₦airaland Forum

FreeIgboho:
But I asked you b4:
How can eternally unchanging anything create something?
And
How can there be an all powerful and all good anything yet bad things still happen.

Bottom line, man gave God His attributes when in fact man is incapable of comprehending God!
Example, we know Jesus Christ is God the Son, yet Jesus Christ doesn't know the last day. Does God the Father know absolutely everything? So how come we're encouraged to be a certain way to obtain a certain outcome?

Thank you once again for your response.
I appreciate your continued engagement and the opportunity to discuss these profound matters in a spirit of respectful dialogue. You have raised several important philosophical and theological questions that I would like to address from an Islamic standpoint, with logical clarity and reverence for sincere inquiry.

1. On Divine Immutability and Creation

You asked: “How can an eternally unchanging being create anything?”

This is a profound philosophical question, and one that classical Islamic theology (ʿilm al-kalām) has addressed in great detail. The key lies in distinguishing between change in will or essence and change in effect. In Islam, Allah’s will is eternal, and His knowledge encompasses all events — past, present, and future. The creation of the universe is not the result of a change in God, but a manifestation in time of what He willed eternally.

To put it another way: the act of creation does not require a change in the Creator. Just as a writer can conceive a story without changing his identity, so too can God bring the universe into being without undergoing any alteration in His essence.

> “He is the First and the Last, the Manifest and the Hidden; and He is, of all things, Knowing.” (Qur’an 57:3)

2. On the Problem of Evil and Divine Goodness

You asked: “How can there be an all-powerful and all-good being, and yet bad things still happen?”

This question — often called the “problem of evil” — is not exclusive to Islamic theology, but arises in all theistic traditions. In Islam, the framework for understanding this lies in Divine wisdom (ḥikmah) and the moral purpose of life.

Evil is not a defect in God’s power or goodness, but part of a world designed to test free moral agents. Trials, suffering, and moral choices are opportunities for growth, repentance, and the emergence of virtues such as patience, compassion, and justice.

> “Do you think you will enter Paradise while such trial has not yet come to you as came to those who passed away before you?” (Qur’an 2:214)

Furthermore, Islam teaches that ultimate justice will be realized not merely in this life, but in the hereafter. In this view, temporary suffering in the dunya (worldly life) is contextualized by eternal realities — just as a child might experience pain at the hands of a physician, not knowing it is for their healing.

3. On Jesus and Divine Knowledge

You wrote:

> “We know Jesus Christ is God the Son, yet Jesus doesn’t know the last day. Does God the Father know absolutely everything?”

This is precisely where the Islamic critique of the Trinity focuses. If Jesus is “God the Son,” yet he does not know the Hour (Mark 13:32), then the divine attribute of omniscience cannot be said to fully belong to him. To say “Jesus is God, but only in one person of the Trinity,” or “He knows as God but not as man,” introduces an internal division within God’s nature that undermines the claim to divine unity.

In Islam, God is al-‘Alīm — the All-Knowing — and that attribute is indivisible. There is no scenario in which God is ignorant of anything, even in any so-called ‘mode’ or ‘person.’ Limitation, ignorance, or need are never predicated of Allah.

> “And with Him are the keys of the unseen; none knows them except Him.” (Qur’an 6:59)

Thus, from an Islamic standpoint, if a being is ignorant of any knowledge — including the Hour — he cannot be considered divine in the absolute and unqualified sense.

4. On Human Language and Describing God

You stated: “Man gave God His attributes, when in fact man is incapable of comprehending God.”

Islam wholeheartedly agrees that God is beyond full human comprehension. However, we are not left in the dark. God describes Himself through revelation. The divine names and attributes in the Qur’an are not human inventions — they are God’s self-disclosure to His creation.

But crucially, Islamic theology applies a principle called tanzīh — declaring God’s absolute uniqueness and transcendence — alongside tafwīḍ (entrusting full comprehension to God). This means we affirm what God has revealed about Himself without likening Him to creation, but also without denying those attributes.

So when we say Allah is All-Knowing, All-Powerful, and does not sleep or tire, we affirm these attributes as befits His majesty, not in a way that resembles human traits.

5. Final Reflection: Logic Is Not an Enemy of Faith

You mentioned that humans cannot fully comprehend God — and while this is true, it does not follow that contradictions should be accepted as mysteries.

The Islamic approach is that God is beyond us, yes — but He is not illogical or self-contradictory. Faith is not blind acceptance of paradox, but trust in a perfect, coherent, and self-sufficient Being who is not dependent on incarnation, division, or limitation.

Conclusion

I respect your conviction in your beliefs. My aim is not to attack, but to invite further reflection:

If Jesus is truly God, how can he be ignorant, tempted, or subject to death, and yet remain unchanging, omniscient, and eternal?

Islam offers a concept of God that is utterly One, without partner, without incarnation, and beyond all dependency. He is the Creator, not created. The Sustainer, not sustained. The All-Knowing, without ignorance. The All-Powerful, without weakness.

I welcome continued dialogue in the spirit of mutual pursuit of truth and understanding.

advanceDNA:
If u are an atheist....your argument would have been less bias and valid because you would have been arguing from a place of total unbelief in any God or faith system....

But you are a also a believer of an entity who made something out of nothing (against logic and science) , whose existence is unexplainable, (against logic and science), who made an illiterate write a hundred pages of a book (against logic and sound reasoning), who will give you strength to fvck 72 virgins in heaven (against logic and science),

but hey!!! it's Allah...all his actions are automatically withing the frame of logic because he has no son and he can forgive without sacrifice....it's funny that you don't see your hypocrisy/double standard...

Thank you for your response.

However, I must express concern over the tone and content of your reply. What began as a theological discussion has now shifted toward mockery and caricature of my beliefs. That approach neither reflects serious scholarship nor contributes meaningfully to interfaith dialogue. If your aim is to engage in intellectual exchange, let’s hold ourselves to standards of mutual respect and clarity — not ridicule and sarcasm.

1. On the Accusation of “Bias”

You suggested that if I were an atheist, my argument might be “less biased.” But that misses the point. The question is not whether I hold beliefs — we both do. The question is whether those beliefs are internally consistent and logically coherent. One does not need to be an atheist to critically evaluate theological claims. In fact, people of faith should be more concerned with consistency and truth, not less.

When I raise a theological critique of the Christian model of atonement, I am not claiming to have no beliefs of my own. I am showing that the Christian explanation, by its own standards, raises contradictions — such as why an all-powerful God must sacrifice Himself to Himself in order to forgive.

You are welcome to challenge Islamic beliefs — but do so with evidence and reason, not with mockery. If your position is sound, it should be able to stand on more than sarcasm.

2. On the Islamic View of God

You mocked several Islamic beliefs, so allow me to briefly clarify:

God creating from nothing: This is not illogical — it is the very definition of divine power. Christians also believe God created ex nihilo. If creating the universe from nothing is “against logic,” then Christianity also fails by your standard.

God’s nature being beyond comprehension: If God is truly transcendent, then it follows logically that human minds cannot fully comprehend Him. This is not irrational — it’s intellectually honest humility. Even in Christianity, God’s essence is considered mysterious. That mystery doesn’t make belief invalid; it makes it realistic.

The Qur'an revealed to an unlettered man: Again, this is an argument for divine revelation, not against it. The miraculous nature of the Qur’an — its depth, consistency, preservation, and literary power — is part of what led even Arab opponents of Muhammad ﷺ to admit it could not have been authored by him. If you're claiming this is "against logic and sound reasoning," I challenge you to produce a rational alternative explanation.

Heavenly rewards: Your crude reference to "72 virgins" reduces Islamic descriptions of Paradise to tabloid-level parody. Islamic eschatology speaks of Paradise in terms human beings can relate to — peace, joy, fulfillment — but it also makes clear that the greatest reward is nearness to God (Qur’an 9:72). If Christian scripture describes streets of gold and eternal feasts, should I mock that too? Of course not — that would be disrespectful. Likewise, I expect the same decorum in return.

3. The Real Issue: Atonement and Forgiveness

You still have not addressed the core point I raised:

> Why must an all-powerful, all-merciful God require a blood sacrifice of Himself in order to forgive?

Islam holds that God is both Just and Merciful — without contradiction. He may punish if justice demands, or forgive if He wills. He does not need to kill an innocent person to forgive the guilty. In fact, doing so would contradict both justice and mercy.

Your theology, on the other hand, proposes that God became man, was tortured, and died to satisfy His own sense of justice — a model that implies God could not simply forgive without violence.

I’m not mocking this. I’m asking whether this is truly coherent and whether it upholds God’s perfection.

4. Conclusion

Disagreement is natural — mockery is unnecessary. I’m not asking you to agree with Islam. I’m asking whether the theology you believe in is internally consistent. If it is, explain it. If it’s not, then perhaps reconsider why you believe it.

Let’s raise the level of this conversation. I’m ready when you are.

Peace to those who seek truth.

FreeIgboho:
Thanks for your polite response.
Well, results matter, if not in fact the only things that actually matter.
Whatever is written in the Koran, it matters that quite a sizeable number of muslims has interpreted it to mean they become terrorists. I'd say that's the wrong religion to belong to - because even if you don't become a terrorist, your child or other relatives might! Mention a Christian or other religions' equivalent of these: Taliban, Islamic State, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab, al-Qaeda, ISIS, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc, and more being added everyday. Na only them follow come?!

Now, on to your original point, NairaLTQ tried but I'd articulate the response in a way you'd more readily understand.

>How can Jesus be fully God and fully man, while simultaneously experiencing limitations — such as ignorance, hunger, temptation, and death — that contradict divine attributes?

The HUGE flaw in your reasoning is that for something to be true it has to make sense or be logical to YOU! The problem is that this "you" is incapable of knowing what makes sense outside his extremely limited purview. "You" can only see, hear, and feel an extremely small percentage of what is there. As for ability to know what makes sense, "you" is so limited in that aspect that we can make bold to say his ability in that aspect is zero.
I mean, even quantum mechanics doesn't make sense to "you", talkless of things not in his dimension or realm, talkless of God!
So that leaves us with EVIDENCE as the only way "you" can know anything - NOT through reasoning or logic.
The evidence we have is that the scriptures said for thousands of years that God was coming to stay amongst us for a while, then someone came and said he was indeed that God and that we'd know this because thousands of years from then he'd still be worshipped and his words would never die. We are now thousands of years later and he's indeed still being worshipped as God without God punishing his worshippers but instead they're stronger and more prosperous everyday.
These are the things we know for sure.

Thank you for your response.

I appreciate your willingness to return to the theological question, even if only partially. However, I must again raise concern over the way this dialogue is being handled. Rather than directly addressing the theological issue I posed, the conversation is again being steered toward sociopolitical generalizations and personal epistemological claims. For the sake of a meaningful exchange, I’d like to respond to both strands: the moral critique of Islam and your argument about logic versus evidence.

1. On the Moral Critique of Islam

You claim that the presence of extremist groups among Muslims delegitimizes the truth of Islam. This is a non sequitur. Truth is not established by the misdeeds of followers — if it were, no religion would be exempt from invalidation. Consider:

The Spanish Inquisition tortured and killed in the name of Christianity.

European colonization justified slavery and genocide while invoking Christ.

The Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda commits atrocities claiming Christian motivation.

Ku Klux Klan members burn crosses and claim to represent Christian values.

Would it be rational for me to argue that Christianity is false because of these actions? Of course not — and I choose not to, out of fairness and intellectual integrity.

Islam should be evaluated based on the Qur’an, the Prophet’s example (peace be upon him), and the core ethical framework it teaches — not the actions of misguided or politically motivated groups. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) consistently forbade the killing of innocents, destruction of property, or oppression of civilians. Qur’anic verses like “Whoever kills a soul…it is as if he has killed all mankind” (Qur’an 5:32) are not obscure — they are foundational.

So, respectfully, let's not dismiss a 1,400-year-old faith followed by over a billion people based on sensational headlines or the selective actions of fringe elements.

2. On the Claim That Logic Is Invalid in Theology

You state:

> “The HUGE flaw in your reasoning is that for something to be true, it has to make sense or be logical to YOU.”

This line of argument is deeply problematic. If you claim logic and coherence are irrelevant to truth, you essentially abandon all grounds for evaluating any belief — including your own. If contradictions are allowed, then any and all claims could be simultaneously true — even if they oppose each other.

This approach undermines all theological discourse. For example, if someone claimed:

> “God is one and not one at the same time, in the same way, and that’s okay because it doesn’t have to make sense,”
you’d rightly reject this as incoherent.

Even Scripture — whatever one’s tradition — appeals to reason:

“Come now, let us reason together” (Isaiah 1:18)

“Do they not reflect upon the Qur’an?” (Qur’an 4:82)

Islam encourages reason, reflection, and consistency in theology. God is not subject to human limitation, but He gave us reason as a tool to distinguish truth from falsehood. If you argue that logic is unreliable when it comes to theology, then why debate at all? Why offer “evidence,” make claims, or try to persuade?

3. On Your Appeal to “Evidence”

You suggest that Jesus must be God because:

He predicted he would be worshipped.

He is still worshipped.

His worshippers are strong and prosperous.

With respect, this is an argument from popularity and power, not from truth. Many false ideologies have gained massive followings and empires — that doesn’t make them divine.

The Roman Empire worshipped Caesars as gods — they were prosperous.

The Hindu pantheon has hundreds of millions of worshippers — are all their gods divine?

Communism once dominated half the globe — should we accept it as truth because of its reach?

Truth is not determined by the number of adherents or geopolitical power, but by the soundness of belief and the consistency of doctrine.

4. Returning to the Core Question

Once again, I respectfully return to the original theological challenge:

> If Jesus is fully God, how can he possess attributes that contradict divinity — such as ignorance (Mark 13:32), weakness, temptation, and death?

Saying “the Word became flesh” or “this is beyond human logic” does not resolve the contradiction. It simply bypasses it.

If divinity took on limitation, then either:

God changed — contradicting His perfection and immutability, or

Jesus is not fully God — contradicting Trinitarian doctrine.

In Islam, God is utterly One — indivisible in essence and attributes. He does not become human, does not suffer death, and is never subject to creation. He sends messengers, like Jesus (peace be upon him), as signs and guides, not as incarnations of Himself.

Conclusion

I welcome honest theological disagreement. But let’s root it in clarity, consistency, and respect. Resorting to emotional appeals, fear-based assumptions, or dismissing reason altogether only weakens the possibility of mutual understanding.

If you believe the Trinity and incarnation are rationally coherent, I invite you to explain how God can be fully divine and fully subject to human limitation without contradiction.

I remain open to continuing this dialogue sincerely and respectfully.

Peace to those who seek the truth.

TenQ:
I will be surprised from my experience with Muslims if your intention is the understanding the Christian doctrine of Trinity because
I think your problem is looking at God from the lens of Taoheed instead of looking at God from the lens of Trinity to truely understand what Christians are saying about God. As Taoheed, it is impossible for Allah to exist simultaneously in three different dimensions of existence at the same time.

The fundamentals doctrine of Trinity begin with the fact that God YHWH is ONE.
Mar 12:29:
"And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:"
However, from the Scriptures we understand that the One YHWH exists simultaneously with THREE Identities

You cannot impose the limitation of your Taoheed on YHWH because
1. YHWH is the infinite Spirit in whom EVERYTHING consists. He is called Ruach HaKodesh, meaning the Spirit of Holiness. The Holy Spirit is the Shekhinah (the Divine Presence) of YHWH. He is the one who inspires

The Heavens and the Earth/Universe is a subset of Him. He is the Holy Spirit!
Acts 17:28:
"For in him (God) we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring."

Jeremiah 23:24
"Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the Lord. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord."

Isaiah 63:10-11:
"But they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit... Where is he who put in them his Holy Spirit?"

The Holy Spirit is Invisible and is the expression of His Omnipresence, Power and Inspiration throughout the Heaven (spiritual) and the Earth (Universe)

2. YHWH is the Father who is the Visible Image of the Invisible God in the Heavenly realms. He sits on His throne with the Angels to preside over the Universe . We call Him our Father in Heaven.

Isaiah 6:1
"In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple."

1 Kings 22:19
"Micaiah continued, 'Therefore hear the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne with all the multitudes of heaven standing around him on his right and on his left.'"

Psalm 47:8
"God reigns over the nations; God sits on his holy throne."

Daniel 7:9
"As I looked, thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took his seat. His clothing was as white as snow; the hair of his head was white like wool. His throne was flaming with fire, and its wheels were all ablaze."

3. YHWH is the Word. The visible image of the invisible God Everywhere in Space and Time. He appears on Earth as the Personage called the Angel of YHWH in the Old Testament or as a Man to Abraham.
Genesis 3:8
"And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day..."

Genesis 18:1-2
"The LORD appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent... Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby."
(God appears as one of three visitors.)

Genesis 32:24-30
"So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak... So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, 'It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.'"

Judges 13:3-22
"The angel of the LORD appeared to her... We are doomed to die! We have seen God!"

The bible says, YHWH the Word became Human.

John 1:14
"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth."

John 1:1
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Philippians 2:6-8
"Who, being in very nature God , did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross!"



Like I said:
You cannot look at Trinity from the point of view of the Taoheed. The nature of Trinity makes everything possible with YHWH.

So, your Question again:
> If Jesus is truly God, how do you reconcile his human limitations — ignorance of the Hour, hunger, fatigue, temptation — with the essential attributes of divine perfection?

Because YHWH the Word became Human while still remaining the Infinite Holy Spirit and Father in Heaven. The Man Jesus can be weak without God being Weak. This is because YHWH remains the Father and YHWH remains the Holy Spirit. The Word took up limitation but YHWH remains Unlimited.

YHWH is Almighty because NOTHING is Impossible for HIM.

YHWH The Word became a servant

Mark 10:45:
"For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Philippians 2:6-8
Though existing in the form of God, Jesus emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant and humbled Himself to death on a cross


I will be surprised if (after all these) you comprehend (from the Christian point of view (I don't expect you to agree) that the One God exists simultaneously in three dimensions of the Father, the Word and the infinite Holy Spirit.

Thank you for your detailed explanation. I appreciate your willingness to engage in this dialogue and clarify your theological perspective. Allow me to respond respectfully from an Islamic standpoint, while focusing on the core philosophical and theological issue raised.

1. The Request for Internal Consistency Still Stands

My initial question was not about whether the Trinity can be stated doctrinally — I am well aware of the claims regarding the Word becoming flesh, the eternal Father, and the omnipresent Spirit. My question was more precise:

> How can the same being who is said to be all-knowing, all-powerful, and unchanging also be ignorant of the Hour, tired, tempted, and crucified?

Simply saying “the Word became flesh” does not resolve the philosophical contradiction — it relocates it. If “Jesus is God,” and Jesus is ignorant of the Hour (Mark 13:32), the divine attribute of omniscience is compromised in the person of Jesus. This is not a question of rejecting the Trinity outright, but of pointing out that, by its own terms, the doctrine raises unresolved contradictions between divinity and humanity that cannot be ignored.

2. The Appeal to “Trinitarian Logic” Is Theologically Circular

You mentioned I must not impose the lens of Tawhid when evaluating the Trinity. I understand that. But every theological system must still be coherent within itself. Saying “it makes sense because in our view YHWH can be three and one” is not sufficient. If the One Being of God becomes weak, hungry, or ignorant in any person, this challenges the absolute perfection of that Being. Appealing to a special “Trinitarian logic” that is not answerable to rational coherence does not resolve the contradiction — it shelters it.

3. Multiplicity of Manifestations vs. Multiplicity of Persons

You cite many Old Testament passages where God is said to appear in forms or act in various ways — as Spirit, as enthroned King, as appearing to Abraham, etc. Muslims have no issue affirming that God can act in creation, manifest signs, speak to Prophets, or veil Himself however He wills. But none of this logically requires God to be divided into distinct persons with distinct roles, such that one can pray to the other, or one can die while the others do not.

Islam maintains that Allah is One in Essence and One in Person, without needing to become human to relate to creation. He knows all, sees all, and acts upon His will without undergoing change, limitation, or incarnation.

4. Divine Attributes Cannot Be Compartmentalized

You stated:

> “The Word took up limitation, but YHWH remains unlimited.”

This is a serious theological problem. If Jesus is God, then God took on limitation. You cannot divide the divine nature like a pie — some limited, some unlimited — and still maintain that the full divine being was present in Jesus. Either the divine nature was fully present in Jesus, in which case divine perfection was compromised, or the divine nature was not fully present in Jesus, in which case he is not truly God.

In Islamic theology, perfection is indivisible. God's knowledge is not split; His power is not shared; His essence is not incarnated. He does not become less than what He is — not for any purpose, not for any mission.

In Conclusion

I am not denying your right to believe in the Trinity. What I am doing is inviting a deeper inspection: can a being who is uncreated, all-powerful, and all-knowing, truly become limited, tempted, and crucified — and yet remain unchanged in His divine essence?

I respectfully maintain that logical consistency is not a foreign imposition, but a tool for genuine theological reflection. As a Muslim, I believe in a God who is utterly transcendent yet near, who sends guidance, not incarnations, and who is never subject to the limitations of His creation.

I am happy to continue this dialogue in the spirit of mutual understanding.

advanceDNA:
its funny how you first make a statement of Gods all powerfulness and ability to do all things unquestionable... then to invalidate Jesus you reach a conclusion of what you think God cannot do by referencing logic...you are deliberately riding in the error of fallacy/cognitive bias....nothing more

I don't have to account for anything on behalf of God....God I all powerful and unquestionable....why he decides to do something and how he chooses to execute it is being my human comprehension...which makes your attempt to pull logic out of it pointless

I told you earlier ....if a perfect God who is all knowing, and all powerful, can create imperfect, full of flaw creations, yet still remain a perfect God...then my brother....u are just clinging to straws



Sigh...u have never read the bible...all u have is what desperate Islamic scholars use to mock the christian faith....if you have u would have noticed Jesus speaks about himself like he's talking about someone else...... He refers to himself in 3rd person, as son of man, the son, etc... example in matt 22 & John 17, Luke 8v18 and many others verses.... you may not understand this but this is one of the many proofs that the son who walked the earth is a state for a period (like an office of operation) that God extended part of his nature into per time for the purpose of reconciliation and justice...

How can he who knows people's thought, who was aware of what is at the bottom of the lake, spoke the future clearly not know the same future........u ignore facts but clinging to statement with context u don't even understand or deliberately ignore ...

lol.....In the first place, even mortal lives forever only his container or flesh dies......so the idea that God died you are trying to cling to is laughable....I asked you earlier, is this Jesus dead now...?

you knowledge of the bible is too weak and laughable.....this statement isn't Jesus crying to the father but quoting a scripture that prophesied that very hour that was being fulfilled...again... U have never read the bible ...all u have is desperate point Islamic scholars use to mock Christian faith.


fallacy/ cognitive bias as usual..

what meaning fully occured?? Are u a comedian or just trying to be funny......are u asking me to explain to you the mechanism of action by which the Almighty God executed an action...?? why don't you tell me what will meaningfully happen when your Allah give you Muslims p0wer to fvck 72 w0men in heaven ??

Baba..you are clinging to straws, your desperation is becoming too obvious....you believe your Allah can do all things, even make it possible for an illiterate to write the Quran.. but when Christians say God did this or that, you'll start looking for how to to prove logic...

I'm happy I'm not dealing with an atheist..so the joke is on you when you try to pretend all that your Allah does is within a logical framework.

I am not against your choice of words, I am only telling you it exposes your real aim whenever you bring in your Islamic framework which is very different from the Christian faith

I am tired of you trying to play authority on what God can or cannot do...it's nauseating... This your point carries no weight ..


Do u believe through Adam, sin came to the world?? (This is what the Bible says)
. If yes... why are u having a brain aneurysm trying to get why God chose to reconcile the fall of man through a perfect sinless entity...??



I will answer this with an account of scripture..
In the bible...David sinned and the entire Israel started to feel the wrath of God.......David prayed and cried to God through the help of the prophets
When God answered, he said a sacrifice is needed to fix the issue......why ddnt the all powerful God just forgive with a snap of the finger....?? I mean what's the big deal?? He could just do it like your Allah would have...

The same God who u quoted out of context earlier that he prefers mercy than sacrifice did actually ask for sacrifice to atone for many wrong doings.. see..you don't understand God ..none of us fully does...you are just claiming to becos u want to invalidate the Christian faith...


you are indeed making a comparison and concluding on some form of superiority.....so saying you are not doing so doesn't nullify what you already said.
....see I care less when u introduce your Islamic framework....I'm just letting you know u expose yourself every time you do so... because it shows you are not really arguing Christian theology against logic but only pointing out the superiority of your Allah and how more logical he is....
again..the joke is on you...there is nothing really logical about religion..we are all just believing through faith and at best God gives us some conviction for our faith....

lol......u are getting more desperate.....Moses murdered a man and disobeyed God a couple of times....both John and Moses were never called sinless in scripture..


lol...u are getting more desperate by the minute.....only God is without sin....so you saying being sinless is not part of an attribute of divinity, shows you are only saying so our of desperation to invalidate Jesus....

u can say one thing and mean another.....which is what u have need doing ..

