. rock says:

    “2. If the scribes are wrong in their accusation then Jesus is God and the koran is still wrong.”

    seriosuly man, why are you wasting peoples time with this stuff?

    look AGAIN

    “This man is blaspheming. [Who can forgive sins but God alone?]” But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, “Why do you think evil in your hearts?”

    NOW , look READ IT 10 TIMES AND SEE how DEADLY IT IS to your religion . read it again and again. if jesus KNEW that ONLY GOD CAN FORGIVE sins, then THE PHARISEES DID NOT THINK EVIL IN THIER HEARTS AND THEY WERE RIGHT. MEANING THE PHARISEES DID NOT THINK EVIL AND jesus LIED WHEN he said they THOUGHT EVIL COZ if PROTESTANT jesus WAS CLAIMING TO BE a god , THEN THE PHARISEES DID NOT THINK EVIL, BUT jesus LIED infront of THE CROWDS WHEN HE ACCUSED thee pharisees of EVIL THOUGHTS.

    evil thoughts = blaspheming = doing what ONLY god can do = i am a god in flesh.

  25. rock says:

    usuage of blasphemy

    Theology . the crime of assuming to oneself the rights or qualities of God.

    the pharisees say this man IS BLASPHEMING

    jesus in REPLY says

    “Why do you think evil in your hearts?…”

    dear friends, just put yourself in THAT CROWD right now and hear jesus’ response to the pharisee accusation

    friends ,if jesus was assuming to himself QUALITIES /rights of god , then can he really say that the pharisee THOUGHTS were EVIL?

    NOTICE his rebuttal is to thier charge of BLASPHEMY ?
    and he further goes on to say that it is EASIER to FORGIVE than…

    • harry says:

      To Rock

      It is God’s prerogative to forgive sin. Isaiah 45:25

      There are a couple of things we need to point out here
      You didn’t read the text properly
      1. you will see they didn’t speak to him verbally
      The bible says” they reasoned in their minds”
      2. Jesus revealed what was in the hearts.
      You and I know we can come to our conclusions about that
      A. Is he a mind reader?
      B. Did someone tell him what they were thinking?

      3.The other thing to look at is he asked them a question what one is easier to do healing or forgive why? Both need divine power.
      I can forgive you and you can forgive but ultimately those sins are against a holy God
      We can commit crimes against society and go to prison but we will still stand before God at the judgement

      4. This scripture is not dealing with the law of blasphemy but WHO Jesus is!
      The scribes were right in saying “no one can forgive sins but God alone”
      But the application towards Jesus is wrong because the fact is Jesus is God
      Jesus himself no one can be forgiven if the blaspheme the Holy Ghost

  26. rock says:

    17. Even if somehow the death of Jesus did satisfy the penalty owed to the Father, who paid the penalty owed to the Son, since he is also god in this theory and would need to be propitiated as much as the Father would?

    Now, if the son made satisfaction to the Father—that is, if he paid what was owed to him—then who will give the son what was owed to him?

    I suspect that you will reply as follows: satisfaction made to the Father is also made to the son, since they both have the same will. But such a response is obviously futile. In the case of literal and complete satisfaction, such as we are contemplating here, no consideration is given to the will, but to the matter itself. The punishment is determined and considered according to the rigor of the law, not according to the intent of the one who is to receive satisfaction.

    Besides, when the matter itself is considered and the rigor of the law taken seriously, it does not necessarily follow that the son receives satisfaction along with the Father. The son could have paid nothing at all to the Father if whatever is or becomes the possession of one necessarily is in fact the possession of the other. The son always truly possessed whatever the Father receives. And whatever the son has is always in turn the continual property of the Father. Indeed, if what I am sure you yourselves regard as completely false were in fact true, then the son could not have genuinely paid anything to the Father. No payment can truly exist when the one who makes the payment gives the very payment which one necessarily receives immediately by actual right and from the nature of the case (p. 83).

    18. If the Son is god, equal to the Father, then the Son cannot pay anything to the Father, since the Father already has what the Son has.

    No one could dispute, then, that the son could not give anything to the Father, since whatever the son has also truly belongs to the Father. Christ himself said that all things that were his are the Father’s (Jn. 17:10). If you would have it that one person in the Godhead has something, besides the personal property that the other does not have, then you are dividing rather than distinguishing God’s essence, contrary to your own teaching. Besides, no one would ever think that the person of the son handed over in payment his own personal property to the person of the Father in satisfaction for our sins (pp. 83-84).

    19. If the Son shares the divine essence with the Father, and the Son made satisfaction for the sins of mankind to God, then he made satisfaction to himself which is non-sensical.

