₦airaland Forum

BlackfireX:
i am in the army


ready to launch


ask them is it sin to venerate Mary? They said yes.

But is it sin to venerate Muhammed? Emm you know you see is not the same , you see Allah gave Muhammed that privilege you see emmmm Emmmm

5 times a day they pray to /for /on Muhammed during Tashahhud.


Permission to lay ambush sir

Guy you are slow, I already schooled you on this veneration but it seems you are too slow to take correction.

No one is saying venerating righteous people is bad, but when veneration has reached the point of praying to them and seeking favour from them in prayers then it is shrik and I believe it's something every right thinking Christians that don't engage in such act will agree with.

To even compare 'peace be upon you o prophet' in Tashahhud to the kind of prayers offer to Mary is laughable and further show how slow you are.

TenQ:
Your straw man highlighted as without it, you have no argument. I can understand if you don't understand Trinity however, I find it amusing that Allah himself is worse off than you in understanding of Trinity! LOL

I have highlighted the errors of the verses to you without even asking about trinity as lies will come out of you as expected of true Muslims.

The grand truth is that Allah was definitely misinformed about what Christians believe. None of what he stated in the verses is what Christians believe. The truth is bitter and you can thrash about as much as you like as it changes nothing

Lol! I trust you Trinitarians to run away from explaining how your God is not 3
You are very loud mouthed about how Allah is ignorant of your man made doctrine but to explain how your God is not 3 now becomes a problem. You know if you attempt ur ass will be exposed badly.

Trust me there is nothing to understand in a false doctrine like trinity. It is just polytheism forcefully clothed in the garment of monotheism.

At some point you will have to face the truth and accept that you guys worship 3 gods
You believe the Father(Jesus's God), Jesus himself, and Holy spirit are all Gods
How is that not a belief that Jesus's God is 3rd of a three?

TenQ:
If your prophet cannot hear you because he is dead and in his grave (not even yet in paradise), why do you direct part of the Tashahud to him.

Are you praying to the corpse of Mohammed?

As-salamu alayka ayyuha-n-nabiyyu wa rahmatu-llahi wa barakatuhu
Peace be upon you, O Prophet , and the mercy of Allah and His blessings.

The Question is:
Is the prophet with you for you to say "Peace be upon YOU"?
Secondly, since all over the world, you repeat this same prayer, it means Mohammed from his grave hears you.

The argument of angels carrying the prayers to Mohammed doesn't hold as angels also carry your prayers to Allah



So lame an argument.
1. If others pray to human beings does it in any way justify why Muslims following Islam would pray to Mohammed as they do to Allah?
2. All Muslims without exception pray to Mohammed through the Tashahud isn't it? Do all who claim to be Christians pray to Mary?
Your argument is like me claiming that Muslims practice Mutah just as you have said that Christians pray to Mary.!


Sorry, as long as you Muslims without exception pray to Mohammed through the Tashahud and you associate both the knowledge and name of Allah with Mohammed , you have no case.


It is no wonder that Allah and his Angels also pray upon Mohammed. So, what is strange in you Muslims also praying to Mohammed

Qur'an 33:56
"Indeed, Allah and His angels PRAYS (yusallūna) upon the Prophet..."

Quran 33:43
He (Allah) is the One who PRAYS ("yusallūna" (يُصَلُّونَ)) upon you, and His angels [also], that He may bring you out from the darknesses into the light. And He is ever Merciful to the believers.



So, tell me, what can be worse than the whole of existence including Allah praying upon one man called Mohammed?

U are probably not paying attention, you need to learn how to track argument so you won't go off track.
The prophet himself told us how the salawat reach him, so you can romance the "peace be upon you" all you want, no Muslims believe the prophet hear us directly. And we don't believe Angels carry our prayers to Allah. Lol!

And please stop repeating the argument Allah pray to Muhammad it's old and stale at this point.

TenQ:
Question 1. From Quran 5:73
Can you please show that Christians say God is the third of Three? Is it TRUE that Christians say God is the third of Three?

Answer:
There is no single Christian group or denomination that says anywhere that God is the third of Three . What Christians say is that God is the Father, God is the Son and God is the Holy Spirit.

This shows pure ignorance of the author of the Qur'an and his straw man argument.

Let me ask you another question:
What does Allah mean by Third of three ?

What exactly do you mean by no Christian group believe God is the third of 3 when that's exactly what you Trinitarians believe

There are several places in the NT where Jesus identifies Father as his God, And according to the trinity the Father is not the Son and the son is not the Father.

We know you guys worship 3 gods so you can just quit this hide and seek. because I don't understand if the Father is God, the son is God and the spirit is God and they are not each other that is solid three Gods. You will have to explain to us how that is not 3 Gods before you start accusing Allah of not knowing your doctrine.

TenQ:
You mean you have been reciting the Tashahud five times a day and you don't recognise that it is a prayer to both Allah and your prophet!?


Here is it: I will highlight the part where you speak to Mohammed himself in the prayer


As-salamu alayka ayyuha-n-nabiyyu wa rahmatu-llahi wa barakatuhu
Peace be upon you, O Prophet , and the mercy of Allah and His blessings.

The Question is:
Is the prophet with you for you to say "Peace be upon YOU"?
Secondly, since all over the world, you repeat this same prayer, it means Mohammed from his grave hears you.




Before your upcoming baseless argument, note that Arabic Language is so rich that you could have said

"Peace be upon our prophet " as As-salamu ʿalā nabiyyinā
OR
"Peace be upon the prophet" as As-salamu ʿalā an-nabiyy

thus, it would be clear that this is a prayer to Allah and not a direct reference to Mohammed as he is NOT present with you.



Or is Mohammed present with you Muslims when you pray?


Sorry, Mohammed is the assistant Allah. This is why you Muslims associate both the Name of Allah and the knowledge of Allah with that of Mohammed.

Maybe you are not aware, we don't believe the prophet is all hearing in such a way that he would hear all our salawat directly.

The Prophet is reported to have said:
​"Indeed, Allah has angels who travel around the earth, conveying to me the Salaam of my Ummah."

In another authentic hadith:
"Your blessings will be conveyed to me." When asked how this is possible after death, he explained that Allah has forbidden the earth from consuming the bodies of the Prophets."

This implies the Prophet does not have the attributes of all hearing where he would hear every voice in the world like a god or something but relies on angels sent by Allah to bring the blessings to him.

Now compare that to this elaborate prayer offer to Mary

O Mary, you shine continuously on our journey as a sign of salvation and hope.
We entrust ourselves to you, Health of the Sick.
At the foot of the Cross you participated in Jesus’ pain, with steadfast faith. You, Salvation of the Roman People, know what we need.
We are certain that you will provide, so that,
as you did at Cana of Galilee, joy and feasting might return after this moment of trial.
Help us, Mother of Divine Love,
to conform ourselves to the Father’s will
and to do what Jesus tells us:
He who took our sufferings upon Himself, and bore our sorrows to bring us through the Cross, to the joy of the Resurrection. Amen.