Everytime you mention your so called limitations of Jesus...then you come with your Islamic framework work to show you don't have such in Islam.....you are therefore not arguing Christian theology against logic but against your Islam version of God...

Thank you for your response. I will respond respectfully, point by point, while clarifying the nature of my inquiry and maintaining a focus on reasoned dialogue. If the goal is mutual understanding rather than just polemics, then honest and rational engagement is necessary.

1. On God's Power and Logical Consistency

You argue that because God is all-powerful, He can do anything, even if it contradicts logic. However, this misunderstands both the concept of omnipotence and the boundaries of rational discourse.

A classical understanding of omnipotence, as affirmed even by Christian thinkers like Aquinas, does not mean that God can do the logically impossible (e.g., create a square circle or be both omniscient and ignorant simultaneously). Logical contradiction is not a “thing” to be done—it is a breakdown in meaning. God does not do the absurd.

So when I ask whether God can become mortal while remaining immortal, or ignorant while remaining omniscient, I am not “limiting” God. I am asking whether the Christian claims about God are internally coherent.

If your answer is: “God can do contradictory things,” then theological reasoning becomes meaningless. Every belief, however absurd, could then be justified as a “mystery.” That is not faith—it is fideism.

2. On “Not Needing to Account for God’s Actions”

You stated that you don’t need to account for how or why God acts, because it’s beyond human comprehension. While it's true that God's essence is beyond full grasp, this cannot be an excuse to avoid rational analysis of doctrines formulated by human beings. Once a claim is made—that God became man, died, and rose again—it is not unreasonable to ask what that means and whether it is logically possible.

If theological claims are above inquiry, then why engage in any doctrinal teaching, evangelism, or interfaith discussion at all?

3. On Christ's Knowledge and Identity

You mention that Jesus referred to himself in the third person, like “Son of Man” and “Son of God.” That is noted. But titles do not resolve the tension.

When Jesus says in Mark 13:32 that he does not know the hour, yet God is supposed to be omniscient, this is not a matter of “third-person language”—it is a statement of ignorance. You tried to dismiss this by suggesting it’s a misunderstanding of context, but the plain reading contradicts omniscience.

Also, Jesus praying, worshipping, being tempted, and saying, “My God, why have You forsaken me?” are not literary devices—they are personal experiences that beg the question: If he is God, to whom is he praying? Was God praying to Himself?

You suggest this is a temporary “state” or “office of operation.” But then we are back to the question: Did God change state? Did God experience limitation? If so, this contradicts His unchanging nature (Malachi 3:6, James 1:17).

4. On the Death of Jesus

You mocked the question, “Did God die?” by saying only the “container” died. But Christian orthodoxy affirms the hypostatic union—that Jesus was fully God and fully man, not just a body containing divinity.

So again: Did the divine nature die? If not, and only the human part died, then what was the sacrifice? If God cannot die, but only the human vessel did, then it was a human sacrifice, and calling it “divine” becomes misleading.

5. On Sin and Divine Justice

You mentioned David’s sin and how God demanded sacrifice. This proves my point: the Christian model frames divine justice as satisfied only through blood sacrifice, even if innocent parties suffer.

In human terms, this would be unjust. Transferring punishment from the guilty to the innocent violates both justice and mercy. If God requires blood to forgive, how is that perfect mercy?

Islamic theology offers a different model: God is both Just and Merciful without contradiction. He may punish or forgive, based on wisdom—not blood. The Qur’an says:

> “Allah does not burden a soul beyond that it can bear.” (Qur’an 2:286)
“No bearer of burden shall bear the burden of another.” (Qur’an 6:164)

You’re free to disagree with this model, but to say that only the Christian version makes sense is to ignore its internal ethical dilemmas.

6. On Sinlessness and Divinity

You argued that only God is sinless, and therefore Jesus’ sinlessness proves divinity. But Scripture mentions others as blameless or righteous:

Job 1:1 – “blameless and upright.”

Luke 1:6 – Zechariah and Elizabeth were “righteous before God, walking blamelessly.”

John 1:6 – “There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.”

Sinlessness, in and of itself, is not proof of divinity. Otherwise, multiple biblical figures would also be divine. The uniqueness of Jesus' role in Christianity does not automatically mean he is God.

7. On Islamic Framework

You accused me of importing an “Islamic framework.” In reality, I raised logical objections rooted in Christian claims themselves. Whether a Muslim, atheist, or Christian asks these questions is irrelevant—logic is not bound by religion.

Yes, I briefly contrasted with Islamic views to show that divine justice and mercy can be upheld without theological contradiction. This is not “mockery”—it is an appeal to coherence.

8. On Tone and Respect

Finally, your tone turned increasingly sarcastic and even profane—mocking the afterlife (e.g., “72 women”) and making personal attacks (“desperate,” “laughable,” “comedian”). If our aim is dialogue, not insults, let’s keep to substance over emotion.

You are, of course, free to believe as you do. But if you assert doctrines about the nature of God, then rational critique is not “bias”—it is the foundation of theology itself. The early Church held councils precisely to resolve logical and doctrinal tensions.

Conclusion

This is not about mocking, but about asking:

Can God be immortal and yet die?

Can God be all-knowing and yet not know the hour?

Can God be just and yet punish the innocent?

If the answer is “faith, not logic,” then all beliefs become equally valid, and theology ceases to be meaningful. I invite you, with respect, to consider these questions not as attacks—but as sincere attempts to understand the coherence of your claims.

Peace to you.

TenQ:
Mr JimRohn,
You refused to answer direct questions and any answer I give you is considered a ridicule which wasn't my intention. What I noticed however is that when I show you how impossible your position is, it seems to inflamed you. I must commend you however that you were not abusive as some other Muslims when their position seems threatened by superior arguments.

Have you noticed that you seem to reject obvious meaning of the Qur'an and Hadiths whenever they seem problematic to you.


So, I will ask you just one small batch of question at a time and I expect you to answer them directly if possibly with evidence AND maintain consistency by standing by your answers.




1. Is it TRUE or UNTRUE that Prophet Mohammad is in his grave praying?
2. Is this also TRUE for ALL prophets of Islam: that they are in their graves praying?
3. On the day of resurrection, who would be the first to resurrect from the dead?

Dear, TenQ

Thank you for your response. I appreciate your tone and your willingness to engage respectfully. That said, I must point out a critical issue: your reply completely diverges from the theological question I posed.

I asked a sincere and specific question about Trinitarian doctrine:

> How can Jesus — if fully God — experience human limitations such as ignorance, temptation, hunger, and growth in wisdom, which contradict the very definition of divine perfection?

This question was not meant to ridicule, provoke, or evade — but to invite serious reflection on the internal coherence of the belief that Jesus is both fully divine and fully human. It is a theological inquiry based on the claims of Christian doctrine and Scripture (e.g., James 1:13, Mark 13:32), and it deserves a direct response.

Instead of engaging with that subject, you've now posed unrelated questions about Islamic belief, particularly concerning the status of prophets after death. While I'm happy to respond to those questions separately, they do not address the central issue under discussion: the divine-human nature of Jesus in Christian theology.

To answer your concern directly:
No, I am not "inflamed" by theological debate. I simply expect the same intellectual seriousness I strive to offer. If there is a disagreement, let it be settled by reasoned argument, not redirection.

Now, to briefly address your new questions — though again, they are not germane to the topic at hand:

1. Is Prophet Muhammad ﷺ in his grave praying?
Islam teaches that the Prophets are alive in the barzakh (intermediate realm) in a way different from ordinary people. The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ informed us that the earth does not consume the bodies of the prophets, and that he is presented with the greetings of his ummah regularly. This does not mean he is physically alive in our worldly sense, nor does it imply divinity or contradiction with Tawhid.

2. Are all prophets in their graves praying?
Some narrations support that prophets continue a state of worship in the barzakh, but again, this is not comparable to life in this world and does not entail any theological contradiction in Islam.

3. Who is resurrected first on the Day of Judgment?
According to authentic hadith, the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ said: “I will be the first to be resurrected on the Day of Judgment.” (Sahih Muslim) — and this is understood in the context of his unique rank among prophets, not divinity.

But again, I must stress: these answers, while sincere, are not a substitute for addressing the original question I asked:

> If Jesus is truly God, how do you reconcile his human limitations — ignorance of the Hour, hunger, fatigue, temptation — with the essential attributes of divine perfection?

If we are to have meaningful interfaith dialogue, it is important that we stay on topic and respond directly to the theological issues raised. I am not trying to trap or mock anyone — I’m asking for theological consistency. If your belief is true, it should stand up to honest questions.

I remain open to continuing this dialogue with mutual respect and intellectual clarity.

Warm regards,
Jimrohn

FreeIgboho:
Why do you think the net result of this Islam is hyper individual terrorism. Suicide bombers and Fatwas all over the place. Almost every religion-based acts of terrorism is Islam.
Take Nigeria, see all these Islamic terrorist groups and burning people for "insulting the Koran or Prophet", etc
Do you really think this is the right religion to belong to?

Thank you for your response, though I must express disappointment at the direction it took. I posed a sincere theological question regarding the nature of Jesus and the coherence of the doctrine of the incarnation. Rather than addressing that question, your reply shifted entirely to a sociopolitical accusation against Islam.

With respect, this kind of diversion neither answers the question nor contributes to constructive interfaith dialogue. If the truth of a religion were determined by the actions of some of its adherents, then no religion — including Christianity — would stand without criticism. After all, history has seen atrocities carried out in the name of nearly every major faith, from the Crusades and Inquisitions to modern sectarian violence.

However, theological truth is not established by misbehavior, extremism, or geopolitical conflicts. It is determined by examining the core teachings, scriptures, and principles of a faith.

To respond briefly:

Islam explicitly condemns the killing of innocents (Qur'an 5:32), suicide (Qur'an 4:29), and compulsion in religion (Qur'an 2:256). The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) forbade harming non-combatants, religious clergy, and even trees during conflict.

Terrorism and criminal violence committed by some individuals claiming Islam are not proof of the faith itself — just as crimes by those identifying as Christian are not proof against Christianity.

If an ideology must be judged, let it be judged by its foundational texts and the example of its prophets, not the selective misdeeds of misguided followers.

Returning to the original point, I would encourage us to stay focused on the theological question I raised, which remains unanswered:

> How can Jesus be fully God and fully man, while simultaneously experiencing limitations — such as ignorance, hunger, temptation, and death — that contradict divine attributes?

This is not an attempt to “score points” or promote hostility. It is a genuine question seeking clarity about the internal consistency of Trinitarian belief. If Christianity offers a rational, theologically coherent explanation, I am open to hearing it.

But to respond to a theological inquiry with accusations about violence or geopolitics is to sidestep the question entirely and, frankly, to shift into an ad hominem fallacy.

If you are interested in continuing a serious and respectful dialogue about the nature of God, Jesus, and the truth of revelation, I remain willing to engage.

Peace and sincerity in seeking truth.

advanceDNA:
you are already off by this statement.
Why do atheist call religious pple f00ls or stvp!d?? because nothing is logical about religion in the first place...it is a matter of faith..
....so saying that the God in the biblical account can't do something because to you that thing is illogical shows your are only playing the atheist game

how does he cease to be God becos he chose to manifest simultaneously in this cosmos' time and space.... you are the one tagging these actions of God as imperfect because your mind rejects the motive behind it based on your Islamic Allah version of God...

no....this is you putting God in a box of what you feel he can or cannot do to suit your aim of invalidating the christian faith.....

what has his unchanging nature got to do with his motive for acting... his unchanging, eternal, all-powerful status is why he chose to execute his actions of justice & reconciliation in the first place....
.....the action of reconciliation and justice has been executed...so what is his current state...?? How has he now changed ??


2. On Divine Emotions vs. Human Limitations

I did not deny God’s attributes such as anger or jealousy. What I clarified is that in Islam, these attributes are not like human emotions, which are born out of need, ignorance, or imperfection. here u go again..... in Islam??......you claim you are trying to argue Christian theology based on logic..why are you trying to use Islamic framework to invalidate Christian beliefs here?


You seem to agree when you say Jesus' death is “not like” the death of ordinary men. But if you affirm that point, you actually reinforce my concern: you can't even see sarcasm when it's staring at you.... I ddnt agree with you....I was only throwing your sloppy logic back at you


If Christ’s death, hunger, fatigue, and sorrow are not truly like human experiences, then in what meaningful sense can He be said to have taken on “full humanity”?
They are human experiences for the purpose of reconciling humans who live such experiences and fell into sin becos of them.. but Jesus did not...showing his nature was sinless a nature only God God has....


And if they are real human experiences, how can you still claim that God remained fully divine while experiencing them?
Lol...this is a similar question atheists ask just to invalidate God....why will an all knowing God, all powerful, make such imperfect world and flawed creations that goes against him..??
Like the atheists....These questions you ask is driven by deliberate error of cognitive bias...


3. On "Cherry-Picking" Scripture and Interfaith Respect.

I never said that the Bible states, “God cannot exist as flesh.” Rather, I asked whether the claim that the infinite God literally became finite flesh can be logically and theologically reconciled with your belief that God is eternal, omniscient, and unchanging. That is a rational inquiry—not an Islamic imposition. until u can show me where God state what he can or cannot with respect to how he chose to execute his reconciliation & justice ..then we can continue this point......
For now...all u have is a desperate attempt at invalidating another person's faith & beliefs....


4. On Limiting God vs. Upholding His Nature

You claim I’m “putting God in a box.” But again, there is a key distinction between denying God's power and upholding His nature. God cannot lie, cease to exist, or act unjustly—not because He lacks power, but because these contradict His essence. yeah....God cannot lie, God cannot be unjust etc.....you have still not showed me where God said he cannot extend his holiness attribute into flesh and blood for the purpose of justice and reconciliation....


Likewise, in Islam and in rational theology generally, the idea that God can become a man, with all the limitations that entails, is not rejected due to a lack of divine ability, but because it negates divine perfection and transcendence. here u are bringing you Islamic framework work into it in order to validate you comment......how come God, that is perfect, all powerful and all knowing still made an imperfect world with creation prone to flaws yet still remain a perfect God with all his perfect knowledge .....yet still remain the perfect, all knowing God..


You cannot assert that God is eternal and unchanging, and then say He took on mortality and change. That is not divine mystery—it is theological contradiction.
You are just playing around with words and throwing context away....so where is Jesus now...?? Is he dead?? buried inside a grave.??
How has he changed from the eternal nature that he was, is and forevermore...??
God's nature is also just and ensures justice which is the reason for his reconciliation and atonement of sin (an idea which u reject and greatly drives all your questions) ..so how does this mean he change when in actual fact he is being himself ...the God that upholds justice....



5. On the Nature of Productive Dialogue

I’m not entering this conversation to assert that “Allah is better.” I am engaging as someone who respects serious theological reflection. If we want genuine interfaith dialogue, we must allow difficult questions—questions that probe the internal logic of our respective worldviews.

If a belief cannot be questioned without accusations of mockery or superiority, then it is not being presented in a way that invites honest investigation. u are throwing claims masked as question to invalidate another person's faith, while comparing to to your Islamic framework...u keep denying this yet in every of your comment you mention how Islam doesn't do this or that....and Allah is this or that.....

Thank you for your response. While your passion is evident, I would like to clarify that I am not attacking Christianity out of hostility or blind comparison. Rather, I am critically engaging with the internal coherence of certain Christian theological claims. I trust you can appreciate that genuine interfaith dialogue includes raising difficult questions—questions that probe the logical consistency of our respective views.

Let me now respond to your key objections point by point:

1. Faith vs. Reason

You state that religion is not about logic but “faith,” and equate my questions with atheism. But this is a false dichotomy. Faith is not irrational; otherwise, any belief—however contradictory—could be justified under the banner of faith. Historically, Christian thinkers like Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, and others have appealed to reason in articulating doctrine. If theological claims are exempt from rational inquiry, then all religious claims become equally unverifiable and irreconcilable.

Furthermore, I did not say “God cannot manifest as flesh” based on Islamic assumptions. I asked whether the specific Christian claim that an eternal, all-powerful, unchanging God literally became a limited, mortal human being is internally consistent within Christian theology itself. That is a rational question, not an atheist one.

If God can do anything, including things that are logically self-contradictory (such as being infinite and finite simultaneously), then the entire framework of metaphysical reasoning collapses. You cannot reject the logical impossibility of “square circles” yet affirm contradictions in theology as “mystery.”

2. On “Putting God in a Box”

This accusation misunderstands the difference between logical contradiction and divine mystery. Denying that God lies, dies, or changes is not “limiting” God—it is upholding His perfection. When you say “God can manifest in flesh,” you must then account for how He does so without ceasing to be omniscient, eternal, or unchanging.

For instance:

Did Jesus know everything while also saying he did not know the hour (Mark 13:32)?

Did Jesus die, and if so, what does it mean for God to die?

If Jesus suffered and cried out, “My God, why have you forsaken me?”, then who was he speaking to—if he himself is fully God?

These are not attacks—they are attempts to understand the internal coherence of the doctrine.

You also asked: “How has God changed?” The point is not after the resurrection, but during the incarnation—was God undergoing change by entering into time, taking on flesh, and experiencing limitation? If so, that conflicts with the claim that He is unchanging. If not, then what meaningfully occurred in the incarnation?

3. Islamic Framework vs. Logical Inquiry

You object to my mention of Islamic theology. But I only referenced it to contrast differing understandings of divine attributes—not to impose Islamic views on Christianity. In fact, the majority of my critique is based on logical consistency within Christian claims—not Qur’anic doctrine.

For example, when I ask how God can be omnipotent and omniscient, yet ignorant, weak, and mortal in human form, I am not using Islamic theology—I’m pointing to a tension in your own system.

Moreover, if any appeal to a different framework is automatically dismissed as “irrelevant,” then all interfaith dialogue becomes impossible. The whole point of such discussions is to examine how different worldviews respond to the same philosophical challenges.

4. Divine Justice and Reconciliation

You argue that God chose to reconcile humanity through incarnation and atonement. But again, the issue is not why He did so, but how He could do so without contradiction.

If God is just, why is forgiveness impossible without blood sacrifice? Why is the punishment transferred to an innocent being (Jesus) instead of given to the guilty? In human courts, that would be called injustice. Are we to believe that God’s mercy and justice are limited such that He cannot forgive without violent substitution?

In Islam, God is both Just and Merciful—He holds people accountable, but also forgives sincerely repentant believers without needing to become part of creation or suffer. This is not mentioned to “compare religions” for superiority, but to show that divine forgiveness and justice need not contradict one another, nor require incarnation.

5. Human Experiences of Christ

You claimed that Jesus’ hunger, sorrow, and fatigue were “real” for the purpose of reconciliation. But that only reinforces the issue:

If these were real, then God experienced limitation, weakness, and need.

If they were not real, then the humanity of Jesus becomes symbolic or illusory.

You also mentioned Jesus' sinlessness proving His divine nature. But prophets like Moses and John the Baptist are described as righteous and blameless—yet not considered divine. Sinlessness does not prove divinity. Rather, the Christian claim is that God became man, not simply that a man was sinless.

6. Respectful Inquiry Is Not Hostility

Lastly, you suggest that my questions are “masked attacks.” I respectfully disagree. Serious inquiry requires confronting tensions. If asking whether God dying or being ignorant is logically coherent is taken as “hostile,” then we have abandoned reasoned dialogue.

It is not disrespectful to ask:

> Can the eternal become temporal without ceasing to be eternal?
Can the omniscient be ignorant and still be omniscient?
Can the immortal die and still be immortal?

If the answers rely on contradiction being classified as “mystery,” then the belief loses rational intelligibility.

In Conclusion

I invite you again to address the core philosophical tension without deflection:

> Is it logically and theologically coherent to affirm that the infinite, eternal, omniscient, and unchanging God literally became a finite, temporal, limited, and mortal man—without any compromise to His divine essence?

That is not a Muslim question. It is a universal one. If Christianity has an answer that maintains both logic and faith, I sincerely welcome it. But merely labeling it a “mystery” or “sarcasm” avoids rather than resolves the difficulty.

I remain open to respectful, reasoned engagement—without accusations or assumptions about motives. May our discussion lead to deeper understanding and clarity, for both of us.

Peace.

NairaLTQ:
LOL,
Anything that violates logic but is nevertheless True is a mystery sir.
And do you deny that God is unlike Anyone or Anything in creation?

Do you agree that if God exists and Heis not visible nor measurable in any sense, this would be a logical contradiction BUT you are not an Atheist: you believe in the unseen!

Your argument falls apart!


You got me wrong. I never said that God's Omnipresence requires incarnation because YHWH as a spirit is already Omnipresent. What I said was that YHWH can be Omnipresent and Somewhere at the same time without violation in nature. Can Allah do that?
If he is not, how can he be Almighty!


LOL!
In every forgiveness, the forgiver pays the price.

If I slapped you BUT you decided to forgive me even though you could deal ruthlessly with me, don't you see that You bear the cost of forgiving me in terms of sucking in the Ridicule, Pain or Shame I have cost you!?

Again, you have shown that Islam does not understand the gravity of Sin as attacking the integrity of God by making his will and command to fail on our account!


First your Hadiths contradict the Qur'an on this!
Secondly,
If Jesus was human like us, he cannot justly substitute us for our sin because he himself requires atonement. This is the purpose for sacrifices for sin in the religion of Moses. The Lamb or Goat who did not commit sin pays the penalty for sin of the sinner.

If your teenage son has an accident and with your car damaged a persons vehicle BUT you as the father payed the damage, to you this substitution is unjust!?

It is a failed logic sir!

Thank you once again for continuing this discussion. However, it is important that we raise the standard of dialogue and avoid circular repetition, mockery, or emotional outbursts. If this conversation is to continue, it must remain respectful, rational, and theologically coherent.

Let me now respond to your main points, and then offer a final word.

1. “Mystery” Is Not a License for Contradiction

You said: “Anything that violates logic but is nevertheless true is a mystery.” That statement is self-defeating.

A mystery is something beyond comprehension, not something logically impossible. Saying God is “unseen” is a mystery because His essence transcends empirical observation. That is not illogical.

But to say “God is finite and infinite, mortal and immortal, limited and unlimited, visible and invisible—all simultaneously in one being” is a logical contradiction, not a mystery.

Contradictions are not made acceptable just because they’re labeled “divine.” Logic is not a man-made invention—it is the framework by which meaning and coherence are even possible. If we remove logical consistency, any incoherent belief (including polytheism, paganism, or atheism) could claim to be a “mystery.”

> God being unlike creation (Qur’an 42:11) does not mean God becomes illogical or self-negating.

2. Omnipresence ≠ Multiplicity or Incarnation

You said that YHWH can be “everywhere and somewhere in particular” and then asked if Allah can do this.

This is another category confusion.

In Islam, Allah is not limited by space, nor does He require embodiment to be active in creation. His Knowledge, Will, and Power encompass all things. He is not a spatial being, so the question of “being somewhere and everywhere” is based on a flawed assumption of divine spatiality.

> Allah is not a body, a spirit, or a physical entity. He is not composed of parts. He does not “localize” Himself.

Asking whether Allah can do what YHWH does assumes the Trinitarian framework as a default. But that is precisely what is under dispute.

3. On Forgiveness: Paying a Price?

You argued that forgiveness must always involve a cost. But that is not a universal truth—it is an emotional analogy.

If God is all-powerful and self-sufficient, He is not emotionally wounded or harmed by sin in the way humans are. He is not subject to trauma, pain, or ego.

> Forgiveness in Islam is based on God’s Mercy, not emotional cost or psychological pain. There is no cosmic wound needing healing.

Yes, a human may “bear the cost” emotionally when forgiving—but God is not a human. He is al-Ghaniyy (Self-Sufficient) and al-Haleem (Most Forbearing). To anthropomorphize Him in order to justify atonement theology is theologically misguided.

4. “Gravity of Sin” Does Not Require Blood

You insist Islam does not grasp the gravity of sin because we do not believe it “violates” God’s integrity. But this claim stems from a misunderstanding of divine sovereignty.

Sin in Islam is serious—not because it harms God—but because it is rebellion against His command. But God remains perfect and unharmed, regardless of who disobeys Him.

You said, “Sin causes God’s command to fail.” That is false by definition. God’s command is not defeated when creatures disobey—it is fulfilled when they are held accountable. His authority is not contingent on universal obedience.

5. Substitutionary Atonement Is Morally and Logically Flawed

You continue to defend the idea of substitutionary atonement by giving human analogies. But here’s the issue: morality must remain coherent at the divine level.

