₦airaland Forum

SIRTee15:
Very interesting a Muslim is debunking bible scholars and claiming they are anti-islam.
Muslims that cent breathe without quoting bible scholars up and down- they confirmed bible has been corrupted, verses have been added and removed.
Now that table is turned, it's suddenly bible scholars cannot be trusted.
First ancient Jews, now bible scholars....
U see the hypocrisy and double standard of Muslims in glare public.

Once again I have no problem if a Muslim reject bible scholars opinion on the scriptures because they are not theists but historians. It's just the way Muslims quote them to validate their argument against Christianity that makes their hypocrisy stinks.

What are you doing bro?

U better don't embarrass yourself.

Take a good look at Daniel prophecies yourself, and you will see he already identified the 2nd and 3rd empires after Babylon.

You are not getting out of this.

This is the most detailed prophecy that leads to our salvation. If you want to reject it, no problem. But don't come here with nonsense.

You are either going to accept Islam fulfilled the kingdom of God prophecy or you take it as failed prophecy. Whichever is your take, be my guest.

Cope harder.

SIRTee15:
Bring evidence the mainstream ancient Jews believed the partriach were pre existent. Stop making claims up. Bring evidence.
I brought evidence they believed the Messiah is not only persistent, but has the power of resurrection on the last day, will execute judgement on righteous and sinners on the last day n will rule both gentiles and Jews.
Above is divine attributes my friend, whether U accept or not isn't my problem but yours.

Your delusion knows no bound

From the "hardcore irrefutable evidence" you brought, It is clearly written they believed the Patriarchs were pre-existing even before Christ, but you turn a blind eye to that.

SIRTee15:
But don't come here n hope on ancient Judaism to validate your faith because they will disappoint U.
Ancient Judaism validate Christianity, it's the modern day rabinnical Jews that are now misinterpreting their scriptures to invalidate Jesus Christ.
If U want independent non bias exegesis of the Tanakh- go to 2nd temple Judaism texts and it will lead U straight to Christianity.

Stop deceiving yourself, ancient Judaism does not validate your semi-pagan religion. You have nothing to stand on.

SIRTee15:
Remember the first Christians were Jews, they became Christians even when the NT wasn't even in existence. The only thing thing they had was oral gospel and Paul's letters.
If not for destruction of the Jerusalem in 70AD, modern day Judaism would have been the face and extension UNITARIAN CHRISTIANITY.

Guy, even some of them, if not all of them like the Ebionites saw Paul as heretic/apostate of the law and guess what? they read another gospel too written by Matthew in Hebrew and not the forged one we have now.

And James that was the leader of the Jerusalem messianic Jews was against Paul teachings. So why would they read Paul writings?

SIRTee15:
I don't have a problem if U as a Muslim say those passages isn't about Jesus, we can have a debate on that.
But what U can't deny is that those verses talk about a redemption messiah and a Messiah with divine attributes . To do so is to deny evidence.
So all U need to do is sit down and wait for that Messiah who will come and die for your sins and the Messiah who is pre existence, will judge the nation and reassurect the dead. This is definitely not Muhammed.

There is nothing divine about Isaiah 53. U r just seeing something that is not there. The striking resemblance in Isaiah 53 and life of Jeremiah is just too much to be discarded.

SIRTee15:
I told U there is no Roman empire in that passage. The 4th beasts is Seleucid greek empire and not Roman empire.
No bible scholar believed the 4th beast is Rome, none.
No Roman emperor desecrated the holy temple, the Jews rebelled against the Roman empire twice and were thoroughly beaten blue black.
There's a reason all bible scholars believed the book of daniel was written around 175 BC. It's because of this 4th beast and it's correlation with Anthiochus the Seleucid king.

This is the order of the kingdoms

Babylon - Persia - Greece - Rome.

If anyone give you any other order, they just want to take you for a fool, and it is definitely someone that has seen that it's Islam that fulfilled the kingdom of God prophecy and just trying to play smart. Media and Persia are the same thing.

Emperor Hadrian desecrated the temple mount. Expelled the Jews and Messianic Jews from Jerusalem and placed the statue of Zeus on the temple mount. The ban on Jews was maintained until the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem in 636.