We seek refuge under your protection, O Holy Mother of God. Do not despise our pleas – we who are put to the test – and deliver us from every danger, O glorious and blessed Virgin.

Is this comparable to sending salawat to the Prophet? Or what exactly are you talking about?

BlackfireX
It seems being dishonest is a package that comes in hand with being trinitarian. U misrepresent everything I said and you are debunking lies you made up in your head. Is everything ok at home? U need to stop chasing shadows.

This is what I said concerning Mary " they venerate and pray to her" did u miss the 'pray to her' part?
If you ask Christians that pray to Mary why they do, their response is always "veneration not worship" but when veneration has reached the point of giving divine qualities to created beings do you not consider that problematic? Maybe you are part of the Christians that pray to Mary?

And what do you mean by you look like a regular Christian? No boy, you are as empty as they come.

And stop referencing weak hadith, we know you guys don't care about chains of narration but we do over here.

BlackfireX:
Projecting your own insecurity on me.


What is the Trinity = the Father the son the Holy spirit that has been the christains doctrine.

Now came along Allah and he said trinity is = Jesus Msry and Allah what a confused clueless entity that has no idea of what trinity is , are you catching the drift?

Christianity does not care if you disagree but atleast disagree what it believes by saying what it is


You said Christians venerate Mary? Very good , now let me ask is veneration worship? Is it shirk?

Now Muslim when they do Tshahada are they praying to or for Muhammad ? Is that shirk?

If you reply me you will dig yourself deep in exposing Islam.


Now back to the topic What is the Trinity? Christains in the house what is trinity? The Father son and the Holy spirit? Or Jesus Mary and Allah?


Hope you all can see the lies

Yeye
In all of these, you have not quoted the verse that defines trinity as Allah, Mary and Jesus.
It's been lots of chochocho with no workings.

If veneration is just to show honour, respect, love then it is not in anyway shrik, but if you've started giving divine qualities to created beings like praying to them then it is shrik.

Muslims pray to Prophet Muhammad in Tashahhud? Seriously?

​"All compliments, prayers, and pure actions are due to Allah. Peace be upon you, O Prophet, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings. Peace be upon us and on the righteous servants of Allah. I bear witness that there is no god but Allah, and I bear witness that Muhammad is His servant and messenger."

Which part of this is praying to the prophet?

Kobojunkie:
1. I am not here to hold brief for those of the Christian religion since that issue is left for the Christian section, which this thread is not on. I do have an issue with you denying the claim that Jesus Christ claimed that YHWH was His Father... He was literally referred to as "Son of God"... in the Gospels, which the Quran affirms. 🥱🥱🥱

So, is this an attempt by your person to deny the Quran or suggest that it is wrong to assert that the Quran is erroneous in affirming the Torah and the Gospels as truths?

I don't know where I say anything that implies I'm denying Jesus Christ claimed YHWH was his father.

But let me ask you this

Is Jesus as "son of God" the same across the 4 canonical gospels?

BlackfireX:
Islam is inconsequential in facts and historical things ... see Islam was tolerated because it was overlooked but now' eyes don open wella'

Seems you are not hearing


Trinity is the father son and holy spirit.

Not Jesus Mary and Allah

I repeat which expose the cluelessness of Alalh

No where have the christains put Mary or Alah as part of the Trinity so for Allah not to know is ....what...cluelessness.


Since you try to say it was not stated that Trinity is Jesus Mary and Alah ... I will pull it up if you responded with lies again.
See how you are exposing yourself ...Allah didn't know what the trinity was. The evidence is before you.

Which yeye eyes dey open? last I checked it's Christianity that is now suffering heavily with the availability of scholarly works here and there.
All we have been hearing before is eye witness accounts bla bla bla, now we know they are not so eye witness, more like hearsay and gossips written by unknowns or outright forgeries in some cases.

You need to quit this strawmanning regarding how trinity is described in the Qur'an, it is not looking good on you, you are only exposing ur cluelessness and dishonesty

Qur'an does not anywhere define Trinity as Father, Mary and Jesus, what Qur'an does is condemn people worshipping Mary. Historically, there had been people that did that, even this present day some Christians venerate and pray to Mary, or you think a book that is so much about unity of God is wrong in condemning Christians that engaged in such act?

What Qur'an says concerning Trinity is
"Do not say "trinity" stop for your own good."
We know over the years there have been different from of trinity such as Modalism, Arianism, Tritheism and all different kinds, just name it.
To know how bad it is, Tertullian the first to use the term would even have been an heretic as it is later defined by the nicene-constantinopolitan creed. What Qur'an is doing is condemning every form of trinity, even if you wish to add your own form (Father, Mary and Son) that you are trying very hard to impose on the Qur'an.

SIRTee15:
THE FATHER DECLARES, THE WORD REVEALS THAT WHICH HAS BEEN DECLARED AND THE SPIRIT MANIFEST THE DECLARATION.
so I dont understand how these verses u quoted contradict trinity

Those verses contradict trinity when we consider these verses in the new testament.
Jesus a member of the trinity identifying father as the only true God. John 17:3

‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.' John 20:17

'Jesus as the first born of every creation' Colossians 1:15

I know you are going to come back to explain how Father is not necessarily the ONLY true God, how Jesus is not necessarily a created being. But the question is if only true God does not necessarily mean only true God in the scripture, if Jesus admitting not having knowledge of the hour does not necessarily mean he doesn't know the hour, if first born of creation does not mean he is a created being. what should we trust in that scripture? What exactly can we take as fact?

SIRTee15:
I personally believe the main argument btw muslims and christians should be 'why is Jesus The Messiah?' This is more important than trinity. The underlying theology behind Jesus as the Messiah is what set christianity apart from other faith system.

From Islamic perspective, trinity is majorly what set us apart and I believe it is the same from Jewish perspective, in as much as we Muslims don't believe in vicarious atonement believing in that is not what condemn Christianity from our perspective, it is associating partners with God.

SIRTee15:
and FYI, the targum was compiled by Ezra and the 120 men of the great assemblies when they also compiled the Torah. This was during the persian period. targum has no link with any hellenistic age.

Nehemiah 8
7 The Levites—Jeshua, Bani, Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodiah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, and Pelaiah—then instructed the people in the Law while everyone remained in their places. 8 They read from the Book of the Law of God and translated clearly [in aramaic] and explained the meaning of what was being read [midrash], helping the people understand each passage.

Targum is the aramaic translation of the hebrew bible with exegesis inclusion called midrash in hebrew. It was necessary because the post exilic jews had lost their native hebrew tongue, majority could only speak aramaic.

And there were prophets in the Land when targum was compiled- Zechariah, Haggai, Malachi

Those 2nd temple prophets(Haggai, Zachariah, Malachi) lived during late exilic/very early 2nd temple period around 6th/5th century BCE, so for a very long time after that there were no prophets
What Ezra did was translation he was not the compiler of the various Targum that developed later.