    It assumes that he, to whom satisfaction ought to have been made, will have made satisfaction to himself. Or, it assumes that he gave himself the power to make satisfaction. Or, it assumes that the person making satis-faction was so joined to the person who ought to receive satisfaction that he was possessing absolutely all things in common with him, from which the power of making satisfaction to him could arise.

    It is necessary for the person making satisfaction, or the person who helps accomplish satisfaction, to be absolutely distinct from the one who is to receive satisfaction. At the very least, the one making satisfaction should be separate enough to have some possession of his own from which satisfaction can receive or effect power. Common sense itself clearly teaches this, so that if you insist on saying that Christ paid all the penalties for our sins to God on our behalf, you are forced to choose between one of the following conclusions: (1) you must deny that christ himself is eternal god and Jehovah, or (2) you must affirm that the extent to which he was eternal god and jehovah could not coincide with making that payment (p. 85).

    • Nur el Masih Ben Haq says:

      WHAT A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD SIMPLISTIC LOGIC!

      Let me summarize the logic of your arguement: If God is really God, why should he be satisfied by our worship of him since he determines wether or not we worship him? That is, God satisfies himself by himself or to use your word “..then he made satisfaction to himself which is non-sensical..”

      So, your logic is too simplistic.

      • rocky bal boa says:

        God is happy /pleased/ satisfied with what he can DO to the CREATED being, the satisfaction is there because of what he is able to do to the humans

        God is the Ruler of all. He owns everything. He can do with His dominion as He likes.

        “The LORD does whatever pleases him, in the heavens and on the earth…” (Psalm 135:6).

        God can take a humans soul and take it outside of the universe and be SATISFIED with that because he is in CONTROL and has power over everything.

        the WHOLE DAMN point is that we are SEPERATE FROM GOD and not ATTACHED to him.

        on the other hand, in your religion god is DOING himself over. he is getting himself screwed and blued and tatooed to COOL down because he has an attribute which will allow him to wreck the human being in his OWN CREATED /DESIGNED place called hell.

        he is controlling himself and giving himself what he never can give up. what he never can give up.

        YOU ARE an arse hole mushrick, don’t say your god PUNISHED himself when nothing of his attributes were punished and nothing of his attributes were forsaken .

        quote:
        The point is not that the victim of a crime needs someone, anyone, to serve 20 years for them. The point is that the criminal needs to serve 20 years

        and some sh itty SELF abuse satisfied justice for a few seconds in awesome?

  27. rocky bal boa says:

    lets analyse jezuz krist:

    in marks account, the hungry jesus christ went up to a fig tree and cursed it.
    the fig tree did not produce any fruits because “IT WAS NOT THE SEASON FOR FIGS”

    jesus says to it, “may no one eat fruit from you again”

    the deciples HEARD jesus’ CURSE, they did not SEE WHAT had happened to the tree, they ONLY SEE the AFFECT OF THE CURSE 1 DAY LATER

    “IN THE MORNING AS THEY PASSED BY, THEY SAW THE FIG TREE WITHERED AWAY TO ITS ROOTS.

    PETER SAID, “rabbi look ! the fig treethat you cursed has withered.”

    Now the “eyewitness” plagiarist called matthew did a WORD for word RIPOFF of marks account , but you know what he did? he sped up the withering of the fig tree to an INSTANT withering which was NOTICED by the deciples straigHT AFTER the curse. “how did the fig tree you CURSED wither AT ONNCE” ASked the deciples

    you know what else the “eyewitness” plagiarist called matthew did? he ommited the words
    “for it was not the SEASON for figs”

    matthew ommited “for it was not the season for figs” because matthew 1) didn’t want jesus to be ignorant of the fig trees ability to produce fruit 2) wanted his readers to think that it was the fig trees FAULT for not producing figs in the right season.

    after all if there is an oMISSION and you don’t know what SEASON it is because no one checked marks version, then who you gonna blame? “innocent lamb in flesh” or fig tree?

    ROCKO:
    Mark states that jesus “went to find out if it had any fruit,” a clear indication that he did not know whether or not it had fruit.

    the other question is why would jesus need to find out if it had any fruit if, as Mark states, “it was not the season for figs.”