It is not a coincidence that the prophecies about that individual that God is going to send to the gentiles are always giving Prophet Muhammad vibes.

Isaiah 42: why would God be referencing villages of kedar. Kedar that is ancestor of Prophet Muhammad.

Deuteronomy 18:18: a prophet like Moses from among the brethren of the Israelites. and deut 34:10 went on to tell us "Never again did there arise in Israel a prophet like Moses—whom lord singled out, face to face."
So who is this prophet like Moses that is not Israelite.

Son of man of the book of Daniel: it is not a coincidence that the Islamic caliphate sacked the Romans the 4th kingdom from Babylon.

Even Jesus was reported to have said in Matthew 21:43 addressing the chief priest and the Pharisees "therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation that will produce its fruit"

The road map is there for anyone that cares about the truth.

Kingsempires:
ok explain

The patriarchs are Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob..

According to what is written on page 319, they believed the Patriarchs were also pre-existing even before the Messiah. Yet they did not believed in their divinity.

What does that tell you about their belief of the Messiah?

Kingsempires:
go throw the page 319 that he posted

Ok.

Do you know who the patriarchs on the same page 319 are?

Kingsempires:
men!!, which evidence do you want him to show you again


If you are still doubting, you can still bring your own evidence

Read the evidence he brought again

And this time, read it slowly.

And I want you to point out to me where the Jews before Christ believed he is going to be divine/God.

What he is doing is point out where they believed he is going to be "Son of God" then use Christainity understanding of the term "son of God" to claim divinity. Whereas for the Jews son of God mean a righteous servant of God.

SIRTee15:
Do ancient Judaism believe the Messiah has divine attributes.
Let's check what the Jews during the time of Jesus believe.

Summary
Pharisees during the time of Jesus believed
The Messiah is pre existence.
The Messiah has the power of resurrection.
The Messiah will rule both Israelites and Gentiles
The Messiah will reign and execute judgement on sinners.

Let's assume they truly believed the Messiah was pre-existing, they also believed the patriarchs were pre-existing. Did they believe the patriarchs were divine?
Or do you believe the patriarchs were pre-existing?
This is the reason why I keep saying you can't rely solely on what they believed prior to the coming of Christ, the Messiah already came. We have seen the prophecy he fulfilled 💯.

He did not fulfill Isaiah 53 by not having offspring (suffering servant of Isaiah 53 is Prophet Jeremiah) nor the prophecy of son of man of the book of Daniel. His kingdom did not defeat the 4th empire from Babylon (Romans). Prophet Muhammad is the son of man of the book of Daniel, Islamic empire displaced the Romans.

I don't know how you guys treat prophecies. Prophecy is not something you just do wuru-wuru to the answer or else everyone will be able to fulfill every prophecy.

We will just be hearing Jesus fulfilled over 300 prophecies from Christians, under small scrutiny everything will be falling apart like a house of cards.

And the fact that Christianity have redefine words like holy spirit, Messiah, Son of man, Son of God, Father (when referring to God) to suit their idolatry and blasphemous doctrines does not mean every other Abrahamic faith should swallow their definitions. That is another thing you need to let sink in.

SIRTee15:
Claim, claim, claim. Why don't U bring just one evidence to back your claim. Just one.
Is it so difficult to do research

Let's go back to Daniel 7.13

Sanhedrin 98a

"Rabbi Alexandri says: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi raises a contradiction between two depictions of the coming of the Messiah. It is written: “There came with the clouds of heaven, one like unto a son of man…and there was given him dominion and glory and a kingdom…his dominion is an everlasting dominion” (Daniel 7:13–14). And it is written: “Behold, your king will come to you; he is just and victorious; lowly and riding upon a donkey and upon a colt, the foal of a donkey” (Zechariah 9:9). Rabbi Alexandri explains: If the Jewish people merit redemption, the Messiah will come in a miraculous manner with the clouds of heaven. If they do not merit redemption, the Messiah will come lowly and riding upon a donkey."

Both Rabbi Alexandri and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi interpreted (Daniel 7:13–14) as a reference to a possible miraculous coming of the messiah to the Jewish people..

First know that Rabbi yeshua Ben Levi was considered a legend in his own right, compared to Elijah in his days and his interpretation are considered valid.