SIRTee15:
I dont need targum to validate my belief. the bible is sufficient. But we bring it to show u that our core theology is not made up. Its not something Paul conjured in his room or hallucinated into existence. the gospel writers were not fabricating theologies. the targum is a proof of that.
When John was writing the 1st chapter of his gospel, he had this in mind from the targum.....

Trust me your core theology is made up, just like the theology of 2 powers in heaven and it's not a coincidence that both theologies were born and nurture in Greeko Roman world. we can see how the trinity doctrine developed over the first 3 centuries and don't come here with early church fathers believed Jesus is God, the question is 'Jesus is God in what sense?' Because I'll say they are all subordinationist at best just like Paul and the canonical gospels writers.

It will be disingenuous on my part to say the Jesus we have in the new testament is just a human prophet like the Jesus in Islam, Jesus of the new testament is a created being that has been pre existing before coming into this world. If we are to follow what we have in the new testament, what we are going to have in our hands is 2 Gods; the bigger God the father and the small god Jesus because that is the belief of Paul and the canonical gospels writers hence "Father is greater than I", "I can of myself do nothing", "Father is the only true God" "Only Father with the knowledge of the hour and not the son"... and all those sayings that depicts Jesus as been surbodinate to the father. All those ontological equality, hypostatic union, are just reactions to deal with the contradiction of the 2 Gods of the NT and how God is described in the tanakh.

SIRTee15:
pls understand how the word Elohim is used in bible context. same with Son of God.
Even men are called Elohim.
what we talking about here is the divine name of God. El Shaddai- Almighty God. His own PERSONAL NAME- YHWH, Lord- ADNONAI
GOD SHARES HIS GLORY WITH NO ONE. SO WE SHOULD ASK QUESTION WHEN OTHER PERSONS IN THE BIBLE LIKE ANGEL OF THE LORD IS CALLED YHWH OR GOD ALMIGHTY.
I cant be choosing what aligns with my preferred belief in the bible, u can do that because u are a muslim and the bible is not a scipture to u. I cant do that as a chrsitian.

I thought for you Trinitarians Elohim is used for the true God and not Eloah in order to foreshadow his true nature(3 persons, 1 being)
My argument is if same Elohim and not Eloah is used for someone like Moses, maybe he is part of the Godhead too?, at least the addition of Moses won't suddenly change it to polytheism.

It is not about God sharing his Glory, It's about God giving his authority to a created agent. If the Angel of the lord is God in identity, he wouldn't need the name to be placed in him, he would possess the name inherently.

In Exodus 33 2-3 God is telling Moses "I will send an angel before you" and in the same breath "I will not go up among you" this clearly indicates substitute for the direct presence of God Almighty and not glory sharing or anything. And you guys are not the only one reading the scripture, they have been reading it before the helenistic period and they did not understand those passages as 2 powers in heaven or God being multi person in unity.

SIRTee15:
SO ARE U SAYING GOD'S NAME IS NOT DIVINE? IS ALLAH'S NAME DIVINE?
SO ALLAH CAN SHARE HIS NAME WITH OTHER PERSONS??
because THE SCRIPTURE CLEARLY SHOWED GOD SHARED HIS DIVINE NAME WITH OTHER PERSONS.

If God placed his name in any messanger in other to accomplish a specific task that does not automatically make them God in identity, placing the name in them already indicate the name is not the messanger own to begin with.
The reason why I'm asking when God sent Moses as Elohim to Pharaoh does that automatically makes Moses God in identity?

SIRTee15:
Latreuo was used for Jesus in the book of revelations.

Rev 22.3
3 No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will worship {latreuo} him.


This verse alone is a powerful evidence of shared essence of the Father and the Son in the bible.
Father and Son linked to just one throne
singular verb used in the sentence for both father and son.

In all of the NT with all those 'they worshipped him' with Jesus as the object, you only found one and that one verse still has God with the lamb such that we cannot tell who are the servants worshipping, is it God or the lamb. with the way the NT writers avoid using Latreuo for Jesus in all other places does that not implies Latreuo here is meant for God and not the Lamb?

And no that verse does not indicate any shared essence. There are other verses like Rev 3:2 that indicates the lamb has a God.

SIRTee15:
This shows u dont understand trinity, essence is the same within the Godhead not the hypostasis. same being, same nature but different persons.
Most muslims don't understand trinity anyway, they believe the concept mean 3 beings.
Man and woman has the same nature as human being. the dna of a man is the same as that of a woman. But the persons and role is different.

another what? another being or another person? another existence or another personification of the same existence?
pls be clear.

I understand trinity more than the average Christians, ask them about trinity and see them falling left and right into heresies, so don't give me that you Muslims don't understand trinity as if majority of Christians do.

My argument is if the angel is God in all aspect why deflect the sacrifice why not just accept it?
Why pray to another person in the God being when you are God yourself?

Are u saying only the father can receive burnt offerings and prayers?

Yeah, you Trinitarians are just deceiving yourselves, you guys want to eat your cake and still have it, you want to worship 3 Gods and still claim monotheist because you know the God Christianity is supposed to anchor on is one. We wouldn't count SIRTee15, Qasim, and Bayo as 1 human being but you want us to count Father, son and Spirit as 1 God being because you claim they all have the same will, but when we bring verses like Matthew 26:39 to show Jesus's will is different from God's will, you throw in another confusion aka hypostatic union (fully God and fully Man) as if that makes any sense; not all knowing and at the same time all knowing and every other contradiction that comes with that.

SIRTee15:
I will respond to your other post but this one really gets to me.
So u telling me u admit that

1. another person apart from God can have the name of God in him- another person can actually bear the name of God.
2. Have the authority of God in him.
3. can be called God in some ways and even called God in authority.
4. u acknowledge that another person can be a physical representation of the invisible Father
5. God can interact directly with humanity through a physical being.
6 another person apart from God can forgive sin

MY BROTHER, IS THIS NOT JESUS CHRIST OR AM I CONFUSED SOMEWHERE.

A MUSLIM IS SEEING JESUS CHRIST IN THE OLD TESTAMENT OR IS IT NOT WHAT I'M READING.

Jesus said ' Before Abraham was, I AM'- called himself the name of God.
Jesus said 'Your sins are forgiven' - forgives sin
Jesus said 'If you have seen me, you have seen the Father"
Jesus said ' All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me"
Jesus said' “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.
Jesus said 'Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

SO HOW COME U ACCEPT THE ANGEL OF THE LORD CAN HAVE ALL THESE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD BUT REJECT SAME FOR JESUS.
WHY DO U ACCEPT THAT WHICH IS WRITTEN IN THE OLD TESTAMENT BUT REJECT WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE NEW TESTAMENT?

