Friday, 29 January 2016

Cease Fire! Paul, Ijaz and Jonathan


Everybody, put your flame-throwers down. Drop your laser blasters. Power down your light sabres. And if anybody is activating a Death Star...STOPPPPPPPP!!!

This is getting out of hand. Folks let's call it a day here and start from zero.

Jonathan, you're not a racist. Ijaz, you're not dishonest or silly. Paul Williams you're not a liar. I'm not a troll and/or idiot.

Here's what we are going to do Jonathan. Yep, "we". That includes you, Ijaz and I (and whoever else wants to hold hands with us).

Clearly this is a mess. It's getting more ridiculous by the day. We can point fingers at each other until the cows come home but that does not take away from the fact we are all involved. We have to come to a better understanding of each other.

How will "we" do this?

1. We are going to start over. This is a mess. It's generating heat, not light. Too much heat. Folk are going into AandE with first degree burns.

2. We MUST open up all channels of communication. Whoever has somebody from "we" blocked on FB, Twitter, YT, Email, Tinder, Match.com, Ashley Maddison...UNBLOCK them now. Re-add them as associates.

Closing off communication is a recipe for misunderstanding each other and snow-balling ill-feeling.

 
If your pride does not allow you to make the first move...too late. I've done it already.

3. Whenever we address each other, no insults. Snide or upfront. So Jonathan is a Christian apologist. Ijaz is a Muslim apologist. Paul Williams likewise. Think of a title that cannot be construed as a dig at the another member of "we". From here on in, nobody from "we" is going to be called racist, silly, polemicist, troll, idiot, liar, xenophobe etc..

Why? It's obvious. We all know the problems this leads to. It does not add anything to apologetics. It also does not set a good example to others and thus leads impressionable folk on both sides widening that chasm through their imitation of suchlike.

Think about it, how crass was my comment on FB? Due to the absence of points 1-3 I felt the most effective way to get Jonathan to stop his negative tone was to threaten him with a greater negative tone if he persists.



4. HEAR each other's side. TRY to understand what the other person is saying - drop them a PM to discuss things to better facilitate this understanding.

I can understand why Jonathan does not want to be called a racist...obviously. I DON'T think one can denounce him as a racist based on those comments HOWEVER that does not mean those (Paul, Ijaz and anybody else) who did INTERPRET such as racism are 'lying' or being 'dishonest' - it's their interpretation.

If we were following this action plan it would never have happened.

5. Let's ease down with pride. "We" all have pride. Apologetics is rife with pride-filled actions. Some of the stuff I've seen from non "we" members is absurd. Let's not take the "we" dingy into those murky waters.

If we make a mistake...just say it. Admit it. And if one admits to a mistake don't castigate him for it. Don't make a big deal out of it either.

6. CHALLENGE nefarious and abusive commenters who are speaking ill of the other. I did this recently, somebody on my FB page was calling Jonathan a 'Zionist' etc.. I challenged him/her publicly, telling him in no uncertain terms those comments were unacceptable.

"We" need to do this. "We" should never like those comments. Quite often, people who make those comments have scant profiles or are just being divisive characters thinking they are doing their side or buddy a good turn when in reality they are doing harm to their side. Liking comments which are abusive to another member of "we" could be seen as effectively endorsing and espousing that abuse.


I believe Islam and Christianity would EXHORT us to follow the action points highlighted above. Let's try it. "We" are not Atheists (pffft!), we have set codes of conduct.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A few clarifying points from MY perspective as to how this has come about. Jonathan, you may have heard some of this before but this is part of point 4.

Skipping over the smaller issues and some of the issues concerning the arguments being used.

The Muslim community in the West is under constant demonization and anti-Muslim rhetoric as well as threats and acts aggression. This is fuelled by the Islamophobia industry. This is not some David Icke stuff I'm blabbering. It's true.

We don't expect it from BRITISH Christians and churches, who in reality have been a long-term ally of Muslims in the UK generally speaking. Really. I strongly believe this.

So, think about it from our point of view. You pitch up. A British Christian. Free from that in-your -face, angry, American right wing stuff that we are sick of. You have a debate with Shabir. You look and appear friendly and somebody who many of us can relate to in upbringing and general life experience - most Muslim apologists in the English speaking world are young so you even had that going for you as a relatable attribute.

And then a dagger to our hearts. For me, as you may well know, it's not the no-go-zone stuff

Going back to that dagger. It was not like Kylo Ren doing Han Solo in cold blood. It was real life. You were in the north of England, in a church, in effect telling a congregation Muslims follow  "3 stages of Jihad" (A David Woodism which I hope  you now know to be totally fallacious and simply a tool to pander to the anti-Muslim element in David's fan base). You were effectively saying this David Woodism teaches us, MUSLIMS, to pretend to be peaceful, while we grow in number, then carry out terrorist actions and ultimately "persecute" Christians. All said in a British church.