No ordinary man can come with the clouds of heaven. It's impossible. It has to be someone divine.

Jesus himself referenced Daniel 7.13 during his trial against the Sanhedrin.

Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”

62 “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

The response from the Sanhedrin was expected. Making such claim would be considered blasphemy and their response was appropriate.

63 The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. 64 “You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?”

So it's up to U. Either accept the evidence or stick to your delusion.

Anyway I dont have any problem leaving out rabbinical Jews exegesis in our debates so long as U don't bring them up.

Keep ranting

You have brought nothing again as evidence.

Maybe you mistook reading your Christian opinion into their writings as evidence.

Someone coming miraculously does not indicate divinity.

SIRTee15:
This guy is funny. All of a sudden ancient rabbinical Jews cannot be trusted.
Are U not the one that earlier claimed no Jew believed in divine Messiah. U were fighting tooth and nail earlier that Jews don't believe in a redeeming Messiah.
After slapping u with hardcore irrefutable evidence contrary to your claim... U don change mouth into ancient rabbinical Jews cannot be trusted.
Ok o...no wahala. But don't ever use rabbinical Jews as evidence against Christian belief again otherwise I will remind U of your double speak- elenu meji.

Yes, ancient rabbinical Jews believed in multiple Messiahs. That's why I said U should research 'THE MESSIAH'
In fact they believe in Messiah for Son of man, another one coming as Son of God, another one for priest of God, another one as interpreter of the Law. They believed in a Messiah coming as servant of God, branch of David, righteous one.
They even believe in the redemption Messiah- mashiach Ben Joseph, a Messiah who is coming to die for the sins of the world- Isaiah 53.
Then 'the ultimate Messiah' who will establish the everlasting kingdom of God here on earth
What they don't know was that only ONE MAN will fulfill it all.
Jesus fulfilled all the Messianic attributes and description revealed in the scriptures. He fulfilled everyone of them, not a single one left out including your deut 18.18, a prophet like Moses.

John 5.46
If you believe in Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.

Peter confirmed the prophet after Moses is Jesus.
Acts 3
19 Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, 20 and that he may send the Messiah, who has been appointed for you—even Jesus. 21 Heaven must receive him until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets. 22[b] For Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he tells you. 23 Anyone who does not listen to him will be completely cut off from their people[/b].’

John 1.29
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, " Behold the Lamb of God , who takes away the son of the world!

Acts 7- Stephen also affirmed that the prophet after Moses is Jesus.

37 “This is the Moses who told the Israelites, ‘God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your own people.’ 38 He was in the assembly in the wilderness, with the angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our ancestors; and he received living words to pass on to us.

U should keep swimming in your delusion.

NONE of the evidence you brought indicates the Jews prior to the coming of Christ believed the Messiah is going to be divine

The fact that they used the term son of God does not indicate they believed in the Divinity of the Messiah. To the Jews son of God simply means a righteous servant of God. You can not read your blasphemous doctrine into their writings.

Nor the fact that Son of man was seen brought near the father indicate divinity.

The hardcore irrefutable evidence is just in your head, but anything that makes you sleep at night.

I am not ready to go into Deuteronomy 18 18 with you now.
It's a new week, have a great week.

Kingsempires:
what he quoted for you was 325ad and not 381ad this is the evidence

If you read the evidence you presented very well, you will know what I claimed is correct

SIRTee15:
Daniel 7 isn't about Muhammed.
The Isra miraj never happened except in Muhammad's head.
His wife, Aisha said Muhammed was with him in bed the night he claimed he went to heaven.

U are free to believe your delusion, that's your business.

The only thing left for U now is to argue against evidence.
I leave that for U. Going to work.

Just like it is only in your head that it was not the Islamic empire that defeat the 4th empire from Babylon.

Just a coincidence huh?

SIRTee15:
Mr man don't waste my time. If U reject my evidence bring your counter evidence. I do t want your opinion

Go and bring the Nicene creed U think they formulated if U think this is not the one. Google is free.

This is the one that was formulated in 325 AD and this is the one we read our churches.

I already said U know nothing about the trinity doctrine except what U read from Muslim website.
Go and do your own independent research and stop being a nuisance.

