₦airaland Forum

Odingo1:
Then why will my ancestors know better than the Koran, because in my cultural tradition, that is one of the highest abominable incest one can commit. As far as the risk is greater than 1% that is much. I am yet to see a culture that permit someone to marry adopted son wife if they divorce.

why do you think your culture is the best? And why do think whatever your culture frown at should be frown at every where.

Guy u don already open thread for adopted son wife, I commented on the thread. I have given my opinion on the thread. If you are not ok with it, so be it.

Odingo1:
That is not what verse 4:23 said, attached is what the verse said, you are adding your own. The question is not about whether British or elsewhere culture is doing it. The contention is why will a Koran book that was claimed to come from god allow such despicable practices of marring your uncle daughter that have medical disorder implications and also a stepdaughter or divorced adopted son wife as practiced by prophet Mohammed.

Do you kno the risk is 3% in unrelated couples and around 4-6% in Cousins marriage?

Are we not going to marry again since the risk is also present in unrelated couples?

Yeah, it is permitted. But if you are not cool with it then stay away. You are only looking at it from the perspective of your own culture. Some cultures are cool with it.

Odingo1:
The verse said that you can marry your stepdaughter if you did not marry the mother before. Read it again slowly.

And for the cousins part, yeah it is permissible.
It is not something peculiar to Islam, some cultures do permit that.

But if your cultures does not permit it, then stay away from it.

Odingo1:
The verse said that you can marry your stepdaughter if you did not marry the mother before. Read it again slowly.

So if you did not marry the mother of a lady before, how is the lady your stepdaughter?

What the verse is talking about is if you have consummated a marriage with a woman then you can't marry her daughter again.

Odingo1:
Attached is the quote, that is why prophet Mohammed married his Uncle daughter and after that he also married his adopted son wife Zaynab.

But step daughters are mentioned in verse

SIRTee15:
That is not my question.
Stop answering what I didn't ask U.
Did Allah inform the ebionites and Jesus inner circle that Jesus didn't die thus issue of ressurection is a fallacy.
How did ebionites come about believing in the ressurection of Jesus if it never happened.
Did Allah reveal to the true Muslims that Jesus never died and this could t have resurrected.
If the bible points towards Allah saving ISA, then why did his companions erroneously thought he died and resurrected.
Where did they get that knowledge from?
This is my question.

Well, It's because you are not connecting the dot, that's the reason u feel I am not answering your question.

Your erroneous conclusion that we know what the apostles actually believed is because you are assuming all the books of the new testament were actually written by the authors that are ascribed to them, unfortunately out of all the 27 books therein scholars believe only 7 were correctly ascribed, the rest are likely forgeries. And all the 7 are Paul's, so not even all the books ascribed to Paul are believed to have been written by Paul.
It is not the Muslims that are saying this o, it is New testament scholars.

And there are strong indications that some of these Apostles actually did write, for example the Hebrew gospel written by Matthew, the gospel written by Mark that was also described by Papias in such a way that it is different from the Mark gospel we ended up with. But these documents did not survive.

So how do we know for certainty what the Apostles believed or did not believe if we are not sure we have anything from them?

And for the Ebionites, most of what we know about them are from what the gentile Christians in around 3rd - 4th century wrote about the Ebionites of their time.

I'm sorry, I'm going to take God's word over the testimony of all the people in this world. The reason why I was referencing Psalm 91 and the Qur'an confirming it.

SIRTee15:
Ok let me debate U on this...let me show U we Christians don't shy from our scriptures.
There are clear explicit passages in the gospel where Jesus defined Son of God but of course Qasim will reject it.
But to show that we Christians can defend all verses in our scriptures standing alone without ducking to other verses to safe face, I will take U on it.
All U ve done so far in this debate is either avoid difficult questions, deflect it or flatly denied your books.

Ok
Is Jesus claiming to be Son of God just like the Jews? The answer is No.

Psalm 82 refers to mortal sinful men as gods. That shows how elevated Man is in God's presence.