I think we have a lot more in common in Jesus than u think. I always tell Muslims, scrutinize the Quran critically, also scrutinize the old and new testament. Those 3 books will lead u to Jesus Christ called the saviour.

PERSONALLY IF U CAN ACCEPT THE ANGEL OF THE LORD HAS THESE ATTRIBUTES, THEN U HAVE NO OBJECTIVE REASON TO REJECT SIMILAR ATTRIBUTES FOR CHRIST.

The issue of divinity is simply how its defined separately in the 2 religions.
u guys believe Allah is separate from his divinity and his attributes. So another person that has Allah's attributes doesn't mean he's Allah or has Allah's divinity.
That's why tawhid in Islam is problematic in theological sense because it shows Allah has parts. Allah's attributes are part of Allah and NOT ALLAH. ALLAH'S DIVINITY IS PART OF HIM AND NOT HIM.

we dont belive that in christianity. we accept something called the principle of divine simplicity- God is simple. He's doesn't have parts.

God's attributes cannot be separated from his divinity, equally his divinity cannot be separated from him; and God doesn't have divinity, instead God is divine.
God is inseparable from his from his divinity or attributes. God doesn't have existence, God is existence. God doesn't have omnipresent or omnispotent attributes, God is omnipresent and omnipotent. God doesn't have a name, He is his name.
GOD IS INDIVISIBLE IN ANY FORM OR WAY- HE IS ONE. HE CANNOT BE SEPARATED FROM HIS DIVINITY OR ATTRIBUTES.
SO WHEN HIS NAME OR POWER TO FORGIVE OR AUTHORITY OR GLORY PROCEEDS FROM HIM, IT'S HIS FULL DIVINITY THAT PROCEEDS. YOU CANNOT DIVIDE OR COMPARMENTALIZE ALMIGHTY GOD'S DIVINITY

That's why The Angel of the LORD is presented as a divine agent in the Targum. He's not just an ordinary angel.

What I don't understand about you Trinitarians is why do you guys exclude Moses and the Judges God called Elohim not Eloah o from your Gods? At least you can keep adding to infinity and still claim you are monotheist.

All the created beings called God in any way, shape or form are representative of God they do not share in his divinity in any way.

And I also see you like to throw around verses that say the angel of the lord and Jesus were worshipped, No bro they were not. If you do your homework diligently you will know the words that are erroneously translated as worship for both angel of the lord in the old testament and Jesus in the new testament are multivalent words that does not necessarily mean worship. The word proskuneo that is always translated as worshipped for Jesus just literally means "to bow down" or "to do obeisance", they will translate the word as worship for Jesus but when the word show up for someone else in Mat 18:26 they know not to translate it as worshipped. The word Latreuo that truly means worship is used exclusively for God and never for Jesus in the NT.

In judges 13:16 we can see the angel deflecting sacrifice to God indicating he is a subordinate messanger

In Zachariah 1:12 we see the angel praying to God showing he is subordinate to God Almighty.

SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY ANYONE WOULD WANT TO WORSHIP A BEING THAT IS SUBORDINATE TO ANOTHER??
Whatever attributes you think they have that automatically make them to be of the same essence with God almighty in your mind is just an authority given to them.

In as much as verses like this still exist, trinity o, 2 powers in heaven o, will always be false man made doctrines.

Isaiah 43:10: "Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me."
​Isaiah 44:6: "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god."
​Isaiah 44:24: "I am the Lord, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself."

And for the Targum, If you want to base your understanding of the Torah on how the Torah was understood during the HELLENISTIC PERIOD, a time when there was drought of Prophets, then be my guest. because that seem to me like just looking for validation at all cost. WE ALL KNOW WHAT WE ARE DOING.

SIRTee15:
See this clown, quoting Quran and expecting me to believe. As if when I quoted the NT for evidence of Jesus worship and deity, he accepted it.

My friend, bring indisputable evidence that God told any of the prophets to bow before a stone. Go to the old testament and show me where any of the ancient prophets bow before any type of stone.

praying facing Jerusalem is not the same as bowing before a stone. Jesus prayed facing heaven...

John 17
After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed:

Muslims do not pray facing a stone, they pray bowing before a stone. Something God clearly prohibit and condemned.

and pls do not compare bowing the temple filled with the presence of God to an empty kabba that has a pagan stone
When Israelites bowed before the temple, it was filled with the shikenah glory of God.
The Israelites bowed and worship the presence of God in the temple and not the temple.

2 Chronicles 7
When Solomon finished praying, fire came down from heaven and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices, and the glory of the Lord filled the temple. 2 The priests could not enter the temple of the Lord because the glory of the Lord filled it. 3 When all the Israelites saw the fire coming down and the glory of the Lord above the temple, they knelt on the pavement with their faces to the ground, and they worshiped and gave thanks to the Lord,

2 Chronicles 5
Then the temple of the Lord was filled with the cloud, 14 and the priests could not perform their service because of the cloud, for the glory of the Lord filled the temple of God.

The presence of God was never in the kabba. Never. If anything it was once filled with pagan idols.

3. Now answer my question. Show me where any prophet of God bowed before a stone, show me where God commanded any prophet to bow before a stone.

God cannot contradict himself. He expressly declared bowing before a stone is a sin and he hates it. How can the same God now contradict himself and tell another prophet to bow before a stone.
U sef reason am, the thing no make sense at all. Bowing before a stone is a sin.

U that bow before a stone and anyone bowing before any sculpture will burn in hell.

Lev 26
“‘Do not make idols or set up an image or a sacred stone for yourselves, and do not place a carved stone in your land to bow down before it. I am the Lord your God.

Very bold of you to think the area around the Kaaba is empty and the Shekinah of God don't reside there.

The area around the Kaaba is called Haram because of the things forbidden around the area the reason why the Mosque is called masjid-Al haram.
You can not fight, you can not pick up lost item and keep it, you can't cut down plants, no hunting, it is our belief that good deeds are multiply in reward within the boundaries, so also sin is heavier there because it's a sacred ground. It is a zone, a spiritual boundaries established by Abraham not just the Kaaba.

The prophet was reported to have said
​"No group of people assemble in one of the Houses of Allah, reciting the Book of Allah and studying it among themselves, except that Sakinah descends upon them, mercy engulfs them, the angels surround them, and Allah mentions them to those near Him."

We believe prayer offer there is 100,000 times in reward compare to other places, in Medina 1000, in Jerusalem 500. So you can only imagine how profound is the Shekinah/sakinah that abound in the Area.

We believe the place is the first place of worship established for mankind Qur'an 3:96 so Adam was the first to offer prayer there, Abraham and Ishmael re-established the place nd over time the place became a place of idol worshipping and prophet Muhammad rededicate the place for the worship of God.

How do we know all of these? Our prophet told us. All you just have to do to disprove this by showing us he is a false prophet, he is just making it up, lobatan. and let us also bring our proof that he indeed is a true Prophet of God.