You were effectively saying that about every Muslim minority in the West and beyond. About your Muslim colleagues. Muslim lecturers. About me. About Paul. About Ijaz. About Shabir Ally. About Yusuf Ismail.....About us all.

A dagger to the heart. I got emotional when I saw Kylo Ren (pffft.) strike down Han Solo. But that was a movie. This was real life. Somebody, who I assume grew up amongst us, went to school, college and uni with us.Not some insincere American who was cashing in on the Islamophobia industry because he/she wanted to project their anger and troubled heart on a minority. A dagger to the heart.

Somebody with pride and full of venom (anti-Muslim venom) may insist oh that's all true. Jonathan was speaking the truth (in his best Christian Prince, Pastor Joseph, Sam Shamoun, David Wood or Usama Dakdok accent). But it's patently untrue. It's demonstrably not true. Made up propaganda. Propaganda to serve a similar function as that by Goebels.

Jonathan, you were a victim of it rather than the initial perpetrator of it. However, the real victims are always those who the propaganda is designed against, us in this case. The Muslims. British Muslims. YOUR friends, neighbours and colleagues. YOUR wife's friends, neighbours and colleagues. YOUR fellow humans.

There was no apology or retraction. Another dagger to the heart.


These are questions for your heart and conscience

Not dwelling on all that Ijaz and Paul were concerned about (note, I don't think it's correct to interpret what you said as racist nor to label you a xenophobe -you can discuss and squash this with folk involved), there's a couple of other points I'd like to make so you can understand us better. Our pain. I assume I'm speaking on behalf of Muslims in general in the English speaking world.


Jonathan, what are you doing associating yourself with people who make up their own translation to insist Muslims can have sex with animals (Sam Shamoun)?

People whose tongues need to be washed by soap and water. Nay, bleach and water. People who put porn on their FB pages (unknowingly) to attack Muslims - apparently there was a video about a  Muslim actress involved in this sordid industry. Rather than seeing her as a victim of this industry, this guy put it up on his FB page. To attack us. To use it against us in his polemics battle. I turned out it actually contained porn  - something he later apologised for as he claimed he did not know it contained porn, not exactly the brightest thing as one would be concerned that any cameras following somebody who has become an 'entertainer' in that industry may well contain some offensive language and images. It did. (Sam Shamoun)

What are you doing associating with folk who, whenever there's a rape crime committed by a Muslim, misuse the misery and suffering of the rape victim to have a dig at Muslims and manufacture absurd and insincere links between the faith and the crime? It's  cold. It's sick. It's callous. It's Wood.

Folk who peddle hoaxes such as necrophilia (well they already tried to smear us with a bestiality lie so are you really surprised?). That's David Wood with the necrophilia lie. What do you call that? Graceless, classless, brainless and heartless.

A"Christian" who, through his own misunderstanding of Arabic, dives into his wife's undies and mockingly throws a cross-dressing claim at Muslims. A sadistic attempt to hurt Muslim sentiment. Unforgettable mockery.Unbridled malice.  Oh, there's nothing fanciful about this. It's Wood. It's all there on record.

They don't speak about the one that  saw some light and moved away from their anti-Muslim negativity in those corridors. A young lady called Negeen, who was impressionable. She ended up in that group. She soon left that group.

Her contributions and her name may have been expunged but her words remain as a deterrent for all those who have a desire for fairness and respect:

I honestly to this day have never viewed that video that David posted. I don't need to, he is wearing a womans spaghetti strap and posted it on his website that is associated with his ministry that seeks to win Muslims to Christ. This degree of outlandishness displays a lack of sheer respect towards the muslim community and that video should not have been posted. Over time I have come to seriously doubt the wisdom behind certain things that David does. Self radicalization can happen to anyone. Unfortunately, I think David has self radicalized himself into having a perspective of Islam that is heavily influenced by evil actions committed by bad people. If I wanted to spend all day reading articles about evil actions committed by Afghanis I would begin to hate all Afghans, but because I have a broader understanding of the Afghan community, because I have been around Afghans who love, laugh, and give generously I understand that not all Afghans are terrorists who hate women. I really wish David would spend less time self radicalizing himself and spend more time amongst the homes of normal muslims who love the good things in this world

Jonathan, you know when I first set this blog up, I would get folk from and/or associated with the AM blog mocking my little blog. It's now got over 1 million views although it's been largely run by a one-man-band as and when I have free time

All I'm saying you don't need to sit on somebody else's blog/site. Certainly not one with such an anti-Muslim history. Such a divisive and negative reputation. Remember these folk don't have jobs, studies or careers. This is them making a living. Making a living out of the Islamophobia industry. One of their donors chats to me via PM and email on a regular basis. He proudly describes himself as an 'Islamophobe' and has distrubing views on dealing with Muslims.