    ROCKO: WOULDN’T a god ALREADY be given THE KNOWLEDGE of the INABILITY for the tree to PRODUCE figs in the WRONG SEASON? but it seems marks HUNGRY AND IGNORANT jesus DID NOT KNOW SO HE goes to FIND out if it had any figs on it LOL

    NOw jesus the IGNORANT god was INCAPACITATED

    SO harry would be WORSHIPPING AN incapacitated god who would switch on/off LIKE an NPN transister when the TIME was right LOL

    harry:
    You and I know we can come to our conclusions about that
    A. Is he a mind reader?
    B. Did someone tell him what they were thinking?

    rocko: if the pharisees have been on jesus’ tail all throughout his ministry trying their best to prove he was a false prophet, liar, evil, gets his revealation from the DEVIL, then it would be obvious to anyone what they would THINK if you did something WHICH THEY thought was blasphemous .

    “And immediately Jesus, having known in his spirit that they thus reason in themselves, said to them, ‘Why these things reason ye in your hearts?”

    Young’s Literal Translation
    And Jesus, having known their thoughts, said, ‘Why think ye evil in your hearts?

    digression:
    go to the holy of holies in jerusalem , take the idol of vishnu and start to bow before it and see the facial reaction of the orthodox jews . their facial reaction would be AUDIABLE i.e their faces would speak without them having to OPEN their mouths.

    why christian apologists HUNG on this small detail? why not assume that god GAVE /REVEALED to jesus in his spirit the thoughts of the pharisees? have NOT PROPHETS been GIVEN revealations to SEE THE future? sometimes you don’t even need a revealation BECAUSE it is so damn OBVIOUS considering the fact that

    DIDN’T jesus know that pharisees were SPREADING INCORRECT INTERPRETATIONS OF THE TORAH? LOL
    WEREN’T THIER SECTARIAN divisions AMONG THE jews LOL?
    wasn’t hand washing an INVENTION according to jesus LOL ?

    friends now lets REANALYSE jesus krist

    christians believe he was 100 PERCENT human LOL

    SO to be human you need to have 100 percent human components otherwise you are not human

    so jesus has 100 percent human flesh, mind, soul, spirit
    human MIND soul/spirit body /meat

    human human human

    now they believe their was also 100 percent god who DWELT in jesus LOL

    “When the crowds saw it, they were in awe, and they glorified God who had given such authority to MEN.”

    SO you pagans must believe that god who was hiding in jesus meat GAVE TO jesus HUMAN nature LOL GAVE GAVE GAVE GAVE GAVE

    harry:
    I can forgive you and you can forgive but ultimately those sins are against a holy God
    We can commit crimes against society and go to prison but we will still stand before God at the judgement

    rocko:
    so since there was a god dwelling in the 100 percent human jesus why didn’t he simply say ” i forgive you ” instead of “father forgive them they know not what they are doing”
    think about it. if you have CO EQUAL gods in your PAGAN trinity who are ABLE to do what the other is able to do, then does it make any f-king sense that one CO-EQUAL person is asking the other co-equal person to do WHAT he is ABLE TO do himself?

    ONE MINUTE, if the son was GIVEN authourity to FORGIVE sins I.E the sons HUMAN nature was given GIVEN GIVEN GIVEN GIVEN, then why did simply ask the god dwelling in him to forgive those who beat himup ?

    “When the crowds saw it, they were in awe, and they glorified God who had given such authority to MEN.”

    poor crowds TOTALLY MISLED by decieving protestant jesus and it is no suprise the pharisees believe jesus was a DECEIVER.

    jesus OPENLY said , “Why do you think evil in your hearts?”
    lets see now, ” why do you think evil in your hearts , i am yhwh in meat and i gave myself authourity to forgive sins
    how can i be a blasphemour when i am yhwh in meat ?
    tell me one good reason why the pharisees wouldn’t have immediately grabbed him and stoned him to DEATH on the spot with crowds?

    and i swear to GOD almighty that i already KNEW in advance that harry would try to use that little line about knowing pharisees thoughts to his advantage, am i a god in meat or a mind reader?
    i know how your polythiestic mind works , harry.

  28. rocky bal boa says:

    notice that harry had no reply to Ibn anwar? the reason is because he knows that his polythiesm is only hanging on the CLAIMS of the enemies of jesus. goodbye /so long/ siya narah

  29. rocky bal boa says:

    “But the application towards Jesus is wrong because the fact is Jesus is god”

    SO THEY were right in assuming that jesus was
    quote:
    “assuming to oneself the rights or qualities of God.”

    so there thoughts were not EVIL and jesus is a LIAR. THank you for admiting that the pharisees thoughts were not evil.INSTEAD of jesus attacking pharisee thoughts which he ADMITS were RIGHT, why didn’t he say ” well, i am the unique son of god” ?

    lol your thoughts are evil because i can do only what god can do. i am god.

    lets TAKE out the WORD blasphemy and say that the pharisees said,

    ” this man is assuming to himself the rights and qualities of god”

    jesus replied ,
    Why do you think evil in your hearts?

    well , thank you protestant christians, you have proveto us that your worship a liar.

