Qasim6:





Do you think Prophet Muhammad was forging the Bible when he did not go with Haman as an aide to Persian King and placed him as a chief of Pharaoh?

Do you think he was forging the Bible when he placed mount Judi rather than Mountains of Ararat as the resting place of Noah's ark?

Do you think he was forging the Bible when He did not make mistakes of calling Egyptian kings at the time Abraham and Joseph Pharaoh like the Bible did?

Do you think he was forging the Bible when he made a bold claim that the body of Pharaoh of Moses was preserved, mind you the bodies of the preserved Pharaohs were found in the 18th century.

Debunking lies in the Qur'an

I will like to expose the fraud modern day Muslims apologetics have been doing by distorting historical facts in order to prove the Qur'an is true.

There's nothing true or new about quran. It's a book that simply copied from other sources. Simple.

1. Mount Judi as the resting place of Noah's ark is not specific to Qur'an. The Syriac bible which is the bible used in the Arabian peninsula also mentioned mount Judi- also called qardu as the final resting place of the ark.
In fact Babylonia Talmud states the ark rested on mount judi unlike mount Ararat which is in the book of genesis.

2. Debunking the lies of the preserved pharoah.
When the preserved mummy of ramses 2 was discovered in the 19th century, Muslims apologetics quickly pointed to this as miracle of the Koran where it was stated the body of the drowned pharoah was preserved.

The idea that Ramses 2 was the pharoah in exodus has long been rejected by scholars because there's lack of historical and archeological facts to back this up.

Ramses 2 was one of the most successful Egyptian king and the nation prospered during his reign. His reign was well documented in ancient Egyptian record and there nothing to indicate he had any conflicts with slaves in his kingdom.

Ramses died at 90 yrs. He suffers severe arthritis and had hunchback at the time of his death. It's unlikely someone at that morbid state would have embarked on any military expenditure at his very old age.

His mummy has been thoroughly examined and cause of death has been identified as dental abscess due to a huge hole in his teeth. There's no evidence of fluid in his lungs to suggest drowning or unhealed wounds/fracture to suggest violent death.

The only people pointing to Ramses 2 as the pharoah during the time of Moses are Muslims apologetics. Both Egyptologist and modern historical scholars have rejected the idea and Christian scholars have long abandoned the idea.

The preserved mummy of any pharoah who died of drowning or violent death is yet to be discovered as at 2024.

3. The case of Haman in Egypt.
Presence of Haman in Egypt have long been a big problem for Muslims since the actual Haman in the bible lived in Persia.
In their desperation, Muslims have recently claimed a hieroglyphics inscription mentioned Haman as chief of the workers on stone-quarries . This is a lie. There's nothing of such anywhere except in Muslims apologetics websites. No Egyptologists interpreted any hieroglyphics writings as such.
There's no Haman mentioned in any ancient Egyptian writings. It was a hoax.

Attempts have been made to define Haman as the same person as priest is Amun. The problem here is that Haman in the Koran perished with the pharoah same day in the sea.
We have all the records of the priest of Amun, none of them died a violent death and none died same day as the pharoah.
In fact, the priest of Amun during Ramses 2 outlived the the king and continues to serve his successor.

No matte the lies Muslims apologetics push, we know the Haman should never have been in Egypt acting as nemesis to Israelites. It' s all too convenient that Haman in the Qur'an acted the same plot story as in the bible the exception being change in time and location.

Qasim6:


you can't seriously be asking me if I believe people can sleep for 300yrs. This kind of question should be coming from atheist.

I don't believe anybody slept for 300 years. It's all myths and legends.
The story of the seven sleepers is a myth created by Christians in the 4th century to celebrate the resilience of Christians to persecution. The source is unknown, spread around by bishops and monks; and there's no non- Christian source to confirm the story.
Stories of people sleeping for donkey years is quite common in ancient histories and civilisation. There's no evidence anywhere that such ever happened.

They are grouped along with dragons, flying horses,
giants, monsters as golden legends of the ancient
world. That's why we don't have anybody sleeping for donkey years in today's world- it never happened anywhere.

The funny thing is the Jews were not even asking about the story of the seven sleepers from Muhammed when they asked him the 3 questions.

Why would Jews even be asking questions from the Christian faith they regarded as pagan to test the prophethood of Muhammed who claimed he was sent by God. That's common sense.
Jews don't believe Christians worship the biblical God. Why then will they ask questions surrounding Christianity from Muhammed.

He simply gave the wrong answer, in fact he gave wrong answers to all the 3 questions they asked him.
That's why the Jews rejected Muhammed as a true prophet.

Qasim6:



Stop deceiving yourself!

Non of the Canonical gospels was written by eye witness.