You asked: “If your son crashes a car and you pay, is that unjust?”

But let’s clarify:

In that case, the father owns both the car and the money and chooses to cover a material loss. That’s not moral substitution.

In atonement theology, the innocent is punished instead of the guilty, for moral debt—not property damage.

In any just legal system, punishing the innocent for the crimes of the guilty is unjust—even if done “voluntarily.”

Islam teaches:

> “No soul shall bear the burden of another.” (Qur’an 6:164)

That is pure moral clarity—not human analogy.

6. Repeating the Same Challenges

You keep repeating questions that were already addressed:

On God descending or being on the Throne: Islam affirms Allah’s transcendence without anthropomorphism. “Descent” is understood in a manner befitting His majesty—not as spatial relocation.

On the nature of sacrifice: We’ve addressed that sacrifice in Islam is not for atonement but submission.

On who the sacrificial son was: That is not the central point of Islamic theology regarding obedience and faith.

If you wish to continue this discussion, please stop returning to these same rhetorical questions without engaging the actual answers provided.

Conclusion:

To summarize once more:

Contradictions are not “mysteries”—they are logical impossibilities.

God’s perfection is not shown by embodying opposites, but by remaining unchanging, unique, and free from flaw.

Divine mercy is not weakness—it is sovereignty.

Moral justice is not punishing the innocent, but holding each accountable.

You cannot win a debate by laughing off the points you cannot refute, or by repeating the same questions already answered.

If you are genuinely interested in continuing a dialogue, I welcome it—but only if it moves forward.

If you intend to keep mocking, repeating, and ignoring the core arguments while shifting topics, then this conversation may have reached its conclusion.

Let me know how you would like to proceed—with reason, or with rhetoric.

NairaLTQ:
Logical truth exists differently within the physical and spiritual state.
Do you concede that It is an illogical fallacy that an animal called Al-Burak will take your prophet from the earth to the seven heavens! Doe it makes it untrue?

Your argument is abysmally feeble. From the point of view of the Trinity, these are logically possible, logically feasible and Truth at the same time.


Beings stubbornly ignorant and dogmatic doesn't suddenly make your claim and misunderstanding the truth.
Process this Logically:
-YHWH is everywhere as the Holy Spirit
-YHWH is on His throne in the Heavens
-YHWH is anywhere in Creation where His power and manifest presence is required as the Word.

Do you oppose the notion that God Himself is a PARADOX as nothing in existence is Like Him?

If you do, your argument then holds no water!



Sorry, Allah is confined to his throne as Taoheed according to your prophet.
1. Is it untrue that Allah descend every third part of the night to the our lowest heaven to listen to the prayers of Muslims?
2. Is it untrue that Allah's throne is carried by eight mountain goats that are angels?
Do you thus concede that if these eight angels are not infinite, then Allah's throne is not infinite, thus Allah cannot be infinite but localized?

You still must do Straw man argument:
-I asked you the question: when Jibril became a perfect man, did he cease being an angel?
-If God is a Trinity as explained to you, when He incarnated (the Word becoming Human with human limitations), doesn't his make YHWH limited?

Sorry: poor argument sir!


If you claimed you understand sacrifice with respect to Abraham
1. Let's assume that God wanted to test if Abraham would withhold his son from Him, why did God provide a Ram for sacrifice: what does sacrifice mean to Allah?
2. Why was Allah's animal called a great Ransom? Note: From the point Abraham was deemed to have obeyed God, all that was necessary was for God to tell him that he passed the test and case closed
3. Who with evidence was the Sacrificial son of Abraham?
4. Why is there a big disconnect between the religion of Abraham, Moses and David that requires different kinds of sacrifices?

Thank you once again for your response.

I will address your points systematically while emphasizing logical coherence and theological consistency. However, I would also request that you refrain from repeating previously addressed objections and rhetorical exaggerations, as repetition without engagement does not advance the dialogue.

1. Logic and Spiritual Realities

You claim that "logical truth exists differently within the physical and spiritual state." However, you have not demonstrated how the law of non-contradiction—a fundamental axiom of reason—ceases to be valid in the spiritual realm. A paradox is not a proof; it is an admission that the claim cannot be explained without contradiction.

Spiritual truth transcends our experience but does not negate reason. As the Qur’an repeatedly invites, “Will you not reason?” (Qur’an 2:44; 3:190–191). Truth, whether spiritual or physical, does not violate logic—it may go beyond our full comprehension, but it does not contradict itself.

If a belief requires a contradiction to be true, then by definition it cannot be true. That is not an “Islamic” claim. That is the universal foundation of all coherent discourse.

2. Al-Burāq and the Nature of Miracles

You bring up the Mi‘raj (Prophet Muhammad’s ascension) and suggest it is “illogical.” But this is a category error. A miracle is by definition extraordinary—but it is not a contradiction. The Mi‘raj is not presented as a logical impossibility (like being infinite and finite simultaneously), but as a supernatural act of God, which remains internally coherent: a creature transported by divine power.

Even Christians believe in supernatural events—Jesus walking on water, raising the dead, or being born of a virgin. You accept those without seeing them as “illogical.” So invoking the Mi‘raj here is not a rebuttal—it is a double standard.

3. On the Trinity and Logical Contradictions

You assert:

> “From the point of view of the Trinity, these are logically possible, logically feasible and Truth at the same time.”

This is simply an assertion, not a demonstration. Claiming a contradiction is “logically feasible” without showing how God can be infinite and finite, omniscient and ignorant, immutable and changing—all at once—is not reasoning. It is bypassing reasoning.

You then argue:

> “Do you oppose the notion that God Himself is a PARADOX…?”

No. We reject that God is a logical contradiction. We affirm that Allah is utterly unique, but not absurd or irrational. As the Qur’an says:

> “There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing.” (Qur’an 42:11)

Uniqueness does not mean contradiction. God is unlike creation, yes—but He is not logically self-negating.

4. Misrepresenting Islamic Theology

You claim:

> “Allah is confined to his throne according to your Prophet.”

This is a distortion. Islamic scholars for centuries have explained that Allah’s “Throne” is a statement of majesty, not confinement. When we speak of Allah descending in the last third of the night, we do not say He moves like a body through space. Rather, this is an action attributed to Him in a way that befits His majesty, and we do not liken it to human movement.

Furthermore, Allah is not dependent on His throne or angels. You state:

> “If the throne is carried by eight angels, Allah is not infinite.”

This is a false conclusion. The throne is a creation of Allah; it does not contain or limit Him. Saying Allah created a throne and assigned angels to carry it does not imply He is sitting like a man or limited by it. That is anthropomorphism, which Islam rejects completely.

5. Repeated and Avoided Questions

You repeat a question I already answered:

> “Can Allah be infinite and limited at the same time?”

To reiterate: No, because that is a contradiction, not because of any limitation in Allah’s power. Allah’s perfection is in never being subject to imperfection. To ask if Allah can be limited is like asking, “Can Allah be weak?” The answer is no—not due to inability, but due to His flawless nature.

You also ask:

> “When Jibril became a man, did he stop being an angel?”

This is not parallel to the incarnation claim. Angels do not become human in nature, but manifest in human form. Gabriel did not become a human being with a human soul, weakness, and ignorance—he simply appeared as a man. That is not the same as claiming God became an actual human being, subject to human limitations, ignorance, hunger, and death.

6. On Abraham’s Sacrifice and “Great Ransom”

Let’s clarify:

The Qur’an does not state the purpose of the ram was to atone for sin.

The event was a test of obedience, and the ransom was a substitution, not a salvific atonement.

The term “fidaan ‘azheem” (great ransom) refers to the significance of the test, not to a doctrine of original sin or blood atonement. To read Christian theology into Islamic texts is to ignore context and commit eisegesis, not exegesis.

Regarding the identity of the son: Islamic tradition strongly supports Ishmael, though the Qur’an does not explicitly name him. This is not a contradiction—it is simply a matter where Islamic and Judeo-Christian narratives diverge.

Your final question:

> “Why is there a disconnect between Abraham, Moses, and David regarding sacrifices?”

There is no disconnect in Islam. All prophets taught submission to one God, and all their sacrifices were acts of obedience—not redemptive blood rituals to pay off inherited guilt. The disconnect lies in later Christian theology, which departed from the monotheism and moral responsibility emphasized by the earlier prophets.

Final Appeal

Your responses are increasingly repetitive and rely heavily on restating paradoxes as if they were answers. I respectfully request that you avoid circular reasoning and engage with the logical and theological issues actually raised.

We must ask:

> If your theology requires suspending logic, redefining paradox as proof, and accepting contradictions as divine nature — how can it be distinguished from error, myth, or confusion?

Islam’s message remains simple, coherent, and preserved:

> “Say: He is Allah, One. Allah, the Eternal Refuge. He neither begets nor is born. And there is none comparable to Him.” (Qur’an 112:1–4)

No councils, no paradoxes, no blood debt. Just pure tawḥīd.

Let us engage in truth-seeking, not mere repetition..

NairaLTQ:
LOL,
Anything that violates logic but is nevertheless True is a mystery sir.
And do you deny that God is unlike Anyone or Anything in creation?

Do you agree that if God exists and Heis not visible nor measurable in any sense, this would be a logical contradiction BUT you are not an Atheist: you believe in the unseen!

Your argument falls apart!


You got me wrong. I never said that God's Omnipresence requires incarnation because YHWH as a spirit is already Omnipresent. What I said was that YHWH can be Omnipresent and Somewhere at the same time without violation in nature. Can Allah do that?
If he is not, how can he be Almighty!


LOL!
In every forgiveness, the forgiver pays the price.

If I slapped you BUT you decided to forgive me even though you could deal ruthlessly with me, don't you see that You bear the cost of forgiving me in terms of sucking in the Ridicule, Pain or Shame I have cost you!?

Again, you have shown that Islam does not understand the gravity of Sin as attacking the integrity of God by making his will and command to fail on our account!


First your Hadiths contradict the Qur'an on this!
Secondly,
If Jesus was human like us, he cannot justly substitute us for our sin because he himself requires atonement. This is the purpose for sacrifices for sin in the religion of Moses. The Lamb or Goat who did not commit sin pays the penalty for sin of the sinner.

If your teenage son has an accident and with your car damaged a persons vehicle BUT you as the father payed the damage, to you this substitution is unjust!?

It is a failed logic sir!

Thank you again for your reply.
While I appreciate continued engagement, I must note that your tone (“LOL”, repeated interruptions with mockery, and avoidance of key points) undermines the seriousness of the discussion. If we are to have a meaningful dialogue about divine nature, coherence of theology, and moral logic, it must be conducted with mutual respect and intellectual integrity.

Let me now respond, point by point, and also address why many of your comments simply restate already-refuted claims.

1. Mystery vs. Logical Contradiction: Still Unresolved

You insist, “Anything that violates logic but is nevertheless true is a mystery.” But that is a philosophical error.

There is a world of difference between something being beyond comprehension and something being logically incoherent. You have not engaged this distinction—just repeated the claim with laughter.

Let me be clear:

Mystery: When a truth exceeds the full grasp of human knowledge but remains non-contradictory. (e.g., the eternity of God, or how He creates instantly by will).

Contradiction: When something affirms mutually exclusive properties at the same time in the same respect, such as “God is mortal and immortal simultaneously.” That is not “mystery”—that is a violation of the law of non-contradiction, which even you must apply when arguing for anything at all.

You ask: “Do you deny that God is unlike anything in creation?”
Of course not. I explicitly affirmed Qur’an 42:11 — “There is nothing like unto Him.”
But being unlike creation does not mean being logically incoherent.
Uniqueness is not the same as absurdity.

2. God's Unseen Nature is Not a Contradiction

You say belief in the unseen is illogical. That too is a category mistake.

We believe in the unseen not because it is contradictory, but because it is beyond sensory perception, yet affirmed through reason, revelation, and signs.

For example, gravity is unseen—but not illogical. Similarly, God being unseen is a limitation of human perception, not a logical contradiction.

If you’re equating invisibility with contradiction, then that standard would reject not only monotheism—but many foundational scientific concepts too.

3. Redundancy on Omnipresence and Embodiment

You say again: “YHWH can be Omnipresent and somewhere at the same time.”
But this is exactly the claim I already addressed.

To be omnipresent is to transcend space—yet you affirm God is spatially located in the body of Christ. You are affirming both: that God is beyond space and within a space-bound body.

That is not a mystery—it is a contradiction in metaphysical terms: being both bound and unbound by space simultaneously.

You ask, “Can Allah do that?”
No—not because of weakness, but because God does not violate His own perfection. He does not become limited while remaining unlimited. That’s not transcendence—that’s confusion.

4. Forgiveness Does Not Require a Payment

You repeat the claim that “forgiveness always has a cost.”

This is a semantic fallacy. Yes, forgiveness may entail emotional cost to the forgiver—but that does not mean a judicial or blood payment must be made.

You gave the example of someone slapping me and I forgive them. That does not require a third party being executed for their act.

In human experience, we understand that forgiveness means choosing not to exact punishment, even if one could.

In divine context, God's choice to forgive reflects His mercy and justice—not an unresolved debt passed onto an innocent.

If your model insists that no forgiveness is real unless someone dies, you are no longer speaking of forgiveness, but transaction—a paid debt, not pardoned wrongdoing.

5. Misunderstanding the Nature of Sin and God’s Sovereignty

You insist again that sin attacks the integrity of God and “defeats His will.”

But as I said before—and you did not answer—if sin can “defeat” God’s will, then God's will is not sovereign.
In Islam, God's will is supreme. Nothing happens except by His permission—even sin.

God allowing humans free will to disobey is not the same as being defeated.

If He forgives, it is from power, not from being forced by some cosmic law to sacrifice Himself.

6. On Substitution: Still a Moral Problem

You said Jesus can substitute for sinners because He is sinless.

But again, you avoid the core question: How is it just for the innocent to suffer in the place of the guilty?

Your car accident analogy proves the opposite of what you intend. If my son crashes your car and I pay for the damage, that is material restitution—not moral guilt transfer. I did not take on his guilt. No judge would punish me instead of him for reckless driving.

In your theology, Jesus is not just helping with the consequence—he is being punished in place of the guilty. That is not justice—that is moral substitution, which you would never accept in any human courtroom.

Again:

> “No soul bears the burden of another” (Qur’an 6:164)
Islamic justice holds each person accountable and allows forgiveness directly from the One wronged—God Himself.

7. Redundancy in Arguments

Respectfully, I must point out: your replies repeat several arguments I already answered:

You repeated “mystery = contradiction,” without addressing the difference I showed.

You brought up omnipresence and location again, despite my clarification.

You repeated “forgiveness has a cost,” ignoring the difference between emotional cost and legal blood payment.

You restated substitution with a flawed analogy, without answering the moral objection I raised.

I would invite you—if sincere—to engage the actual substance of the rebuttals, rather than repeating slogans and rhetorical questions.

In Conclusion:

No, contradiction is not a higher truth. It's a breakdown of meaning.

No, God being unseen is not a contradiction.

No, omnipresence and incarnation are not complementary—they are ontologically incompatible.

No, justice does not require punishing the innocent.

Yes, forgiveness can be free—especially when the Forgiver is the Judge and the One wronged.

Yes, Islam understands sin deeply—but also understands God’s mercy is not bound by human logic of transaction and debt.

If you would like to move forward constructively, let’s raise the level of the discourse. I propose we choose one of the following for our next focus:

1. The concept of Divine Justice and Mercy: Is substitution coherent or necessary?

2. The nature of God: Is the Trinity logically consistent?

3. Scriptural reliability: Is the Bible internally consistent or divinely preserved?

Would you prefer to proceed on one of these? Or would you rather clarify your existing arguments in light of the detailed responses provided?

NairaLTQ:
I was correcting you calling Jesus a Soul rather than a Spirit in order to reduce Jesus to your own Standard Islamic narration.


Unfortunately, Adam wasn't created by BE!
Was he?

Allah claimed that he created Adam with his two hands: is this UNTRUE?



RUH Al-Qudus according to your Arabic would be the Holy Soul.
Is Jibril the Holy Spirit or the Holy Soul?

Muslims with twisting plain words to rebuild Islam!
Like I said:
Muslims behave like Allah and Mohammed are the worst communicators in the Universe.

Is it impossible to just hold them by their words without needing re-interpretations?


It is a simple question,
Show me who else in the universe have the titles according to your prophet.

Spirit of Allah and Word of Allah


Is the hadith Maudu?
Is it fabricated!?

If it is NOT, what do you want us to believe?

So that you know that the Hadith is strong, here is another

Sahih Muslim 2767 d
Abu Burda reported Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) as saying:
There would come people amongst the Muslims on the Day of Resurrection with as heavy sins as a mountain, and Allah would forgive them and He would place in their stead the Jews and the Christians. (As far as I think), Abu Raub said: I do not know as to who is in doubt. Abu Burda said: I narrated it to 'Umar b. 'Abd al-'Aziz, whereupon he said: Was it your father who narrated it to you from Allah's Apostle (ﷺ)? I said: Yes.

I hail you. Here Mohammed is contradicting Allah!
I guess the verse of Qur’an 6:164 has been abrogated: isn't it?


LOL!



One need several lies to prop up Islam.
The word of Allah and his prophet are usually NOT clear so that Muslims need scholars to re-interprete them even against plain words.

If Jesus is TRUE, Muslims in deamination of Hell fire


No Christian who is born again will pray this kind of prayers.

Do you know why?
1. We are not slaves but sons of YHWH, so we are never afraid of going home!
2. Jesus is our own ransom from the debt of our sin and not anyone.
3. All Muslims are going to hell at least temporarily anyway

Quran 19:71
There is not one of you who will not go down to it (the Fire), that is a fixed Decree of your Lord

Meaning that ALL Muslims will at least first be in Hell Fire.
Here is the Arabic if you do not like the translation above
وَإِن مِّنكُمۡ إِلَّا وَارِدُهَاۚ كَانَ عَلَىٰ رَبِّكَ حَتۡمࣰا مَّقۡضِیࣰّا

Quran 19:72
Then, We will save those who were cautious of Us, but the harmdoers shall be left there hobbling on their knees

After ALL you Muslims enter the Fire, THEN Allah will THEREAFTER remove the good Muslims and leave others in the Fire
4. Herein was the words of Jesus
John 14:6-7:
"Jesus said to him, I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life: no man comes to the Father, but by me. If you had known me, you should have known my Father also: and from now on you know him, and have seen him."
Mar 16:15-16:
"And he said to them, Go you into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believes not shall be damned."

Unfortunately, Allah is NOT the Father!

Thank you for your reply. Your zeal is noted, but clarity requires more than passion — it requires consistency, fairness, and precision. Below, I will address your key claims one by one.

1. On “Ruh” vs “Soul” and “Spirit”

You objected to my clarification of Jesus being a Spirit from God — accusing me of reducing his status.

But let us clarify:

The Qur’an says “Ruhun minhu” — a spirit from Him — not “Ruhullah” (God's spirit), and certainly not a part of God.

All human beings possess a spirit from God — see Qur’an 32:9: “Then He proportioned him and breathed into him of His spirit (min rūḥihi).”

So if “Ruhun minhu” implies divinity, then by your logic, Adam, too, is divine. Yet neither Islam nor Christianity teaches this.

As for Jibril (Gabriel) being called Ruh al-Qudus (Holy Spirit) — this is firmly established in the Qur’an (e.g., 2:87, 16:102). Islamic exegesis from the earliest generations affirms that this is Gabriel, the angelic messenger — not a divine being, and certainly not the third person of a Trinity.

In Arabic:

Rūḥ = Spirit.

Nafs = Soul.

Rūḥ al-Qudus = Gabriel — by consensus of early tafsīr (e.g., Ibn Kathir, al-Tabari).

Thus, Islam remains consistent and free from confusion: Gabriel is the Holy Spirit — a created angel, not God.

2. On Adam Created by “Be” or “Hands”

You said:

> “Adam wasn’t created by ‘Be’ but with Allah’s two hands.”

This is a false dichotomy. Both are true in Islamic belief:

Qur’an 3:59 says: “Indeed, the example of Jesus to Allah is like that of Adam. He created him from dust, then said to him, ‘Be,’ and he was.”

Qur’an 38:75 affirms: “Whom I created with My two hands” (referring to Adam).

This presents no contradiction: the command “Be” denotes divine will and decree, while “hands” denotes special attention — not physical body parts (Islam denies anthropomorphism).

Do you believe God literally has hands of flesh and blood? If not, why mock Muslims for using metaphor while your own theology depends on symbolic language?

3. On “Spirit of God” and “Word of God” — Are These Titles Exclusive?

You ask:

> “Who else is called ‘Spirit of God’ and ‘Word of God’?”

This is a flawed appeal to exclusivity.

Jesus being called “Word” (Kalimatullah) refers to God’s creative command “Be” — not to pre-existent divinity.

Even in the Bible, many are described in elevated terms without being divine. For example:

Jeremiah is called the mouth of the Lord (Jeremiah 1:9).

The heavens are said to be made by the word of the Lord (Psalm 33:6).

Prophets were filled with God’s Spirit — e.g., Ezekiel 11:5.

So your logic would make many beings divine.

Jesus is honored in Islam — miraculously born, given revelation, called “Word from God” and “Spirit from Him” — but not divine.

Islam draws a clear line between honor and divinity. Christianity collapses that distinction.

4. On the Hadith about Jews and Christians

You quoted Sahih Muslim 2767d, alleging it proves substitutionary atonement like Christian theology.

But context matters.

The Qur’an is explicit:

> “No bearer of burden shall bear the burden of another.” (Qur’an 6:164)

Thus, scholars interpret the hadith as metaphorical: those who denied truth while Muslims strove in faith will bear their own burden — not that Muslims’ sins are shifted onto them, but that others failed where Muslims were forgiven.

Ibn Hajar and An-Nawawi, leading Hadith commentators, explain this refers to relative accountability, not vicarious punishment.

Contrast this with Christianity, which openly declares one innocent man (Jesus) died as ransom for the sins of the guilty — a direct violation of moral justice.

Islam never teaches that the sins of one are carried by another — and never makes forgiveness depend on bloodshed.

5. On Qur’an 19:71 — Do All Muslims Enter Hell?

You misquoted Qur’an 19:71:

> “There is not one of you except that he will pass over it [the Hellfire]...”

You claim this means all Muslims enter Hell.

But the verse says “wāriduhā”, which linguistically means to pass by or approach, not necessarily to enter and suffer in it. This is clarified by the next verse (19:72):

> “Then We will save those who were righteous, and leave the wrongdoers within it, on their knees.”

In tafsīr (exegesis), scholars such as al-Qurtubi, Ibn Abbas, and Ibn Kathir confirm: the righteous will cross Hell on the bridge (Sirat), not dwell in it.

Again, selective literalism without the next verse or scholarly context results in distortion.

Ironically, the Bible says something more terrifying:

> “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord,’... and I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of iniquity.’” (Matthew 7:22–23)

Even those claiming Christ may be rejected.

6. On Being “Sons” Not “Slaves” of God

You said:

> “We are not slaves but sons of God.”

This is a theological error from the Islamic perspective.

The Qur’an teaches:

> “The Messiah never disdained to be a servant of Allah...” (Qur’an 4:172)

To be a ‘slave of God’ (Abdullah) is an honor, not a deficiency. Jesus himself is called ‘Abdullah’ in the Qur’an (19:30).

Calling oneself a son of God in the literal or exclusive sense risks elevating man to divinity — which Islam firmly rejects. God has no sons or partners.

The Bible, too, uses “sons of God” metaphorically (e.g., Adam in Luke 3:38, Israel in Exodus 4:22) — yet you interpret Jesus' title as uniquely divine.

This is a theological leap without justification.

7. Your Conclusion & Claim that Allah Is Not the Father

You said:

> “Allah is not the Father!”

Correct — and that is precisely the Qur’an’s point:

> “He neither begets nor is begotten.” (Qur’an 112:3)

God is not like creation. He does not have biological processes, familial relationships, or bloodlines. This is the ultimate monotheism — a God who is absolutely unique and indivisible.

Fatherhood implies dependence, similarity, or lineage — all of which Islam negates of God.

Final Reflection

Your objections rely on:

Ignoring historical and linguistic context,

Projecting Christian theology onto Islamic terms,

Misreading metaphor as metaphysics, and

Mockery in place of meaningful analysis.

You ask why Muslims refer to scholars — yet you rely on theologians and councils (e.g., Nicaea) to justify doctrines like the Trinity or original sin.

The difference? Islam admits it: the Qur’an invites reflection, not blind literalism. Islam rejects contradictions and clings to clarity:

> “Say: He is Allah, One — Allah, the Eternal. He neither begets nor is begotten.” (Qur’an 112)

If sincere dialogue is what you seek, I am ready to engage.