U should re-use that Google to check the creed again

What you are quoting should be from 381AD and not 325AD

SIRTee15:
No record of Jesus using Yahweh....are U for real.

Did Jesus quote the shema...
'Hear O Israel, the LORD our God is one.
The LORD here is what in Hebrew?

Did Jesus quote
'Thou shall only Worship your LORD your God' a verse from the book of Deuteronomy.
The LORD here is what in Hebrew?

Are you saying the Jews knew the correct pronunciation of the word YHVH during the time of Jesus?

SIRTee15:
Do U believe Isaiah 53 is about the Messiah coming to suffer and die for sins of mankind?

That's my question. Not whether it's about Jesus or not.

If U believe in the Messiah, do U believe he's the one talked about in Isaiah 53 because the ancient rabbinical Judaism believed the Messiah talked about in Isaiah 53 is coming to suffer and die for their sins.

Stop wasting your time on what ancient Rabbinical Jews believed about a prophecy.

Just like I asked you earlier, do you believe there is supposed to be 2 Messiahs like they believed?

Or do you believe the Prophet of Deuteronomy 18:18 is different from the Messiah?

If you don't 100% agree with them, then why use them as reference?

Leemzyy:
Lol so clearly u mean jesus nw dey lie right?

He intentionally Use Yahweh, but there is no record of Jesus using Yahweh.

Jesus would have used Alaha, Because that is how he would have called God in his language.

His intention is to portray to you that God of Jesus is different from God of Islam.

SIRTee15:
Ok let's deal with trinity and the beliefs of the early church fathers.

First here is the trinity as stated in the Nicene creed.

Here is the Nicene creed as formulated at the council of Constantinople in 325 AD

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

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
begotten from the Father before all ages,
God from God,
Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made;
of the same essence as the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven;
he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary,
and was made human.
He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered and was buried.
The third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures.
He ascended to heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again with glory
to judge the living and the dead.
His kingdom will never end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life.
He proceeds from the Father and the Son,
and with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified.
He spoke through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church.
We affirm one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look forward to the resurrection of the dead,
and to life in the world to come. Amen.

This is the trinity as established by the Nicene creed.
Now let's read what the early church fathers pre Nicene believed about the trinity

Nope

I'm not sure this is their take at the first council.

They only affirmed "we believe in holy spirit"

I think they have to wait another 60 years or so to confirm the holy spirit as also God.

And people who have belief similar to Tertullian were declare heretic.

"But as for those who say, There was when He was not,........."

SIRTee15:
I noticed modern Muslims are now leaning on modern Jewish interpretation of their scriptures to reject new testament.

Hahahaha

Modern Jews are playing u guys for a fool. They are deliberately misinterpreting their scripture so that Jesus won't be the Messiah.
Their ancient fathers believed otherwise. The viewed their scriptures in line with Christian beliefs.

Let's go back to Isaiah 53 then we will return to Daniel 7.
I will destroy that modern Jewish line U want to lean on today.

Lol
This your false doctrine really sure for you.
In as much as there is no evidence of the early church fathers believing in it as you believe it post Nicene-contatinople, you are just wasting ur time with that developing doctrine of yours.

You are the one that need to do more diligent study about your man-made doctrine. It is man-made till you can provide a single saying from any of the prophets that clearly support your man-made doctrine.

Alaye it's quite clear Tertullian believed there was a time the son doesn't exist. You are just wasting your time still quoting Tertullian. You can move on to another church Father.

No, no one is taking me for a fool. Because I already believe Jesus is the Messiah. You are the one that keep bringing what they believed prior to coming of Jesus to substantiate your point.

I'm telling you we can not rely on what they believed in prior to coming of Christ. They are prophecies for a reason. Christ already came we have seen the prophecy he fulfilled 100% to know which are messianic prophecies and which are not.

Isaiah 53 is not about Jesus. He had no offspring. It is most likely about Prophet Jeremiah.

Just like the kingdom of the Son of man in the book of Daniel is supposed to defeat the 4th kingdom from Babylon which is the Roman empire.

Jesus seem to be talking about the son of man in 3rd person.

And should we just take the Isra wa miraj (the prophet night journey to heaven) in our tradition and Islamic empire defeating the Roman empire as a coincidence?