The psalmist have this to say about mere Man...
Psalm 8
what is mankind that you are mindful of them,
human beings that you care for them?

5 You have made them a little lower than Elohim
and crowned them with glory and honor.
6 You made them rulers over the works of your hands;
you put everything under their feet: all flocks and herds,



Man is suppose to dominate here on earth, everything should be under our control here on earth.
because we are made in the image of God, we are suppose to reign supreme on earth just like God reign supreme in heaven and the universe. Bible says we will even judge angels.

1 Corinthians 6
Do you not know that we shall judge the angels? How much more, then, the things of this life!

Man is a powerful being, he's not ordinary; and that's what Jesus is pointing out for the Jews...they are mortal men but are highly placed in the hierarchy of authority.
Psalm 82.1 says ..
God presides in the great assembly;
he renders judgment among the “gods”:

The ""gods" in that verse is Man if he knows what he's doing.

Man should be responsible before God to judge on his behalf. Man is meant to make right and sound judgement just like God would if He were in their place. In this sense we are called "gods."


However due to the fallen state of Man, the sons of God in psalm 82 didn't judge right, they were wicked and oppressive- that can't be Jesus
The sons of God in the chapter walked in darkness, know nothing and understand nothing - that cannot be Jesus.
They were condemned and told they will die like mortals- both bible and Quran agree Jesus is alive.

Thus Jesus cannot be lumped amongst the sons of God in psalm 82 and Jesus will never use such despicable attributes to describe himself.
The sons of God in Psalm 82 were the Jews, not Jesus Christ.

Jesus then made His point: "If the Scripture calls mere sinful men 'gods- with all those powerful attributes' (and the Scripture cannot be broken), then how can I be wrong to call Myself 'God'? If men are called 'gods' in Psalm 82:6, then how can it be blasphemy for the SON OF GOD to be called 'God'?"
Notice what Jesus says about Himself in John 10:36:
He is the One that God the Father has sanctified (set apart in a very special way). Jesus Christ is the Unique One. There is no One like Him!
He is the One whom God has sent into the world. He came from God!
He claimed to be the Son of God (John 10:36). And the Jews knew that when a person claimed to be the Son of God He was claiming to be equal with God.

John 5.17
In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” 18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

Quite lengthy but I hope even U will learn one or two things about who you are as a Man and not just slave slave the Qur'an wants to turn everybody into...
You are not a slave, U are a powerful being.

That's why most times when U quote the scripture, I just ignore it because it's so obvious U don't know what U taking about.

That's a beautiful preaching Pastor Sirtee, unfortunately today is not sunday you can wait till tomorrow.

I flatly denied our Books you say? Can I just bring the writings of any of the early church fathers to you then impose it on you? because that's exactly what you are doing with the Tafsir
And which difficult questions did I avoid?

And I really don't think all these your stories and preaching is necessary.

By the statement
"I and the Father are one"
Was Jesus claiming to be God?

If He was, were the Jews right to have accused him of blasphemy based on the fact that this is a man in front of them claiming to be God?

Odingo1:
That who is marrying who is abominable in our land, why will a religion that it prophet claim to hear from god permit such dirty marriage. My question is why should Alla permit such marriages

Ok no problem.

Kindly quote Qur'an 4:23 here and let's see.

Odingo1:
This is a serious reason my people cannot be Muslims because this is an act of committing abomination in my tradition and are regarded as incest.

Can Muslim explain why Allah permit them in Koran Sura an Nissa 4 vs 23 to marry their stepdaughter and Uncle daughters, that is to marry a daughter of your father brother or mother brother or an adopted girl child which is your daughter or marry your adopted son wife if they divorce. Prophet Mohammed married his brother daughter Zainab and his adopted son wife.

Are you sure you know what you are talking about?

Seems your own problem is who is marrying who

Kingsempires:
no be lie you talk he always like to turn bible upside down just see quote so now he is trying to call prophet Isaiah a liar


He knowledge of the bible is 0% he knows nothing about the bible

I am not calling a prophet of God a liar, and I will never do that

Did Jesus name or Messiah appear anywhere in Isaiah 53?
Isaiah 53 clearly states the suffering servant will live long to see his offspring.
Did Jesus have offspring? If he didn't have offspring then Isaiah 53 can't be about him.