I can categorically tell U all the synoptic gospels were written b4 70AD. That automatically makes them eye witness account.
That's why the gospel of Matthew was quoted extensively by a book produced btw 60-70 AD- the Didache.
I already gave u the muratorium fragment as evidence the gospel of John is an eye witness account. It's obvious U don't read. That's not my business.

Qasim6:

I believe Matthew did write a gospel, but he wrote in Hebrew. The Matthew we have now was written in Greek and it's forged using Mark and Q.

There's nothing like Q source. It's a hypothetical gospel invented by scholars. It never existed. Most scholars have rejected the idea of Q source as unrealistic.

Qasim6:


I'm telling you, you don't want to go to this 'Quran is a forged book'. It will only expose how ignorant you are of the content of the Qur'an. Cos I will make sure I over choke you with evidence that you won't be able to use that argument again unless if you're dishonest.

If you want to know what forgeries and plagiarism is, check your Bible.



I believe dhu al-qarnayn is Cyrus the Great

Well most of your scholars call him Alexander the great, but it doesn't really matter.
Now give me evidence Cyrus the great acknowledged or worship the God of the Abrahamic faith. I want historical evidence Cyrus ever received instruction from Allah as described in the Koran.


(83) And they ask you about Dhu’l Qarnayn. Say, I will recite to you a record of him. (84) Indeed, We established him in the earth and We gave him, for everything, a means (85) So, he followed a course (86) Until he reached the setting of the sun. He found it setting in a murky spring. And he found near it a people. We said, “O, Dhu’l Qarnayn! Either chastise them or adopt a charitable manner with them.” (87) He said, “As for he who does wrong, we will soon punish him. Then, he will be returned to his Lord and He will punish him with a terrible punishment. (88) As for he who believes and does good works, he will have a beautiful reward. And we will speak to him from our command with ease.”

Qasim6:

Do you know Jesus quoted from Sirach in Gospel according to Matthew, and the Jews consider Sirach to be apocryphal.

Was Jesus quoting a forgery?

Sirach is not a forgery! It was written by Jesus son of sirach in Jerusalem and he claimed authorship over his work he called book of wisdom.
This has been confirmed to be true by scholars. How can that be forgery!!!

Infancy gospel of Thomas and protoevangelium of James were never written by Thomas or James. The books are forgeries.

If U want us to go into why it's deuterocanonical or why it seems Jesus quoted it, I can educate U but that's not the point here.
Sirach is not a work of forgery, ok. He simply compiled Jewish proverbs and wisdom phrases common to Jewish traditions and beliefs, albeit some were his own original works.

Expanse2020:


For him to show you the tawheed in the Quran
Let me asked you what is the meaning of the tawheed?

Tawheed isn't in the Koran. Neither the name nor the definition is in the Koran.
If U claim otherwise. The answer my question
Is the shin of Allah with Allah or separate from Allah?
Is the shin of Allah one with Allah?

Ohyoudidnt:


Simply said did all jews accept Jesus as their messiah? Do all of them accept him now? Therein is the danger of generalisation.

My friend no Jew accepted Jesus as the Messiah except his followers.

So that's why I'm asking, how come the Jews called Jesus Messiah when they crucified him according to the Koran.
So U think the Jews will ever crucify their Messiah in whatever circumstances.

Lukuluku69:


If this was established as you claimed (Trinity) why then was a Conference convoked some 300+ after your lord and savior left?

Why the need to debate and vote on God's Nature?

Why the needless killings and banishment in that era?

The council of nicea was actually called to deal with the heretic doctrine of Arianism. Trinity discussion was secondary.

I believe in trinity because it's in the bible not because some bishops sat down in Turkey to establish it.

If Trinity is not in the bible, I will never believe it. The council of Nicene only confirm what's in the scriptures not the other way round.

I dont get this persecution U guys are talking about. Arianism was very much popular and was mainstream for a very long time in Christendom even after the nicene conference.
Immediately the son of Constantine become emperor of Roman empire, Constantinus reverse his father's religious stance and embrace Arianism. He made the bishops supporting arian doctrine the head of churches and expelled Trinitarians bishops to extreme of the empire.
The next emperor Julius embraced Roman paganism and declared he would not favour any side over another.
The next emperor Valen revived Constantinus policy and persecuted trinitarians in the empire.

So I don't get this talk about persecution of Arianist during Roman empire period.
U people should read more.

SIRTee15:


Debunking lies in the Qur'an

I will like to expose the fraud modern day Muslims apologetics have been doing by distorting historical facts in order to prove the Qur'an is true.

There's nothing true or new about quran. It's a book that simply copied from other sources. Simple.

1. Mount Judi as the resting place of Noah's ark is not specific to Qur'an. The Syriac bible which is the bible used in the Arabian peninsula also mentioned mount Judi- also called qardu as the final resting place of the ark.
In fact Babylonia Talmud states the ark rested on mount judi unlike mount Ararat which is in the book of genesis.