And for the black stone, the stone is a relic, we believe it was from paradise, Adam was the first to own it. You can see it the same way the Israelites see the Ark of covenant.

And let me ask you a question and I hope you will be very honest to answer because this is going to either expose your ignorance or dishonesty.

Let say a flood is about to destroy the Kaaba, and there is a way the Kaaba with the stone can be air lifted to another place we consider sacred say Medina.
Where do you think we are going to be facing at the time the Kaaba with the stone is now in Medina?

@SIRTee15

Ok let's see if your friend was truly the source of the Qur'an.

The Qur'an was revealed over 23 years, the chapters were not revealed chronologically, even verses within chapters were not chronologically.
There are verses that are answers to questions been asked the prophet, there are verses that are prophecies, verses that are admonitions, stories of previous prophets with lessons to be learnt from them, even verses that you guys always used to prove Prophet Muhammad was just making up the text of the Qur'an to please himself (like that of Zaid/Zaynab) and so on and so on.

It was just the Prophet giving directions through divine guidance on which verses belong to which chapter.
Out of that randomness, this is just one of the things we've just found out in modern times.
Certain Words are repeated in equal number of times as their antonyms and it is not because they are mention along side each other.

Al-Dunya (Worldly Life): 115 Al-Akhirah (The Hereafter): 115
Malaika (Angels): 88 Shayatin (Devils): 88
Al-Hayat (Life): 145 Al-Mawt (Death): 145
Al-Rajul (Man): 24 Al-Mar’ah (Woman): 24
Al-Harr (Heat): 4 Al-Bard (Cold): 4
Al-Salihat (Good Deeds): 167 Al-Sayyi’at (Bad Deeds): 167
and so on and so on

There are also concept related balance, word like Zakat(Alms) and Barakah(blessing), Calamity (Al-mushibah) and gratitude(Al shukr) .... having balance counts.
It doesn't end there, even words like day(365) days(30), month(12)
It seems the author even know the ratio of water to land on earth. Sea(32), land(13), if you do the calculation you get roughly 71% to 29%

You will agree with me this is not coincidental, this is intentional such that you can clearly see what the author was doing. It is as though the author already know the last word to be revealed even before the first word "read" was revealed.

For one random Christian liar to now claim he was the one behind the Qur'an, you will agree with me he's a terrible liar and he surely deserve that ending. And it seems spreading lies about the prophet have serious consequences. May we not have bad ending like this your Christian friend.

SIRTee15:
Ok that's good, you are getting there.
U are very close to following the TRUE Christ not the fake one brought by that unknown prophet.
Your eyes is gradually opening to the truth

The fact that I have come to that understanding of the new testament does not mean I am looking for what is not lost it is just majorly due to my inquisitive mind on why any intelligent being will believe in the absurdity 'God is 3 in 1' when scripture is screaming otherwise. The fact still remains all the authors of the canonical gospels are anonymous and non of them is an eye witness. The truth of Islam buries all those made-up agendas and false rhetorics.

SIRTee15:
Very Good!!!!!
Now this is where we have to go back to 2nd temple Judaism.
What do they believe? What is the believe of the Jews regarding God when Jesus was walking on this earth?
What do they teach about God in the synagogue when Jesus was called a Rabbi.
Remember Paul is a thorough bred Pharisee well versed in the scriptures, he wouldn't say Jesus is God as well as the Father is there's nothing backing up that claim. Never.

Post exilic ancient Jews believed in One God but 2 powers in heaven.
One is the Father, the other is his word called mamre of the Lord in Aramaic.
The Jews had no challenge with monotheism despite believing in 2 powers in heaven because they knew the word of God is the revelation of the Father. They are the same- One existence.

The problem started when a new sect of Judaism started going about saying Jesus Christ is that 2nd power in heaven.
The Jews didn't like this and were forced to change their doctrine and declare the 2 powers in heaven and heresy by 200AD.
Before that no Jew had any problem believing in 2 powers in heaven because the old testament preached it.
This was the believe of the Jews when Jesus was teaching as a Rabbi. He never condemned it.

Please, I don't really care what the belief of 2nd temple Judaism was, in as much as it is not grounded in the scripture. A belief that was held at a time when there was drought of Prophets.
Why did they not hold that belief at the time of Moses?
We have verses like ".....Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me" Isaiah 43:10
“.....I am the LORD, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself, Isaiah 44:24
And several other verses like that stressing the oneness of God. I don't know where this false teaching of 2 powers in heaven is coming from.

SIRTee15:
Yes u can trust the NT books. Despite all noise about corruption of the gospel. We are yet to discover any extant gospel book that preach anything different and coherent to what we have. None.




Until u can convincingly refute the Corinthian creed evidence. This Paul noise is becoming stale.
All evidence points towards the early disciples of Jesus led by James and Peter preached that Christ died for the sins of Mankind.

What evidence? Is there any evidence outside Paul's letter? Or Paul's letter is what are calling evidence?

SIRTee15:
I hope u know Mark narrated the gospel account according to Peter.
There's clear cut evidence for this.

There is no evidence for this not to talk of a clear cut one

The only evidence they pointed at was Papias described a gospel Mark wrote which is somehow different from the canonical Mark because he said that particular gospel was not in order.

SIRTee15:
Think Qasim and fellow Muslims, u guys should think.

Maybe that's why the first Christian convert to Islam reverted back to Christianity.
He was a scribe for Muhammed and used to recite surah Imran.
When he reverted he said 'Muhammed knows nothing but that which I write for him'

U know the interesting part, surah Imran recited by this Christian is the one about Mary and nativity of Jesus.

U don't need to be a genius to join the links together.

Sahih al-Bukhari 3617

Narrated Anas:
There was a Christian who embraced Islam and read Surat-al-Baqara and Al-`Imran, and he used to write for the Prophet. Later on he returned to Christianity again and he used to say: "Muhammad knows nothing but what I have written for him."

Insha Allah I will be back to bury you and the Christian liar that claimed he was the one writing for the prophet.
Nevertheless, I love how you neglect the part where the earth kept rejecting his corpse when he died.

SIRTee15:
Finally bringing angel mentioned in Exodus 23 just buried u. Go back and read that passage, u will discover God said He put his name in the angel and The angel has the power to forgive sin.

20 “See, I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared. 21 Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my Name is in him .

That's why the Angel of the LORD is called God Almighty because God's Name is in him. He also has the divinity of God in him, that's why he has the power to forgive sin.

Now when we go to the New testament and we see another person bearing the name of God and has the power to forgive sin, why do u Muslims start shouting NT is corrupt..bla..bla

If Muslims have no problem with an angel in the old testament sharing God's name and can forgive sin, why then do u have a problem with the Son of God sharing in his Father's name and his divinity
Why??