And psalm 91 was thrown at Jesus in gospel according to Matthew. He was asked to jump off a cliff.

Mat 4:6 “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written: “’He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’”

This is a clear reference to psalm 91, when we go to psalm 91 we see it is talking about someone that will be in trouble and God will save him, this individual won't even dash his foot against a stone not to talk of being beaten, nailed to a cross, and pierced with a spear. This prophecy also clearly have the name of Jesus (that we can say the prophecy is probably foreshadowing his name)

So what we have in our hands are two prophecies that are at loggerheads and can't be of the same person because one is about a suffering servant and the other is about someone that won't suffer.

As a rational human being that I am, I'll be going with Psalm 91 and these are my reasons

- It was thrown at Jesus, He did not deny it was about him.(infact he seems to have have confirmed it was about him with his response)
- this prophecy foreshadows his name.
- the prophecy line up to what happened to him at a later time (him being scared of wat is going to happen to him and praying to God to turn the cup away from him in Gethsemane)
- and my personal bias as a Muslim because we believe he was actually saved from the crucifixion because that's what our Qur'an tell us.

If you believe Isaiah 53 is about him and not psalm 91 or you believe you can reconcile both prophecies to be about him kindly let me know how you reach that conclusion, You can also call your champion SIRTee15 that feels I don't know what I'm taking about at times when I'm quoting the Bible. Not that you will just be accusing me of calling a Prophet of God a liar.

SIRTee15:
What about resssurection? Who told the Ebionites that Jesus resurrected. Where did the belief come from?
Did Allah convey his message to the inner circle that he saved ISA or he waited for 600 yrs to correct the confusion he himself created.

It is plainly there in Psalm 91 that nothing will happen to him that he will not even dash his foot against a stone. But somehow you want us to believe that same person was beaten, nailed to a cross and pierced with a spear. and because u don't want the Bible to explain the Bible to you, you will rather cling to a problematic Isaiah 53.

Qur'an is just confirming that God kept his promise to the Messiah.

Those prophecies are not in there for decorations hope you know?

SIRTee15:
Muslims are very funny. U people will accuse Christians of using vague passages to explain trinity or deity of Christ and demand explicit verses where these doctrines are defined but here U are desperately holding into a vague passage to explain Son of God; when we have clear explicit passages where Jesus himself defined Son of GOD- but of course those passages must be corrupt according to Muslims.

I brought one already and here's another
John 5.23
That all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.
John 3.16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life

But of course the above are corrupt verses according to Qasim.

Now to John 10. The vague passage

Jesus said I and Father are one.
The ignorant Jews concluded that was blasphemy because he was claiming to be God
Jesus referred them to their scriptures where they were called gods- God made man in his image. The spirit of man is the image of God. So every human has a reflection of God in them.
And above is not blasphemy.
Now Jesus asked them that If above is true and it's not blasphemy how much more the Person God set apart as his very own and sent into the world? v36
What does the highlighted mean- John 3.16, Luke 22.60, Mark 14.16

No, the passage is not vague, you are only pretending as if you don't understand what was going on there.

The passage Jesus was directing them to was psalm 82:6
“I said, ‘You are “gods"; you are all sons of the Most High.’

And he was telling them he is only claiming to be son of God.
Your God was denying to be God.

SIRTee15:
Why not bring a Tafsir that agrees with U. Or U mean none of your scholars agree with your pattern of reasoning.
If that's the case, then that's very serious....

U better don't bring the hadith up...or U just going to make things worse for your Allah and his Qur'an!!!

The most intelligent Muslim after Muhammed himself.

Anyway back to story of the men in the cave.
Why are they following Jesus in the first place?

I thought Jesus was only sent to the Israelites.
And the Qur'an confirms a prophet is only sent to his own people in their own language, and only Muhammed is sent to the whole world.
Then why are natives of Ephesus following Jesus?
Are they not suppose to follow the prophet Allah sent to them in Ephesus or Ancient minor.
Why did they ignore their own prophet Allah sent to them in their own language and followed a prophet sent only to the Jews.