2. Debunking the lies of the preserved pharoah.
When the preserved mummy of ramses 2 was discovered in the 19th century, Muslims apologetics quickly pointed to this as miracle of the Koran where it was stated the body of the drowned pharoah was preserved.

The idea that Ramses 2 was the pharoah in exodus has long been rejected by scholars because there's lack of historical and archeological facts to back this up.

Ramses 2 was one of the most successful Egyptian king and the nation prospered during his reign. His reign was well documented in ancient Egyptian record and there nothing to indicate he had any conflicts with slaves in his kingdom.

Ramses died at 90 yrs. He suffers severe arthritis and had hunchback at the time of his death. It's unlikely someone at that morbid state would have embarked on any military expenditure at his very old age.

His mummy has been thoroughly examined and cause of death has been identified as dental abscess due to a huge hole in his teeth. There's no evidence of fluid in his lungs to suggest drowning or unhealed wounds/fracture to suggest violent death.

The only people pointing to Ramses 2 as the pharoah during the time of Moses are Muslims apologetics. Both Egyptologist and modern historical scholars have rejected the idea and Christian scholars have long abandoned the idea.

The preserved mummy of any pharoah who died of drowning or violent death is yet to be discovered as at 2024.

3. The case of Haman in Egypt.
Presence of Haman in Egypt have long been a big problem for Muslims since the actual Haman in the bible lived in Persia.
In their desperation, Muslims have recently claimed a hieroglyphics inscription mentioned Haman as chief of the workers on stone-quarries . This is a lie. There's nothing of such anywhere except in Muslims apologetics websites. No Egyptologists interpreted any hieroglyphics writings as such.
There's no Haman mentioned in any ancient Egyptian writings. It was a hoax.

Attempts have been made to define Haman as the same person as priest is Amun. The problem here is that Haman in the Koran perished with the pharoah same day in the sea.
We have all the records of the priest of Amun, none of them died a violent death and none died same day as the pharoah.
In fact, the priest of Amun during Ramses 2 outlived the the king and continues to serve his successor.

No matte the lies Muslims apologetics push, we know the Haman should never have been in Egypt acting as nemesis to Israelites. It' s all too convenient that Haman in the Qur'an acted the same plot story as in the bible the exception being change in time and location.

Exactly as the messenger of Allah says he was nothing new or bringing anything new. All prophets of God stood on the fact that there is only one God.

Those that hijacked the teachings of Jesus created a lot that didn't say in guise of him saying so.

Did Jesus bring something new or preach against the Torah, Scrolls of Isaiah, Psalms of Davod or songs of Solomon?

Ohyoudidnt:


Metaphoric unity refers to the use of metaphorical elements to create a sense of interconnectedness and thematic consistency. It involves the integration of various metaphors, symbols, and figurative language to convey meanings and unify the narrative or themes within what is discussed.

Is it not strange that an almighty God needs to become man to redeem his creation? Then this man later transforms back to God? Please where indeed is the might of such almighty God?

I love your questions.

This is an answer I copied from a man on Quora

there’s one topic in the realm of Christianity I’ve spent a considerable amount of time contemplating and ‘chewing on,’ it’s forgiveness.

As a matter of fact, before the “sinful nature” topic my early writings were known for, and before the general topic of grace, and any of the other topics I’ve talked about, forgiveness was one of the first I started questioning, after realizing I could actually question what I grew up believing in the church.

It just so happens that the cornerstone of the Christian message (at least in the western world) is forgiveness. In fact, if you ask most Christians why Jesus died, they will likely tell you for the forgiveness of sins.

The immediate problem however, is that many will also include the subtle disclaimer, “He paid the price so that we could ask God for forgiveness.”

It sounds innocent enough, but along with it comes the implication that none are forgiven until they ask, and still after, you become unforgiven for every new sin, until you ask again.

This used to keep me up late at night, trying to remember and recite every sin I thought I did throughout that day. Finally I found the shortcut that many Christians have, consolidating all my daily sins into one general prayer, “Please forgive me for all the sins I did today.”

The terrible truth I discovered shortly after questioning what I had believed about forgiveness my whole life is is that you don’t have to ask God to forgive you. Nobody does.

The reason why is that his forgiveness has nothing to do with you, and everything to do with him.

This is the summary of the gospel Paul gave to one of his churches (2 Cor. 5:18-19).

“All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation:”

Stop. I want to emphasis “God gave us the ministry of reconciliation,” because Paul is about to tell us what the ministry of reconciliation is, and it’s this message that God gave the church to preach.

“[the ministry of reconciliation is] that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not holding men’s sin against them.”

The word reconciliation simply means to win someone over to friendliness, or to restore a friendly relationship. By what method was God restoring a friendly relationship between himself and humanity? By erasing humanity’s long debt of life-mismanagement; “not holding men’s sin against them.”