But if mockery is your method, I remind you of what Jesus himself said:

> “By your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.” (Matthew 12:37)

May God guide us both to truth — with humility and reason.

NairaLTQ:
I will do this in two parts


Is it correct that the sperm became human or the human was a sperm?

No!
This was an error of the ancients who believed that the man planted his seed (sperm) like yam into the soil.

The Almighty Allah should have corrected this instead of agreeing with them.



Tell me that your prophet is a bad communicator that needs help for people to comprehend what he means.

Sahih Muslim 2644
Hudhaifa b. Usaid reported directly from Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) that he said:
When the drop of (semen) remains in the womb for forty or forty five nights, the angel comes and says: My Lord, will he be good or evil? And both these things would be written. Then the angel says: My Lord, would he be male or female? And both these things are written. And his deeds and actions, his death, his livelihood; these are also recorded. Then his document of destiny is rolled and there is no addition to nor subtraction from it.

I guess my level of comprehension is not like that of Muslims.




1. If he Dhul Qarnyn did NOT find the sun setting in a pool of murky waters, how can there be people near this same place where he appeared to find the sun?
2. I guess a Sea and a Pool mean different things in Arabic. Tell me how it is possible that Dhul Qarnyn appeared to see in a pool the sun. Honestly, I don't understand.

Trust me, that I've been to the seas and I've been near large lakes, I have never appeared to see the sun in any. Was this another Islamic miracle?
3. Even though Dhul Qarnyn wasn't beside the sea. Let's assume that it was the sea. The sun may set in the horizon of the sea BUT it is so far away that there could not be a people near this horizon.

You can see that all your excuses are frivolous conjectures



I guess you do not have an inkling of what the aeromagnetic map is. Virtually everywhere in the world has been covered by aeroplanes carrying magnetic sensors. This is how iron deposits are discovered all over the world.

A fence/wall of that magnitude made of iron and copper is IMPOSSIBLE to miss my dear.


Sorry please!
Itbis a fictional story, unfortunately Allah thought it was real.

Let me burst your bubbles:
If it was a fictional story that Allah was telling in
Qur'an 18:11-18
1. Verse 11, Allah claimed that he was the one who caused the people to sleep for a number of years!
2. Verse 12, Allah claimed he woke them up by himself
3. Verse 14, Allah claimed he made their mind strong
4. Verse 18, Allah described how he turned them to the right and to the left including their dog.
5. Verse 22, Allah says he alone knows their number

See how the cookies crumble:
Let me tell you a true story.
I was with Batman yesterday, he came to my house and I served him pounded yam. He eat just the bush meat with Ice-cream. We even played Chess after the Lunch.

Do you believe me?

Thank you for your follow-up. I will respond to your claims in sequence, using logic, context, and respect. You are free to critique Islam, but mocking is not an argument — it is a substitute for one.

1. On Qur’an 75:37 and the Origin of Man

You wrote:

> “Is the human sperm? This is ancient error. The Qur’an should’ve corrected it.”

This objection misunderstands both the language and purpose of the verse. The Qur’an 75:37 does not say the human is sperm, but that he began from a sperm drop (“nutfah min maniyyin yumnā”). This is a statement of biological origin — not essence.

Even modern embryology describes the human being’s creation as beginning from the union of sperm and egg. The Qur’an’s phrasing is consistent with this and never claims sperm alone constitutes the full human — rather, it humbles the arrogant man by reminding him of his base beginnings. This is not a biological error; it is moral reflection using accurate biological reference.

To call this an “ancient error” is itself an outdated polemic — not a meaningful objection.

2. On the 40 Days Hadith (Sahih Muslim 2644)

You quoted the hadith:

> “When the drop of semen remains in the womb for 40 or 45 nights…”

Your objection assumes this means sperm physically remains unchanged for 40 days. But again, this is a misunderstanding of language and genre.

The hadith does not claim that sperm survives for 40 days. It describes the first stage of embryonic development as “nutfah” — a stage, not a substance. Classical and modern scholars alike have interpreted this as referring to the embryo's initial developmental phase.

Your interpretation lacks familiarity with how both embryological and theological texts speak in stages, not microscopic permanence. If one insists on hyper-literal reading, the same issues arise in biblical embryology (e.g. Genesis 2:7 – man made from dust, breathed into directly).

Your sarcasm (“I guess my comprehension is not like Muslims”) does not mask the lack of contextual reading.

3. On Dhul Qarnayn and the Sun Setting

You ask:

> “How could there be people where the sun sets into a murky spring?”

Your confusion arises from treating a perceived event as a cosmic phenomenon. The Qur’an says:

> “Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it setting in a spring of dark mud...” (Qur’an 18:86)

The Arabic verb “wajada” (he found) refers to Dhul Qarnayn’s experience — not an objective astronomical event. This is classical Arabic usage. Even today, in English, we say “the sun set into the sea” — without meaning it literally entered the water.

You then argue:

> “There couldn’t be people at the horizon where the sun sets.”

That’s precisely the point — it’s a visual perspective. Standing at a shoreline, one may “see” the sun dipping into the water — but the people are simply located near that westernmost point. There’s no contradiction unless you deny metaphor and perspective in all language.

If you reject such expressions, then Biblical phrases like “sun stood still” (Joshua 10:13) or “four corners of the Earth” (Revelation 7:1) must also be literal errors. But you likely interpret those metaphorically — and rightly so.

4. On the Wall of Gog and Magog

You claim:

> “If the wall was made of iron and copper, we would’ve found it via aeromagnetic tools.”

This assumes far too much:

That we know the precise location (we don’t),

That the wall remains intact (the Qur’an says it will eventually collapse — 18:98),

That it wasn’t buried, dismantled, or eroded over millennia,

That all iron or copper deposits must be detectable today (not always true — mineral surveys are not omniscient).

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Many historical sites (e.g., Sodom and Gomorrah, Ebla) were long thought mythical until archaeological discovery proved otherwise. Your argument rests not on proof, but on assumptions.

5. On Surah Al-Kahf and the Sleepers of the Cave

You mockingly said:

> “Allah turned them left and right... I could say the same about Batman!”

The story of the sleepers (Qur’an 18:9–26) is not myth — it is a retelling of a well-known historical tradition, also recorded in Christian texts (e.g., the “Seven Sleepers of Ephesus”).

The Qur’an gives its version and explicitly distinguishes speculation from truth (18:22), then reminds readers that Allah alone knows their true number. This is consistent with the Qur’an’s method: recounting spiritually significant stories without indulging in trivia, while grounding them in divine authority.

Mockery about “Batman” does not disprove the narrative. It only proves a dismissive attitude toward any religious text not your own. That is not reasoned critique — it’s intellectual prejudice.

Final Thought

You’re welcome to reject Islam. But when you critique it, do so fairly. Interpreting every verse hyper-literally while granting your own tradition metaphorical flexibility is not logical — it’s biased.

The Qur’an repeatedly invites people to reflect:

> “Do they not reflect upon the Qur’an, or are there locks upon their hearts?” (Qur’an 47:24)

If you wish to discuss further, I’m happy to continue — but let us elevate the discussion beyond ridicule and into reason.

NairaLTQ:
1. Exactly!
By the Geneology of Adam and Eve, Jesus is NOT human, thus cannot carry the nature of sin from Adam
But Jesus was Born by a Mother, thus, He is Human like us.

Thus, Jesus represents us as Humans yet not being human.

Heb 4:15:
"For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin."
Jesus as our High Priest was one who partook in everything with respect to our weaknesses as humans. He was tempted as a man like we are yet He did not commit sin.

From the point of view of the Taoheed, I can understand your frustration.
Unfortunately, from the point of view of the Trinity, whether you like it or not, it is a reality that God can be Unlimited and Limited without contradicting His Almightiness!

This is impossible with the Taoheed!
Imagine if Allah should come down from his throne above the seven heavens, his throne would be empty. If Allah makes the mistake of being limited (human), an Angel can just overthrow him.



Already answered as you are repeating yourself


Unfortunately, Islam doesn't know that there are other kinds of sacrifices ordained by God apart from SIN offering. This is your problem as not all sacrifices are for sin.

Even the sacrifice of Abraham, who provided the Ram: was it Abraham?
Who was Sacrificed: you Muslims are lost?

You claim that Islam is the Religion of Abraham, Moses , David and co, yet, you do not understand the laws that guide sacrifice and the purpose of sacrifice.
Why did God ordain several kinds of sacrifices for the children of Israel?

Why do you Muslims sacrifice (I did not say commemorate) Rams every Eid al-Adha?

You have copied a lot you don't understand sir!


Can Allah do what YHWH can do?
Can Allah be somewhere and everywhere at the same time?
Can Allah be infinitely powerful and limited at the same time?

Do you know anyone else in the UNIVERSE that can do these things?

Unless you tell me someone else can you what I claimed Only YHWH in Trinity can do, then I stand on my ground!


The Trinity establishes that there is NOTHING in existence that is like YHWH.
You want a God that fits into the mold of the oneness of Objects in the world:
On this your problem of comprehension lies.

Thank you for your continued engagement.
I appreciate the effort you are making to explain your position. I will respond to your main claims in the order you presented them, aiming to maintain a rational, respectful, and theological tone grounded in Islamic monotheism and logical analysis.

1. Jesus is “Human but Not Human”?

You state that Jesus is “human like us yet not human” because he did not inherit sin from Adam. But this is a contradiction in terms. Something cannot be both X and not-X at the same time and in the same sense.

If Jesus is fully human, he shares in human nature — which, according to Christian doctrine, includes the fallen state due to Adam’s sin. If he does not inherit this state, then he is not fully human as defined by your own theology. You cannot affirm and deny his full humanity simultaneously.

You quote Hebrews 4:15, which says Jesus was tempted in every way yet without sin. But this raises a deeper issue: if Jesus was incapable of sin due to his divine nature, was the temptation genuine? And if he could have sinned, then how can God be at risk of moral failure?

This dilemma again exposes the logical conflict in claiming Jesus is simultaneously fully God (infallible) and fully man (fallible) without division, confusion, or contradiction.

2. Paradox ≠ Truth

You say: “Whether you like it or not, it is a reality that God can be unlimited and limited without contradicting His Almightiness.”

This is not a “reality” — it is an assertion that violates the law of non-contradiction. You are simply claiming that paradox is proof of divinity. But by this standard, any incoherent doctrine could be justified as “divine mystery.”

Islam does not reduce God to logic — but Islam upholds that God is not illogical. Allah is not subject to our limitations, but He is not self-contradictory either. Being all-powerful does not mean doing what is absurd, such as creating a square circle or being infinite and finite simultaneously.

Your position exempts itself from rational inquiry by appealing to paradox. But a claim that cannot be falsified or logically examined is not proof — it is dogma.

3. Divine Descent and Throne Theology

You mock the Islamic concept of God descending from His Throne, suggesting an angel might "overthrow Him." This is a theological caricature.

In Islam, Allah is not spatially confined like a creature on a throne. When we say He is “above the heavens,” this affirms His transcendence — not physical location. Allah is not a body in a place, nor is He vulnerable to space or time. His Knowledge, Power, and Will encompass all creation, yet He is not part of creation.

By contrast, the Christian claim that God became creation (i.e., human) makes Him subject to space, time, hunger, ignorance, and death — all of which directly contradict divine perfection.

4. Misunderstanding of Islamic Sacrifice

You accuse Muslims of not understanding “sacrifice,” especially the sacrifice of Abraham (Ibrahim). But in Islam, the event of Ibrahim's willingness to sacrifice his son is preserved — not to atone for sin, but to demonstrate obedience.

The Qur’an explicitly states:

> “It is neither their meat nor their blood that reaches Allah, but your piety.” (Qur’an 22:37)

This verse dismantles the idea that blood itself is salvific. Sacrifice in Islam is symbolic of submission — not a ransom for sin. Eid al-Adha commemorates obedience, not divine death.

As for the variety of sacrifices in the Mosaic law, Islam does not reject the fact that God ordained sacrifices for various purposes — purification, thanksgiving, vows, etc. What Islam rejects is the deification of sacrifice as a necessary vehicle for salvation.

5. Can Allah Do What YHWH Does?

You ask: Can Allah be somewhere and everywhere at the same time? Can Allah be infinite and limited at the same time?

Let’s be clear: To ask “Can Allah be infinite and limited at the same time?” is like asking, “Can Allah be perfectly wise and foolish simultaneously?” The answer is no — not because of inability, but because self-contradiction is not a valid attribute of divinity.

Islam teaches that Allah does whatever He wills — but His Will is always in harmony with His Perfection. He does not will imperfection, limitation, or error for Himself. That is not a limitation on Allah — that is the perfection of His nature.

To say that God must be “limited” in order to prove His power is a category error. Perfection does not require becoming imperfect to demonstrate greatness.

6. Uniqueness Does Not Prove Truth

You conclude by saying: “Unless someone else can do what the Trinity claims, I stand on my ground.” But uniqueness alone does not prove truth. A claim must be coherent, not merely unique.

Islam also affirms that “There is nothing like unto Him” (Qur’an 42:11) — but it does not require logical contradiction to express God’s uniqueness. The One God is eternal, self-sufficient, and absolutely unique — without needing to become man or suffer death.

Final Thought

Your theology assumes the truth of the Trinity and then treats every objection as a “comprehension problem.” But I invite you to consider: if your view of God contradicts reason, and then requires suspending reason to believe, are you truly worshipping the God of Abraham — or a doctrine invented by later councils?

Islam maintains the pure monotheism of every Prophet — from Adam to Noah to Abraham to Moses to Jesus to Muhammad (peace be upon them all). Not one of them ever claimed that God became man. And not one of them taught that salvation required God's death.

The God of Islam is not limited by logic — He is exalted above contradiction.

NairaLTQ:
I will likely do this response in two parts

Because YHWH is Unlike ANYTHING or ANYONE in Creation.

Thus , His nature is Paradox without resolution.

Tell me, how it is not a paradox that everything has a beginning YET God does NOT have a beginning.
How is it NOT a paradox that God spoke everything into being. Does that even make sense that the visible things came from the spoken word of God?

Your argument holds no water.


If the Explanation of the Trinity is true (even if you disagree) , that
1. YHWH as a Spirit is Everywhere in Space and Time (the heavens and the earth is within Him)
2. YHWH as the Father makes Himself visible and Presides over the Heavens and the Earth on His Throne surrounded by His Angels
3. YHWH as the Word (Kunfayakun) that carries the Presence of God ANYWHERE in space and Time

Can such a Being be FINITE and INFINITE at the same time?



This is why Allah cannot be Finite and Infinite at the same time.
This is why Allah cannot be Somewhere and Everywhere at the same time.

It is a comprehension problem on your part because you want to box God into the mold of created things that cannot be one and two at the same time


Who set the Legal condition?
It was God Himself because the Law of Sin against God requires DEATH as payment.

Rom 6:23:
"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."





The reason Forgiveness is Grace is because
1. God is the one paying for your sin and not yourself
John 1:29:
"The next day John sees Jesus coming to him, and said, Behold the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world."
2. It is impossible for any man to pay for the consequence of his sin against God.

Like I said:
You don't understand the gravity of Sin in Islam. You think that by worship and good works your sins can be overlooked by Allah.


Hosea 6:6 is not saying that God rejects sacrifice. Prophet Hosea tell the Jews that God wants them to repent from their sins and do righteous deeds rather than covering their wickedness with sacrifices.

Even as Christians, the same law applies:
Rom 6:1-2:
"What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?"
You cannot claim that God has paid the price for the penalty for your sin and then go on committing more sins.

Like I said: You Muslims do NOT understand that gravity of Sin.

Let me explain in a way you can understand:
Sin is not just going against God's will and command.

1. Sin is a VIOLATION of the Integrity of God.
2. The integrity of God is that which makes God, God!
3. What makes God who He is is the fact that His Will is SOVEREIGN and His Command cannot go without being EXECUTED.
4. Sin is thus a violation of the "Kunfayakun" of God. God says Don't...but you do! God says be...but you say no! You go against God's will. This is sin.
5. God created some living beings and gave them the power of Volition or Free Will. In the Bible, these are Angels and Humans.
6. Free will or Volition is the power Granted by God to His creation to Say NO to Him and Resist His Will and command.
7. However, for the Kunfayakun or the Integrity of God not to be violated, God made the Law of Sin.
8. The law of sin is that ANYONE who violated the Integrity of God must DIE!
9. Death to God is not a form of Annihilation BUT a DISCONNECTION from Him eternally.
10. The place of Eternal disconnection from God is God's Refuse Dump called Hell Fire.


My Question :.
If God gave a command and a Human being violated the command such that God's command failed,
1. How can such a human being redeem himself?
2. If the human being repented and ask for forgiveness, does his actions remove the fact that God gave a command that failed because of him?
3. If God say, "I forgive you" to the sinner, does it erase the fact that God's command failed on his account?

This above is the reason for sacrifice for sin. The sin is punished at all cost. The sacrifice take upon itself the punishment of the guilty.

Do you agree that
Forgiveness is NEVER Free. Someone always pays the price and usually, it is the one who does the forgiveness!?

Thank you again for continuing this discussion. I value serious dialogue, especially when we are engaging profound matters of theology and divine nature. I will respond to your key claims in an orderly manner, aiming for clarity and mutual understanding, even in disagreement.

1. Paradox vs. Contradiction: Distinguishing Concepts

You claim, “God is paradox without resolution” and equate this with the mystery of His existence without beginning. But this is a category mistake.

There is a critical difference between a mystery (something beyond full human comprehension) and a contradiction (something that defies logic itself).

Saying “God is eternal while creation has a beginning” is a mystery, but it does not violate logic.

Saying “God is finite and infinite, limited and unlimited, dying and undying at the same time in the same nature” is a contradiction—not just mysterious, but logically incoherent.

Appealing to God’s transcendence does not give license to affirm contradictions. A contradiction is not resolved by attributing it to divine mystery—because the nature of contradiction is that it cannot be true in any realm, including the divine.

In Islamic theology, God's greatness is not defined by His ability to embody opposites, but by His absolute perfection and consistency.

> “There is nothing like unto Him” (Qur'an 42:11),
and this includes that God does not assume the nature of the created.

2. God’s Presence Does Not Require Incarnation

You argue that because God is “everywhere,” He can also be finite. But that does not follow.
Being omnipresent does not entail embodiment. It means God's knowledge, will, and authority extend to all of creation—without Him becoming part of creation.

In Islam, God is Al-Qayyum (The Self-Sustaining), transcendent and not subject to space, time, or matter. He does not need to “become flesh” to act within the world. He commands by will, not by incarnation.

The concept of “Word of God” (e.g., kun fayakūn) in the Qur’an signifies His creative command, not an independent divine person that becomes incarnate. Thus, the comparison to the Islamic understanding of the “Word” is not equivalent.

3. Who Set the Legal Condition for Blood Sacrifice?

You stated that “the Law of Sin is that sin must be punished by death.” But who set this law?
If God is the lawgiver, then He is not obligated to punish sin with death. He can forgive freely, especially if repentance is sincere.

If God must punish regardless of repentance, then this portrays God as bound by an abstract law higher than Himself—which undermines His sovereignty.

From the Islamic perspective, God’s justice and mercy are not in conflict. He forgives whom He wills (Qur’an 39:53) and holds to account whom He wills—with no injustice done.

Furthermore, forgiveness is not made void by mercy. The very essence of divine mercy is that the wrongdoer is shown compassion when justice is due. That is not injustice; it is higher justice—because the one wronged (God) is also the forgiver.

4. Is Substitutionary Atonement Just?

You describe Jesus taking upon himself the sin of the world. But this raises a moral concern:
How is it just for the innocent to suffer in place of the guilty?
In human courts, we reject such substitution as unjust, even if done voluntarily.

Islamic theology strongly affirms:

> “No soul shall bear the burden of another” (Qur’an 6:164).

True justice is that each person is held accountable for their own actions—and true mercy is that God can forgive without needing an innocent life to be sacrificed.

5. On the “Gravity of Sin” and God's Sovereignty

You claim we Muslims do not understand the gravity of sin. On the contrary, Islam treats sin with great seriousness. Disobedience to the Creator is rebellion—but not one that renders God helpless or forces Him into self-sacrifice.

You say sin “violates the integrity of God” because it resists His command (kun fayakūn). But if God’s will is truly sovereign, then no act of the creature can undermine His divine essence. Sin harms the sinner—not God. God remains perfect and unthreatened.

To claim that God's command is “defeated” unless He punishes is to imply that His authority depends on response rather than essence—which is not true sovereignty.

6. Is Forgiveness Ever Free?

You conclude by saying forgiveness is “never free”—someone must pay. But this is not a universal moral truth; it is a specific theological premise of substitutionary atonement.

Forgiveness, by definition, is pardoning without demanding equivalent retribution. If God chooses to forgive out of mercy, it is not injustice, because He is the one wronged—and He is the judge.

In Islam, this is the glory of God:

> “And your Lord is the Forgiving, Full of Mercy. If He were to seize them for what they earned, He would hasten for them the punishment...” (Qur’an 18:58)

This balance of mercy and justice is not theoretical—it is divine perfection.

Conclusion:

To summarize:

Affirming that God can forgive without blood is not weakness—it is sovereignty.

Ascribing logical contradictions to God (finite/infinite, mortal/immortal simultaneously) undermines His perfection, not enhances it.

Justice does not require punishing the innocent for the guilty; it requires moral accountability.

Mercy does not negate justice when the one forgiving is the very one sinned against.

I welcome continued dialogue—but only on the basis of respectful reasoning, not accusations of ignorance. If you believe the Christian model is coherent, then the task is not to say, “It’s a mystery,” but to demonstrate that it is not internally contradictory. That is a standard every theology must meet.

Would you like to continue this line of discussion with a focus on divine nature, or shift toward scriptural authority and interpretation?

advanceDNA:
I am not suggesting he had to carry these attributes..that is what the Bible explains..... drawing premise from the fact that through Adam, sin became the nature of all men......and subsequently Jesus, God performs his very act of Justice and reconciliation.


this is where u expose urself and also contradict yourself.....
First u admit God is not limited and u don't doubt the ability of God...then you turn to say that it is contradictory for him to extend his nature of sinless and perfect holiness into the existence of flesh and blood in order to reconcile man to himself through sacrifice.....


lol...here u go again claiming superiority and exposing that all you came here to do is say your Islamic version of God is better...
...first u admit that God has all these nature of jealousy and anger, but then u say it's not like the anger, jealousy nature of men......fine.

....but when Christians say Jesus died and resurrected...why don't you admit this attribute similar to that of men isnt like the death of ordinary men ....but for Justice and reconciliation of man..??
See..you have not read 5% of the bible...if u have ..u will not bring in your version of God u call Allah into this argument.... I keep telling you, they are not the same entity.....


u contradict yourself over and again....u claim God can do anything...and still limit him to wateva standard you can dig up......your knowledge on theology is weak....all u have is what your Islamic scholars give to you to m0ck christian faith....

u argue with limited knowledge and yes..your argument is all based on Islamic framework.....because all ur points are mentioned in comparison to Islam version of God.....
..all you are doing is cherry picking scriptures in the bible to mock and invalidate a faith you don't believe in...

U don't even understand the context of what God means when he says he changeth not..
How is God's action of reconciliation and justice means that he has change because he the mean by which he carried out his act doesn't fit into your Allah version of God?




.in all your points u ddnt fail to compare Jesus attributes to your Allah version of God.....if u can bring where it is written in the bible that God said I cannot exist as an extension of flesh to do my will....then we can have a new dialogue..
.as for all ur claims here...u are the one putting God in a box of limitations based on your Islamic frame work.....there is nothing contradictory about the divinity of Jesus as it relates to his walk on the earth

Thank you for your reply. I appreciate the engagement, though I must respectfully clarify that my questions are not aimed at mocking, dismissing, or presenting an "Islamic version" of God as inherently superior. Rather, I am critically examining internal consistency within Christian theology on its own terms—especially regarding the nature of God, incarnation, and divine immutability.

Let me address your points systematically:

1. On God's Ability vs. Logical Contradiction

You accuse me of contradiction—saying I affirm God’s ability, yet question the possibility of the incarnation. But this is a misunderstanding of the argument.

Affirming that God can do all things does not imply He can do the logically impossible. God cannot cease to be God. He cannot be imperfect and perfect at the same time. He cannot be all-knowing and limited in knowledge simultaneously. These are not limitations on God’s power, but affirmations of His perfection and coherence. To claim otherwise is to reduce omnipotence to absurdity.

So my question stands within your theological framework:
How can an unchanging, eternal, all-powerful God literally assume human limitations—such as ignorance, suffering, and death—without undergoing change or diminishing His perfection?

That is not a challenge based on Islamic belief; it is a request for consistency within Christian metaphysics.

2. On Divine Emotions vs. Human Limitations

I did not deny God’s attributes such as anger or jealousy. What I clarified is that in Islam, these attributes are not like human emotions, which are born out of need, ignorance, or imperfection.