 
Fella, you are one of the most qualified theists to battle the New Atheist movement in the UK. A movement that is troubling Jews, Muslims and Christians throughout the world. Where's all your material countering Dawkins, Harris, Atheist celebs on YouTube (Thunderf00t, Amazing Atheist etc.)? You have largely concentrated on putting forward material against Islam that we have all seen and heard before - and refuted.

You have the tools to be a huge thorn in the side of the giant that is the New Atheist movement for the next few decades. Where art thou? [Edit: Jonathan has informed me has done a lot more work arguing against Atheist positions than against Islam]

I can see one or two of our Muslim apologists made that move and stopped with the Christianity stuff and began talking about secularism and Atheism. There's a reason, they had the foresight to see that this is perhaps a more pressing matter and what they are saying in the Muslim-Christian Apologetics zone has already been said by them or others are saying it and/or capable of saying it.

I too am being questioned. What are you doing with the Christians? What about such and such Atheist? Where are my vids and blog posts on them and their ideology?

Finally...

Just to show you how damaging the anti-Muslim negativity from the online Christian camp is. Consider my personal story. I have began a project to visit church services on Sundays. I have only been once thus far, I have my unpublished notes. One of the reasons I have started doing this is because the vast bulk of Christians I've met online have left me with a sour taste in my mouth. Their negativity towards Muslims is a huge turn off. Thus, I believe through this project I will reconnect with a more positive feeling about Christians  - akin to that I had during my childhood (raised near a vicarage and attending schools with a Christian bent). In fact, I believe it's through this experience seeds of  a love and fascination for Jesus p were planted.


Jonathan, take your time to skim through all the older posts in these two sections to get a feel for some of the issues of negativity around these two "Christians" and why association with them is such stumbling block, expect a bit of rough and tumble:

As of now, 83 posts on Sam Shamoun

As of now, 61 posts on David Wood


Let's see "we" work together more and treat each other in a way we would like others treat us. Let's try to follow the points outlined above - and any others which are agreed upon in subsequent discussions. .

PS Jonathan, Ijaz wants reconciliation too. I have had a brief discussion with him prior to writing this piece - although we did not collude on this piece .

"We" can do this!


Why Islam

Russell Brand Exposes Muslim Terrorism Percentage


 
 
 
 

Tuesday, 26 January 2016

Sam Shamoun: Biography of a Chicken

 
You hear a lot of cooing on the net from an Arab-looking fella called Sam Shamoun. A lot of chest thumping. A lot of claims of Muslims being afraid to debate him. Remember, this is the man who claimed Shabir Ally put his head down out of fear of debating him. Yep, put his head down!
 
He lives in a delusion. That's obvious. However, what he does not want you to know; he  also lives in a chicken pen.
 
 
You've seen the claims Yusuf Estes, Zakir Naik, Shabir Ally etc. are all afraid of debating him. Little does he tell his followers the reality. Muslim apologists have blacklisted him for his immaturity and potty-mouth. You see Shamoun, isn't only filled with hot-air, lies, misdirection, ignorance and misrepresentation. He's full of insults.
 
His delusion leads him to claim Muslims are afraid of debating him...chickens.
 
However, Yusuf Ismail called his bluff and challenged him to two debates. In fact, Shamoun has been running away from Yusuf Ismail for about a decade now. Here's a report on Shamoun's latest chicken-run away from Yusuf Ismail:
 
Assalamualaykum Brother Yahya
 
Hope you are well…almost 10 years ago, I sent you correspondence between myself and Sam Shamoun backing out of a paid trip to SA
 
Well he has done it again….and refuses to touch certain subjects even though they focus solely on Islam.
 
For the record and you may share this with others on your forum and elsewhere with Christian extremists in exposing this religious fanatic!
 
After initially agreeing in principle to debate two important issues
 

> 1. The Prophet's marriage to Ayesha and the reliability of the reports in this regard
> 
> 2. Is the Satanic Verses incident authentic or fabricated?
Sam Shamoun chickened out of a debate, changed the 2nd topic  and still spreads rumours that people are afraid of debating him
 
When he was called out on this. He backed out of debate and blocked me on facebook…so I could not comment in reply..
 
His deception is beyond reproach
 
And then he goes on Facebook abusing and calling me a swine, a thug, a Muhammadan killer and a whole host of abusive epithets
 
Kind regards
 
Yusuf Ismail
 
 
FOR THE SINCERE CHRISTIANS: Christians claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit and evangelicals like Shamoun claim the 'father' of non-Christians is Satan. Hold on, think about it. Why is it, we have an evangelical who is insulting and behaving how Satan would want him to behave? Ask yourself, if this evangelical belief is true, then why do we regularly see non-Christians behaving in a better manner than Christians? Clearly, that evangelical belief is demonstrably false. Think about it.
 