He’s speaking of the forgiveness of sins.

However, in the realm of forgiveness, it’s important to realize that God wasn’t forgiving us for his sake, but for ours. In other words, he wasn’t forgiving us so He could appease his anger towards us, but on the contrary, so that He could appease our anger towards him.

“For God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile to Himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through the blood of His cross. Once you were alienated from God and were hostile in your minds because of your evil deeds. But now He has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy, unblemished, and blameless in His presence—”

So because of our bad behavior, we made God out to be our enemy, the same way an immature child might think their parents are “meanies” because they have the power to send them to their room when they act up.

When I could cut school, or not have my chores done, I used to dread the sound of my dad’s vehicle pulling into the driveway because I knew my little party was over. He used to hide the cable I used for internet, but I found his hiding place, so I would use it anyway when he wasn’t home. Then when he pulled up I would rush to unplug the cord and put it back in its hiding place. I was the one sneaking around not doing the right he asked me to do (go to school, wash the dishes when you get home), but I still painted him as the bad guy because he took my internet cable away.

I was hostile towards him because of my actions, and all he was doing was being a father. Something I couldn’t actually see until he died. Then, however it works (just like he told me it would when I was that age!), it all became clear and I realized how much he loved me and only had good in mind for me.

In our anticipation of punishment we automatically deem the apparent punisher as our enemy. But, “there is no fear in love, because fear has to do with punishment.” I feared my dad, not because he was abusive, but because I knew he had the power to shut my free-for-all party down.

Likewise, as long as we expect God to be our punisher, the pooper on our parties, we can never enjoy the reality of reconciliation, because “friendly relationship” will forever be threatened, in our minds, by our bad behavior. We only expect to be talked down to in response to our bad behavior, so we react in advance as if we already have been. Blame, defensiveness, hardening of our heart, searing of our conscience.

But as soon as God declares, “I’ve erased every record of your bad behavior! I’ll never hold it against you!” then we can approach him with confidence.

Yes, some will abuse it and think, “Oh! He’s not going to say anything if I don’t go to school or do the dishes? I’ll just never go to school and dirty all the dishes!” And this has been one of the primary reasons Christians have feared a fully free forgiveness, because “people will hear that and think they can sin all they want!” But others will see the kindness that’s there, and out of their appreciation to the mercy they don’t deserve (the refusal by the father to mention or punish over wrongdoing), they will desire to do the things they previously tried to get out of. Then it’s nit work out of obligation or debt, but out of love.

Humanity has always believed that God holds cosmic grudges against evildoers, and the only way to get him to lay off is to make some sort of payment sacrifice, whether it be the goats of the ancient times, the subtle self-degradation of the modern church, or spending literal money to appease his apparent thirst for cash in tithes and offerings. (God really needed that $5 you held back on Sunday, Jimmy!)

That’s not surprising either. If you read the Old Testament, that’s mostly what you’ll find: evil people trying to make up for their evil actions by killing goats, slaughtering their enemies (which were OBVIOUSLY always God’s enemies, too), and begging God to spare them.

So what was Paul saying with the ministry of reconciliation? “Christ on the cross is the announcement that God has already forgiven you (“not holding men’s sin against them”), and through this gracious act of forgiveness has reconciled us to himself (“restored a friendly relationship”).”

That’s the message the church was given to tell the world.

“God’s not mad at you, stop being mad at him!”

Sounds good! So why do people (especially Christians) have such a hard time accepting it?

Because they literally don’t have to do anything for it, and we humans have this strange obsession with earning what we have. We can’t just let “free” be free and lose our reputation to all the hard workers who will deem us lazy good-for-nothings.

TURNING DOWN A FREE MEAL

Have you ever tried to buy a stranger lunch?

The other day an old married couple came into the restaurant I work at. After getting up to the cash register to pay, the man realized he forgot his wallet and began to apologize profusely. I said immediately, “Oh, no worries! I’ll get it for you!” and I pulled out my wallet to pay.

They argued against it for about 2 minutes before finally saying “Okay.” That was mostly because they realized how determined I was to not let them leave without those damned burritos! They weren’t giving me permission to buy them dinner, I was already set on doing it from the beginning. They were simply conceding to a decision I already made about them. Sure, they could have just walked out without the burritos, but on their drive home while their bellies were aching, who is to blame? Was it me punishing them for rejecting my free gift? Or was it the consequence of their stubborn stupidity?

But they accepted. They got their free gift, but that wasn’t good enough.

“I promise I’ll go home,” the man said, “and I’ll come in and pay you back! What’s your name? When do you work next?”

Do you see how humans are? These two were no doubt incredibly nice people. They weren’t evil for wanting to pay me back, but it’s just an example of how hard it is for humans to accept a free gift.