Maybe you should first explain why Jesus said He was only sent to the lost sheep of house of Israel, also making sure to warn the apostles not to go into the ways of the gentiles.

Did he forget his mission when he was making that statement? Cos I will be worried if someone that came for my salvation exclude me that way.

I'll be waiting for your beautiful spin though.

SIRTee15:
Until U are scholastic enough to write your own Tafsir, U can shove your opinion down your throat.
Tafsir rejector.

Deal with this....if it's choking U, feel free to spit it out but FACT REMAIN FACT. TAFSIR REMAIN TAFSIR.
upon which another man asked: “O Messenger of Allah! What about the waiting period of those who do not have menstruation because they are too young?” (along with those who have it not) because of young age, their waiting period is three months


The evidence I brought clearly showed puberty in ancient Jewish girl is defined as 14 yrs.
Within 1-2 yrs they get married, which makes perfect sense.
The source is from Sanhedrin text itself- the ancient rabbinical codification on laws and custom.

U can move the ancient Jewish puberty to 6 if that makes U feel better and helps validate Quran, but here we dealing with facts not mere opinion.

You can call me whatever you like, I'm not just going to swallow any Tafsir thrown at me like a zombie.

I believe the best way to understand the Qur'an is using the Qur'an to explain the Qur'an then the Hadith then Tafsirs.

Why am I not even suprised you are calling me Tafsir rejector, u swallowed a man-made doctrine formed over 300 years after Jesus.
Na, I don't do blind faith.

SIRTee15:
Guy defend your Qur'an. Even if Christianity is false doesn't make Islam true.
I started this conversation bocs I wanted to prove to U that Qur'an can't be from God.
This isnt about validity of Christianity.

Where did the ebionites get the message that Jesus died and resurrected on the 3rd day?
Did Allah convey the message to ISA companions that Jews didn't crucify ISA but he rescued him?
Did he tell Muslims in the first century that ISA didn't die or he waited for 600 yrs to tell Muslims.
Did ISA tell any of his companions that he is the son of GOD- metaphorical, begotten or adopted.
That's what I want to know. If Ebionites or seven sleepers are believers according to Qur'an where did they got their erroneous believe from?

If U don't have the answer, just say so and end the discussion.
Bringing Christianity to defend Islam makes no sense because U guys already said it's a false religion.
I will never use another religion to defend validity of Christianity. Straight up the bible and nothing else.

The Ebionites could have picked that up from anywhere.
Qur'an does not say a crucifixion did not take place, what Qur'an is saying is Jesus was not the one on the cross and those who differ over it are in doubt about it, that they have no certain knowledge of what happened but they were just following conjectures. And with the disparities among the gospels it is evidently clear that the writers were not eye witness to the crucifixion.

So a crucifixion did happen, but God saved him from the crucifixion just as psalm 91 prophesied.

Believing or not believing in the crucifixion of Jesus Christ for Christians before the coming of Prophet Muhammad is not what takes one out of the fold of true faith.

What we can deduce even from the pages of the new testament is that Jesus inner circle continue to follow the law which shouldn't have been the case if following the law would have meant Christ died in vain. So they did not believe in the vicarious atonement hogwash and that also reflected on the Ebionites.

For the son of God, the evidence is there in John 10. He used the term to counter the accusation of blasphemy.

SIRTee15:
Guy the argument here is prepubertal sex!!!
I agree things of the past should be left to the past.
But Quran claim to be eternal and that's the problem.
That's why it can't be from God. At least that surah on divorce can't be from God.
Prepubertal sex is evil.

Now let me explain why prepubertal sex is evil.

The woman is only ready for sexual intercourse when the vaginal wall has received enough estrogen to help relax the muscles and keep the environment moist, this will allow for adequate expansion and elasticity during penetrations.
Now surge of estrogen comes from the ovary with the onset of puberty.
Without the actions of this hormone, sex will be very painful to a girl, the vaginal wall may bruise or even bleed.