You are not going to be allowed to impose your forceful trinitarian understanding of the tanakh here.
It is evident in the tanakh that created being or a messenger can represent God such that they are addressed as God without being God. When God says "My name is in him" it only implies the Angel carries the presence and authority of God and it doesn't in any way implies the Angel carries his divinity.
There are several verses that implies God can not be seen, no one can see God and live.... this Angel of the lord was seen by many, so this Angel allows God to remain invisible and transcendent while still interacting directly with humanity through a visible being. The Angel was God in authority not in identity.

SIRTee15:
1. U can't be picking and choosing what suits your agenda from Scholastic work. Your claim must be backed by evidence and u counter evidence u reject with counter evidence.
Otherwise your belief is a blind faith.

2. Do we have ebionites in the Jerusalem church headed by James in the early days of the church?
That's my question, if ebionites cannot be linked to the early church in Jerusalem, their opinion is inconsequential.
BELIEF FROM LATER DEVELOPMENT DOESN'T COUNT.

Besides ebionites never used any gospel of Matthew, they had their own gospel called ebionites gospel, the church fathers quoted from it.

3. Once again picking what suits your agenda from the letters of Paul, Just like u do to tafsirs and hadiths.
This is despite Acts 15 corroborated what Paul wrote in the book of Galatian. He was actually given a letter of approval by the church in Jerusalem to preach his message to gentiles

Acts 15
With them they sent the following letter:
The apostles and elders, your brothers,

To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:
Greetings.

24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

Farewell.

I dont think u have any knowledge about the historicity of the church in Corinthians but let me summarise it for u.
1. Paul founded and established the church in Corinth, he stayed there for 18 months b4 he left.
2. After his founding visit of eighteen months, Paul continued to correspond with the church, reflecting ongoing pastoral concern amid escalating issues; and also encouraged them to donate to the Jerusalem church. He even offered to write letter of introduction for the emissaries that will take the offering to Jerusalem. Acts 16.
3. Some 'super apostles' arrived in Corinth church with letter of recommendation to antagonise Paul (Likely Pharisee converts mentioned in Acts 15) and questioned his credential.
4. The church of Corinth also began to question Paul's authority and one of them led a rebellion against Paul.
5. Paul wrote a severe letter to the church seriously reprimanding them. ( the letter is lost)
6. Titus visited the church, he noticed the church had repented, the troublemaker had been disciplined and they wanted to restore their relationship with Paul. 2 Corinth 7.6-16
7. Paul wrote a reconciliation letter (2 corinthians) emphasizing integrity and true apostleship over showmanship
8. Paul said he need no letter of recommendation because he established the church- the church is his own recommendation, and that he preach for free not expecting any financial payment or support unlike the 'super apostles' who expected financial reward for their stewardship 2 Corinth 11.7-20
(Letter of recommendation was needed by travelling teachers who expected payment or financial reward for their stewardship)
Paul himself has no problem with letter of recommendation and he wrote one for phoebe, Mark and Philemon BUT he's against if it's for other motive except to spread the gospel.

I can choose and pick whatever from scholars work, there is a reason I'm an intelligent being.
The majority consensus is that only 7 letters of Paul in the whole of the new testament truly reflect the author, I look at the evidence they present to reach that conclusion and it makes lot of sense to me.
How they now managed to conclude the apostles also preached a crucified Messiah whose death now nullified the mosaic law with the scuffle we see in Paul's letter is what I don't seem to get.
Following all they say blindly is what makes it a blind following thus a blind faith.

It is obvious there was at least 2 strain of Christianity right from the early stages
The Pauline Christian that believes with the death and resurrection of Christ, Mosaic law is no more valid.
The Jamesonian that seems to disagree with Paul.
Now by the 2nd century we see a Jewish Christian group that still cling to the mosaic law, hold James in high status, reject Paul and his letters and we are supposed to believe they don't have anything to do with the early Jerusalem church? Abeg say something else.
That doesn't look like a belief from later development, that is a belief deeply rooted in the early Jerusalem church.

And yes the Ebionites used a certain version of Gospel of Matthew also called gospel of the Ebionites.

Acts of Paul is just a smooth over to make us think everything was good between Paul and the Apostles that it was just minor scuffle here and there when letters of Paul scream otherwise.
According to Paul some other people are in Corinth preaching another gospel thereby causing division and these other people are with letter of recommendation which he did not have, which makes me wonder why was he without letter of recommendation from James? There are other sources outside of the new testament that implies Jesus instructed everyone has to report to James.

SIRTee15:
Really Paul is not the problem anymore but the Nicene creed.
What about Jesus that proclaimed his disciples should baptize in the name of the Father, Son and holy spirit.

If u are honest with yourself, u would admit that verse is definitely a Trinitarian formula.

As regards Nicene creed that u are now blaming.
Let's see what it says about the only One God.

We believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

So the so called heretic Nicene creed u guys love to blame proclaim The Father as the only One God.

So who next are u going to blame, Pentecostal or Martin Luther?
U people are not ready to face the truth

Here is the thing.
I used to argue Jesus is not God using the new testament, but now I have come to the realisation you can not make a valid argument that Jesus is not God with the new testament. it is obvious Paul, and all 4 writers of the canonical gospels believed Jesus is a god that has been pre-existing but they believed he is a different God to God the father and more like a little God compare to God the father and Paul and all the canonical gospels writers believed Jesus deserves to the worshipped along side the father.

With Jesus now being a 2nd God there is clash in theology with Judaism on which Christianity is supposed to be built. and I believe there should not be a clash on something as fundamental as who God is, and who is not God. We can see from the theme of the tanakh that there is only one God, the God of all the prophets in the old testament always telling us He alone is God, there is no one else beside him.

With all these, the question now is can I even trust Paul and all the writers of the canonical gospels to begin with, can I trust they gave us the real Jesus, I have come to the conclusion that I can't trust them and no one should.

Paul: why I can't trust Paul.
He was not a disciple of Jesus Christ to begin with, he only claimed to have met Jesus in a vision. Reading Paul's letters you can tell he was in constant serious conflict with the disciples, he called their gospel a no gospel at all and I believed they would have said the same about the gospel he claimed to have received from Christ and there should not have been a serious conflict if the canonical gospels truly represent the beliefs of the apostles because the canonical gospels is greatly in line with Pauls teachings.

Mark: why I can't trust mark
On a closer look at marks gospel, we can see who ever wrote mark had been exposed to Paul's teachings he used similar languages to Paul, Jesus nullifying the mosaic law(declaring all food clean); Mark represented the apostles/Mary in bad light they lack faith and they all just don't understand anything Jesus was saying or anything about him, we have Jesus calling Peter Satan, James that later became the head of Jerusalem church as an unbeliever, Gentiles responding best to his teachings in Decapolis and Tyre.

Mathew and Luke: why I can't trust them
On a closer look, you can see what they were doing with Marks gospel, trying to mitigate the bad representation of the apostles, in Mathew we see Jesus telling the apostles not to go to the gentiles.....