Tonight at work two men came in and ordered seven different dinner bowls. The first man tried to buy the whole thing, including his friend’s dinner, and the second man argued and said, “No! I’ll get it! Use my card!” Then they both looked at me and held their cards forward. I jokingly said, “Oh! Now you guys are gonna make me fight over it?”

They argued some more. I took the card from the first man, and the second man said, “Only charge half on his!” I looked at the card for a few seconds, looked back at the second man, remembered this very post I was working on earlier in the day, and said, “I’m going to put the whole thing on here.”

Why? Not to be a jerk. But to hopefully show that man that he’ll survive if he receives a gift from a friend. You’ll be okay! But I could see the shame on his face. He told the first man, “I’ll get it next time!”

See it? He couldn’t receive a gift from a friend without feeling obligated to pay him back, even though the friend told him happily, over and over, “No! I got it!”

Humans get very weird about accepting anything that’s free, so they have to attach their own conditions and payment methods to it. “I’ll get the next one!” “I’ll pay you back!”

We literally have phrases against freeness, like, “Nothing in this world is free!” Nothing is free because even what is free has our own self-imposed restrictions added to it. It’s not because “free” doesn’t exist, it’s because we insist on paying, even for that which is offered for free. Even when humans feign the acceptance of something free, they are already thinking about how to “pay” the person back, thus, defeating the freeness of the gift, and all the joy that was meant to be included in that freeness.

***

Why did I want to buy the couple dinner? Solely because it was a pleasure to do so. I wasn’t thinking price, I wasn’t wondering when I’d get paid back. I saw humans in a situation where they couldn’t cover themselves and needed someone else to, and I was in front of them with the resources to do so, so I did.

That’s what is supposed to be the message of Jesus coming into the world. He did it because it was his pleasure to do it, not because he expected applause, approval or payback. He did it simply because of his love for the people in front of him, taking compassion on them and knowing they stood no chance to eat unless he bought the whole dinner for them.

“Please let us pay you back!”

Sir, that implies I’m keeping a record of what I’m owed. That implies that I’m holding you in debt. That implies that I’ll spend even one second after this thinking about how much I spent on you. It miscommunicates my nature and my intentions. The whole gesture of this free gift is to reassure you that any debt you think you owe me has been cancelled. I’ll never mention it as a debt, I’ll never think about it as something I’m owed. All it will ever be from here on out is the reminder of what I had the pleasure of providing for you. I didn’t do it because I think less of you, but because I think so much of you. Stop trying to include yourself in the payment somehow, I already paid it all! Just go, enjoy your food and be thankful. Know that you are loved and looked out for. That’s all I want from you, my friend: be happy.

Side note: What do you think that married couple did when they got home? The next time they talked to their friends? The next time they talked to their family? And what will they think about every time a similar topic comes up?

“There was this nice young man at a restaurant who bought us dinner one night when George, over here, forgot his wallet!”

Get why some Christians preach? Not because we’re pushy and want you to join our club, not because think it’s our business to tell you what to do, but because we’re so excited and thankful about the time we forgot our wallet, thought we’d have to go without food, and some young man swooped in and paid the price for our dinner.

He forgives because it’s his nature to forgive. It has nothing to do with us beyond being the beneficiaries of his love.

We attach conditions and prerequisites like “you have to ask first,” because it makes us feel better about receiving the gift. We get to come off less like deadbeat losers taking “handouts” from someone else, and at the very least get to include in our forced-participation a subtle declaration that tells everyone, “See! Look how much I’m helping! I’d chip in more if I could! But at least I’m giving what I can! Please don’t think I’m just a moocher or a charity case!”

The reality of this whole thing is that humanity has nothing to give. It arrived at God’s dinner table without a wallet. The only choice it has is to accept the free gift of someone else paying for dinner, or else just don’t eat at all because it so desperately wants to avoid the appearance of a “free loader.” And if you’re going to make a big scene in front of the other guests who are trying to enjoy their plates, because of your petty insistence to pay for what has already been paid for, you can go outside and mope in the rain with the other stubborn people that are too proud to say “yes!” to a free dinner. “And there will be much gnashing of teeth” out there because there’s nothing else to chew on.

I’m a deadbeat, a loser, and a freeloader. And it’s only in that acceptance that I can truly enjoy the dinner that all the self-proclaimed “hard workers” and “bread earners” reject. It’s not because I do anything for it, rather it’s because I refuse to do anything for it, realizing that I can’t do anything for it. The dinner was paid for by the blood and body of Jesus, and God isn’t going to charge for it twice. My only say in this whole matter is, “Wow! Thanks!” and then enjoy it.

In summary: Not a single person in this entire world has unforgiven sin. The whole world and every sin that ever has and ever will be committed, is already forgiven. “Asking” for forgiveness is just a concept of spiritual currency Christianity created to feel like they’re chipping in a few pennies at the register, completely in denial about the fact that all they have is pocket full of lint like everybody else.