  30. rocky bal boa says:

    christians worship a god of confuse , guile and trikery and one who uses deception to fool entire crowds.

    think about it

    jesus was a jew born under the law and would have known the jewish position on blasphemous claims that god incarnated into a man

    in john the jews pick up STONES to stone jesus to death for his claims, but jesus RUNS away . but lets leave out john because that is a very late gospel .

    “When the crowds saw it, they were awestruck, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men (Matthew 9:8). ”

    ACCording to harry potter , jesus agreed with the pharisees that he was claiming to be a god in FLESH ,but they were wrong to accuse jesus of BLASPHEMY because jesus was a god in flesh, how could god blaspheme against god? thats how harry potters reads the text.

    “assuming to oneself the rights or qualities of God.”

    jesus according to harry potters was assuming to himself the rights /qualities of god and agree with the pharisees that he was assuming to himself rights/qualities of god. the only thing which was EVIL is that pharisees were wrong ,
    if moses did a MIRACLE and then said i am yhwh in the FLESH , then anyone denying this would be EVIL, ALL you saw was a MIRACLE AND HEARD A CLAIM from moses MOUTH, AND THATS what the pharisees saw of jesus. so pharisees all their lives have been brought up to know that image worship (idol /human person) is disgusting crime in judaism. so it is no suprise they accuse jesus of blasphemy, but jesus party AGREE with thier THOUGHTS SO he cannot accuse them of 100 PERCENT WRONG.

    but what abouts the poor crowds?

    When the crowds saw it, they were in awe, and they glorified God who had given such authority to MEN.”

    they thought that god gave to a PERSON . they thought that person/man was jesus. why didn’t they THINK like harry potters thinks? PLEASE ANSWER THAT.

  31. The Bull says:

    I’ve been excommunicated from this forum! I guess the truth is too much. Take care and God Bless!

    • KZ says:

      I think it is more like the untruths you brought had to be put to a stop as it causes confusion which can lead some people astray. Remember, to seek God’s blessing one must not constantly attempt to evade the truth. 🙂

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      No, you have not been excommunicated from this forum. Rather, you have been soundly refuted too many times to count.

    • KZ says:

      You can still post your comments on this forum but you need to accept the refutations with an open mind. Do not be afraid.

  32. Tridax says:

    Assalamulaikum Brother Ibn Anwar. It’s indeed an intellectual treat to see you wielding the sword of logic skilfully.Alhamdulilah. May Allah keep you and your loved ones in the best of imaann and happiness always and May your effort be a source of guidance to all true seekers of truth .

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      Jazakumullah khair akhi Tridax.

      • rocko says:

        so when did the christian god in flesh forgive the sins of idolatary? murder? rape? heck, when did he say that his forgiveness is on the SAMELEVEL/COEQUAL/ SAME WAVE LENGTH as the fathers? luke sez that one person asked ANOTHER person to forgive the persons who put the requesting person on the planks of wood. if the forgiveness was on the same level/wavelength/co-equal then it would be daft to request ANOTHER person to give forgiveness.

  33. CallingChristians says:

    As Salaamu ‘Alaykum,

    Just wrote an article revolving around this to refute Samuel Green, didn’t realise you also wrote on it. Quite amazing that we came to the same conclusion. Nice read, a lot more detailed than my exposition.

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      Wa’alaikum salam,
      You should also refer to my previous article on a related topic which is cited in the above article :D. I’m glad you enjoyed reading it.

  34. rocky says:

    mark

    “And immediately Jesus, having known in his spirit that they thus reason in themselves, said to them, ‘Why these things reason ye in your hearts?”

    mat

    Young’s Literal Translation
    And Jesus, having known their thoughts, said, ‘Why think ye evil in your hearts?

    notice that the pharisee thought is evil in matthew

    what is evil

    Mar 2:6 But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts,

    Mar 2:7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?

    why think EVIL in your hearts

    if protestant jesus was CLAIMING to be able to DO WHAT only GOD can do, then the PHARISEE thought cannot be EVIL .