Same reason some menopausal women also have painful sex cos the aged ovary has stopped producing estrogen.

God in his infinite wisdom will never approve such painful action on a child just because an adult wants to derive pleasure.

Alaye you have used the fact that Jesus called a 12 years old talitha to counter the claim that Mary was around 12 when she became pregnant in our past discussion. Your argument then was Elizabeth called her woman. When we know in ancient Israel girls get betrothed around 12 and usually get married in a year or 2 after their betrothal.

Qur'an 64:5 used the word women and not girls, and we know there is marriageable age which have to do with having sound judgement and able to manage wealth. so I don't understand where this your 'it can't be from God' is coming from.
And I also don't understand why you are lecturing me on why prepubertal sex is evil. U can shove your lecture down your throat.

So if the Qur'an claim to be eternal it should not cater for divorce of matured women that are not seeing their periods abi wat are you talking about?

SIRTee15:
👍👍👍👍
This is what I want, bring evidence so we can learn.
If I reject it, I will bring my own counter evidence.
This is the strength of argument, not just rejecting because it doesn't suit your narrative.

15 is not too young get married in ancient civilization.
Most 15 yr old girls in the west already have boyfriends and some are even having sex.

However prepubertal marriage is not allowed in Jewish antiquity irrespective of circumstances.

https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10435-marriage-laws

Suddenly, girls below age 15 that have reached puberty fall into your category of women in the ancient world.

At least we can both agree now that reaching puberty was the thin line between a girl and a woman in the ancient/mediaeval times. And we can stop our anachronistic judgemental of people of the past.

SIRTee15:
No girl complete puberty at 10 except she has precocious puberty and that's a medical condition.

Ok

And do you think what they were doing giving out "matured women" in marriage before age 15 at the start of their puberty in ancient Israel was wrong

SIRTee15:
Guy, girls don't get married in the bible. U have to be a woman to be married.

Woman means someone who has completed puberty.

Then tell us the age of these women or what we should look for na with Bible passage you are using as reference

If a woman completed puberty lets say at age 10, are they ready for marriage?

And do you think what they were doing giving out "matured women" in marriage before age 15 at the start of their puberty in ancient Israel was wrong

SIRTee15:
Yinmu🥱🥱🥱
Be lying to yourself.
As if U better than Ibn Kathir, Ibn Abbas's and Jalalayn who all confirmed the verse is about prepubertal girls who are yet to menstruate.
If U like, reject the writings in your tafsir, it's your cup of tea.
Ancient Jews cannot be trusted.
Bible scholars cannot be trusted
Dead sea scrolls cannot be trusted.
Now it's your tafsir that's corrupted and should be rejected.
Your case is irredeemable.


Now this is getting more confusing...
This is not I will never understand about islam.
The Qur'an says Allah has brought a clear book for guidance but if anything I've learnt today is that the Qur'an is not clear even to Muslims.

According to Qasim, the verse is talking about matured girls who are yet to menstruate
According to honesttalk and antiChristian the verse is talking about young girls but they haven't had sex and iddah mean reconciliation.
According to the Tafsir, the verse is about young girls who are yet to menstruate and waiting for 3 months to be sure they are not pregnant.

So the question is who should I believe. Qasim who amongst U 3 is correct ?

Q4:6 Test the orphans until they reach a marriageable age. Then if you feel they are capable of sound judgment, return their wealth to them. And do not consume it wastefully and hastily before they grow up. If the guardian is well-off, they should not take compensation; but if the guardian is poor, let them take a reasonable provision. When you give orphans back their property, call in witnesses. And sufficient is Allah as a Reckoner.

This verse is literarily telling us there is a marriageable age/intercourse age and that age is when one is capable of sound judgement and that age also coincide with when one is able to some extent manage wealth.



What U quote up there is talking about mental competence. It has nothing to do with sexual intercourse in prepubertal age.