You seem to agree when you say Jesus' death is “not like” the death of ordinary men. But if you affirm that point, you actually reinforce my concern:

If Christ’s death, hunger, fatigue, and sorrow are not truly like human experiences, then in what meaningful sense can He be said to have taken on “full humanity”? And if they are real human experiences, how can you still claim that God remained fully divine while experiencing them?

This leads back to the same theological tension: If these were genuine limitations, then God assumed imperfection. If they were not, then the incarnation is symbolic, not literal.

3. On "Cherry-Picking" Scripture and Interfaith Respect

I have not cherry-picked verses nor attempted to mock the Bible. Instead, I am holding the theological claims you assert (such as the incarnation and divine justice through substitutionary sacrifice) to rational scrutiny.

It’s also important to correct a misrepresentation:
I never said that the Bible states, “God cannot exist as flesh.” Rather, I asked whether the claim that the infinite God literally became finite flesh can be logically and theologically reconciled with your belief that God is eternal, omniscient, and unchanging. That is a rational inquiry—not an Islamic imposition.

4. On Limiting God vs. Upholding His Nature

You claim I’m “putting God in a box.” But again, there is a key distinction between denying God's power and upholding His nature. God cannot lie, cease to exist, or act unjustly—not because He lacks power, but because these contradict His essence.

Likewise, in Islam and in rational theology generally, the idea that God can become a man, with all the limitations that entails, is not rejected due to a lack of divine ability, but because it negates divine perfection and transcendence.

You cannot assert that God is eternal and unchanging, and then say He took on mortality and change. That is not divine mystery—it is theological contradiction.

5. On the Nature of Productive Dialogue

I’m not entering this conversation to assert that “Allah is better.” I am engaging as someone who respects serious theological reflection. If we want genuine interfaith dialogue, we must allow difficult questions—questions that probe the internal logic of our respective worldviews.

If a belief cannot be questioned without accusations of mockery or superiority, then it is not being presented in a way that invites honest investigation.

In Conclusion

I invite you to reflect once more on the core issue:

> Is it logically and theologically coherent to believe that the infinite, perfect, all-powerful God literally became a finite, limited human being—without change, contradiction, or compromise to His divine essence?

That is the heart of the matter—not whether Islam or Christianity is superior, but whether the belief in the incarnation is self-consistent.

If you would like to continue this dialogue, I’m open to respectful, rational exchange. But let’s stay focused on the concepts—not accusations or assumptions about each other’s intentions or faith traditions.

NairaLTQ:
Quran 75:37
Had he not been a sperm from semen emitted?

You didn't answer the question
1. According to Allah, who is the "he" in Qur'an 75:37?
2. Is any Human beita sperm?
Quran 75:38
then he became a clot, and then Allah made it into a living body and proportioned its parts,

Tell me, what does a sperm become in a human female womb?

Is it untrue that your prophet says that the sperm will stay for 40 days in the womb?

Please respectful answer the direct questions as you are just giving me the standard islamic narrative.



He found it is NEVER a perception. It is always a REALITY.

I said:
Do you concede that Allah was the one relating the story and not Dhul Qarnyn? (Qur'an 18:83)
Did Allah say that
1. Dhul Qarnyn found the sun setting in some dark murky waters?
2. Dhul Qarnyn found a people near this dark murky water?

I guess, Dhul Qarnyn appeared to find a people there: is that true?
3. Can you show us by Google map: The wall that was constructed to prevent Yājūj and Mājūj from causing further destruction and hardship to people?.

You will note that you cannot answer my direct questions because it is an error by Allah and his prophet Mohammed.


I laugh is Swahili
1. What is the wall made from?
2. Do you think a wall of such a massive size would escape geological findings? For God's sake, the aeromagnetic signature would be so loud it would be seen from the other pole of the earth.

Sir, I am sorry to tell you that it is a myth. An imaginary wall that doesn't exist. But it is in your Qur'an as real.


So, Al-Jalalayn doesn't speak good Arabic.

Your only argument is to feign ignorance of the meaning of the word.



Meaning that Allah did not know that it is a myth and not a real story.
Thus, it cannot be a miracle.

Are Batman or Spiderman or Superman stories miracles?

So sorry!
Mohammed was accused of telling myths of the ancients: his accusers were not wrong after all.



Do Christians say that Allah is a third of three?
The implication of "Kalimatuhu" and "Ruhun minhu" is massive as NOT other person or angel or jinn has these two titles.
It implies that JESUS pre-existing before He was born.

Secondly , Allah says that Christians say that The Messiah is Allah.
Qur'an 5:72
They have certainly disbelieved who say, "Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary" while the Messiah has said, "O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." Indeed, he who associates others with Allah - Allah has forbidden him Paradise, and his refuge is the Fire. And there are not for the wrongdoers any helpers.

If Allah is the Messiah according to Christians, who is the second and third part of the Trinity?

Except that the Almighty Allah doesn't understand exactly the doctrine of Trinity he is condemning.

Please direct answers not preachings!




Then the implication is that Jesus is the Kunfayakun of Allah!

See, how you rope yourself into another quagmire!





So, the only two spirits known in Islam is Jibril AND Jesus (a human being) and you don't think that your theology is wrong and incomplete!?
BTW Qur’an 32:9 is not speaking of Jesus.

Jesus Himself is a Spirit from Allah: isn't it?




So, this hadith is Maudu!?

Riyad as-Salihin 432
Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari (May Allah be pleased with him) reported: Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, "On the Day of Resurrection, Allah will deliver to every Muslim, a Jew or a Christian and say: 'This is your ransom from Hell-fire."'

I know, the hadith doesn't say that Christians and Jews will be ransom for Muslims from the fire of hell!




Please when you read the bible, how do you read it?
You Muslims have assumed that Allah and his prophet are the worst communicators in the universe. Otherwise, tell me why you must re-interprete anything they say that you feel is problematic to mean something else

Thank you for your reply. I will address your objections point-by-point in a direct, logical, and respectful manner — without distortion or mockery — so that truth may be pursued sincerely and not polemically.

1. On Qur’an 75:37 – "He was a sperm from semen emitted"

You asked:
(a) Who is the “he”?
(b) Is any human a sperm?

Answer:
The “he” refers to the human being — in context, mankind’s origin. The Arabic "nutfah min maniyyin yumnā" does not say that a human is only sperm. Rather, it highlights the initial stage — the seminal fluid containing sperm — from which the human begins. It is a reference to the lowly origin of man, meant as a reminder of humility.

Of course, humans are not just sperm, but neither is anyone confused by such a biological summary. The language is not a scientific thesis; it is a condensed reference to a starting point in human development — an accurate expression for its time and audience, and still valid in its spiritual purpose.

2. On Sperm Remaining for 40 Days – Hadith in Sahih Muslim 2644

You asked:
“Is it untrue that your prophet said sperm remains for 40 days?”

Answer:
This is a misreading. The hadith you refer to outlines stages of human embryonic development — 40 days as a nutfah (drop), then 40 as an ‘alaqah (clinging substance), and so on. It does not say sperm remains in the womb for 40 days. Rather, the Prophet ﷺ describes developmental phases.

Even classical Islamic scholars such as Ibn Hajar and Al-Nawawi understood this to refer to successive stages — not one static sperm cell surviving for 40 days.

This is neither a scientific blunder nor unusual — similar metaphorical or developmental language is found in all religious texts.

3. On Dhul Qarnayn and the Sun Setting in a Murky Spring (Qur’an 18:86)

You stated:

> “He found it” is never a perception, always a reality.

Answer:
That is incorrect. The Arabic verb wajada (وَجَدَ) absolutely allows for perception — it can mean “he found,” as in encountered or perceived something in his experience. For example, when someone says “I found the city lively,” it reflects a personal perception, not an objective property.

Qur’an 18:86 clearly says:

> “He found it setting in a muddy spring” — this describes what Dhul Qarnayn saw from his perspective. It is not a cosmological claim about the sun literally entering water. The Qur’an is narrating his journey and what he saw, not what literally happened to the sun.

Just as today we say “the sun sets” — even though scientifically it doesn’t set — the Qur’an uses familiar language without contradicting science.

You then asked:

> Was it Allah narrating?
Did Dhul Qarnayn find the sun setting in murky water?
Were people found there?

Answer:
Yes — Allah is narrating what Dhul Qarnayn experienced. The text says he found the sun setting in a murky spring and found a people there. This is a narrative of his travel, not a declaration of astronomical fact. Confusing observation with physical truth is a hermeneutical error.

4. On the Wall of Gog and Magog (Ya’juj and Ma’juj)

You asked:

> “Where is the wall? What is it made from? Why haven’t we found it via satellite or geological scans?”

Answer:
Firstly, the Qur’an does not say the wall would remain visible or intact until today. It only states that Dhul Qarnayn constructed a barrier using iron and molten copper between two mountains to block destructive tribes. It also says the wall will be broken when Allah wills (Qur’an 18:98).

Just as many ancient structures have been lost (e.g. Nineveh, Troy, Sodom), the absence of the wall today does not falsify its past existence. Our lack of discovery does not equate to non-existence.

You claim aeromagnetic tools would detect it. That assumes:

We know the exact location (we don’t),

That it hasn't eroded, buried, or collapsed,

That such detection methods are infallible.

That’s an unproven assumption, not a refutation.

5. On “Samiri” and the Golden Calf

You mocked the explanation that “Samiri” is not the same as “Samaritan” in post-Exilic terms.

Response:
The Qur’an uses the word “as-Samiri” as a proper name — not a tribal title. The error lies in assuming it must mean a post-exilic Samaritan (from centuries later). That is an anachronistic projection onto the text.

Classical scholars understood "Samiri" in various ways — possibly a deviant from the Israelites, someone practicing magic, or even someone whose name derived from "samar" (speech at night) or other linguistic roots. Qur’anic language is rich, and the tafsir tradition accommodates multiple interpretive layers.

Your comparison to Batman or Spiderman is inappropriate. The Qur’an narrates the event as a moral and spiritual lesson — with historical grounding. It is not myth-making; it is theological teaching.

6. On Jesus as “Word” and “Spirit” of God (Qur’an 4:171)

You claim that Jesus having the titles “Kalimatuhu” and “Ruhun minhu” implies he is divine or pre-existent.

Response:

No. The Qur’an clearly says:

> “Do not say ‘Three’ — Allah is but one God.” (Qur’an 4:171)

“Kalimatuhu” means a word from God — His command “Be” (kun) — as affirmed in Qur’an 3:59:

> “Indeed, the likeness of Jesus to Allah is like that of Adam — He created him from dust, then said to him, ‘Be,’ and he was.”

Adam was created by the same Word (command), yet you do not call Adam divine.

As for “Ruhun minhu” — all human souls come from God. Qur’an 32:9 says God breathed His spirit into Adam. Does that make Adam divine? No. It indicates honor — not divinity.

Your attempt to distinguish Jesus from all others based on these titles is flawed. Titles of honor do not equate to ontological divinity. Islamic theology is precise on this point.

7. On the Hadith in Riyad as-Salihin (Hadith 432)

You quoted a hadith claiming Jews and Christians are given as ransom for Muslims. Let’s be clear:

This hadith is interpreted in light of the Qur’an, which says:

> “No bearer of burdens shall bear the burden of another.” (Qur’an 6:164)

Islam does not teach substitutionary atonement.

The hadith, as scholars explained (see An-Nawawi, Ibn Hajar), refers to relative justice — meaning that those who rejected truth will face consequences, not that innocent people are punished in place of Muslims.

To use this hadith as if Islam supports the Christian ransom theology is a distortion. Islam strongly rejects that anyone — even Jesus — can bear the sins of others.

Conclusion:

You asked for direct answers. I have given them.

But respectfully, your objections rest largely on:

Misreading of Arabic verbs like “wajada,”

Anachronistic projections onto Qur’anic characters,

Literalist readings of poetic or metaphorical passages,

Disregard for historical loss and archaeology,

Forcing Christian theology onto Islamic terms.

Islam does not need to reinterpret divine language to "correct" it — rather, it reads with both depth and context.

God’s communication is clear. It is your assumptions — about what the text must mean — that are flawed.

> “Say: He is Allah, the One. Allah, the Eternal Refuge. He neither begets nor is begotten, and there is none comparable to Him.” (Qur’an 112)

This is Islam’s unambiguous theology. No Trinity, no divine man, no blood sacrifice.

I respect your zeal, but I invite you to approach Islamic texts without theological imposition. If you wish sincere dialogue, let’s seek understanding, not just accusation.

May God guide us both to truth.

NairaLTQ:
Did your prophet say "every son (descendant) of Adam is a sinner?

Is Jesus human?
And, is He a descendant of Adam?

This is the distinction. God came to represent us so that He can legally be our ransom from the consequences of sin which is eternity in Hell Fire.

Only YHWH in Trinity can be Finite and Infinite at the same time
Only YHWH in Trinity can be Weak and Almighty at the same time
Only YHWH in Trinity can be Somewhere and Everywhere at the same time

Admit that you do NOT understand this paradox even when explained simply because it is IMPOSSIBLE for Allah to be like YHWH


Again, from the Lens of Taoheed, the nature of YHWH is IMPOSSIBLE.

Again,
Only YHWH in Trinity can be Finite and Infinite at the same time
Only YHWH in Trinity can be Weak and Almighty at the same time
Only YHWH in Trinity can be Somewhere and Everywhere at the same time

Do you admit that this above is a logical contradiction with the description of the Taoheed?
Is this a logical contradiction with the description of Trinity?



I have dealt with this before.
If it was possible for Allah to come down as a perfect man without violating his almightiness and sovereignty, will he come with his full attributes to us OR he will limit it to almost human-like levels.

Secondly, if the Sovereignty and Almightiness of God is not violated, what is your problem if God chose to experience Pain, Hunger, Thirst, Sadness, Weakness etc. Do you as a Muslim decide for God!?

Like it is unthinkable for a president to jump inside a latrine BUT it is NOT impossible depending on
1. The Reason/Purpose why the president entered the Latrine
2. If the president CHOSE to enter the Latrine by his own volition.

Unfortunately for you, the Bible explains why God has to come like this to us humans Islam doesn't have this concept.


How can God, who is perfect and independent, take on qualities that are by nature imperfect and dependent?
Because, YHWH can do so without violating His Integrity as God.

You find it difficult to comprehend because you as a Muslim doesn't understand the Gravity of Sin.

You think sin is just a mere going against the will and command of God: and forgiveness is easy!

If you care , I will explain why SIN cannot go without punishment!




Islam doesn't know why blood is required in sacrifice even though they claim to be the religion of Abraham. This is a basic flaw in your religion

I laugh in Mandarin!

Thank you for your response.
I appreciate your willingness to continue this discussion, and I take your comments seriously. I will respond point by point to ensure clarity and maintain a sincere, respectful tone.

1. Your Central Claim: A God Who is Finite and Infinite Simultaneously

You repeat that “only YHWH in Trinity can be finite and infinite, weak and almighty, somewhere and everywhere at the same time.” With respect, this is not an explanation — it is an assertion of paradox without resolution.

In logic, a contradiction is not resolved by repetition. The statement "finite and infinite at the same time" is not a mystery; it is a logical impossibility. To be finite is to be limited, and to be infinite is to be unlimited. The two cancel each other out. One cannot be both in the same respect and at the same time.

To use your analogy: if a president jumps into a latrine, we can understand that his dignity is compromised by choice, but he remains a human. But in your analogy, God becomes the latrine — i.e., God becomes that which is limited, dependent, and dying — and yet you claim He remains fully God in essence. This is not a paradox with a hidden reason; it is a contradiction in terms.

In Islamic theology, God does not cease to be God at any point. He does not diminish His perfection, nor assume imperfection. He is always Al-Qayyum (Self-Sustaining) and Al-Ahad (One, indivisible).

2. Legal Representation Requires Logical Coherence

You argue that Jesus became human in order to represent us legally before God. This raises several issues:

Who set this legal condition? If God is sovereign, why does He need to become His own sacrifice to forgive? Is He subject to an external law, or is He the lawgiver?

If God required a sacrifice to forgive, then the forgiveness is no longer grace — it is a transaction.

Furthermore, how is it just to punish the innocent (Jesus) in place of the guilty (humanity)? In Islamic theology, justice means each soul bears its own burden (Qur'an 6:164).

Islam teaches that God can forgive directly without compromising His justice or mercy. The Qur'an never minimizes sin, but it does not exaggerate it into something that makes God incapable of forgiving without blood.

3. You Claim Muslims Do Not Understand the “Gravity of Sin”

This is a theological assumption, not a rebuttal. Islam treats sin as rebellion against the Creator, deserving of consequences — but it also teaches that God is Al-Ghaffar (Oft-Forgiving) and Ar-Rahman (Most Merciful). The gravity of sin is not denied in Islam — but it is not used to limit God's mercy or necessitate His incarnation.

You say blood must be shed — but this is a religious claim, not a universal truth. In the Bible itself, we find verses such as:

> "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings." (Hosea 6:6)

The Prophets often emphasized repentance over ritual slaughter. Even if sacrifices were commanded, they were never presented as God's only path to forgiveness — nor did they require the death of God Himself.

4. Jesus’ Humanity Undermines His Divinity

You asked: “Is Jesus human? Is He a descendant of Adam?” If yes — and if all descendants of Adam sin — then how can Jesus be without sin, unless He is not fully human by your own standards?

And if He is fully God, why does He not know the Hour (Mark 13:32)? Why does He pray to the Father with tears (Hebrews 5:7)? Why does He say, “I can do nothing by myself” (John 5:30)? These are not just “roles” — they are signs of dependence.

Dependence is the opposite of divinity.

5. Islam and Abrahamic Sacrifice

You claim Islam does not understand sacrifice, yet the Qur’an clearly teaches that Ibrahim (Abraham) was commanded to sacrifice — not for sin, but as a test of submission. The Qur’an emphasizes that:

> “It is neither their meat nor their blood that reaches Allah, but your piety.” (Qur’an 22:37)

In Islam, the essence of sacrifice is not blood — it is obedience. That is what God values.

Moreover, your claim that Islam is flawed because it does not adopt a blood-based salvation model is, again, circular. It presumes the Christian model is the only valid one and declares others flawed for not copying it — but this is not a proof. It is presupposition.

6. Trinity and the Problem of Category Error

You keep saying, “Only YHWH in Trinity can do this...” But that’s not evidence — it's an exemption from logic. Any contradictory doctrine can claim uniqueness. But the question remains: Is it coherent?

The doctrine of the Trinity violates the principle of identity: God is one, but also three. Jesus is God, but also not God (when he prays to the Father). These are not mysteries — they are contradictions unless you can define the terms without equivocation.

Islam upholds the pure monotheism of all prophets — including Jesus. He was the Messiah, born miraculously, but never claimed to be God. To deify the creation is, from an Islamic perspective, to blur the line between the Necessary Being and the contingent being — a philosophical error and a spiritual danger.

Final Thought

You are welcome to believe in the Trinity, the incarnation, and substitutionary atonement. But please understand: my questions are not rooted in “not understanding YHWH” — they are rooted in examining whether your claims are logically consistent within your own framework.

If your theology requires suspending logic to accept it, then anyone — Muslim or otherwise — has a right to ask whether that is a mystery worth believing in, or a contradiction that should be rejected.

Respectfully,
I await your reply.

NairaLTQ:
So, let's check.
Quran 75:37
Had he not been a sperm from semen emitted?

Tell me, is any human being a sperm OR he is a fusion of sperm and ovum? How many chromosomes do we find in a full human being and how many chromosomes are in a sperm?

Quran 75:38
then he became a clot, and then Allah made it into a living body and proportioned its parts,

Tell me, what does a sperm become in a human female womb?

Is it untrue that your prophet says that the sperm will stay for 40 days in the womb?

Sahih Muslim 2644
Hudhaifa b. Usaid reported directly from Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) that he said:

When the drop of (semen) remains in the womb for forty or forty five nights, the angel comes and says: My Lord, will he be good or evil? And both these things would be written. Then the angel says: My Lord, would he be male or female? And both these things are written. And his deeds and actions, his death, his livelihood; these are also recorded. Then his document of destiny is rolled and there is no addition to nor subtraction from it.


LOL
Do you concede that Allah was the one relating the story and not Dhul Qarnyn? (Qur'an 18:83)
Did Allah say that
1. Dhul Qarnyn found the sun setting in some dark murky waters?
2. Dhul Qarnyn found a people near this dark murky water?

I guess, Dhul Qarnyn appeared to find a people there: is that true?
3. Can you show us by Google map: The wall that was constructed to prevent Yājūj and Mājūj from causing further destruction and hardship to people?.

Don you see why it is the job of your scholars to rewrite the words of Allah and his prophet to correct several blunders like this?


Initially, it Al-Samari mean the Samaritan BUT because of recent scholarship, you have to find a new culprit for it.

Tafsirs Al-Jalalayn Quran20:85
But those he supposed [to be following him] had remained behind, for He, exalted be He, said, ‘Indeed We tried your people after you, that is, after your departure from them, and the Samaritan led them astray’, so they took to worshipping the )golden) calf.



How can it be a miracle when it is a myth treated as real by Allah and Mohammed.

The earliest written version of the story comes from Christian bishop and writer Jacob of Serugh, who wrote an account of the sleepers in Syriac. The story begins in the Roman Empire around 250 CE.

The story wasn't even real. It was written to encourage Christians who were being persecuted to encourage them that bad times will end.

Now, we find a fiction entering the Book of Allah as a miracle!? Tell me, how can the story of Superman or Batman somehow become a miracle?



Let's see what Allah said:

Qur'an 4:171
"O People of the Scripture, do not exceed in your religion beyond the truth and do not follow the inclination of a people who had gone astray before and misled many and strayed from the sound way.
And [mention, O People of the Scripture], the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He cast down to Mary and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, 'Three'; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs."

Who should we believe, you or Allah?
1. Jesus is a Messenger of Allah
2. Jesus is the Word of Allah (His Word) cast down to Mary
3. Jesus is the Spirit FROM Allah

You have to redefine Spirit to mean Soul even against your prophet who calls Jesus Ruhullah!

Can you see how Muslims have no respect for Allah's word or their prophet's word in order that they might propagate an Islam according to their corrections



God is ONE according to Christians BUT in order to sell Islam, Allah, his prophet and you Muslims must claim we mean that God is THREE.

As Christians, Jesus is our ransom from Hell Fire: but for you as Muslims, Jews and Christians are your own ransom. Does this make any sense to you that people who need to be ransomed are your own ransom.?

Thank you for your reply. Let me respond to your points one by one in a clear and respectful manner, seeking truth through sound reasoning rather than mockery or misrepresentation.

1. On the Qur’an and Embryology (Qur’an 75:37–38):

You cited Qur’an 75:37–38 and questioned the biological accuracy. Let's clarify:

> “Had he not been a sperm from semen emitted? Then he became a clot…”

This description aligns with observable embryological stages from the perspective of the human observer. The verse refers to the human origin from “sperm” (nutfah) found within semen — not to deny the ovum’s role, but to highlight the male contribution in a time when this was unknown. The Qur’an’s primary goal is not to teach cellular biology but to remind man of his humble origin as a means of spiritual reflection.

As for your reference to Sahih Muslim 2644 and the 40 days — this hadith does not state that sperm remains alone for 40 days. It refers to the entire process of formation, which early Islamic scholars (like Ibn Hajar) noted includes transitions between stages. Moreover, time estimates in prophetic hadith are not intended as precise scientific measurements but to express stages of divine decree — what modern biology calls epigenetics or genetic programming.

So no, neither the Qur’an nor the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) claimed humans are formed only from sperm nor that sperm remains unchanging for 40 days. These are interpretive misunderstandings, not scientific blunders.

2. On Dhul Qarnayn and the “Sun Setting in a Murky Spring” (Qur’an 18:86):

The verse reads:

> “Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it setting in a murky spring…”

Let’s be precise. The Arabic uses "wajada" (he found) — meaning his perception — not a literal cosmological assertion. The Qur’an is clearly describing what Dhul Qarnayn saw, not what physically happens to the sun.

Even today, we use similar expressions: “sunset over the ocean” — yet no rational person believes the sun is literally setting into water.

So this is a visual description from the human perspective, not a geophysical claim. Any insistence on literalism here is a misreading of the Arabic language and Qur’anic style.

3. On the Wall of Gog and Magog (Ya’juj and Ma’juj):

The Qur’an does not claim the wall built by Dhul Qarnayn still exists today. Rather, it describes a historic construction which will be breached “when the promise of my Lord comes to pass” (Qur’an 18:98). The Qur’an prophesies its future destruction as a sign of the End Times.

If it were still standing, it may be buried, eroded, or yet undiscovered — just like other ancient structures lost to time. Absence of current location ≠ non-existence.