John: why I can't trust John
John is just John, I think for anyone to even trust Johns gospel it's going to be on faith ground.
Which now begs the question: are these guys even writing history or just agendas?

How can we now know what Jesus did say and did not say, we have to go back to the disciples, unfortunately we just can't lay our hands on anything that is genuinely from them and it is not out of the fact that they did not write anything, we see Papias describing a gospel written by Matthew that is different from Matthew we ended up with, sadly somehow their writings did not see the light of the day.

So everything still fall on Paul and yeah Paul is the problem. He laid the faulty foundation for you Trinitarians.

BlackfireX:
All the claims of the Quran....Allah...Muhammad are found out to be lies upon lies

Ok
Share some of those claims that you found out to be lies

BlackfireX:
That prompt the rejection of it

Name one claim in the Quran that isn't a lie

Are u saying the book is all lies?

Because the last I checked, the book is beyond what any man past, present and future can pull off.

BlackfireX:
Should I explain more

Pls do.

SIRTee15:
How do u know we have Nada, how do u know the letters we have are not authentic?

Of course, the scholars told u, not the Quran or any thing else.
But when the same scholars scrutinise the letters deemed authentic, and conclude the believe in atonement thru death of Jesus Christ came from the original disciples of Jesus, then scholars can no longer be trusted.
U see say u Muslims get serious problem.


Pls be a honest Muslim and learn to read the letters of Paul properly.
Yes, Paul said the gospel he preach came from Christ himself and not from any human authority.
But he also said in the same letter of Galatians that he presented the gospel he preach b4 the apostles for scrutiny and approval.
James, Peter and John scrutinised the gospel preached by Paul, approved and endorsed it, then told Paul to go ahead and continue preaching the gospel to the Gentiles.


Galatians 2
2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain......
7 On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised.....
9 James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me.
They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised.

The disciples of Christ in Jerusalem approved the gospel of Paul. That's the truth u guys wants to ignore.



Pls bring evidence the ebionites are linked to the early disciples. Bring evidence the ebionites were among the early disciples of the church in Jerusalem in the early first century.

As far as we know, there's no first century source that mentioned ebionites as a sect in the early church. None.
If u can bring evidence that the ebionites were mentioned as being part of the early Church headed by James, that will be a great game changer.

The argument here is what is the believe of the church in the early 1st century in Jerusalem. What is the significance of the death of Jesus to the church headed by James the Just.



Oh God, u have come again.
The question is Isaiah 53 about a suffering Messiah?
Yes or No.
Forget about Jesus and Isaiah 53. It's not relevant here.
Is Isaiah 53 a prophecy about a Messiah coming to suffer and die for the redemption of his people?

And this psalm 91 u yapping about isn't considered messianic by any ancient Jewish or early Christian tradition.
Why do u consider Palam 91 messianic prophecy? Why do u think it's about Jesus? Is it because Jesus quoted a verse from it.
If that's the case, then u should consider Palam 110 and Isaiah 42 prophecy about Jesus because Jesus quoted from those chapters. I think that's only fair.



Oda, ko buru. If u cannot trust the owners of the Torah to understand their own book properly.....
Then tell us, who is Isaiah 53 talking abou?

And regarding Isaiah 53. 10b, your problem is thinking the original hebrew word used for offspring/seed which is zera means literal biological children.
No the word zera can be used metaphorical, spiritual esp in prophetic literature.
See my attached post for better understanding...

Then read Mathew 13.1-10 for the offspring/seeds of the Messiah.

John 1
He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—




Really Paul is not the problem anymore but the Nicene creed.
What about Jesus that proclaimed his disciples should baptize in the name of the Father, Son and holy spirit.

If u are honest with yourself, u would admit that verse is definitely a Trinitarian formula.

As regards Nicene creed that u are now blaming.
Let's see what it says about the only One God.

We believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

So the so called heretic Nicene creed u guys love to blame proclaim The Father as the only One God.

So who next are u going to blame, Pentecostal or Martin Luther?
U people are not ready to face the truth



Interesting. So the Father is sharing his glory with an Angel.
I thought God shares his glory with no one.
So this Angel is so special that the Father gave him his name, allowed him to be worshipped and be called God Almighty.
Mr Man, that's 2 Gods u are alluding to in case u don' t know. That makes u a polytheist.

If u believe in the existence of an Angel in heaven separate from the Father but can be called God Almighty in any shape or form or as a mediator, that makes u a polytheist.
You believe in 2 beings (2 existence) who are Gods.

HEAR O ISRAEL YHWH YOUR GOD IS ONE.

The problem is if I bring how the ancient Jews understand this divine agent called Angel of the Lord, u will say bla blah bla, I now live in post old testament era.

So do the work yourself.

Why did Hagar said she has seen God when she encountered the Angel of the LORD.
Hagar saw and spoke to the Angel of the LORD NOT the Father.
But after the encounter, she rejoiced and announced she has seen the ever living God called YHWH.

Why did Hagar proclaim she saw God Almighty when she never saw the Father.

Genesis 16
7 The angel of the Lord found Hagar near a spring in the desert; it was the spring that is beside the road to Shur......

13 She gave this name to YHWH who spoke to her: “You are the God who sees me,” for she said, “I have now seen the Ever Living One who sees me. ” 14 That is why the well was called Beer Lahai Roi; it is still there.

How do I know you guys have nothing? It's obvious na, those guys that wrote the canonical gospels wr not writing history, it's just pure agenda and doctrines. And I don't just follow whatever scholars say like a dummy, I look at whatever evidence they r pointing at to reach their conclusions. There is no evidence to conclude we know what the Disciples believed, the only thing we can conclude on is that their gospel is different from Paul's gospel.

No bro, the Qur'an tells me the Christian forget a portion of what was revealed to them which is in line with the scholarship. we are saying some teachings of Jesus Christ can still be found in the gospels and some teachings are lost like the hypothetical Q gospel, Matthew gospel described by Papias most likely the same Matthew used by the Ebionites.

Paul did not present shit to the apostles, Paul was just outrightly lying that he was given one hand of fellowship. He was supposed to received a letter of recommendation from the Jerusalem church but it's obvious your guy no get any letter of recommendation.
He was exposed in Corinth when he couldn't provide letter of recommendation, he just went on a tirade and self appraisal on how he worked harder, how he was ship wrecked... bla blah blah. Maybe your guy don lost the letter by the time he got to Corinth or it had been revoked because of his false teachings.

All those your analysis about zera/seeds could have helped your case if the prophecy did not say something about prolonging his days.


No bro, you need to stop reading everything with your trinitarian lens. It's obvious the Angel of the lord is a messenger of God
Exodus 23 say something about God sending the same angel to lead the Israelites.
So I don't know in what world a messenger and the sender become the same.

BlackfireX:
Define author?


Elucidate us

An originator of a work

We Muslims believe the originator of the Qur'an is God Almighty himself.