Leemzyy:
You know yaaya i feel like is it that they dont read the bible?or they dont get the words there?cux everything is there and also straight forward na

They have been given a false doctrine of a triune God, they have to read that into the text of the Bible.

Leemzyy:
John 17:3 said"this is the eternal life,that they may know you,you the only true God and jesus christ whom you have sent

You will see from this verse that Jesus identify God as the ONLY TRUE GOD, and himself as the person that was sent by that God.

He will come back to tell you how the person that was sent is the same as the person that sent him.

What they believe in is illogical and incoherent.

They just want to be polytheist and monotheist at the same time.

Leemzyy:
Plx sir Qasim6 and Antichristian you guys should confirm my quote sources,they are legit right? yea i know they are and so bear me witness with their replies 2 my qstns pls

You are trying Sis.

They are just Ignorant and lost. All their doctrines are man-made

Jesus already told them they are worshipping him in vain.

Matthew 15:9
in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’

SIRTee15:
Did U read the documents at all or U trying to play blind. These are evidence from ancient rabbinical Judaism, not your modern day Jews who are misinterpreting their scripture so Jesus won't be the Messiah.

SirTee! Why are you acting dumb?

Is the Jews understanding of Son of God same as Christainity understanding of the term Son of God?

Are all the people called Son of God in the old testament divine?

SIRTee15:
If I bring evidence that the ancient rabbinical Judaism before Jesus was born believed this passage was about divine Messiah.
What will U do?
because I did the same for Isaiah 53. I brought multiple evidence- including from dead sea scrolls, that ancient Jews believed Isaiah 53 is about the Messiah coming to die for the sins of mankind.
Even your fellow black Jew in the thread was weak. He couldn't say anything.
If I do the same for Daniel 7 passage, what will U do?
I want to know your response, because I don't want to waste my time bringing evidence and U still being obstinate.

U just like deceiving yourself, which evidence did u bring?

Ancient Rabbinical Jews believed there is going to be 2 Messiahs, do you believe that too?

Infact they believed the Prophet of Deuteronomy 18:18 is different from the Messiah, do you believe that too?

No Rabbinical Judaism believe the Messiah will die for anybody sins.

Jesus did not have any offspring like Isaiah 53 prophesied, Isaiah 53 is most likely about Prophet Jeremiah.

SIRTee15:
Learn the difference btw the phrase 'messiah' and 'the messiah'. The later is called 'Al mashiach'.
Once U learn the difference, come back and debate.

Meanwhile the divine Messiah is evident in the book of Daniel 7

13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man,[a] coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

No, the divine messaih is not evident any where in the tanakh, you are just deceiving yourself.

The word translated as worshipped could be translated as obey/serve. I don't know why you chose worshipped which is against the teachings of the tanakh (worshipping other than God).

Number 23:19God is not man, that he should lie, not a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?


Is the kingdom of the son of man not supposed to end the 4th kingdom from Babylon (which is the Romans) or Is this going to be another wuru-wuru to the answer like Isaiah 53?

SIRTee15:
I'm not even going to bother debate this with U. Either produce evidence Son of God as a divine title came from Pagan Romans or stop confabulating.

Meanwhile I leave you with evidence of Son of God as divine Messiah from the dead sea scrolls.

What exactly are you showing here?

The Jews do not understand the term son of God to mean divine son of God. To them It simply mean a righteous servant of God.

So what exactly are we supposed to make out of this qumran document??

AntiChristian:
The guy is just seeing things that don't exist!
That's how they interpret Bible too!

Just pick a verse and blow it over than what it means to justify what you have in mind!

I tire for him

He's trying to make a case of polytheism from the Qur'an.

His delusion knows no bound.

SIRTee15:
The joke is on you and Islam.
Christian don't worship 2 gods whether U believe it or not isn't my headache.
But the bigger problem is Allah made it clear it's permissible to worship 2 gods ' under some special circumstances'- if he has a son.
Polytheism is a sin under any circumstances or context whatever whether real or imagined.
That's the problem with that verse 43.81

Even if Allah has a family- He should be the only one to be worshipped in that family. If anyone else is worshipped- it automatically becomes polytheism.


Most ancient mythology including greek, Egypt, near east all had god deity with families who were all worshipped.
God called it POLYTHEISM.