  35. rocky says:

    pharisee jews thought that the idea of miracle working jesus claiming to be yhwh was blasphemous

    “The Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32jesus answered them, “i showed you many good works from the father; for which of them are you stoning me?” 33The jews answered him, “For a good work we do not stone you, but for blasphemy; and because you, being a man, make yourself out to be god”

    so clearly pharisee jews , according to the nt, thought that jesus making himself out to be god was BLASPHEMOUS .

    mark

    “And immediately Jesus, having known in his spirit that they thus reason in themselves, said to them, ‘Why these things reason ye in your hearts?”

    mat

    Young’s Literal Translation
    And Jesus, having known their thoughts, said, ‘Why think ye evil in your hearts?

    notice that the pharisee thought is evil in matthew

    what is evil

    Mar 2:6 But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts,

    Mar 2:7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?

    why think EVIL in your hearts

    yhwh told the jews in the past not to make images of him and to reject the spirit gods and the flesh gods in the other pagan nations.

    so if protestant jesus was claiming to be god in mark 2:7 then pharisees thoughts cannot be evil. it is their OT WHICH has put THE thoughts in thier minds .

    the only reason why jesus called their thoughts evil was because he thought that the thought of the pharisees was wrong, jesus did not consider himself god and the pharisees thinking that was EVIL.

  36. rocky says:

    yhwh says he never changed,the christian god did CHANGE, he not only became flesh but ALSO experienced call of nature and eating and digestion.

    G-d’s nature DOES NOT CHANGE. Ever.
    Psalm 102:
    25 “Of old You founded the earth,
    And the heavens are the work of Your hands.
    26 “Even they will perish, but You endure;
    And all of them will wear out like a garment;
    Like clothing You will change them and they will be changed.
    27 “But You are the same, ….
    Mal 3:6 “For I, the L-RD, do not change. .

    lol

  37. rocky says:

    “3.The other thing to look at is he asked them a question what one is easier to do healing or forgive why? Both need divine power.”

    what complete LIES, if that is the CASE then the question “which is EASIER…?” BEComes nonsense. BOTH are DIFFICULT because in your opinion “both need divine power”

  38. rocky says:

    harry lad, why worship a diety who SWITCHES roles? one minuites he has divine power to forgive sins , his human person RECEIVES the power to forgive sins and the next minuite he is requesting the father to FORGIVE sins. so whats going on here? jesus’ is asking the father to forgive sins because he doesn’t have divine power in him? or has the divine power REDUCED in jesus and jesus’ forgiveness is not on the same level as the fathers?

    “Of ALL the people of antiquity, the Jews were the ONLY Nation that did NOT worship Man as a God and the Jews did NOT allow the Romans to DEFILE the Temple of their God with Images.

    The writings of Philo, Josephus and Tacitus do show that the Jews did NOT disrespect their deity.

    1. In Philo’s “On Embassy to Gaius”, the Emperor declared that the Jews are the ONLY Nation on earth that did NOT worship him as a God.

    2. In Josephus “Antiquities of the Jews” 18.3, it is found that the Jews would rather have their NECKS CHOPPED off than to allow effigies to be placed in their Holy Temple.

    3. In Tacitus “Histories 5″, it is found the Jews do NOT worship the Emperors of Rome or their own Kings as Gods.”

    pharisees : who other than god can forgive?
    jesus: i am a god, i can forgive, your thoughts are evil
    pharisees: historians agree with us that we never worshipped men
    how are our thoughTS EVIL?
    jesus: i agree with you, i forgive sins because i am a god and your mind is on the right track, i am claiming to be a god.

  39. rocky says:

    “But the application towards jesus is wrong because the fact is jesus is god.”

    pharisees NEVER worshipped men gods. protestant jesus, agrees with the pharisees that thier thoughts are spot on . how are thier THOUGHTS EVIL when they NEVER worshipped men gods? your statement is good for greek europeans, but how good is it for pharisees who DID not worship men gods who claimed to be gods in flesh? jesus WOULD be wrong to think that thier THOUGHTS were evil considering the fact that they (pharisees) never worshipped gods in human flesh. it was thier torah which HELPED thier thoughts. when your god is battered and bruised and then murdered, notice that he has to ask yhwh to forgive his killers? was that the human in jesus or was it the divine person?

  40. Ghaydaa Kalla says:

    You definitely outdid yourself this post. Impressive

  41. rs says:

    “When the crowds saw it, they were awestruck, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men (Matthew 9:8). ”

    now think about this, harry the 3 headed in 1 body god worshipper or ” me are 3 ” worshipper says that the pharisee thought was EVIL for thinking that jezuz blasphemed. his version of jesus says , ” how can i be commiting blasphemy when i am god in flesh ” ?

    look at the verse in matthew, the CROWDS commit EVIL by thinking jesus was a MAN ,who had received authourity.

    pauline jesus

    pharisees, your thoughts are EVIL , i am a man god

    crowds ” god has given to men”

    so according to harry, the CROWDS thought EVIL.

Leave a Reply