History is filled with lost cities (like Troy), vanished peoples, and unexcavated ruins. This is not a flaw in scripture but a reminder of the limits of human knowledge.

4. On the Samaritan and the Golden Calf (Qur’an 20:85–88):

You quote Tafsir al-Jalalayn, but ignore the linguistic and scholarly nuance.

The Arabic word “As-Samiri” does not necessarily mean "Samaritan" of post-10th century BCE Israel. Many classical scholars interpreted “Samiri” as a proper noun, not a tribal designation. Other scholars viewed it as a title or nickname, possibly linked to magic or deviation (derived from samar, speech at night).

Islamic tradition is not bound to Biblical chronology. Even Western historians now acknowledge that Biblical dating and tribal naming are not always historically reliable. So no, this is not a “rewriting” of the Qur’an — it’s a scholarly clarification, based on context and semantics.

5. On the Story of the Sleepers of the Cave:

You argue this story is a “Christian myth” absorbed into the Qur’an.

Firstly, let’s note: the Qur’an acknowledges the story’s Christian origins — that’s why it refers to it in the context of the People of the Book and emphasizes that only God knows the true details (Qur’an 18:22).

The Qur’an does not treat it as fiction, but as an actual miracle showing God’s power over time and resurrection. Miracles, by definition, are outside natural law. You may call it legend — Islam affirms it as a miracle. Whether Jacob of Serugh wrote about it or not is irrelevant; truth is not determined by who writes first but by what actually happened.

Also, using this logic, should we dismiss the Christian Gospel because parts of it may share similarities with pre-Christian myths like dying-and-rising gods (e.g., Osiris, Tammuz)?

6. On Jesus Being the “Word” and “Spirit” of God (Qur’an 4:171):

Your reading is selective.

Yes, the Qur’an calls Jesus:

A messenger of God

His word ("Kalimatuhu" cast to Mary

A spirit from Him ("Ruhun minhu"

But this does not mean Jesus is part of God. The verse explicitly warns:

> “Do not say ‘Three’... Allah is but One God. Exalted is He above having a son.” (4:171)

In Islam, "Word" refers to God's command, as in “Be” — and it is. Jesus came into existence through God's command — not via fatherhood or divinity.

Likewise, "spirit from Him" means a created soul — not a divine being. All souls are from God in this sense:

> “Then He fashioned him and breathed into him of His spirit…” (Qur’an 32:9)

So yes, Jesus is Ruhullah — a created spirit granted by God, just as Adam was. This does not make him God or part of God.

To insist that the Qur’anic language confirms the Trinity is to impose Christian theology onto Islamic texts, which the Qur’an clearly rejects.

7. On the Christian Doctrine of Ransom and Hellfire:

You said:

> Jesus is our ransom from Hellfire. But for Muslims, Jews and Christians are your ransom?

This is an odd misrepresentation. Islam explicitly rejects the idea that someone else can be punished in our place:

> “No bearer of burdens shall bear the burden of another.” (Qur’an 6:164)

As for the hadith you may be referencing — regarding people being ransomed on Judgment Day — the context is not substitutionary atonement. It is a description of relative justice on the Day of Judgment. Each person will be judged for their own deeds.

Islam does not teach that Jews or Christians are punished on behalf of Muslims. That is a misunderstanding — or worse, deliberate distortion — of Islamic eschatology.

Conclusion:

You began by accusing Muslims of "rewriting" scripture. But it is clear that:

Your arguments rest on literalism, misinterpretation, or theological projection.

The Qur’an presents concepts like embryology, prophecy, miracles, and divine nature in a metaphorical and theological language, not scientific journals.

Islam’s rejection of the Trinity is not ignorance — but insistence that God is not divisible, incarnated, or slain.

> “He neither begets nor is begotten.” (Qur’an 112:3)

Your belief in Jesus as ransom is your choice, but to Muslims, God does not require blood to forgive. He forgives whom He wills, as a Sovereign, Merciful Lord.

I appreciate your passion for your faith. But truth deserves careful reading, not ridicule. I invite you to engage Islamic texts on their own terms, not through the filter of Christian theology.

> May God guide us both toward truth and understanding.
With respect and sincerity.

advanceDNA:
U still don't get it....ur entire argument is based on looking at Jesus in the lens of your so called perfect Allah without considering why Jesus walked the earth...and that's why it is an attempt at mockery...

Jesus did not just decide to walk the earth becos he felt like.. the bible clearly gave the reason .... therefore jesus being tempted, being hungry, or wateva u are trying to use to invalidate or mock the divinity of Jesus is a prerequisite because he came to sacrifice himself for a man who has all these same flaws of being hungry, tempted etc.....it is important for him to carry the very flaws of human nature and but akos be without sin o be the perfect sacrifice (and only God is without sin)

This might be hard for your to grasp becos of ur Muslim background and that's why I initially started that both faiths/beliefs are completely different ....

See....God gets angry and punishes, God is jealous and doesn't want you to serve other God, God is a lot of things our human mind cant begin to comprehend ......will u all say this is impossible becos anger, punishment and jealousy are flaws of human being as well??

With all due respect...who are u to tell God what he can be or cannot be for wateva purpose he wants to achieve....

Thank you once again for your reply. I appreciate the time you've taken to articulate your position, and I assure you that my aim remains an honest and respectful exchange — not mockery, nor denial of your right to your beliefs. If at any point my tone suggested otherwise, I welcome the chance to clarify.

Let me begin with the heart of the matter: my argument is not based on viewing Jesus "through the lens of Allah," as you suggest. It is based on an internal theological inquiry using your own scripture, and addressing questions that have been asked by Christians themselves throughout history — from the early Church Fathers to contemporary theologians.

1. The Problem of Inconsistency, Not Possibility

You ask, "Who are you to tell God what He can or cannot be?" — and I fully agree that God is not subject to human limitations or dictates. However, theological reflection must involve asking whether particular doctrines are internally coherent.

Let me clarify: I am not claiming that God cannot do something arbitrarily. I am asking whether the Christian claim — that the eternal, all-knowing, unchanging God became a finite, tempted, limited human being — is logically and theologically consistent within your own framework.

James 1:13 says God cannot be tempted. Yet the Gospels describe Jesus being tempted by Satan (Matthew 4:1). Mark 13:32 says the Son does not know the Hour — yet God is all-knowing. Hebrews 5:7 speaks of Jesus "offering prayers with loud cries and tears to the One who could save him." These texts raise natural theological questions: If Jesus is fully God, how can He lack knowledge, be tempted, or fear death?

You suggest Jesus had to carry the "flaws of human nature" to be the perfect sacrifice. But here lies the theological paradox: If these limitations are flaws, how can the flawless God fully embody them without contradiction? And if they are not flaws, why are they treated as evidence of Jesus' humanity and not His divinity?

2. The Claim of God Becoming Human Is Not Simple Mystery — It Is a Contradiction If Taken Literally

Appealing to mystery ("God is beyond human understanding" is valid only to a point. But mystery should not be used to mask logical contradiction. Saying that Jesus is fully God and fully man — and that he was omniscient yet not knowing, immutable yet growing in wisdom (Luke 2:52), impassible yet suffering — creates a paradox that demands explanation.

Muslims do not deny God's ability — we question doctrines that seem to compromise His attributes. The Qur'an tells us God is Al-‘Aleem (All-Knowing), As-Samad (self-sufficient), and Al-Hayy (Ever-Living) — He does not become dependent, die, or lose knowledge. This is not a limitation; it is divine perfection.

3. God’s Emotions vs. Human Limitations

You mention that God gets angry, jealous, and punishes — attributes that sound "human." But there's a vital distinction here: in Islamic theology (and arguably in Biblical theology too), God’s anger or jealousy are not like ours. They do not arise from ignorance, loss of control, or imperfection. They are expressions of His justice and authority, not flaws or deficiencies.

However, hunger, ignorance of the Hour, exhaustion, fear of death — these are not moral emotions; they are ontological limitations. They signal a being who is contingent, not self-sufficient — and therefore not divine by definition. That is the core of the Muslim critique.

4. Respecting the Purpose of Jesus’ Mission Does Not Remove the Theological Tension

You say Jesus came to bear human flaws to become a sacrifice. Even if I grant this as your belief, it does not resolve the theological dilemma. The central issue is: How can God, who is perfect and independent, take on qualities that are by nature imperfect and dependent? That is not merely a narrative claim — it is a metaphysical contradiction.

And again, I am not asking this from an Islamic framework. I’m asking whether this belief is consistent within the Christian conception of God's nature as eternal, unchanging, and omniscient.

5. Honest Dialogue Requires Open Inquiry

Finally, I must respectfully note that attributing my questions to a “Muslim background” as if that disqualifies critical thinking undermines interfaith dialogue. Christians have long engaged in deep internal theological debates. I am simply continuing that tradition of inquiry from a different faith perspective, with respect and sincerity.

If there is an explanation that resolves this paradox from within Christian theology — beyond appealing to mystery or divine right — I remain open to it. But questions about theological coherence are not attacks; they are necessary steps toward understanding.

With all due respect, if you claim Jesus is fully God, then it is not unreasonable for me — or any thinking person — to ask how such a claim aligns with the attributes of God that Scripture itself affirms.

I remain open to your thoughts and appreciate your engagement.

BibleInterpreta AntiChristian TenQ CreativeOrbit gofh honesttalk21 NairaLTQ MaxInDHouse advanceDNA

NairaLTQ:
Mr JimRohn
I hope the Nairaland bot isn't rigged against my posts as it gets banned almost always.

Here I just extracted my replies without context after another ban for no reason. It is no fun if after making a reply for it to get banned.





I did not compare Jibril with the incarnation of God. My objective is to ask you questions about the incarnation of Jibril for if you cannot comprehend it by answering my questions, then it is an exercise in futility for you to understand God that is far more complex.

So, please answer my questions and I hope you will be truthful
1. Jibril is an Angel, when he came to Mary as a perfect man, did he stop being an angel?
2. As a perfect man, did Jibril have saliva in his mouth and does he have teeth and intestines?

So also, In the Qur'an,
1. Jesus is a Spirit from Allah
2. Jesus is the Word of Allah cast down to Mary
Question:
A. When Jesus became a Messenger as a man on earth, did he stop being a Spirit and the Word of Allah?
B. Let's assume that the Messenger was killed, does it mean that the Spirit and the Word of Allah was killed?

Please go straight to the answers!

Pick any dictionary and define Omnipresence.
After, let's apply it to Allah and check if he is Omnipresent. Omnipresence mean being fully present everywhere in space and time. I did not misrepresent the definition.

By dictionary definition, is Allah Omnipresent?
NO!

If according to your hadith, AIR is ABOVE Allah and Water is Below Him, Allah is a subset of the Universe! Thus, he cannot be Omnipresent.
Sunan Ibn Majah 182
Waki' bin Hudus narrated that his paternal uncle Abu Razin said:
"I said: 'O Messenger of Allah, where was our Lord before He created His creation?' He said: He was above the clouds, below which was air, and above which was air and water. Then He created His Throne above the water.'"


Jami` at-Tirmidhi 3109
"Ahmad ibn Mani' reported to us, Yazid ibn Harun reported to us, Hammad ibn Salama informed us from Ya'la ibn Ata' from Wakii ibn Hudus, from his uncle Abu Razin, who said: I said, 'O Messenger of God, where was our Lord before He created His creation?' He said, 'He was in a state of nothingness (or solitude), with air below Him and air above Him, and He created His Throne upon the water.' Ahmad ibn Mani' said that Yazid ibn Harun said: 'the solitude (or state of nothingness) means there was nothing with Him.' Abu Isa said: Hammad ibn Salama reported it this way from Wakii ibn Hudus, and Sh'bah, Abu Awana, and Hisham say Wakii ibn 'udus (instead of Hudus), and that is more authentic. Abu Razin's name was Laqiit ibn Amir. And he said, 'This is a good hadith.'"

What can be clearer than this?
Air above Allah AND Air and Water below Allah!

The loads of scientific "mis-miracles" in the Qur'an proves that Allah is NOT Omniscient irrespective of what you Muslims want to believe.
Eg.
Does the sperm become a baby?
Did Dhul Qarnayn see the sun set in murky waters?
Did the Samaritan really make the golden calf for the children of Israel?
Did some men sleep in a cave for 300 years?

Too many errors show that the author of the Qur'an is a 7th century Arabian man!
Exactly the point.
How is it that Abraham, Adam. Moses are dead BUT your prophet spoke to them in paradise?

It makes sense to you right.

Please explain how,
Jesus according to the Qur'an is a Trinity of Spirit from Allah, Word of Allah and a Human messenger of Allah?
Note: that the only other spirit you know in Islam is Jibril . The only word of Allah you know is Jesus. A spirit is not human and neither is the word of Allah!
Also, note that Jibril is NOT the word of Allah!

Please, explain the contradiction according to your understanding.
Read the two hadiths again and prove to me that it didn't say air was above and below Allah.
Two bad for you because I perceive yours is a case of deliberate ignorance.

Your argument is like saying, how can physical universe come into being from a spoken word!

I have shown you from the scripture the nature of my God YHWH.
He is simultaneously Everywhere as a Spirit
He is simultaneously on His Throne in the Heavens
He is anywhere else as the Word (Kunfayakun) where Gods Power is to be made manifest.

You and I understand that these Attributes is IMPOSSIBLE for Allah BUT don't commit the error of Generalisation.

It's okay if you cannot understand YHWH!

All a person needs to reject Islam is the Love for the Truth.
Unfortunately, Islam is a set of cascades of lies that you Muslims will deliberately TWIST the plain interpretation of your Qur'an and Hadiths for LIES cooked up by your scholars.

The truth sets free.

Dear NairaLTQ,

Thank you for your elaborate message. I will respond to your questions and objections directly, with clarity and sincerity, as you requested. However, I must also emphasize the importance of respectful dialogue in any serious theological discussion. Resorting to accusations of deliberate ignorance or deceit does not advance understanding — it only reinforces division.

1. On Jibril appearing as a man:

You asked:

> "When Jibril came to Mary as a perfect man, did he stop being an angel?"

No, Jibril (peace be upon him) did not stop being an angel. In Islamic belief, angels may assume a visible form for specific tasks (e.g., delivering messages), without ceasing to be what they are in essence. His outward appearance does not alter his essential created nature as an angel — a being created from light, fully subject to God's command. This is not incarnation in the Christian sense, where full divinity and full humanity are claimed to coexist in a single essence.

> "Did he have saliva, teeth, intestines?"

Islamic sources do not delve into such speculative physical details, as they are irrelevant to the purpose of revelation. The focus is on function, not anatomy. His form was recognized as a man, not as a literal transformation of substance.

This does not parallel the Christian claim that God Himself became fully human, lived as a man, was tempted, suffered, and died — while still being fully divine. The difference is qualitative and theological: angels are created beings assuming form, while in Christianity, the Creator is said to have become His own creation, which Islam considers a logical contradiction and theological error.

2. On Jesus being “a Spirit” and “Word” from Allah:

You asked:

> "Did Jesus stop being the Word or Spirit of Allah when he became a Messenger?"

No. According to Islamic theology:

Jesus (peace be upon him) is called a “Word from Allah” (kalimatun minhu) in the Qur’an (3:45) because he was brought into existence by God's command — “Be!” — without a father, as a miraculous sign.

He is also referred to as a “Spirit from Him” (roohun minhu) meaning a special soul created by God — not that he is a part of God’s essence.

This does not imply divinity. Every human has a spirit created by God. The phrasing “from Him” in Arabic does not imply a literal part of God’s being — it denotes honor and origin, not ontology.

> "If Jesus was killed, does that mean the Word and Spirit of Allah were killed?"

No. Death, in Islamic belief, does not mean annihilation of the soul or essence. The soul continues to exist in the Barzakh (intermediate realm). The physical body dies, but the Word and Spirit — being commands and created realities — remain under God’s control. Moreover, Islam holds that Jesus was not killed (Qur’an 4:157). He was raised, and will return before the end times.

3. On Allah’s Omnipresence:

You claim:

> “According to the Hadiths, air and water are above and below Allah. Therefore, Allah is not Omnipresent.”

Let me clarify the Islamic understanding.

Omnipresence in Islam does not mean that Allah is physically spread throughout space, like air or matter. God is not bound by time, space, or material dimensions. His knowledge, power, and control encompass all things (Wa Huwa bi kulli shay’in Aleem, Qur’an 2:282).

The Hadith you cite does not deny omnipresence — it addresses the pre-creation state in a metaphorical or explanatory way for human understanding. Classical scholars understood such Hadiths in light of other verses that affirm God’s transcendence and complete knowledge.

Claiming Allah is a “subset of the universe” due to spatial references is a category error — treating the Creator as a physical object within creation, which Islamic theology strictly rejects.

In contrast, Christianity proposes that the transcendent God became a localized human being, subject to birth, hunger, ignorance, and death — which is a limitation by definition. Islam preserves God’s majesty by maintaining His absolute transcendence.

4. On scientific claims and so-called "errors" in the Qur’an:

These objections have been addressed in depth by Islamic scholars and researchers. Briefly:

The sperm and baby: The Qur’an describes embryological development in a way that correlates with observable stages — not in terms of modern molecular biology, but in accessible and metaphorical terms suitable for the audience. It is not a scientific textbook but a book of guidance.

Dhul Qarnayn and the sunset: The verse says he saw the sun setting in a murky spring (fi aynin hami’ah) — a description of perception, not literal cosmology. Even today, we say "the sun sets behind the mountains."

The Samaritan and the golden calf: Islamic sources use the term "Samaritan" (possibly “Samiri” referring to a transgressor, not necessarily the tribe of Samaria) — this is not a historical error but a translational or interpretive difference.

The Sleepers of the Cave: The Qur’an does not present this as a myth but a miracle — and asks readers to reflect, not deny. It highlights God's power over time and life, not natural science.

These are interpretive matters, not self-evident errors. Disagreement does not prove falsehood.

5. On the claim of “Trinity” in Islam regarding Jesus:

This is a misunderstanding.

In Islam, Jesus is:

A created human messenger

A word (command) from God

A spirit (soul) created by God

These are not persons within a divine being. There is no Trinity in Islam — Jesus is not co-equal or co-eternal with God. The Qur’an explicitly refutes the Trinity (Qur’an 4:171; 5:73), and insists on the absolute oneness of God.

To equate the Qur’anic honorifics for Jesus with Christian Trinitarian claims is to impose an external theology onto a different framework.

Conclusion:

You are free to hold your beliefs about God as per your conscience and scripture. I do not mock your doctrine — I challenge it respectfully because truth must be examined critically.

But Islam's view of God is one of absolute oneness, perfection, self-sufficiency, and transcendence — untouched by limitation, incarnation, or death.

Rather than dismissing this as “deliberate ignorance,” I invite you to consider: perhaps the reason Islam rejects the Incarnation is not because it cannot understand it, but because it sees it as a contradiction — a human attempt to explain the Divine by making Him like man.

God does not become man. He sends prophets to guide men.

May God guide us all to truth, sincerity, and mutual understanding.

With respect,
jimrohn

BibleInterpreta AntiChristian TenQ CreativeOrbit gofh honesttalk21 NairaLTQ MaxInDHouse advanceDNA

advanceDNA:
There is no misunderstanding .....u are only trying to mask the idea that your Allah is perfect and better with a sloppy theological argument...

U deliberately ignore other facts of the bible that emphasizes on the divinity of Jesus and the reason why he walked the earth in flesh for the period that he did......these facts are interwoven from Genesis to the accounts of the prophets (which are not even in your Quran), all the way to the 4 gospels....

U ignoring of these facts shows your real aim is just to invalidate another person's faith by referencing your own Quran, comparing the divinity of Jesus to your Quran's idea of what Allah is.....

Both are different faith and beliefs...... You cannot use your faith and religion to validate or invalidate the christian faith, hiding your aim under mere theological argument

Dear advanceDNA,

Thank you once again for your response. I appreciate your willingness to engage in this important dialogue, though I must respectfully clarify and respond to some of your assertions.

First, it is important to reiterate that interfaith theological discussions must not be reduced to accusations of hidden motives or bad faith. I have made no appeal to the Qur'an in the question I posed. Rather, I referenced the Bible itself — texts from the New Testament — to raise a genuine theological inquiry about the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation and the divine nature of Jesus.

When I quoted passages like James 1:13 ("God cannot be tempted by evil", Mark 13:32 ("no one knows the hour, not even the Son", and Matthew 4:1 (Jesus being tempted by Satan), I was pointing to verses within your own scripture. If my intention were merely to assert Islamic theology, I would not need to rely on Biblical verses at all. The fact that I’m using your texts demonstrates an internal critique — not an external imposition of belief.

You mentioned that I am "masking" an idea that "Allah is better" with a "sloppy theological argument." I would respectfully submit that asking sincere questions about the coherence of Christian doctrine — particularly how divine attributes are reconciled with human limitations — is neither sloppy nor disrespectful. Rather, it reflects a centuries-long tradition of theological reasoning and scrutiny, found in both Islamic and Christian intellectual history.

Moreover, your assertion that I’m "ignoring facts of the Bible" presumes that these facts are self-evident or unanimously understood. Yet, the question of Jesus’ divinity, his nature, and the relationship between the human and divine in Christian theology has been debated extensively by Christian theologians themselves for nearly two millennia. Councils, creeds, and schisms arose precisely because these were — and still are — deeply complex theological issues.

As a Muslim, I do not deny that you are free to believe in the Incarnation, the Trinity, and the divinity of Christ. But belief is not immune from scrutiny — especially when such beliefs claim to represent ultimate truth. Just as Christians feel compelled to question and critique Islamic doctrines (and often do so openly), it is both reasonable and necessary that Islamic thinkers engage Christian theology with respectful but rigorous analysis.

You are correct in noting that Christianity and Islam are different in their conceptions of God. Precisely for that reason, open and respectful dialogue must allow for each side to examine the internal logic of the other’s beliefs. I have not invalidated your faith — I have simply asked a theological question that, if there is an answer, I am open to hearing.

Rejecting such questions by attributing ulterior motives or dismissing them as mere attacks does not serve the purpose of interfaith understanding. If anything, it closes the door to the very kind of honest dialogue that our religious traditions encourage.

I remain open to your insights — particularly if you would like to explain, from within Christian doctrine, how the divine attributes of God (omniscience, immutability, perfection) are reconciled with the limitations experienced by Jesus during his earthly life. If the answer lies in theological nuance, I welcome it. But I hope we can rise above accusations and engage in a sincere exchange of ideas.

With respect and sincerity,
jimrohn

BibleInterpreta AntiChristian TenQ CreativeOrbit gofh honesttalk21 NairaLTQ MaxInDHouse advanceDNA

advanceDNA:
What u Muslims cannot take is what you dish out to others...

If someone enters ur Quran to invalidate your religious text like saying Mohammed is not a prophet of God you will yell blasphemy....

Yet u enter another religious text telling them their belief is wrong, because ur Quran says another thing

Why don't u stick to what u choose to call God and let others choose what they want to call God.......

Dear advanceDNA,

Thank you for your response. I appreciate your engagement, though I believe there may have been a misunderstanding regarding the nature and intent of my original question.

My inquiry was not an emotional attack or an act of disrespect. It was a theological and philosophical question, aimed at clarifying a point of doctrine central to Christianity itself — namely, the nature of Jesus and how it aligns with the definition of God.

It is entirely reasonable — in any interfaith dialogue — for individuals to examine and critique one another's theological claims, provided it is done with respect and sincerity. This is not "invalidating" anyone's faith out of malice; it is simply part of serious religious discourse. If a Christian asks why Muslims believe Muhammad (peace be upon him) is a prophet, or challenges aspects of Islamic belief, that is not automatically “blasphemy” — it is a valid question that we Muslims must be prepared to answer with evidence, logic, and good character.

In fact, even the Bible itself encourages reasoning and testing of claims:

> “Test everything; hold fast what is good.” — 1 Thessalonians 5:21

You are free to ask hard questions about Islam — and I welcome such engagement. But just as you are free to question Islamic beliefs, I too must be free to ask difficult but sincere questions about Christian theology, especially when they relate to internal consistency and the concept of God’s nature.

The question I raised is not based solely on the Qur'an. It is based on the Bible itself — passages like James 1:13, Mark 13:32, Matthew 4:1, and others. These verses raise a theological tension within the doctrine of the Trinity that deserves thoughtful consideration.

If Jesus is fully God, how can he be tempted, grow in wisdom, not know the Hour, or suffer human weakness? This is not a trivial question, nor is it disrespectful. It is a fundamental inquiry into the coherence of what it means to say "Jesus is God."

Rather than making this personal or defensive, I invite you again to engage with the question intellectually and respectfully — just as I would do if you questioned Islamic beliefs.

Let’s have a dialogue of ideas, not a clash of emotions.