Test the intelligence of all orphans until they reach marriageable age( which we don't know).
Then if they are competent- give them their wealth.
This has nothing to do with prepubertal sex and divorce.
U could reach the age of marriage and not be competent enough to manage your wealth- and this can be at any age anyway.
And above is what my question is all about. Are there females who had reached the age of marriage according to the Qur'an but are not mentally and physically competent enough to handle the responsibility. That's what we are trying to investiagte in surah 65.4

I can bring the Tafsir of surah 4.6 if U want me to.....provided U don't reject it like you have done for Tafsir on divorce.

What do you even think Tafsir is? Maybe we should start from there.

SIRTee15:
Marriage is for adult women.
read proverbs 31. 10-31. That's the expectation for a wife in the bible.
If u think a prepubescent girl can meet those expectation, then I dont think we should be having this discussion in the first place.

I checked proverbs 31. It doesn't seems to answer my question. I can only find therein quality of a good wife.

My question is what is the Objective morality of God in Christainity concerning marriageable age for girls? and what has it been over the centuries?

SIRTee15:
You are not answering my question.
Just forget it.

I also noticed U carefully avoided the prepubertal question.
That's fine by me.
Better be silent than open your mouth and make an embarrassment of yourself.
Your colleagues have started redefining iddah here....
I find that very dishonest.

U will never see a Christian redefine 1 Samuel 15 even if we deem it very uncomfortable.

Your problem is you are thinking you are having a got ya moment with Q 64:5 but you have nothing.
Sexual intercourse is not permissible with prepubescent girls in Islam. So rest!

The word used in the verse is Nisa which means women and not girls, so that verse is referring to women that have matured in age and physicality but for some reason are not seeing their periods

If we are to take your meaning that the verse is referring to prepubescent girls what that would mean is there won't be minimum age of marriage/intercourse. But we know from Qur'an 4:6 that there is minimum age of marriage/intercourse

Q4:6 Test the orphans until they reach a marriageable age. Then if you feel they are capable of sound judgment, return their wealth to them. And do not consume it wastefully and hastily before they grow up. If the guardian is well-off, they should not take compensation; but if the guardian is poor, let them take a reasonable provision. When you give orphans back their property, call in witnesses. And sufficient is Allah as a Reckoner.

This verse is literarily telling us there is a marriageable age/intercourse age and that age is when one is capable of sound judgement and that age also coincide with when one is able to some extent manage wealth.

SIRTee15:
Guy defend your Qur'an. Even if Christianity is false doesn't make Islam true.
I started this conversation bocs I wanted to prove to U that Qur'an can't be from God.
This isnt about validity of Christianity.

Where did the ebionites get the message that Jesus died and resurrected on the 3rd day?
Did Allah convey the message to ISA companions that Jews didn't crucify ISA but he rescued him?
Did he tell Muslims in the first century that ISA didn't die or he waited for 600 yrs to tell Muslims.
Did ISA tell any of his companions that he is the son of GOD- metaphorical, begotten or adopted.
That's what I want to know. If Ebionites or seven sleepers are believers according to Qur'an where did they got their erroneous believe from?

If U don't have the answer, just say so and end the discussion.
Bringing Christianity to defend Islam makes no sense because U guys already said it's a false religion.
I will never use another religion to defend validity of Christianity. Straight up the bible and nothing else.

Where did u get the Idea that I am using their beliefs to validate Islam from?

I'm just showing you these are first century Christians that scholars believed held a view about Jesus that would have been closer to what the Original apostles that walk with him during his ministries held

They literally believed your God is a mere man. That is your problem not mine.

SIRTee15:
Who are the Essenes?
Read about them, come back and we will talk about their believes.
I actually took time to explain who the Essenes were in the previous thread.
But of course u didn't read.

Go and read about them yourself, then come back and we will discuss their believes.

I know who the Essenes were.

And don't even think about coming here with John the Baptist have something to do with them. Because I saw you pushing the narrative the last time, I just decided to ignore your erroneous assumption.

SIRTee15:
Hahaha....
I brought tons of evidence on how ancient Jews interpreted Daniel 7.
U brought none. All U did was reject evidence upon evidence until U went mute.