 
Some sobre thoughts on Sam Shamoun
 
If you're a  long-term financial supporter of Sam Shamoun you will have seen a ton of unedifying and unspiritual behaviour from him, ask yourself, is it really edifying to continue supporting him in this misguided endeavour? Is he doing a service or a disservice to the church? Would it not be better to encourage him to get a real job and go out in the real world? Would that not be better for his mental and physical health? Ask yourself these questions, I've tried with Sam. I've tried to help him turn things around. My email is always open for him but where are the Christians to tap him on the shoulder and say, look things aren't going well here. It's not like he is new to the scene. The bloke has been at it for the last 2 decades, surely one would think he's said everything he has in his locker by now? Why is he wallowing on the net like this? It's pathetic, right?
 
There's a book by an author from the north of England - JB Priestly. It's a play actually, called An Inspector Calls. It's something many schools go through during high school here. The moral of that story is, everybody has a responsibility for everybody else.
 
Do you not think you are part of the problem here by encouraging him? Think about it
 
 
 
 
 
 


 




 

Saturday, 23 January 2016

Flat Earth Polemic - Yasir Qadhi


I was in a discussion yesterday with a young Muslim struggling with his faith. He mentioned that he had read from sources critical to Islam that the Quran clearly contradicts known facts and represents the world-view of its time (7th century CE). And of the most blatant examples, according to him, was that the Quran clearly preaches that the world is flat. Now, I have said and firmly believe that the genre of 'scientific miracles in the Quran' that we all grew up reading is in fact a dangerous genre, because it reads in 'facts' where no such facts exist, and because it posits one's faith on a purely scientific basis (so that when 'science', which is ever-evolving, might seem to contradict the Quran, this will lead to a weakness of faith). Nonetheless, to claim that the Quran preaches that the world is flat is an outrageous claim. In fact there is unanimous consensus amongst medieval Muslim scholars to the contrary.

Ibn Hazm (d. 1064 CE), wrote over a thousand years ago in his book al-Fisal, "I do not know of a single scholar worth the title of scholar who claims other than that the earth is round. Indeed the evidences in the Quran and Sunnah are numerous to this effect" [al-Fisal, v. 2 p. 78].

Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328 CE), someone who is typically accused of literalism, wrote that there is unanimous consensus of all the scholars of Islam that the world is round, and that reality and perception also proves this, for, as he writes, it is well known that the Sun sets on different peoples at different times, and does not set on the whole world at the same time. In fact, writes Ibn Taymiyya, it is truly an ignorant person who claims that the earth is not round. [Majmu al-Fatawa, v. 6, p. 586]. And there are many others scholars, such as al-Razi, who wrote on this subject, and I do not know of any medieval scholar who held another view.

All of this shows the necessity of gaining Islamic knowledge from reputable sources, and from verifying anything you read from the people of knowledge.

From Dr Yasir Qadhi's FB


Sunday, 17 January 2016

Dr Laurence Brown - Arguments Against the Idea of Jesus Being God




Some notes from Laurence Brown's presentation

1. Jesus denies he is God

Jesus denied divinity, here he is said to denied being the greatest, thus he cannot be God.

You have heard Me say to you, ‘I am going away and coming back to you.’ If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said,[a] ‘I am going to the Father,’ for My Father is greater than I. [John 14:28]

Jesus can do nothing of himself, thus clearly he does not have authority and sovereignty over all things.

Then Jesus answered and said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner. [John 5:19]

Then Jesus said to them, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things. [John 8:28]


2. Jesus affirms his humanity and his Prophethood. Think about it, a Prophet is a messenger, a messenger cannot be God. The One who sends the messenger is God.

But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own country, among his own relatives, and in his own house.” [Mark 6:4]

So they were offended at Him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and in his own house.” [Matthew 13:57]

Nevertheless I must journey today, tomorrow, and the day following; for it cannot be that a prophet should perish outside of Jerusalem. [Luke 13:33]

3. Forgery: Incarnation

This verse seems to be clearly teaches the incarnation idea. At first glance it does, right?

However, there's some shenanigans going on here by the scribes. The word 'God' has been added in, in the stead of the word 'who'. The word 'God' is not in the earlier manuscripts.

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God[a] was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory. [1 Timothy 3:16]

[a] NU-Text reads Who.

4. God is All-Powerful and free of need.

Jesus was born, suckled, he ate, drank and slept. He prayed too. He was dependent on his mother as a child. This is common sense, clearly a dependent being is not God.

5. Other points

Jesus forgave sins?

Jesus was called 'lord', so was Moses and Abraham. Moses, judges and angels were  called 'elohim'.

The resurrection claim, there's no consistency n the stories concerning the resurrection. It cannot be trusted.


[QURAN MIRACLES] The Miracles of the Number 19 in Quran | Dr. Shabir Ally



Saturday, 16 January 2016

Does Jesus 'Forgiving' Sins Mean he is God in the New Testament? No. Zakir Hussain Answers a Trinitarian Argument


I put these two clips together to help Trinitarian Christians see through the superficial argumentation out there in Trinitarian circles. This argument stating Jesus is divine because he forgave sins is a baseless argument.