Every Christian, Atheist, Satanist, Muslim, Buddhist… every human shows up to the restaurant register the same: with nothing but their broke-ness.

The question, then, is simply yes or no: will you let another man buy you dinner?

“Come, everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and he who has no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.” - Isaiah 55:1

The Spirit and the Bride say, “Come.” And let the one who hears say, “Come.” And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price.” - Rev. 22:17

SIRTee15:


Tawheed isn't in the Koran. Neither the name nor the definition is in the Koran.
If U claim otherwise. The answer my question
Is the shin of Allah with Allah or separate from Allah?
Is the shin of Allah one with Allah?

Just answer me what is the meaning of Tawheed

SIRTee15:


https://www.google.com/amp/s/islamqa.info/amp/en/answers/49030

where did you see this...
But you claimed oness of Allah or to believe in oness of ALLAH is not in the Quran
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
You are confused óò
Oya show us where the God of father, the God of son and the holy in the bible..
Abeg pls show me

Expanse2020:
where did you see this...
But you claimed oness of Allah or to believe in oness of ALLAH is not in the Quran
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
You are confused óò
Oya show us where the God of father, the God of son and the holy in the bible..
Abeg pls show me

Understand your tawhid b4 engaging me. Muhammed never attributed divine simplicity to Allah, He simply said Allah is one God.
The concept of unique oneness of Allah in his totality and entirety is not in the Koran. It's a false doctrine.

That's why Muslims cannot explain if the shin of Allah is one with Allah or separate from him.

SIRTee15:


Understand your tawhid b4 engaging me. Muhammed never attributed divine simplicity to Allah, He simply said Allah is one God.
The concept of unique oneness of Allah in his totality and entirety is not in the Koran. It's a false doctrine.

That's why Muslims cannot explain if the shin of Allah is one with Allah or separate from him.

You are just wailing on not because all the lie you concocted here is already void with just a Surat in Quran
WHICH UNIQUENESS YOU NEED TO KNOW YOUR MAKER MORE THAN THIS

Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;
Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
And there is none like unto Him.

How many verses like this did you want me to give you...

Show us if you have a better verse for Jesus to *said I am God in the bible
*Worship me only
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Oni yeye

Expanse2020:

You are just wailing on not because all the lie you concocted here is already void with just a Surat in Quran
WHICH UNIQUENESS YOU NEED TO KNOW YOUR MAKER MORE THAN THIS

Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;
Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
And there is none like unto Him.

How many verses like this did you want me to give you...

Show us if you have a better verse for Jesus to *said I am God in the bible
*Worship me only
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Oni yeye

Then answer my question
Is the shin of Allah one with Allah or separate from Allah.

SIRTee15:


Then answer my question
Is the shin of Allah one with Allah or separate from Allah.

Is that a question for you too
😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣 Asked me a reasonable question bro

Expanse2020:

Is that a question for you too
😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣 Asked me a reasonable question bro

It's obvious the concept of Tawhid is beyond your basic understanding of islam.

This is what your Quran wrote about the shin of Allah.

Surah 68.42
The Day the shin will be uncovered and they are invited to prostration but the disbelievers will not be able.

YUSUF ALI
The Day that the shin shall be laid bare, and they shall be summoned to bow in adoration, but they shall not be able,-

So this verse clearly stated the shin of Allah- whatever it is, deserved adoration and worship.

Your hadith confirmed it- Believers will recognise Allah by his shin.

Now I'm asking my question again,

this shin referred to in surah 68.42, is it one with Allah or separate from Allah.

SIRTee15:

It's obvious the concept of Tawhid is beyond your basic understanding of islam.

This is what your Quran wrote about the shin of Allah.

Surah 68.42
The Day the shin will be uncovered and they are invited to prostration but the disbelievers will not be able.

YUSUF ALI
The Day that the shin shall be laid bare, and they shall be summoned to bow in adoration, but they shall not be able,-

So this verse clearly stated the shin of Allah- whatever it is, deserved adoration and worship.

Your hadith confirmed it- Believers will recognise Allah by his shin.

Now I'm asking my question again,

this shin referred to in surah 68.42, is it one with Allah or separate from Allah.

The shin you reffered to is guide or guard or barricade that didn't allow no one to see God. The veil will be removed and we will seeeour maker.. so you got it wroñg calling it shin

For more clarity to your doubt this what it's written in the holy Quran
On the day when it befalleth in earnest) a matter to which they were blind in the life of the world; it is also said this means: when a severe, horrific matter is revealed; and it is also said that this means: when a sign between them and their Lord is revealed, (and they are ordered to prostrate themselves) this is because they said: By Allah, our Lord, we were not idolaters or hypocrites (but are not able) to prostrate, their bodies remaining erect like solid fortresses,

MightySparrow:

Go and study the history about Trinity.
Don't be lazy. Tell us the discussants and their contributions. Don't rely on your Reasoning from the Scriptures alone.