We believe the Qur'an is direct speech of God send to Prophet Muhammad via Angel Gabriel.

But with your write-up, it seems you disagree with that.

SIRTee15:
Ha my friend, longest time.

Don't mind me jare, I didn't know that doffman of a guy is a troll.
I gave him evidence that Paul wasn't the first person to say Jesus Christ died for our sins, but that statement came from the Jesus Christ apostles themselves.

James the brother of Jesus, Peter, John and other apostles were the first to go about preaching Jesus died for our sins even b4 Paul converted.

The clown blatantly rejected it. He called the disciples of Jesus fake and disagreed with historians without producing any contra evidence.

I know u will do better, what evidence do u have to counter the evidence brought forth by historical bible scholars that the source of believe in the death of Jesus Christ for atonement couldn't have been from his disciples.

Regarding Isaiah 53, it's a dead case already. I ha e brought tons of evidence to prove Isaiah 53 is about The suffering Messiah.
U and your confused naija Jewish friend brought none. U kept shouting Isaiah 53 is not about Jesus.
That's not my argument. My argument is clear- is Isaiah 53 about a suffering Messiah who will atone for the sins of his people.
What do pre Christian Judaism believe about Isaiah 53, how did the 2nd temple Jews understand Isaiah 53. That's my question.

I told u b4 that 2nd temple Judaism believe in 2 Messiah. Kingly and priestly (suffering) messiah.
Read about Messiah Ben Joseph and learn the truth my friend.

Finally your fried has no idea how the word God Almighty is used in the bible including old testament. So he's confused about Trinity.
Let's see if u can do better....

This is what Paul, the so called founder of Christianity has to say.
But for us, There's One God, the Father,
by whom all things were created,
and for whom we live.
1 Corinthian 8.6a

So Paul the guy u Muslims love to hate is affirming the Shema. There's only One God who is the Father.

And since we follow Paul as u guys claim, them it makes sense for me to also say There's only One God who is the Father.

Why then is the old testament calling The Angel of LORD Almighty God.
Why is another Person (The Angel of the LORD) called God Almighty in the old testament.

The Angel of the LORD appeared to Abraham, Jacob and Moses, and he's called God Almighty and YHWH.

I want a clear explanation as to why there's another God Almighty in the old testament apart from the Father.

Pls I take God beg u, don't come with the excuse the bible in corrupt argument. Pls, if u don't know be honest enough to say I dont know.

Your problem is you believe we have writings from the original disciples of Jesus Christ but we have nada, even the scholars u r trying very hard to cling on agree with that; Just forged documents here and there and it's something anyone with viable brain cells can agree on with the way the synoptic gospels copied each other and John with its high Christology and all those "very important" I am statement that the earlier gospel writers missed miraculously.

The only genuine documents we have are letters of Paul, even the letters of Paul not all are genuine.
And from the genuine letters we can see how Paul is always speaking ills of the original disciples, how he did not get his gospel from them, how what they are mean nothing to him, he even threw jab at them and the gospel they were preaching in Galatians 1:8. So Historically, we don't really know what they believed, but what we can tell from Paul's letter is that their gospel is different from the gospel of Paul.
And again the Ebionites that scholar linked heavily with the original disciples, we know how their beliefs digress heavily from Pauls, they even called him fake and rejected his cooked up letters.

For Isaiah 53, you and I both know Jesus did not fulfill this part of the prophecy
"He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days."
And Isaiah 53 contradicts Psalm 91 a known prophecy about Jesus.
Prophecy is not something you force to fit, everything must fit with ease perfectly. If it didn't dey, it didn't dey.
And don't come here with that your 2nd temple Judaism bla bla bla. I'm living post the Messiah and I have active brain cells.

As bad as Paul was, I don't even believe the guy was trinitarian with his statement in 1 cor 11:3 at least not a trinitarian as defined by the Nicene creed but he definitely laid the faulty foundation for you Trinitarians.
With Jesus a member of the supposed trinity identifying father as the only true God I don't think you trinitarians should be quoting the shema it is just oxymoron.

The Angel of the lord is an angel that mediates and speaks on behalf of God. What is funny is non of the new testament writers equate the angel of the lord with Jesus.

SIRTee15:
u better avoid me here otherwise I will destroy the little faith u have in your prophet.
ask of me from your fellow Muslims here, I shatter false believes. That's my specialty.
not only muslims but atheist and some confused nigerian jews as well.

You Christians just love living in ur bubbles, a paulitheist want to destroy someone faith in Islam.

I can see you are still pushing your Isaiah 53 agenda
Something we don over burst for here.

Mr specialist this ur delulu no too much like this?

BlackfireX:
Who wrote the Quran?


Who wrote the Quran?

Do we have one Quran?or many Quran?


Lies of many years

Thank God for Internet



Cc: deepspirituals

Who do you think authored the Qur'an

Educate us.

Best team in the world is trailing

Valnony:
2 nil now.I’m a united fan but I want arsenal to win EPL this season

Who for win am before?

MaxInDHouse:
Mr Muslim your story doesn't add up if you don't believe in the Bible as a whole so keep your lies to yourself.

Meanwhile what God intended to do with inspired writings is found in the Bible book of Isaiah 2:2-4 & Micah 4:1-3 which no religion except true Christians are fulfilling throughout the world today!🙂

Ok, I don hear you.

It was all good between Paul and the Apostles. It was just one happy big fellowship of Christ.

Are u happy now?

MaxInDHouse:
It's only among Christendom that you will find anyone against the letters written by Paul.

This is what Peter one of the twelve Apostles wrote concerning Paul:

Furthermore, consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote you according to the wisdom given him. 2Peter 3:15

So it's confused Christendom and Muslims like you that's against God's inspired words written not true Christians!🙂

Guy if you don't know that 2peters authorship and authenticity was seriously doubted then I'm sorry for you.

Early church fathers like Eusebius and Origen doubted 2nd peters and there are good reasons to.

How it eventually made it into the canon sef nobody knows, because it almost did not make it.

If you want to know what was going on in early Christianity, read letters of Paul and read it carefully.

Galatians 1:8 was Paul throwing Jabs at the Apostles.

MaxInDHouse:
Jesus never wrote any book so it's what his disciples wrote that you and i are reading therefore if the story says Jesus later chose one man to serve as apostle to the nations {Act 9:15} you either believe it as part of the story or reject everything all together.
You can't reject some parts because it involves someone who outrightly made a statement that exposed Muhammad as fake:

However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond the good news we declared to you, let him be accursed. Galatians 1:8

The above is what makes Muslims hate Paul with passion because that statement finished Muhammad who came to preach something totally different from the Apostles!🙂

Galatians 1:8 was against the original apostles, if you read Paul letters carefully you will figure.

So it's not only Muslims that see Paul as fake, the apostles Jesus hand picked himself did too, you guys are just not paying attention.