Your problem stems from lack of understanding of who the Son of God is in Christian theology. He's the word of God NOT a physical son.

Son of God is an anthropomorphism for the incarnate word of God. He's not a physical Son. God needs his word...not a physical son.
Go and read Read John 1.

Regarding trinity, I don't know if I'm in the mood to debate with U because it's so obvious U haven't done any independent research on trinity except what U learnt in Muslim apologetics.

Start by reading Tertullian- the first church father to coin the word trinity. He died in 240 AD at the age of 80.
That was 100 yrs b4 council of Constantinople.

No bro, the joke is on Christainity.

WE KNOW WHO WE WORSHIP!

Gather 100 Christians in a room and ask them about the nature of Jesus and see confusion flying left and right. So the Joke is all on you and entire Christendom.

Christainity understanding of the term son of God is incoherent and illogical just like your doctrine of trinity, so don't come here and be telling us lack of understanding bla bla bla.

The fact that Tertullian is the first to used the term trinity does not mean he had the same understanding as Christians post nicene-contatinople councils.

Tertullian believed the son is not eternal which is contradictory to how they define the trinity in the later creed

Here is a quote from Tertullian
"Because God is in like manner a father, and He is also a judge, but he has not always been a father and judge, merely on the ground of his having always been a God. For HE COULDN'T HAVE BEEN THE FATHER PREVIOUS TO THE SON, nor a judge previous to sin........"

So I repeat NO CHURCH FATHER FOR THE FIRST 3 CENTURY OF CHRISTAINITY BELIEVED IN THE DOCTRINE OF TRINITY AS YOU HAVE BELIEVE IT SINCE NICEA/CONSTANTINOPLE COUNCILS

SIRTee15:
And this leads to bigger problem for islam. because worshipping both Allah and his Son- 2 different beings is polytheism.
U are worshipping 2 gods.
And next question will be ...WHY IS THE QUR'AN ENTERTAINING THE THOUGHTS OF POLYTHEISM.

A BOOK THAT'S MEANT TO CORRECT CHRISTIAN WORSHIP IS SAYING BOWING DOWN TO 2 GODS IS NOT A SIN WITHIN CERTAIN CONTEXT.

Lol!

See what doctrine of trinity has done to an intelligent young man.
You just use your own hand to expose Christainity as a false religion.

Maybe you don't know, NONE of the first 3 century church fathers believed in the doctrine of trinity as you Christian believe it since the councils of Nicea&Constantinople. What they believed in was subordination at worst.

After christendom realize the pitfall of polytheism they have digged into by exalting Jesus as a god that is lesser than God almighty, that is when they started coming up with the nonsense God incarnate, hypostatic union and the likes to explain their confusion.

SIRTee15:
why is Allah having such blasphemous thoughts. Polytheism is a sin- it doesn't matter the circumstances. Worshipping of 2 gods is a sin.

That's why I don't consider the Qur'an the word of God. It's the dictation of Muhammed's primitive thinking based on his understanding of Christian belief.

Bro! this is what Qur'an have to say about God having a son

Q 19:88-93

"And they say, "The Most Merciful has taken [for Himself] a son".

You have done an atrocious thing.

The heavens almost rupture therefrom and the earth splits open and the mountains collapse in devastation.

That they attribute to the Most Merciful a son.

And it is not appropriate for the Most Merciful that He should take a son.

There is no one in the heavens and earth but that he comes to the Most Merciful as a servant."

So the idea of Allah having blasphemous thought is just nonsense that doesn't hold water.

SIRTee15:
Now back to Qasim, why do U think God need a mother. Do U really think he has a physical Son.
What we call Son of God is just the word of God.
There's no physical Son in heaven.

Catholics refer to Mary as mother of God, hence they give her some divine attributes by praying to her. Do you think it is wrong?

Q 10:68 They say, “Allah has taken a son.” Glory be to Him! He is the Self-Sufficient. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. You have no proof of this! Do you say about Allah what you do not know?

God is self sufficient, He does not need a Mother or a Son(in any shape or form) to dispose all his affairs.

Why do you think God needs a Son in any shape or form?

SIRTee15:
All this shalaye is not necessary. Just answer the question

If Allah has a son, should the son be worshipped ?