If the video does not play, please see here

Zakir Hussain mentions Matthew 9:8

When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to man.

Clearly people recognised Jesus was given authority by God to do works thus they did not believe he was God.

Zakir also mentions the Gospel of John purporting the disciples of Jesus were given authority to forgive sins

22And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23"If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained." [John 20]


Jesus, according to the 'Gospel' of John is purported to have said:

By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me. [John 5:30]

Thus, reading such a claim with the lens of John 5:30 we see it's not actually Jesus forgiving sins - this is mentioned by Dr Laurence Brown here

[QURAN MIRACLES] The Miracles of the Number 19 in Quran | Dr. Shabir Ally




The Laziest Debate Review of Inamullah Mumtaz - Jonathan McLatchie on "Is Jesus God"


Just read the review and walk on with a smile

Personally I doubt Inamullah Mumtaz is a 'sheikh' and I doubt Jonathan McLatchie has finished his PhD either. I doubt these titles were added to these chaps at their behest. ABN/Trinity channel seems to have an inferiority complex. CALM DOWN...people will still watch even if you introduce your guests as who they ACTUALLY are. Again, I can only think they are being influenced by their low-opinion of their audience (to be honest, I think their audience does carry a number of unsophisticated types as attested by some of the callers I've had the displeasure of listening to over the years - oh and while we are at it some of the guests too, yes you are one of them Usama Dakdok) . They also pulled this stunt with Ijaz Ahmad, they made him an 'imam'. They've done it to Jonathan before too.

Oh and as if a fella having a PhD in a science subject and somebody who is a qualified scholar in Islam is going to lend more credibility to a  debate largely based on the New Testament text. THINK!!!

Stop this small man complex. It's not clever. It's insulting to the audience. It's dishonest too.

Bassim and Samar Goriel, sort it out!

Debate Review

Jonathan McLatchie's two-fold argument:

-Sayings in the NT which attest to Jesus being deity

-Disciples believed Jesus claimed to be divine

One of the problems in debates of this nature is folks taking the text in the NT as authoritative. How many people do not question the validity and authority of the text they are using in the debate and thus end up offering a one-dimensional debate?

Somebody should have just thrown their hands up in the air and said we are using texts adulterated and/or produced by a bunch of liars, ignoramuses and unauthorized folk. Why even bother trying to prove anything from this set of texts, these texts should not play a role in anybody's theology never mind people entrusting their salvation on these texts...

...and then stormed off!

Nobody did that [surprised??] so let's look at some of the points proffered

A contrived argument  from Matthew 11 and Malachi 3

Jonathan put these two together to claim John the Baptist was sent to pave the way for God. Nothing to see here folks, if  John the Baptist really thought Jesus was God, then he would have told his followers to leave him and follow Jesus p (as put by Zakir......... Hussain)

Jonathan to his credit appears to recognise the material in these books is of varying reliability so he offers an argument propping up the reliability of Matthew 11. Has Jonathan thought, both Matthew and Luke were copying off another liar (seems as though a ton of them were operating around the NT) or somebody who just passed on unverified material?

The peril of not knowing who you're getting your material from! Jonathan would not cite a research paper whose author could not be verified in an academic setting so why the double standard here? Having said that, even if Matthew 11 was reliable, as shown earlier it does not teach Jesus was divine - John the Baptist did not think Jesus was divine..

I' already getting tired and grouchy. I have the rest of Jonathan's OS to go through and Inamullah Mumtaz's material. Who'd want to be me right now :(

OK, I skipped some, Jonathan is now talking about the Son of Man title. Did he learn anything from Shabir Ally? Here's a video on the Son of Man, there's a clip in there of Shabir going through various interpretations of that title - I believe in front of Jonathan (COME ON Jonathan it's been explained!!!). Watch it...trust me, it's an easier watch than this debate :)

Fair play to Jonathan, he again demonstrates he is aware of the problems concerning the reliability of texts from the 'Gospels' (yes, it's plural, they have FOUR, 4, Arba3, Vier,) thus he argues for the authenticity of this alleged self-attribution by Jesus p.

Yiiikes! Jonathan's mentioning Psalm 110. The moment you realise you don't have a video to link to
 :(   I haven't looked into this so will leave it. I may do a post/video on it in the future...send any useful material to my email, thx.

Let's just skip to stuff related to Jonathan's second point...

He hasn't left much time for his second argument, he must have thought his first one warranted the bulk of the time or perhaps he thinks this second one is the weaker of the two...???

Uh, Jesus' disciples confirmed his deity??? Or did he say affirmed? Either way, same difference!