Initially u wanted to run to ancient Jews to argue your case, when U saw evidence against U...U quickly changed gear and said ancient Jews cannot be trusted in the way they interpreted their text.
Then I brought evidence from academic bible scholars, U said they are anti Islam and cannot be
trusted
I brought dead sea scrolls as evidence, U claimed it's corrupted and cannot be trusted.
Them I asked U, who should I trust? Up till today no answer.
If U think U won that argument, U must be living in delulu land.
I successfully dislocated your ability to appeal to ancient Judaism to argue Islam is true.
I will bring some of the evidence here again for all to see.....
Did ancient Judaism see Son of Man in Daniel 7.13 as divine.....

Alright, no problem.

I want you to bring back those ancient Jewish writings and demonstrate how the Messiah fulfilled or is going to fulfill the Daniel prophecy and I will also demonstrate how prophet Muhammad fulfilled the prophecy.

And we will see if you won't run into problem of a failed prophecy.

Shey u talk say u get agidi ni

SIRTee15:
I can give U the link if U want to...
If I bring the link, will U read it?

I will continue to ignore your John 10 argument because it makes no sense.
If U want to die in top the chapter that's up to U.

You seems not to be getting it

We don't do blind faith here, I don't just believe things like a zombie.

What you are going to share, is it a Bible prophecy or is it in line with a prophecy and it doesn't need any wuru-wuru to the answer? If not you can keep it. Don't bring me writings of People that have no authority from God.

SIRTee15:
If Ebionites were the true Muslim in the first century, that means they were the followers of Isa teaching.

So who told them Jesus was crucified and resurrected on the 3rd day.
Who told them there was a time Jesus wasn't the Son of God, then after a while became Son of God by adoption.
Where did they get this teaching from? Was it from ISA or from the injil.

Did Isa tell them he was adopted son of God.

Stop making this about Paul. This isn't Paul but evidence of true Muslims.

because what I'm getting from U is U are a true Muslim in the first pre Islam if U are against the teaching of Paul.

That can't be correct because your Qur'an didn't even mention Paul at all. And equally rejected death and resssurection of Christ.

Keep running helter skelter like a headless chicken.

You yourself look at what the Ebionites believed then compare their beliefs to present day Christianity and Islam and tell me which of the two religions is in sync with the Ebionites.

That is only if you can be truthful with yourself for some few seconds sha.

SIRTee15:
Antichristian and honesttalk do U agree with him?
Qasim is calling Ebionites Muslims.
People who believed in the death and resssurection of Jesus can be called Muslims.
I thought the Qur'an is the eternal word of God, So U mean the definition of Muslim was different during the time of Jesus.
So are U saying during the time of Jesus, someone who believed in the death and resssurection of Jesus, who also believed Jesus is the adopted Son of God can be called a Muslim?
what then is the usefulness of the injil that Jesus brought if this heresy abound amongst true Muslims believers who were followers of Isa.
What exactly did Isa taught? If Isa didn't teach that he's the adopted Son of God, where did the ebionites muslims learn it from? Who taught them?

Me I don't understand again, because what Qasim is arguing here is really confusing.
AntiChristian and honesttalk pls clarify.

-The Ebionites believed Jesus is a mere man, a Prophet and the Messiah
-They rejected his divinity or pre-existence
-Even though they believed Jesus was crucified and he resurrected after 3 days, they did not see his death as vicarious atonement, because they continue to follow the law.
-They believed Paul was a false apostle and apostate
-They used a different Gospel of Matthew different from the one they used today. Their version of gospel did not survive for reasons we don't know.
-They believed Jesus became son of God at his baptismal (obviously in metaphorical sense because they rejected his divinity)
-Scholars believe they held a view closer to what the Original apostles of Jesus would have held.

My brothers in Islam AntiChristian honesttalk21 are they not Muslims of their time??

U probably thought what we are rejecting is the fact that Jesus was called the son of God. No bro. It is the present day Christian understanding of the term we are rejecting.