Just answer the question.

I believe you are smarter than this, you are just intentionally acting otherwise because of your man-made doctrine.

The Qur'an totally refute Christainity understanding of the term "son of God" and tell us what the term truly mean. so why bother with the IF??

But to answer your question, since the Son is going to be family of God, then we have to worship him.

If God has a Mother should we worship her too?

SIRTee15:
So finally U admit that if God has a son, he should be worshipped.
Alhamdulilah!!!
I now have small respect for U- just very small, because everybody here know saying your brain too dey touch, there are definitely missing screws in your brain.
But as we all know, even a dead clock is correct twice a day.
Anyway kudos to U. I respect people who doesn't choose and pick what to defend in their faith. It shows u are a honest and sincere Muslim even though it's a false religion.
Unlike Abutwin and Qasim who came here and denied surah 43.81, claiming the verse never said son of Allah should be worshipped. It shows they were embarrassed by that verse.

What kinda strawman argument is this?
Why are you lying bro?

What I pointed out to you is that the Qur'an refutes your(Christain) understanding of the term son of God. That the term son of God is an honorific title, it simply means a righteous servant of God and that is how the Jews understood it. It was the pagan Romans that took the meaning with Jesus to another level.

I quoted Qur'an 21:26 where Allah says
"And they say, “The Most Merciful has taken a son.” Exalted is He! Rather, they are [but] honored servants."

SIRTee15:
The term Son of God was used to describe the Messiah who is to come and establish the kingdom of God on earth.
Because the Messiah is expected to be a divine being sent by the Father, the 2nd temple Judaism coined the term Son of God for this divine Messiah.

No one expects the messaih to be divine. and the term is not only used to describe the messaih. At least be truthful if you care about the truth!

SIRTee15:
It's not like there's a physical son that exist in heaven and would need to produce his own progeny.

Muhammed lived in a desert far away from civilisation, didn't know much about Christian theology and couldn't read or write.
He just dictated what he felt was his understanding of Christian belief based on his limited knowledge.
That's why I dont believe God spoke to Muhammed. It's just too glaring.
At least God would know what Christian believe and won't be committing blunders when it comes to correcting those beliefs.

You are just making nonsense up in your head and you are debunking the nonsense by yourself.

If you think an illetrate in 7th century Arabia can come up with the text of the Qur'an by just making it up in his head or just doing copy and paste job then it is very obvious how ignorant you are of the Qur'an.

You have no Idea what we have in our possession.

If Muhammad is not a prophet then no one is!

Ohyoudidnt:
Enjoy and understand that any manuscript variant that conflicts with Uthmanic and isn't corroborated by something found in the literature should be assumed to be a scribal mistake.

In the 1 case of the numerous sheets you should understand this was the work of a student.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZe_qREjNYI?si=CNkW9xaMq7SdosE7

Thoroughly explained.

Hopefully He will learn and not keep regurgitating his nonsense assertion.

TenQ:
You will from this thread conclude that Islamic scholars have told lies all along that the Qur'an was perfectly preserved even up to the diacritical marks

More still coming

Lol

You are only making a fool of yourself, you are not exposing anything.

it is in our source (Hadith) that there are different readings of the Qur'an going straight back to the prophet.


You should drink water and rest!

Here I am thinking you will bring something like an interpolation like the pericope adulterae, or something that will destroy our doctrines like 1John 5:7 (the nonsense there are 3 in heaven....)

All these things you are pointing out do not negate our narrative of how the Qur'an was revealed and preserved.

Keep labouring in vain, no go warm eba chop.

SIRTee15:
That Jesus quote a verse doesn't make it messianic.
Pls go and learn the criteria for messianic prophecy.

Jesus quote the shema, hear o Israel your Lord your God is one.

Does that make the shema a messianic prophetic verse.

Go and read 2nd temple messianic prophecies, those verses in the tanakh the pre Christian Jews believed to be about the coming Messiah.

Psalm 91 wasn't considered a messianic prophecy.

I trust u to throw away Psalm 91 as a prophecy about Jesus. This a prophecy that foreshadow his name.

But you'll rather cling to Isaiah 53, that says the suffering servant will see his off spring, u just have to put a spin on it and change it to some spiritual children.