That's not true.I have video to go with that assertion!  Here's a Blue Peter number, did the disciples think Jesus was God. In this video you can quickly learn Mary (Jesus' mother pbut), the disciples and John the Baptist did not think he was God. Tip, if you watched the first link...it's the same one ;)

Hold on he's talking about the Quran. ears prick up. Time to get more serious. (by the way Jonathan, you do realise words like 'antithesis' and 'contention' are just going to flyyyyy over a lot of these folks' heads. COME ONE you've heard some of the callers on that show, a few Christian Prince types knocking about who are from Eastern Christian communities with a tribal hatred of Muslims - imagine! Save your big words for another time.)

Jonathan mate, your accent is not foreign to me but fella slooooooow it down. You're not in a race with Usain Bolt. That stuff about Paul etc was just a blur. I'm not going to bother going back. As for Paul, I think this will be of interest as according to this he believes he only has one God, the Father:

yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.  [1 Cor 8:6]


I'm really rushing through my homework now. Somebody slap me on the wrist. I've reached the half way line. Bring on Inamullah Mumtaz from the QDCI!!!

I skipped and heard Inamullah say they can never prove Jesus is God. Great. Bravo.10/10!

Ooh, Inamullah wasn't impressed by Jonathan Mclatchie's OS, it's all interpretation and philosophy according to him. Zoooming forward.

Inamullah: If Jesus was God, he would say so. Inamullah repeats this throughout his bits I've looked at as of now - he really wants to drive this message home to the Eastern Christians who have a tribal hatred of Muslims. May I add, I'm not entirely sure they will understand Inamullah either...the accent may be a hurdle for that crowd. Good thing I'm writing my lazy review!!!

He also mentions the Shema. OK, fair point but it's all kind of overlooking this Trinitarian's stance. Trinitarians will say they agree with the Shema and the trinity idea was revealed in the 'inter-testamental period'.

Chromosomes? Chimps and Humans? 46 and 48?

OK, I'm going to skip this but his argument is you're either man or God. You cannot be both. But Inamullah, these folks believe in the incarnation and hypostatic union ideas. Youre better off if you discuss these, fella. Touch on them at least. Next time, show these ideas to be ideas from church tradition rather than ideas based on Sola Scriptura and/or authoritative teachings.

I don't think saying their beliefs are pantheism is accurate. It's a bit of a difficult one to put it in a box, maybe pagan-like elements? I mean, Jonathan believes a man who wrestled with Jacob in the Old Testament is God and Trinitarians believe a dove in the NT was God as well as a man in the NT being God. Getting tired now, oh yeah some of them also believe an angel in the OT was God too.

It's weird but really, how can they say with confidence that they don't believe a man down the road  is not God or a bird flying over head is not God based on their theology? They've set the precedent and others still, yes you Jonathan, push the envelope further in insisting an angel and/or man in the OT was God incarnate too.

Just out of interest, how would a Trinitarian such as Jonathan McLatchie go about proving a man in 2016 is not God incarnate?

For the Muslims, we know God is not a man and God is like no other.We have no problem in rejecting that idea outright as absurd. Same with the Jews. Whilst the Trinitarians have already gone beyond the limit and announced a bird, a man and an angel were God at some stage.

So how can they confidently declare a man walking down the street is not God? A bird in the sky is not God?

They made their bed with the incarnaton idea/s and now they are laying in it whilst Muslims and Jews are trying to wake them up.

Their basic theology is a mess. It's a mess because it's false.

OK, I'm not bothering with the rest. I'm out. Hurray!

Right kids, this is how to do this debate.

Whack on a recording of Shabir Ally or Zakir Hussain or IJAZ AHMAD :) and then walk off

OR if you want to do it yourself start off with some verses from their text showing Jesus was not God.



Find some text from the OT showing God is not a man.

And then build from there, perhaps start talking about the lack of reliability of these texts and talk about the ideas of the trinity and incarnation being ideas read into the text rather than being a product of  pure exegesis thus showing these are ideas from church tradition.

OR if you really want to do something radical...try that huge chunk highlighted in yellow at the beginning of this review, go on you know you want to...

Night, night. Looking forward to the big match tomoz...LIVERPOOL against Man United.


Nota Bene one more thing, to Jonathan and Trinitarians out there. Look into matters deeper. Please. I know I'm playing around in this review but there's a serious undertone to this. Let me get deadly serious here, why believe a man is God? I know why you folks do it, it's because you're emotionally attached to the vicarious atonement idea. Look, God does not need to send anybody to die for your sins or anybody else's sins. Sure, we all have done horrible things that we would not even dare admit to our  colleagues, friends, wives and children...but God does not think like a human being. Whereas a human may hold some grudge against us and drag up something he/she said they had forgiven us for years after the event....God is not like that. He can forgive us no matter what we did and we remain forgiven...sincere repentance is required.

To believe God needs to have a 'son' to die for our sins is beyond a primitive understanding of God. It's a transgression. In fact, a rabbi I listen to likens it to the pagan practices of sacrificing virgins (who represented purity, innocence). Move beyond these ideas.