Warm regards,
Jimrohn

BibleInterpreta AntiChristian TenQ CreativeOrbit gofh honesttalk21 NairaLTQ MaxInDHouse

TenQ:
I agree with you on this as even Angels do not have to eat.




The implication of CAN HE DO SOMETHING without ceasing to be Almighty is clear. Allah CANNOT, thus He cannot be God.

The God of the CHristians and Jews can eat if He chooses to without ceasing to be ALMIGHTY

Genesis 18:-1-8
The Lord appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. 2 Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground. 3 He said, “If I have found favor in your eyes, my lord, do not pass your servant by. 4 Let a little water be brought, and then you may all wash your feet and rest under this tree. 5 Let me get you something to eat, so you can be refreshed and then go on your way—now that you have come to your servant.”
“Very well,” they answered, “do as you say.” 6 So Abraham hurried into the tent to Sarah. “Quick,” he said, “get three seahs[b] of the finest flour and knead it and bake some bread.” 7 Then he ran to the herd and selected a choice, tender calf and gave it to a servant, who hurried to prepare it. 8 He then brought some curds and milk and the calf that had been prepared, and set these before them. While they ate, he stood near them under a tree. 8 He then brought some curds and milk and the calf that had been prepared, and set these before them. While they ate, he stood near them under a tree.

You just affirmed why Allah cannot be Omnipotent.



Here is another question that exposes the Limitation of Allah as He is NOT Omnipresent nor is he Omnipotent.
The God of the Jews and CHristians can be in Heaven and on Earth at the same time

Genesis 19:24
24Then YHWH rained down sulfur and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah— from YHWH out of the heavens.


Islamic Taoheed makes it impossible for Allah to be simultaneously on his throne above the waters after the seventh heaven and anywhere else at the same time.
Psalm 139:8
"If I ascend to the heavens, You are there; if I make my bed in Sheol[Hell or Grave], You are there."

God as the Holy Spirit fills the heavens and the earth
Jeremiah 23:23-24
Am I a God at hand, saith the LORD, and not a God afar off? Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD.

Allah cannot even enter the toilet, he can only know what you are doing inside the toilet isn't it?

Can any Deity that is neither Omnipotent nor Omnipresent be God!?



I don't know if this is ignorance or celebrate taqiyya.
Death is NOT the cessation of LIFE:
Death is the Disconnection between the Body and the Soul/Spirit!
Death is the Translocation of a person from the Physical Realm to the Spiritual Realms


If this is NOT True,
What is the purpose if the Islamic punishment of the grave if there is cessation of life?


Is death the cessation of Life?
Does Allah have the Power to Die and YET remain Alive?


Knowing the meaning of death,
You have just confirmed that Allah cannot be ALMIGHTY as there are many things he cannot do!

Did your prophet tell lies about Adam, Abraham, Joseph and Moses when he rode the Al-Burak to paradise or explain if a partial resurrection happed with the prophets?


How many Iblis exist in the Universe?
Is he not one like Allah?

Can Iblis be simultaneously in Heaven and on Earth at the same time?
Is he not just like Allah in Omnipresence and omnipotence?



You are still justifying that many things are impossible for Allah to do!
Luke 1:37
"For with God nothing will be impossible."

Jeremiah 32:27
"Behold, I am YHWH, the God of all flesh; is there anything too difficult for Me?"

Unfortunately, as one of Allah's slave, you admit that his nature make manythings IMPOSSIBLE for Him without making him less than the Almighty


If the WORD became Human and reduced his power and attribute that He may live within US and entered the world as a represent.
The Word is like the Kunfayakun of God sent as a Messenger of His Power and Presence in Creating and making things to be.
The Bible says the WORD became Human, this is the One we know as Jesus.

The Father will NOT Leave His throne in Heaven
The Holy Spirit will NOT abandon being EVERYWHERE in space and Time.
Thus, the Kunfayakun of God becomes the Messenger of God.

A mundane example:
Your Soul is YOU,
your Body is YOU
But
Your Body runs Errand for you Soul


You disappoint me with your understanding of spiritual things. In Islam, is death a form of non-existent annihilation or a translocation ?


If Allah doesn't limit his attribute, can you see him?
Id Allah doesn't limit his attributes, do you think the Angels can behold him?
Don't forget that your prophet said you will see your Lord as clearly as you see the moon.

It is understandable your fears as Allah cannot enter his creation without ceasing to be Almighty.
YHWH can enter His creation without ceasing to be Almighty.

By His choice he came to represent us Humanity that He may legally become our Ransom from the Fire of Hell.
The Pre-Existent WORD became Human
John 1:14
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.


All these make Allah a subset of his creation
Is it untrue that Above Allah is AIR?

Sunan Ibn Majah 182
Waki' bin Hudus narrated that his paternal uncle Abu Razin said:
"I said: 'O Messenger of Allah, where was our Lord before He created His creation?' He said: He was above the clouds, below which was air, and above which was air and water. Then He created His Throne above the water.'"

same with if you will speak the truth and let iblis be ashamed
Jami` at-Tirmidhi 3109

Dear TenQ,

Thank you again for your engagement. However, I must clarify that your recent message demonstrates a fundamental confusion between what constitutes true omnipotence and what amounts to theological contradiction. Let us proceed with clarity and logic to address your points one by one.

1. Does God's Inability to Contradict His Nature Make Him "Not Almighty"?

You argue that because Allah cannot eat, enter a toilet, or die, He is “not Almighty.” But this reflects a flawed understanding of omnipotence. Omnipotence does not mean the ability to do the logically absurd or self-contradictory. It means absolute power within the bounds of coherent possibility.

Can God cease to be God?

Can God lie, sleep, or become ignorant?

If your answer is yes, then your concept of God permits imperfection. If your answer is no, then you too affirm that God cannot do certain things — not due to weakness, but due to divine perfection.

As Muslims, we affirm:

> “Indeed, Allah is over all things competent.”
(Qur’an 2:20)

But “all things” refers to all logically coherent possibilities — not self-negating absurdities such as “a square circle” or “an uncreated created being.”

2. Genesis 18 and the Misunderstanding of Theophany

You cited Genesis 18 to prove that God appeared and ate. However, this passage states three men appeared — and Jewish commentators for centuries have viewed these as angels. In fact, Christian scholars themselves debate whether it is a literal theophany or a visionary encounter.

Eating food, having a body, and resting under a tree are created functions — if you insist this was God literally eating, then you imply God has a digestive system and physical limitations, which is idolatrous in Islam and problematic even in classical Christian theology.

> “God is not a man…”
— Numbers 23:19

3. Omnipresence and Misapplied Texts

You quoted Psalm 139, Jeremiah 23, and others to argue that “YHWH fills the heavens and the earth.” But you conflate knowledge and awareness with literal indwelling.

Islam affirms that:

> “There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the All-Hearing, All-Seeing.”
(Qur’an 42:11)

Allah’s knowledge and power extend to all things, but He is not physically inside creation, nor composed of it. Unlike pagan beliefs or pantheism, Islam draws a clear line between Creator and creation. Entering creation implies containment, which contradicts transcendence.

4. "Can Allah Die?" — A Category Error

You asked if Allah can die and still remain alive. This is self-refuting. Death is not a mere “translocation” — it is a disconnection of soul and body, which applies to created life. God has no body, no beginning, and no soul-spirit dualism.

To ask if Allah can die is like asking:

Can God become non-eternal and still be eternal?

Can God become ignorant and still remain omniscient?

Such questions are inherently contradictory. A self-sufficient being does not — and cannot — die.

5. Regarding the Trinity and the "Word Becoming Flesh"

You affirm that the Father remains on the throne, the Spirit is everywhere, and the “Word” becomes flesh — yet you say all are co-equal and one essence.

This is your greatest contradiction:

The Son dies, but the Father does not — yet you call them equal?

The Son is tempted (Matthew 4:1), ignorant (Mark 13:32), and hungry — but you say he is the same as the all-knowing, self-sufficient God?

This is not unity — this is division under the guise of mystery.

6. “Can Allah Enter a Toilet?” – A Misguided and Blasphemous Analogy

Your reference to whether Allah can enter a toilet is both inappropriate and fundamentally flawed. Allah knows what is inside every heart and every atom of the universe without “entering” into filth or matter. His knowledge and will do not require physical entry.

> “He knows what is [presently] before them and what will be after them, but they do not encompass Him in knowledge.”
(Qur’an 20:110)

To say God must enter a filthy place to prove power is to insult God, not glorify Him.

7. On Death and the Punishment of the Grave

You claimed that death is just “translocation,” not cessation. This is partially true — but irrelevant to Allah. The punishment of the grave is for the soul, and Islam affirms that the soul remains conscious after physical death.

But Allah is not a soul or a body — He is eternal and uncreated. Hence, applying death to Him is a category mistake.

8. You Compared Iblis and Allah — This is Blasphemy

Your claim that “if Iblis can be in two places, then so can Allah” is an outrageous comparison. Iblis is a created jinn — not omnipresent. He works through his minions and deception. To compare the Lord of the Worlds to a cursed creation is deeply blasphemous.

Allah is not “like Iblis,” nor like anything in creation.

> “There is nothing whatever like unto Him.”
(Qur’an 42:11)

9. Misinterpreting Islamic Hadiths

You cited weak or misunderstood hadiths to claim Allah is “surrounded by air.” This reflects ignorance of genre and language. Classical scholars explained that such narrations are metaphorical or describe creation’s structure — not God’s spatial limits.

The Throne is a symbol of authority, not containment. Allah is not subject to “above” or “below.” His being is not like ours. He is unlike anything.

Conclusion

You have attempted to define divine perfection by proposing absurdities:

That God must be able to eat, die, enter toilets, and limit Himself in order to be “omnipotent.”

This is not omnipotence — it is blasphemy.

Islamic monotheism is not a denial of God’s greatness — it is its purest affirmation. Allah is exalted above:

Needing food or space

Being born or dying

Being composed of parts

Having "three persons" with differing wills

We reject theologies that ascribe weakness to God in the name of “love” or “incarnation.” We uphold the truth that God is:

> “The One, the Eternal Refuge. He neither begets nor is born. And there is none like unto Him.”
(Qur’an 112)

We invite you to abandon incoherent theology and return to the clear message of all prophets: Worship the One, Absolute God — without partners, incarnations, or intermediaries.

Respectfully,
Jimrohn

BibleInterpreta AntiChristian TenQ CreativeOrbit gofh honesttalk21 NairaLTQ MaxInDHouse

TenQ:
I have addressed your problems in the post above.
BUT
Let me ask you a question.

1. Jibril is an Angel, when he came to mary as a perfect man, did he stop being an angel?
2. As a perfect man, did Jibril have saliva in his mouth and does he have teeth and intestines?



You desire a Deity in the image of creations and when you see that the True God has incompatible natures to your image, you throw tantrums.

The Question is: Do you accept the Challenge!


Trinity is RATIONAL even though for God, there is NOTHING in existence Like His Trinity.
This is why with the Trinity of Giod, we can understand
How He could be Omnipresent
How He could be Omnipotent
How He could be Omniscient
AND
With the Taoheed, Allah is Neither Omnipresent, NOR Omnipotent, NOR Omniscient.


Who should be Greater, the One who was Sent or the One Who Sent Him?
Who is Greater, the father and the Son?

Who is greater, Your Soul or your Body?

If according to your hadith, AIR is ABOVE Allah and Water is Below Him, Allah is a subset of the Universe!

Dear TenQ,

Thank you for your reply. I will now respond to the points you raised with clarity and respect, while emphasizing the need for a logically consistent and theologically sound discussion.

1. The Analogy of Jibril (Gabriel) Fails

Your comparison between the angel Jibril (peace be upon him) appearing as a man and the incarnation of God in the person of Jesus is a false analogy and theologically unsound. Let me explain why:

Jibril appearing in human form did not change his essence; he remained an angel sent by God, merely manifesting in visible form for a specific purpose. There is no claim in Islam that Jibril became human or took on the limitations of humanity — he appeared as a man, but did not become one ontologically.

In contrast, Christian theology asserts that Jesus was fully God and fully man — not merely appearing as human, but actually taking on human limitations: ignorance, hunger, sleep, pain, and ultimately death.

This is the core contradiction we’ve been highlighting: how can the eternal, all-knowing, all-powerful God become a finite, limited, and mortal being without ceasing to be God? You cannot solve a contradiction in nature by citing a temporary form assumed by an angel — these are fundamentally different categories.

2. You Misrepresent Tawhid and Islamic Theology

Your claim that under Tawhid, Allah is “neither omnipresent, nor omnipotent, nor omniscient” is not only incorrect, it reveals a deep misunderstanding of Islamic monotheism.

In Islam:

Allah is Omnipotent: “Indeed, Allah is over all things competent.” (Qur'an 2:20)

Allah is Omniscient: “And with Him are the keys of the unseen; none knows them except Him.” (Qur’an 6:59)

Allah is Omnipresent in Knowledge and Power (not physically, as Islam does not anthropomorphize God): “He is with you wherever you are.” (Qur’an 57:4)

You confuse physical omnipresence with divine oversight, which in Islamic theology is not limited by space or time. Unlike the Christian concept that necessitates God becoming flesh, Islam maintains that God transcends creation entirely while His knowledge, power, and will encompass all.

3. Trinity Is Not Rational Merely Because It Is Complex

You argue that “Trinity is rational even though there is nothing like it in existence.” But that is precisely the issue: to assert three persons as one being — each fully God but not each other — is not “complex” but contradictory when examined logically.

Saying “God is one in essence but three in person” creates semantic confusion unless clearly defined. In practice, this leads to affirming:

Jesus is fully God.

The Father is fully God.

Jesus is not the Father.

Yet there is only one God. This is not complexity; it is logical incoherence, because it violates the law of non-contradiction.

Mystery is not a license for contradiction. Divine nature can transcend human comprehension, yes, but it cannot defy logic — otherwise, the concept becomes meaningless and self-refuting.

4. False Assumption About Allah’s Location

You concluded with a bizarre and inaccurate claim:

> “If according to your hadith, air is above Allah and water is below Him, Allah is a subset of the universe.”

This is a misunderstanding of classical Islamic theology. While Allah is described in Islamic scripture as being above the heavens (e.g., Qur’an 67:16-17), this is understood in a manner befitting His majesty, not as a physical location with spatial limitations.

The hadith you refer to — presumably referencing the Throne (‘Arsh) being above water — does not mean Allah is “within” the universe or a subset of it. In fact, He is the Creator of space, time, air, and water. Islamic theology is emphatically clear that:

> “There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the All-Hearing, All-Seeing.” (Qur’an 42:11)

Thus, He is not bound by His creation. This is a conceptual distinction Christianity blurs by insisting God can become a man — a notion Islam rightly rejects as anthropomorphism.

5. The Core Question Still Remains Unanswered

Despite your diversions and counter-challenges, the foundational issue I originally raised still stands:

> ❓👉How can Jesus be fully God while possessing qualities that contradict the divine nature — such as ignorance (Mark 13:32), hunger, temptation, growth, and death?

None of your analogies or theological claims have resolved this contradiction. Instead, you’ve pivoted to other topics and launched unfounded claims about Islam.

6. An Open Invitation to Sincere Reason

As Muslims, we affirm that God's oneness (Tawhid) is clear, consistent, and free of contradiction. We call to the pure monotheism that was preached by all prophets, including Jesus (peace be upon him), who affirmed:

> “My God and your God.” (John 20:17)

If you wish to continue this dialogue, I invite you to return to the original question and address it logically, not emotionally, and without misrepresenting Islamic beliefs.

Warm regards,
Jimrohn

BibleInterpreta AntiChristian TenQ CreativeOrbit gofh honesttalk21 NairaLTQ MaxInDHouse

gohf:
it doesn't justify you questioning the authenticity of what is written because of your observation of the some ambiguous theological claims which doesn't align with what's written. What you call foundational tenet is a mere fabrication that is obvious to those who read the text and research what the first church believed and taught, except one is too lazy to do that.

But are you different from them, they take part of what is written and accept that to be true and you do the same, in directly calling it all into question. They claim Jesus is God which is an error, you claim that Jesus isn't the son of God which is also an error, non of which the Tanakh nor the Bible agree to.

Proving a lie is a lie doesn't make another lie true

Dear gohf,

Thank you for your response. I value thoughtful dialogue, and I appreciate your willingness to continue this exchange.

However, there are a few critical points in your reply that deserve closer examination, both theologically and logically.

1. You Say I Shouldn't Question What’s Written — But Then You Do Exactly That

You criticized me for questioning the Trinity and the divinity of the Holy Spirit, stating that I am "calling into question" what is written. Yet in the same breath, you yourself deny what mainstream Christianity holds to be written doctrine — namely, that Jesus is God and that the Holy Spirit is divine. You even call these “errors.”

So let us be clear: I am not arbitrarily rejecting Scripture. I am asking for clarity and consistency:

If the Trinity is a revealed truth, why is it never clearly stated by Jesus?

If the Holy Spirit is God, why did Jesus never explicitly say so?

If you, like me, reject man-made theological fabrications, then we are on common ground in affirming that truth must be based on what God's messengers actually taught, not what later councils or theologians formulated.

2. I Do Not Cherry-Pick or Misrepresent Scripture — I Question Interpretations

You implied that Muslims “take part of what is written” and ignore the rest. Respectfully, this is inaccurate. What we question is not the text itself, but certain interpretations that conflict with reason, internal consistency, and the words of Jesus himself.

For example:

Jesus prays to God (Matthew 26:39). If he is God, to whom is he praying?

He says the Father is greater than him (John 14:28). How can God be lesser than God?

He says he does not know the hour (Mark 13:32). Can God be ignorant?

These are not minor theological quibbles. They go to the heart of divine identity and the coherence of Christian doctrine.

3. You Deny the Trinity and Say Others Are in Error — So What Do You Believe?

You stated that the claims that Jesus is God and that he is not the Son of God are both errors. This is confusing. If Jesus is not God, but also not merely a servant or prophet of God, then what is he? Are you saying he is the Son of God but not divine? Or that he is a special being without divinity? If so, then where do you ground that view scripturally?

As Muslims, our view is consistent and grounded in both reason and revelation:

> “Indeed, the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was no more than a messenger of God… So believe in God and His messengers, and do not say ‘Three.’ Stop — it is better for you. God is only one God.” (Qur’an 4:171)

We affirm what Jesus taught: worship of the One, indivisible God, the same God of Abraham, Moses, and all the prophets.

4. One Lie Does Not Make Another True — But Truth Must Be Distinct from Both

I completely agree with your final statement: “Proving a lie is a lie doesn’t make another lie true.” That’s a valid and important principle.

But the Islamic position is not simply a "rejection" of Christian theology — it is a positive affirmation of a pure monotheism that is:

Rational

Consistent with the prophetic tradition

Free from internal contradiction

Reaffirmed and clarified in the final revelation, the Qur’an.

We are not trading one “fabrication” for another. We are calling for a return to what all prophets preached: the worship of the One true God, without partners, persons, or incarnations.

Final Thought

If you believe that later Christian theology misunderstood or distorted the original message, then perhaps we can agree that something purer, simpler, and more consistent must have come before. And that is precisely what Islam claims to restore — the original, unambiguous monotheism of Jesus and all the prophets.

I welcome further discussion if it can be based on Scripture, reason, and mutual respect.

Warm regards,
Jimrohn

BibleInterpreta AntiChristian TenQ CreativeOrbit gofh honesttalk21 NairaLTQ MaxInDHouse

TenQ:
JimRohn

Even though You despise the Truth, do you think Trinity or Duality is Illogical?

Suppose I prove the logicality just from Islam, would you submit to understanding or still cling on to your strawman tactics?

It is a challenge!

Dear TenQ,

Thank you for your reply. I appreciate your willingness to engage in this important theological discussion.

However, I must point out that your response did not directly address the core theological question I raised — namely, how can Jesus, if he is truly God, possess limitations such as ignorance, hunger, and susceptibility to temptation, when these qualities are fundamentally incompatible with the divine nature?

Instead, your response resorted to an accusation that I "despise the Truth" and then pivoted to issuing a challenge about logicality. Let us clarify a few important points for the sake of sincere dialogue:

1. The Issue at Hand Is Internal Consistency, Not Emotion or Hostility

My original question was not an attack, nor did it rely on emotion. It was a logical inquiry about internal coherence within Christian doctrine. If Jesus is fully God, then experiencing ignorance (Mark 13:32), temptation (Matthew 4:1), and growth in wisdom (Luke 2:52) creates a logical contradiction — because God, by definition, is omniscient, perfect, and immutable (Malachi 3:6, James 1:13).

To dismiss this as a “strawman” without addressing the actual contradiction does not help clarify the issue — it simply evades it.

2. Claiming You Can Prove the Trinity From Islam Is a Category Error

You stated you could prove the Trinity or “duality” from Islam. With due respect, that would be a fundamental misunderstanding of Islamic theology. Islam is founded upon Tawhid — absolute monotheism — which declares unambiguously:

> “Say: He is Allah, One. Allah, the Absolute. He begets not, nor was He begotten. And there is none like unto Him.” (Qur’an 112:1–4)

There is no room in Islamic theology for a division of the divine essence into “persons,” nor for God becoming incarnate or subject to human frailty. Any attempt to extract Trinitarian ideas from Islamic texts would involve misinterpretation or decontextualization. If you believe otherwise, I would invite you to present the exact Qur’anic or Hadith evidence and the methodology by which you claim it leads to Trinitarian conclusions. Assertions alone do not constitute arguments.

3. Logic and Revelation Must Align

Muslims believe that truth is both revealed and rational. God does not command us to believe in logical contradictions. If a doctrine asserts that a being can be omniscient and ignorant, or immortal and capable of dying, infallible and tempted, all at once — that is not a mystery; it is a logical impossibility.

God is not subject to change (Numbers 23:19), does not get tired or sleep (Psalm 121:4), and cannot be tempted (James 1:13). To say Jesus is fully God while possessing the very limitations God explicitly says He does not have is a contradiction that undermines divine perfection.

4. Our Invitation Remains

As a Muslim, I stand by the clarity and simplicity of Islamic monotheism. We affirm that God is absolutely unique, above all human attributes, and not incarnate in any form. Jesus (peace be upon him) is revered as a mighty prophet, born of a virgin, but always distinguished from God Himself. This understanding is coherent, consistent, and affirmed by the teachings of all prophets, including Jesus himself who said:

> “My Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28)

So rather than trading challenges or accusations, let us return to the real question:❓👇

How can Jesus be fully God while possessing qualities that contradict God's perfect, divine nature?

I await your thoughtful and respectful response.

Warm regards,
Jimrohn

BibleInterpreta AntiChristian TenQ CreativeOrbit gofh honesttalk21 NairaLTQ MaxInDHouse

TenQ:
Tell me,
1. Does Allah need to eat?
2. Can Allah eat and still remain almighty?
3. Can Allah enter his creation and still remain almighty?
4. Does Allah die?
5. Can Allah die and still remain almighty?


Until you first demonstrate that Allah is Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent. Your argument is based on gross ignorance as the Taoheed of Allah is exactly like the Taoheed of Iblis

I can tell you, because God is Trinity
1. God does not need to eat
2. YHWH can eat and still remain Almighty
3. YHWH can enter His creation and still remain Almighty
4. YHWH does NOT die
5. YHWH can diesel and still remain Almighty


You want a God so simple to comprehend like items in creation and you with Taoheed unconsciously put a physical limitation on him.

YHWH is unlike Anyone or Anything in creation.
Taoheed is a description of the oneness of created things.
Even human beings are higher in nature to your Taoheed.




Please answer these
If per chance it is possible for Allah to become a perfect man, do you think he would be able to feel all the senses a man would feel like warmth, cold, heat, pain etc or he would be lifeless?

If per chance it is possible for Allah to become a perfect man, will he reduce his attributes in our world or come with his full attributes as Allah?

Think!

Dear TenQ

Thank you for your reply. I appreciate your willingness to engage in this deep and important theological discussion. Let us approach this matter thoughtfully and respectfully.

You asked several pointed questions regarding Allah’s attributes and the possibility of Him entering creation. Allow me to respond in a structured manner, clarifying the Islamic view while also respectfully addressing the implications of your statements.

1. Does Allah need to eat? Can He eat and remain Almighty?

No, Allah does not need to eat, nor can He eat. The act of eating arises from need, which is a characteristic of created beings. In Islamic theology, need is imperfection, and Allah is absolutely free of all need (As-Samad).

> “Allah – there is no deity except Him, the Ever-Living, the Sustainer of existence… He neither tires nor sleeps…”
— Qur’an 2:255

If Allah were to eat, He would cease to be the One who is utterly independent (Al-Ghaniyy) and perfectly self-sufficient — and thus no longer be God by definition.

So the answer is not that He "can eat and remain Almighty" — rather, His Almighty nature is precisely why He does not eat.