A lot of people were called the son of God in the Bible. and Qur'an also make that known to us.
Q 21:26 And they say, “The Most Merciful has taken a son.” Exalted is He! Rather, they are [but] honored servants.

SIRTee15:
That verse U quoted has nothing to do with Jesus being the Son of God. The verse is about Jesus being God.

Let's see what Jesus himself said about being the Son of God. Directly from his mouth not some illogical or wuruwuru deduction.
Mark 14

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.”

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?”

In case U not aware, Jesus' statement as the Son of Man coming from the clouds is a reference to Daniel 7.13
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
That was why the high Priest shouted blasphemy.

It's obvious some of you don't really care about the truth, you just want to win argument at all cost, even if you have to pretend to be dumb.

That incident in John 10 is killing 2 birds with a stone.

-He was refuting the claim that he is God
-We also able to deduce that the term 'son of God' was not understood to mean divinity at the time.

Have I not trashed this your argument about this 'son of man' in book of Daniel in our previous discussion? that I had to soft pedal with you cause I could sensed u wr already choking. But here you are shamelessly bringing it again.

SIRTee15:
Ok, I have heard U.
I sha know it's impossible for me to ignore evidence and be accepting illogical claims from someone who haven't brought one single evidence since this argument began.

Son of God as divine in the dead sea scrolls text.

you have brought nothing again, you are just deceiving yourself.

The scenario of what happened in John 10 already put all these ur claims of 'son of God' meaning divinity in the bin where it belongs.
Jesus clearly used the title 'son of God' to refute their claim of blasphemy.

Bring screenshot from now till tomorrow, u r just hiding like an ostrich.

Kingsempires:
about what you Quran explainedso the bible didn't explained the meaning of "son of God" is now your Quran that explained it abi

What is the meaning of "Son of God" according to the Bible?

Kingsempires:
are you serious!!!

About what?

SIRTee15:
Jesus being the Son of God has been thrashed. U failed to bring one single evidence in that debate.
Jews believed in a Son of God that's divine.


So Is there a Jesus being the Son of God that's accepted in the Quran?
Was Jesus crucified, died and resurrected according to the Qur'an.
Ebionites believed in the above so they can't be Muslims.

Stop all these deflecting choose and pick argument U like to do.
How did U get to know about the ebionites...
Was it not thru the writings of the early church fathers.
They left nothing behind for us to know who they were. Everything we know was from the church fathers.
So why do U want to choose and pick what to believe from those who wrote about them when U know nothing about the ebionites without these Christian documents.

You thrashed nothing bro, you are just deceiving yourself.

Let's go to the gospel of John where the term was used extensively.

In John 10:30 where Jesus was reported to have said "I and the Father are one" and the Jews tried to stone him he said to them “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” they said he claimed to be God and Jesus responded back that is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods"’? That he is only claiming to be Son of God.

Why did Jesus used that to debunk their claim of blasphemy? Was he using what they would have considered to be blasphemous title to refute their accusation of blasphemy?

And Why did they not accused him of blasphemy for calling himself son of God if what they believed that meant was he's claiming to be divine?


Of course the Qur'an let us know the meaning of the title "son of God"

Q21:26 And they say, “The Most Merciful has taken a son.” Exalted is He! Rather, they are [but] honored servants.

Even if the Ebionites believed in death and resurrection of Jesus, they did not see it as vicarious atonement. Because they continue to follow the law and Paul was apostate to them. In my book they are Muslims of their time.

SIRTee15:
Do U believe Jesus is the one that will resurrect the dead bodies because that's what the 7 sleepers believed.


And then Maximilian said to him: “Believe us, for in truth Our Lord has raised us before the day of the great resurrection. And so that you might believe firmly in the resurrection of the dead, verily we are raised as you see, and live. And like the child is in the womb of his mother without feeling harm or hurt, in the same wise we have been living and sleeping, lying here without feeling anything.”

And after giving this witness, they inclined their heads to the earth, and gave up their spirits at the command of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and so died.

No, I don't believe that

Why do you think the word Lord automatically means Jesus ?