We must all strive to love God with all our might and heart. This cannot be achieved if one is dividing their love by wrongly loving a man as God.

Jesus never taught this idea. Rummaging around in the NT texts and playing games of chess with your theology and salvation is not the way any of us should behave. A quote comes into mind from a James Dunn book I'm going through, he's quoting Philo who comments on the first commandment:

Let us, then, engrave deep in our hearts this as the first and most sacred commandments, to acknowledge and honour  one God who is above all, and let the idea that gods are many never even reach the ears of the man whose rule of life is to seek for the truth in purity and guilelessness.

Please think about these this. PLEASE.

Jonathan McLatchie section

Unitarian Christians and Muslims having dreams which show Jesus (p) not to be God

[QURAN MIRACLES] The Miracles of the Number 19 in Quran | Dr. Shabir Ally
 



Daniela M Biah Attacked by Islamophobe After Paris Incident

An old Islamophobe attacked the Mexican Muslim, Daniela M Biah, after Friday prayers. Interesting how the majority of Islamophobic attacks are perpetrated against women. Clearly the Islamophobes are following a religion which teaches them to disrespect and attack women or they are just cowards who go after what they deem to be softer targets. Islamophobia is real.

Christians, if you're involved in the Islamophobia industry or associated with Islamophobes please rethink your stance as incidents like this stem from the Islamophobia industry (oh yeah, it's still Islamophobia even if you say you're doing it for evangelization purposes!)

Muslim Woman Victim of Islamophobic Hate Crime



Conversions to Islam

[QURAN MIRACLES] The Miracles of the Number 19 in Quran | Dr. Shabir Ally

People having dreams and visions showing Jesus is not divine

 
 
 
 

Thursday, 7 January 2016

Nabeel Qureshi: Is the Trinity in Genesis 1:26


Rabbi Michael Skobac and rabbi Tovia Singer tell us most Trinitarian scholars do not think this passage refers to a trinity. He also states the plural of  'Us' is either God addressing the angels or it's the use of the plural of majesty is not a reference to the trinity idea too.

Genesis 1
 26Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.…

Ravi Zacharias International Ministries' Nabeel Qureshi Refuted by Tovia Singer and Michael Skobac



If the video does not play please see here

Some Christian missionaries will say anything just for you to believe in the trinity idea. Don't switch your minds off. Don't be fooled by Christian missionary spin. In this video we see Nabeel Qureshi is in opposition with Christian and Jewish scholars. For Christians having dreams and converting to Islam please see:

Clips from:
Is the Trinity Biblical - Rabbi Tovia Singer
Trinity What the Bible Teaches - Rabbi Skobac
Why Jews are so turned off by the Trinity - Rabbi Yisroel

Did Jonathan McLatchie Copy Nabeel Qureshi?

Why is the Trinity doctrine so difficult to understand? - Dr. Shabir Ally answers Nabeel Qureshi

Nabeel Qureshi's Friend on Doctrine of Taqiyyah

Indonesian Muslims Converting to Christianity?

[QURAN MIRACLES] The Miracles of the Number 19 in Quran | Dr. Shabir Ally

ISIS Members Having Dreams of Jesus?

People having dreams and visions showing Jesus is not divine

Russell Brand Exposes Muslim Terrorism Percentage
 
 
 

Tuesday, 5 January 2016

Christian Miracles? Shepherd Bushiri is Exposed


Watch out for this fraud. This Christian preacher, Shepherd Bushiri, he tries to convince people he can do miracles. In this video we see a ridiculous attempt at appearing to walk on air as well as a trick he did with an iPad. Shepherd Bushiri's website reads:

WHAT DO WE STAND FOR To bear witness for Christ and His truth and to spread the gospel of the kingdom

This man is literally conning people in his alleged mission to spread the 'gospel of the kingdom'. Shepherd Bushiri is based in Africa but as seen in the video Christians in America are into claiming they can do miracles too. This seems to stem from their belief in the least reliable of all their 4 'Gospels' which teaches them they can do greater miracles than Jesus p:

12 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do, because I go to My Father. 13 And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If you ask[a] anything in My name, I will do it. [John 14:12-14 NKJV]


Shepherd Bushiri Scandal - Tricks Exposed



If the video does not play please see here

Shepherd Bushiri is the founder of Enlightened Christian Gathering Church (ECG) and the Shepherd Bushiri Ministries International. ECG Church has its head quarters in Lilongwe the capital city of Malawi and branches across the African continent.

Conversions to Islam

[QURAN MIRACLES] The Miracles of the Number 19 in Quran | Dr. Shabir Ally

People having dreams and visions showing Jesus is not divine

 
 
 
 

Re Who is the Son of Man in Daniel 7:13-14


A few quick points of reflection for Jonathan McLatchie in relation to his response to my video on the subject featuring rabbi Yisroel, rabbi Tovia Singer and Dr. Shabir Ally.