++++++++

"But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." - Matthew 4:4

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness," - 2 Timothy 3:16

Expanse2020:

For more clarity to your doubt this what it's written in the holy Quran
On the day when it befalleth in earnest) a matter to which they were blind in the life of the world; it is also said this means: when a severe, horrific matter is revealed; and it is also said that this means: when a sign between them and their Lord is revealed, (and they are ordered to prostrate themselves) this is because they said: By Allah, our Lord, we were not idolaters or hypocrites (but are not able) to prostrate, their bodies remaining erect like solid fortresses,

Where in the Koran is this pasage

SIRTee15:


Where in the Koran is this pasage

You should probably check the verse you quoted before..instead of posting rubbish

Expanse2020:

You should probably check the verse you quoted before..instead of posting rubbish

This is the verse I quoted in screenshot with Arabic also included.
That's not what U brought here. U don't even know your Koran...olodo
I hope it's not tafsir of the verse U quoted. Tafsir is not Koran.

SIRTee15:


This is the verse I quoted in screenshot with Arabic also included.
That's not what U brought here. U don't even know your Koran...olodo
I hope it's not tafsir of the verse U quoted. Tafsir is not Koran.

Mark the word shin in the Arabic text... Maybe you can understand what you are saying rather than saying wrong thing

Expanse2020:

Mark the word shin in the Arabic text... Maybe you can understand what you are saying rather than saying wrong thing

Don't mind SIRTee15, Advocatejare, TenQ, MightySparrow,Aemmyjah and their lots diverting from the reality of the polytheism they practice in the trinity guise of Christianity.

In Arabian culture, the proverb “when the shin is made bare” signifies a situation where someone’s true intentions or character are revealed. It implies that when a person’s shin is exposed or uncovered, their true nature or motives become apparent. This proverb is often used to describe moments when hidden truths come to light or when someone’s facade is stripped away, revealing their genuine self.

Ohyoudidnt:


Don't mind SIRTee15, Advocatejare, TenQ, MightySparrow,Aemmyjah and their lots diverting from the reality of the polytheism they practice in the trinity guise of Christianity.

In Arabian culture, the proverb “when the shin is made bare” signifies a situation where someone’s true intentions or character are revealed. It implies that when a person’s shin is exposed or uncovered, their true nature or motives become apparent. This proverb is often used to describe moments when hidden truths come to light or when someone’s facade is stripped away, revealing their genuine self.

Its of little wonder than the same TenQ deflated your concocted view of Taoheed.
It is either Allah is on his throne or in the lowest heaven as Mohammed reported.

If Allah has to. come down or descend to hear your prayer, how can he be Omnipotent? Except if as usual , your prophet is fabricating lies as usual

Allah is a low budget imitation of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

TenQ:

Its of little wonder than the same TenQ deflated your concocted view of Taoheed.
It is either Allah is on his throne or in the lowest heaven as Mohammed reported.

If Allah has to. come down or descend to hear your prayer, how can he be Omnipotent? Except if as usual , your prophet is fabricating lies as usual

Allah is a low budget imitation of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

When yours is a polytheism clothed in a fraud trinity, where and how did you defeat the islamic monotheism?

لا إلَهَ إلَّا اللَّهُ
La Ilaha Illallah
there is no god, deity or being which deserves to be worshipped and obeyed except Allah

Allah al-Ahad al-Wahid emphasizes the Oneness and Unity of God in Islam.

Allah al-Ahad al-Wahid emphasize the One (Al-Ahad) and the Only (Al-Wahid), emphasizing His uniqueness, indivisibility, and incomparability.

How many councils were used to establish a Trinity?

Ohyoudidnt:


When yours is a polytheism clothed in a fraud trinity, where and how did you defeat the islamic monotheism?

لا إلَهَ إلَّا اللَّهُ
La Ilaha Illallah
there is no god, deity or being which deserves to be worshipped and obeyed except Allah

Allah al-Ahad al-Wahid emphasizes the Oneness and Unity of God in Islam.

Allah al-Ahad al-Wahid emphasize the One (Al-Ahad) and the Only (Al-Wahid), emphasizing His uniqueness, indivisibility, and incomparability.

How many councils were used to establish a Trinity?

We know that no reason will prevail over your demon induced chanting, therefore, it doesn't bother us one bit. As long as Yahweh is the Father and Yahweh is the Word and Yahweh is the Holy Spirit.

All your sigma rolling doesn't change the nature of Allah as limited in all respect. A limited God cannot be the creator sir. No wonder there are so many errors in the Qur'an : such as only 6th century humans can make.