2. Can Allah enter His creation and still remain Almighty?

This question presumes that God must enter His creation to express power or love. But in Islam, Allah’s transcendence is not a limitation, it is perfection. The Creator is not subject to the dimensions, flaws, or confines of creation.

To suggest otherwise is to impose creaturely limitations on the Creator — which is a theological contradiction.

Your assertion that “YHWH can enter His creation and still remain Almighty” is internally inconsistent. The moment God becomes subject to the constraints of time, space, hunger, ignorance, or death, He undergoes change — and the One who changes cannot be eternal or self-sufficient.

3. Can Allah die?

Death implies the cessation of life, and life (in created terms) is contingent, dependent, and vulnerable.

In Islam, Allah is Al-Hayy (The Ever-Living) — and not just alive, but unconditionally alive, not born, not dying, not dependent on anything.

> “Every soul will taste death, but not Allah. He is the First and the Last.”
— Qur’an 55:26-27

So no, Allah cannot die — not because He is limited, but because He is unlimited in His perfection.

4. You claimed: “The Tawheed of Allah is like the tawheed of Iblis.”

This is a deeply flawed comparison. Iblis acknowledged God’s oneness, but refused to obey Him out of arrogance. Tawheed in Islam is not mere belief in oneness — it is pure, consistent, and submission-based monotheism that affirms God’s uniqueness in His essence, names, attributes, and lordship, and entails worshiping Him alone.

Tawheed is not a description of creation. On the contrary, it is the absolute distinction between the Creator and the created — something that Trinitarian theology blurs.

5. “If Allah were to become a man, would He feel pain, heat, cold?”

This is a hypothetical that Islam completely rejects. Why?

Because if Allah were to become a man, He would have to limit His eternal attributes — which contradicts His very nature.

So the proper answer is not to ask what would happen if Allah became a man, but to affirm He does not become man, because doing so would mean He is no longer God.

This aligns with what the Bible itself says:

> “God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man…”
— Numbers 23:19

6. Clarity on the Trinity

You stated that “God is Trinity.” However, this doctrine presents profound theological contradictions:

How can God be co-equal, yet one Person is subordinate or ignorant?

How can the Son die, while the Father remains, yet both are the same essence?

How can the eternal God be born, tempted, or limited?

These are not mysteries to be accepted blindly. They are contradictions that conflict with the definition of divinity.

7. Conclusion: Divine Simplicity is Not a Limitation

You said we want a God “so simple to comprehend.” But the simplicity of Islamic monotheism is not a sign of weakness. It is a sign of clarity, consistency, and transcendence.

Islam affirms that:

God is One, Unique, Eternal

He does not become His creation

He does not hunger, tire, or die

He is perfectly just, merciful, and wise

He sends prophets, not pieces of Himself

This is not a small view of God — this is a majestic, rational, and exalted view of God.

We invite you, with full respect, to reexamine whether the idea of a God-man aligns with the consistent teaching of the prophets and with the unchanging perfection that God must have by definition.

Let us seek the truth together, not through emotional arguments or hypothetical speculations, but by affirming what God has revealed about Himself clearly and purely.

With sincerity and respect,
Jimrohn

BibleInterpreta AntiChristian TenQ CreativeOrbit gofh honesttalk21 NairaLTQ MaxInDHouse

TenQ:
The bottom line is that
1. Every Jew already knew the Holy Spirit as the manifest Everpresent power of God.
2. Every Jew knew that The Holy Spirit is Omnipresent, Omniscient and Omnipotent
3. Every Jew knew that the Holy Spirit is NOT an Angel
4. The purpose of Jesus is not to systematically explain Trinity BUT to give us Salvation
5. Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to every Believer as a Seal , as a Teacher and an ever-abiding Comforter.

Unfortunately, Islam attributes Jibril to be God the Holy Spirit. A clear error of ignorance.

Even the heretical JW doesn't think that the Holy Spirit is Jibril BUT an expression for the Power of God. No single Jew believe that the Holy Spirit is an Angel.


1. Does it make sense to you that EVERY sin against God has forgiveness EXCEPT Blasphemy against an Angel? Don't forget that Blasphemy against God is also a sin
2. You think it is Normal to associate the name of an Angel with the name of God?
3. So, post resurrection account isn't a real account exactly as your prophet's visit to heaven and seen post living account of Moses and the other prophets account.
You forgot that part of Allah's deception was to give a fake resurrected Jesus to the disciples so that they would believe that it was the real Jesus crucified.

You will need to prove explicitly that the Holy Spirit both in the Old testament and the New Testament is Jibril to convince even yourself, otherwise, you are in error.




Yes, Spirit in Hebrew is synonymous to Air or Wind and it describes an entity that is unseen but exists because of his power to change things. And this is used as a Description for God's presence and power as you cannot see God but you feel and experience His power and presence.

Even Angels are made of spirit (Gods nature). Only that they are limited, thus the distinction "Holy Spirit" or "Spirit of God" representing the infinite God.

Does the spirit moving over the water mean that at creation, Jibril was moving over the waters?


So, In Islam, with evidence, what is the Spirit?





Just be truthful to yourself:
Is there any creature in Islam either Man, Angels, Animals, Jinn or things that has even one of the three attributes of Omnipresence, Omnipotence and Omniscience?




Both Quran verses you quoted NEVER said anywhere that Jibril was the Holy Spirit. This was an assumption by interpolation of Muslim scholars in both Qur'an 16:192 and Qur'an 2:87 that spirit is Jibril.

Isn't it obvious to you? Is there a single verse that called Jibril the Holy Spirit in the Qur'an?

Secondly, with evidence from the Qur'an Are Angels Spirit in Islam?
Ps 104:4:
"Who makes his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire:"

If angels are not spirits, how can Jibril be a spirit?


No sir,
The phrase is copy of the bible which was misunderstood by Mohammed the Ummi.
Qur'an 15:29
"And when I have proportioned him and breathed into him of My spirit, then fall down prostrating yourselves before him."

Qur'an 38:72
"So when I have fashioned him and breathed into him of My spirit, then fall down to him prostrate."

Did Allah breathe Jibril into Adam?


So. We see that even though Mohammed didn't know what the spirit is AND Jibril was not stated by Allah to be a spirit, the only Spirit clearly stated in the Qur'an is Jesus. Forget about divinity!

How is Jesus who is a Man also a Spirit?
Who else did Allah explicitly describe as a spirit in the Qur'an.

Is this not a proof that your understanding is abysmal with respect to spiritual things?

Quran 10:94 says:
"So if you (O Muhammad) are in doubt concerning that which We have revealed to you, then ask those who have been reading the Scripture before you. The truth has certainly come to you from your Lord, so never be among the doubters."

But you refuse to ask, why wouldn't you mix up spiritual things?


Tell me the truth,
Is Christianity taken ONLY from Jesus or ALL the prophets of God including Jesus?

What is the two powers of heaven according to early Jewish Rabbis ?

How can you ask me to leave
1. The infinity Omnipresent, Omnipotent and Omniscient God for Allah who isn't .
Does Allah have the power to Enter his creation without creasing to be Almighty?
Can Allah be in heaven and the earth equally simultaneously?
2. Guarantee for paradise for a guarantee for at least a time in Hell Fire
Quran 19:71-72 says that ALL Muslims must enter hell as a decree of Allah at least temporarily
3. The Way and Truth for one who doesn't know what will befall him
Quran 46:9
"Say, 'I am not something original among the messengers, nor do I know what will be done with me or with you. I only follow that which is revealed to me, and I am only a clear warner.'"
compared with
John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."



Satanists are monotheistic (their God is satan)
Muslims are monotheistic (their God is Allah)
Judaism are monotheistic (their God is YHWH)
Christians are monotheistic (their God is YHWH)

Exodus 3:14-15
“God said to Moses, ‘I AM WHO I AM.’ And he said, ‘Say this to the people of Israel: I AM has sent me to you.’ God also said to Moses, ‘Say to the Israelites, “YHWH, the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob— has sent me to you.” This is my name forever, the name you shall call me from generation to generation.’”

Mohammed seems not know that the name of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is YHWH!


Is any of Allah's 99 names YHWH?

Thank you for your detailed reply. I will address your points in a structured manner, maintaining clarity, mutual respect, and fidelity to the sources.

1. On What “Every Jew Knew” About the Holy Spirit

You claim:

> "Every Jew knew the Holy Spirit as the manifest, ever-present power of God"
"Every Jew knew the Holy Spirit is NOT an angel"

This is an assertion, not a demonstrable historical fact. Let’s clarify:

The Hebrew term ruach (רוּחַ) means breath, wind, or spirit—and has a wide semantic range, often referring to God's power or influence, not a distinct person of a divine Trinity.

Ancient Jews did not interpret ruach as a divine person co-equal with God. Jewish theology remains strictly Unitarian to this day.

Nowhere in the Hebrew Bible is the Holy Spirit described as a person or as God Himself in a separate identity.

Even respected Trinitarian scholars concede that the doctrine of the Trinity is not found in the Old Testament, and certainly not in explicit form from Jesus.

If "every Jew" supposedly knew the Holy Spirit is divine, then why did no Jewish sect—not Pharisees, Sadducees, or Essenes—ever teach a triune God?

2. Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit ≠ Proof of Divinity

You asked:

> “Does it make sense to you that EVERY sin against God has forgiveness EXCEPT blasphemy against an Angel?”

Let’s clarify what Jesus actually said:

> “Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven...” (Matthew 12:32)

First, not all unforgivable sins imply divinity of the offended party.

In Islam, hypocrisy (nifāq) and attributing lies to God’s messenger are considered grave and possibly unforgivable—yet we do not say the Prophet is divine.

Jesus himself is said to be insultable (“a word against the Son of Man”), yet the Holy Spirit is not. That does not make the Holy Spirit superior to Jesus, let alone divine. It simply underscores the gravity of rejecting divine inspiration, not the divinity of the agent.

This is a functional warning about resisting revelation—not a doctrinal proof of the Trinity.

3. Matthew 28:19 – Is Listing Names Equal to Equality in Essence?

You said:

> “You think it is normal to associate the name of an angel with the name of God?”

The verse states:

> “…baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

Here’s the issue:

Merely mentioning three entities together does not prove they are equal in essence. One could say “in the name of God, the King, and the Prophet,” and that would not imply ontological unity or divinity of all three.

No verse from Jesus ever says “The Holy Spirit is God,” “Worship the Holy Spirit,” or “God is Three-in-One.” That is a post-biblical formulation, not a teaching of Christ.

Furthermore, the authenticity of this Trinitarian baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19 is widely questioned by scholars, as early Christian baptism in Acts was done only in Jesus’ name (e.g., Acts 2:38). Many scholars see the Trinitarian wording as a later editorial addition.

4. The Islamic Understanding of the Holy Spirit: Who Is Jibril?

You claim:

> “No single verse in the Qur’an calls Jibril the Holy Spirit.”

Let’s present the evidence directly:

Qur’an 2:97

> “Say, the Holy Spirit (Rūḥ al-Qudus) has brought it down from your Lord in truth…”

Qur’an 2:97

> “Whoever is an enemy to Jibril—it is he who has brought it [the Qur’an] down upon your heart by permission of Allah…”

From this, classical scholars (e.g., Al-Ṭabarī, Ibn Kathīr) conclude that Jibril is the Holy Spirit, because both are described as the one who brings revelation.

If:

Rūḥ al-Qudus brings down revelation

Jibrīl brings down revelation
Then: Rūḥ al-Qudus = Jibrīl.

This is not "ignorant interpolation" but logical inference from explicit text.

5. Are Angels “Spirit” in Islam?

You cite Psalm 104:4: “He makes His angels spirits...”

In Islam:

Angels are created from light (ḥadīth: Muslim 2996).

The Qur’an describes Jibril as Rūḥ al-Amīn (The Trustworthy Spirit) in 26:193, and Rūḥ in 78:38 and 19:17.

So while not every angel is labeled “spirit” (rūḥ), Jibril is repeatedly called both angel and spirit—fitting the role of Holy Spirit (Rūḥ al-Qudus).

Thus, your objection that "if angels are not spirits, Jibril cannot be a spirit" is both biblically and Qur’anically inconsistent.

6. “Breathed into Adam My Spirit” – Is Jibril Breathed into Adam?

You ask:

> “Did Allah breathe Jibril into Adam?”

Of course not. The Qur’anic phrase:

> “…breathed into him from My Spirit (min rūḥī)” (15:29, 38:72)

This does not mean a piece of God or Jibril entered Adam. In classical Arabic, “My” (rūḥī) is an honorific possessive, not literal possession.

The Ka‘bah is called “My House” (Baytī), yet no Muslim believes God resides there.

It means Adam was honored with a special soul created by God, not that he shares God's nature.

7. Jesus as “Spirit from God” – Does That Make Him Divine?

> “…and His Word which He directed to Mary, and a Spirit from Him…” (Qur’an 4:171)

This simply means Jesus was created directly by God’s command (kun). Even Adam is referred to as being created by God’s command, yet no Muslim (or Jew) claims Adam is divine.

In Islam, the term “Spirit from Him” does not imply divinity but honor. Everything is from God, yet not everything is part of God.

8. On Qur’an 10:94 – “Ask the People of the Book”

This verse does not indicate doubt. It addresses hypothetical uncertainty for the Prophet’s audience as a rhetorical device.

Even Ibn Kathīr and Al-Qurtubī explain: this is not a command of reliance on Jews/Christians, but a confirmation that the Qur'an is in harmony with previous revelation.

9. On Hell, Salvation, and God’s Nature

You said:

> “Christians have a guarantee of paradise, Muslims go to hell (Qur’an 19:71)”

Let’s clarify:

Qur’an 19:71–72 does not say all Muslims stay in Hell. It says everyone passes over it (the Sirāt), but the righteous are saved:

> “Then We will save those who feared Allah and leave the wrongdoers within it, on their knees.”

As for Christianity, the guarantee of paradise is only given in Pauline theology, not from Jesus. Jesus warned even believers:

> “Not everyone who says to me ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the kingdom of heaven…” (Matthew 7:21)

10. Is Allah = YHWH?

You stated:

> “Is any of Allah’s 99 Names YHWH?”

The word “YHWH” is a specific Hebrew proper name; “Allah” is the universal Arabic name for the One God, used by Arabs of all Abrahamic faiths, including Arabic-speaking Jews and Christians to this day.

The Qur’an refers to God as Ilāhukum wāḥid — "Your God is One" — consistent with the Shema of Judaism.

Names differ linguistically across cultures. Even English speakers say "God" instead of "YHWH."

If a name must be phonetically identical across languages to refer to the same God, then non-Hebrew speakers have never worshipped the God of Abraham—a clearly flawed claim.

11. Final Remarks

You ask:

> “Should I leave the omnipotent, omnipresent God of Christianity for Allah?”

Let’s be frank:

The Trinity was never taught explicitly by Jesus.

The divinity of the Holy Spirit is not declared by Jesus.

Monotheism in Islam is crystal-clear, unambiguous, and consistent with all previous prophets.

Islam teaches God is above His creation, not bound by space, and has full knowledge, power, and mercy—without becoming a man or entering the world physically.

We invite you to return to the pure monotheism of Abraham—worshiping the One, Eternal God without division, partners, or incarnation.

> Say: He is Allah, the One. Allah, the Absolute. He begets not, nor was He begotten. And there is none comparable to Him.
(Qur’an 112:1–4)

Let us continue in respectful dialogue, seeking truth—not victory.

BibleInterpreta AntiChristian TenQ CreativeOrbit gofh honesttalk21 NairaLTQ MaxInDHouse

Dear Christian friends,

This is a sincere theological question intended for reflection, not provocation.

According to Trinitarian doctrine, Jesus is both fully God and fully man. Yet in the Gospels, we find that Jesus experiences hunger (Matthew 4:2), fatigue (John 4:6), ignorance (Mark 13:32), and even temptation by Satan (Matthew 4:1). These are unmistakable signs of human limitation.

However, God — by definition — is all-knowing, self-sufficient, and entirely above being tempted or weakened. As the Bible states:

> “God cannot be tempted by evil.” — James 1:13

If Jesus was truly God, how can he be tempted by Satan? If he is God, how can he not know the Day of Judgment? If he is God, how can he hunger or grow in wisdom (Luke 2:52)?

These are not small matters. They go to the very heart of what it means to be divine.

From the Islamic view, this confusion does not arise. God (Allah) is perfect, eternal, and absolutely free from human weaknesses. He does not become man. Jesus (peace be upon him) is honored as a prophet and messenger, born miraculously, but he is not divine. His mission was to call people to worship the One True God — not to claim divinity for himself.

So we ask respectfully:
If Jesus is fully God, how do you reconcile divine perfection with the human limitations he clearly experienced?

We invite you to reflect, and to consider whether pure monotheism — as taught by all prophets — offers a clearer and more consistent understanding of God's nature.

BibleInterpreta AntiChristian TenQ CreativeOrbit gofh honesttalk21 NairaLTQ MaxInDHouse

NairaLTQ:
I wish that you truly want to know the truth but I doubt it. Not withstanding, I will answer your questions.


Jesus does not explicitly teach in the Gospels that the Holy Spirit is God or part of a triune Godhead in a direct, systematic statement.

It was taken for granted as all Jews know who the Holy Spirit is as the Manifest Presence of God.

Let's look at what Jesus said about the Holy Spirit.
1. All manner of sin has forgiveness BUT the Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit has no forgiveness either in this world or in the next
Matthew
Mat 12:31-32
"Why I say to you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven to men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven to men. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whoever speaks against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come."

I don't know in Islam if sins are against God or against Angels.
Can you tell me if you know anyone who had committed sin against Jibril or any Angel before?

2. Jesus command Baptism of Believers in the Name (singular) of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit
Mat 28:19:
"Go you therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"


Is it halal to associate the name of Jibril with Allah?


Sorry to disappoint you. The Holy Spirit is not from the New Testament BUT from the Old Testament.
And, you have no single right to limit me to what text I can or cannot quote from my bible. Do you think it makes sense if I tell you not to quote verses revealed in Medina for me?
1. The Holy Spirit was part of Creation.
Gen 1:2:
"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters."


Job 26:13:
"By his spirit he has garnished the heavens; his hand has formed the crooked serpent."


In Islam, was Jibril part of creating the universe?

3. The Holy Spirit is directly called God
In Acts 5:3-4, Peter says that lying to the Holy Spirit is lying to God, equating the Spirit with God

Acts 5:3-4:
"But Peter said, Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not your own? and after it was sold, was it not in your own power? why have you conceived this thing in your heart? you have not lied to men, but to God."

4. The Holy Spirit possesses divine attributes:
The Spirit is eternal, omnipresent (Psalm 139:7-, omniscient (1 Corinthians 2:10-11), and omnipotent, all traits unique to God.

Do you think Angel Gabriel or Jibril has any of these attributes?


5. The Holy Spirit performs divine works:
Creation (Job 33:4), giving life (John 6:63; Romans 8:11), inspiring prophecy (2 Peter 1:21), and sanctifying believers are acts of God attributed to the Spirit

Do you think Angel Gabriel or Jibril has any of these attributes?


But
1. There is not a single verse of the Qur'an that calls Jibril the Holy Spirit. If there is, please show me!
2. There is a theological problem in Islam as there is a confusion of what a spirit is
A. Is it untrue that Jesus is a SPIRIT from Allah in the Qur'an and no other human being is called a spirit by Allah?
B. Is it untrue that Allah breathe of his spirit into Adam? The implication is gross. Did Allah breathe Jibril into Adam?
C. Islam doesn't even know what a Spirit is: if you know, please tell me!


You have no explanation

Thank you for your detailed reply. I appreciate the time and thought you've put into engaging with my original question. Allow me to respond in a structured and respectful manner, maintaining focus on the core issue: what did Jesus himself clearly and explicitly teach about the divinity of the Holy Spirit?

1. Clarifying the Scope of the Question

You admit that:

> "Jesus does not explicitly teach in the Gospels that the Holy Spirit is God or part of a triune Godhead in a direct, systematic statement."

I appreciate this honesty. It effectively concedes the central point of my question. If Jesus—according to the Gospels—never explicitly taught the doctrine of the Holy Spirit as divine or as part of a triune Godhead, then this remains a theological inference, not a direct teaching from Jesus.

As a Muslim, I find it essential that something as foundational as God's nature should be taught unambiguously by God's messenger. Ambiguity or reliance on later interpretation invites doctrinal confusion.

2. Responding to the Verses You Cited

Let me briefly address the specific passages you've raised:

Matthew 12:31–32 – Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit

This passage demonstrates that the Holy Spirit is honored, but being honored or protected from a particular sin does not make one God. In the same Bible, you will find that prophets, the Ark of the Covenant, and even the Temple were treated with exceptional reverence—yet none of these are considered divine.

Furthermore, sinning against God's appointed messengers is serious, but it does not imply the messenger is divine. Islam, for example, holds that disrespecting Prophet Muhammad ﷺ is a grave sin, but this does not make him divine.

Matthew 28:19 – “In the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”

This verse is often used to support Trinitarian doctrine. However:

It still does not state that these three are one being or co-equal in divinity.

Saying "in the name of..." does not logically equate all the entities mentioned. For example, authority can be invoked in the name of a king, his general, and his law, without implying they are ontologically equal.

Notably, this verse does not come from Jesus during his ministry, but from a post-resurrection account. Many biblical scholars also question the authenticity of this specific formula, as it is absent from earlier Christian baptismal practices (e.g., Acts 2:38).

Genesis 1:2 and Job 26:13 – Spirit of God in the Old Testament

The Hebrew term ruach simply means “breath,” “wind,” or “spirit.” Saying “the Spirit of God moved upon the waters” does not mean this “spirit” is a separate, co-equal person of God. Jews reading the Old Testament for millennia never interpreted these verses as describing a divine person distinct from the Father.

Acts 5:3–4 – Lying to the Holy Spirit is Lying to God

Respectfully, this is Peter speaking—not Jesus. As noted earlier, I am asking for Jesus’ own teachings, not later apostolic interpretations. Even if Peter believed this, it still does not resolve the fact that Jesus never articulated the Trinity or the divinity of the Holy Spirit himself.

Also, in biblical language, to offend or lie to someone bearing God's authority (like a prophet or messenger) could be equated with lying to God—because they act on His behalf.

3. Attributes and Functions: Divine by Nature or Delegation?

You cited the Holy Spirit as possessing divine attributes like omniscience and omnipotence. However:

These traits are attributed to the Spirit, not necessarily inherent to it. Scripture often uses metaphorical or functional language.

In Islam, we affirm that God can delegate powers to His messengers or angels. For example, Gabriel conveys divine revelation and knowledge—not because he is divine, but because he is entrusted with divine tasks.

To use functional roles (such as inspiring prophets or giving life) to prove ontological divinity is a theological assumption, not a textual certainty.

4. On the Isamic View of the Holy Spirit

You asked:

> “Is there a single verse that calls Jibril the Holy Spirit?”

Yes. The Qur’an refers to Jibril (Gabriel) as the Holy Spirit (Rūḥ al-Qudus) in several places:

> “Say, the Holy Spirit has brought it down from your Lord in truth.”
— Surah An-Nahl 16:102

Also:

> “We gave Jesus, son of Mary, clear signs and supported him with the Holy Spirit.”
— Surah Al-Baqarah 2:87

These and other verses link the "Holy Spirit" with Jibril. In Islamic theology, this is not a confusion but a clarification: the "Rūḥ al-Qudus" is not a part of God, but a created being who conveys revelation.

Regarding your question on “Allah breathing into Adam,” the phrase "My Spirit" is an honorific expression, not a literal part of God. This is classical Arabic usage—just as the Ka‘bah is called “My House”, but no one believes God lives inside it.

5. On Jesus Being a Spirit from God

Yes, the Qur’an refers to Jesus as “a spirit from Him”, meaning he was created by God's command—“Be” (kun)—not that he is divine. It’s a special designation reflecting honor, not divinity. The same Qur’an repeatedly and explicitly denies Jesus’ divinity (e.g., 5:72, 4:171).

6. Conclusion

The bottom line remains:

You have acknowledged that Jesus never explicitly stated that the Holy Spirit is God or part of a triune being.

All other references you provided are interpretations, inferences, or statements from others — not the words of Jesus himself.

As a Muslim, I believe that the nature of God must be taught clearly and directly by His chosen messengers. If Jesus never taught the Trinity or the divinity of the Holy Spirit, then that doctrine does not come from him, but from others after him.

I invite you, with sincerity, to reconsider whether Jesus truly taught the theology that later became formalized in Church councils, or whether he consistently taught the worship of the One, indivisible God — as did all prophets before him.

Let us continue this dialogue with mutual respect and pursuit of truth.

BibleInterpreta AntiChristian TenQ CreativeOrbit gofh honesttalk21 NairaLTQ MaxInDHouse