Ahad is ONE OF
Taoheed is UNIFICATION

Tell me, was Mohammed unifying all the gods in the Kaaba as Allah! ?

SIRTee15:


The council of nicea was actually called to deal with the heretic doctrine of Arianism. Trinity discussion was secondary.

I believe in trinity because it's in the bible not because some bishops sat down in Turkey to establish it.

If Trinity is not in the bible, I will never believe it. The council of Nicene only confirm what's in the scriptures not the other way round.

I dont get this persecution U guys are talking about. Arianism was very much popular and was mainstream for a very long time in Christendom even after the nicene conference.
Immediately the son of Constantine become emperor of Roman empire, Constantinus reverse his father's religious stance and embrace Arianism. He made the bishops supporting arian doctrine the head of churches and expelled Trinitarians bishops to extreme of the empire.
The next emperor Julius embraced Roman paganism and declared he would not favour any side over another.
The next emperor Valen revived Constantinus policy and persecuted trinitarians in the empire.

So I don't get this talk about persecution of Arianist during Roman empire period.
U people should read more.

In your previous post, you claimed the Trinity was established and I ask why is a need for a Conference to discuss it?

Do you know a bit about logic and priori events?

TenQ:

We know that no reason will prevail over your demon induced chanting, therefore, it doesn't bother us one bit. As long as Yahweh is the Father and Yahweh is the Word and Yahweh is the Holy Spirit.

All your sigma rolling doesn't change the nature of Allah as limited in all respect. A limited God cannot be the creator sir. No wonder there are so many errors in the Qur'an : such as only 6th century humans can make.


Ahad is ONE OF
Taoheed is UNIFICATION

Tell me, was Mohammed unifying all the gods in the Kaaba as Allah! ?

With a cut and joint thousandth of a pint drop of understanding the Arabic language you come here to in your default format to say utter rubbish and terrible lies.

Yes Ahad may be translated as one of but in what context? You are and probably will never know the nuances and rules of Arabic language and grammar. You indicated months ago an interest in undertaking Quran or was it Arabic lessons? How far have you gone there if truly you were able to start?

In translating Quranic verses, it is crucial to consider the context, linguistic nuances, and cultural background to accurately convey the intended meaning. Misinterpretations or mistranslations can arise when these factors are not taken into account.

When translating “Ahad” as “one of,” it fails to capture the full depth and significance of the term. This translation overlooks the emphasis on unity and uniqueness that “Ahad” conveys in Arabic. By using “one of,” it introduces an element of plurality or divisibility that is not present in the original term.

The term “Ahad” in Arabic carries a unique meaning that goes beyond just being a numerical value. It signifies absolute oneness, indivisibility, and uniqueness. It is used to emphasize the concept of absolute unity and exclusivity.

TenQ:

We know that no reason will prevail over your demon induced chanting, therefore, it doesn't bother us one bit. As long as Yahweh is the Father and Yahweh is the Word and Yahweh is the Holy Spirit.

All your sigma rolling doesn't change the nature of Allah as limited in all respect. A limited God cannot be the creator sir. No wonder there are so many errors in the Qur'an : such as only 6th century humans can make.


Ahad is ONE OF
Taoheed is UNIFICATION

Tell me, was Mohammed unifying all the gods in the Kaaba as Allah! ?

Can you precisely state what each of the numerous Nicea councils resorted regarding over valuation of Jesus and perhaps Mary with a wrongful equation of Jesus to God.

Audhubillahi mina shayitani rajim

Lukuluku69:


In your previous post, you claimed the Trinity was established and I ask why is a need for a Conference to discuss it?

Do you know a bit about logic and priori events?

Was the Trinity a creation forced into the true teachings of Jesus or not?

Did Jesus categorically say he is the same and equal to God?

Please show where.

SIRTee15:


The council of nicea was actually called to deal with the heretic doctrine of Arianism. Trinity discussion was secondary.

I believe in trinity because it's in the bible not because some bishops sat down in Turkey to establish it.

If Trinity is not in the bible, I will never believe it. The council of Nicene only confirm what's in the scriptures not the other way round.

I dont get this persecution U guys are talking about. Arianism was very much popular and was mainstream for a very long time in Christendom even after the nicene conference.
Immediately the son of Constantine become emperor of Roman empire, Constantinus reverse his father's religious stance and embrace Arianism. He made the bishops supporting arian doctrine the head of churches and expelled Trinitarians bishops to extreme of the empire.
The next emperor Julius embraced Roman paganism and declared he would not favour any side over another.
The next emperor Valen revived Constantinus policy and persecuted trinitarians in the empire.

So I don't get this talk about persecution of Arianist during Roman empire period.
U people should read more.

Please show the word trinity in the Bible and if you want to convince show where Jesus says he is one of the trinity.

Kindly note the trinity and emphasize this in your verifiable response