Jonathan, you seemed to miss the point rabbi Yisroel made [from time frame 1.20] - the Son of Man title is explained in the book of Daniel as a reference to a group of people. A glaring problem you encounter is your own Scripture as it explains the Son of Man reference as 'saints of the Most High' (see Daniel 7:18 also look at 22) . Thus it's clearly not talking about an individual and neither is it expressing the idea of a divine Messiah.

I will quote rabbi Yisroel's written comments, notice his incredulity at the Trinitarian argument as it defies the Bible's explanation:

This is incredible! This is one of the few passages in scripture that come along with a commentary. Scripture itself explains this passage and the “son of man” of Daniel 7:13 is not the Messiah – it is the people of Israel!

The scripture informs us that after Daniel had seen the vision he approaches an angel and asks for a clarification of all that he had seen (7:16). The angel replies that the four beasts represented four kingdoms, and the final dominion will be given to the “holy ones of the most high” (7:18) – a reference to the nation of Israel. The angel elaborates further by telling us that the dominion under all of the heavens is given to “the nation of holy ones of the most high” (7:27) – again a clear reference to the nation of Israel. According to the angel, each of the beasts represents a different kingdom, while the son of man in Daniel’s vision represents Israel. The Christian assertion that this passage refers to the Messiah is plainly refuted by scripture itself.

Thus, the Trinitarian in appealing to this passage in support of the idea of a divine Messiah is arguing against the angel's explanation in the book of Daniel itself.

Jonathan you claimed the earliest exegetes believed the Son of Man title was a Messianic reference. This is not accurate as the earliest explanation is above - it's the explanation within the book of Daniel itself. You also cited the Septuagint, come on Jonathan, what has that got to do with anything here? Deal with the original language of the text.

Similarly in Aramaic, "son of man" is the usual designation for "man," and occurs in the inscriptions in Syriac, Mandaic, Talmudic, and other dialects (see Nathanael Schmidt in Cheyne and Black, "Encyc. Bibl." iv. 4707-4708). In Dan. vii. 13, the passage in which it occurs in Biblical Aramaic, it certainly connotes a "human being." Many see a Messianic significance in this verse, but in all probability the reference is to an angel with a human appearance, perhaps Michael. [Jewish Encyclopaedia]

So the question here Jonathan, where did this misunderstanding come from? It seems the problems and confusion arose due to the Greek translators:

In the Gospels the title occurs eighty-one times. Most of the recent writers (among them being II. Lietzmann) have come to the conclusion that Jesus, speaking Aramaic, could never have designated himself as the "son of man" in a Messianic, mystic sense, because the Aramaic term never implied this meaning. Greek translators coined the phrase, which then led, under the influence of Dan. vii. 13 and the Logos gospel, to the theological construction of the title which is basic to the Christology of the Church. To this construction reference is made in Abbahu's controversial saying in Ta'an. 65b. Indeed, examination of many of thepassages shows that in the mouth of Jesus the term was an equivalent for the personal pronoun "I." [Jewish Encyclopaedia]

Jonathan, just look at the simplicity of the explanation which militates against the Trinitarian interpretation. It's straight forward and Biblical - it's all contained within Daniel 7. Contrast that with the convoluted hermeneutics you are engaging in to convince folk the Son of Man title suggests a divine Messiah. /this contrast is stark and it's telling.

I have previously posted Reza Aslan's comments on the Son of Man title

Look, at the end of the day, there is no skin off my nose, I know Jesus p is not Divine. I repudiate the Trinity idea. An idea which Trinitarian scholars tacitly admit is a failed belief in their affirmation that most Christians are heretics and/or disbelievers in the Trinity. That video is for the benefit of Trinitarians and those who are being courted by Trinitarians. It's clear the title Son of Man is not a reference to divinity. I'd like you to make a concerted and conscious effort to put pride and any other hindrance to objective analysis to one side and  reflect on the points in the video as well as the supplementary material in this blog post. It's absolutely vital one does not associate partners with God. Sure, I know there's a ton of emotional preaching around the idea that Jesus is God and the vicarious atonement belief but emotion does not make something true, right?

Being led by emotion and pride in order to defend an idea (Trinity) which is described as idolatry by Jewish rabbis is really playing with fire - regardless of who you are. You will have to answer to God Almighty if you continue ascribing such beliefs to God. Please look into it sans pride and the emotional baggage surrounding it.

I pray you have a good 2016.


A few miscellaneous points

The picture you used in your blog, Jonathan, of a Caucasian man on what appears to be clouds is of interest as it brings to mind a powerful point. Do you believe that to be a depiction of Jesus? Do depictions of this nature not represent  the artists' idealisation of how a divine human being would look and thus betraying the artists' racial and aesthetic prejudices? Which in turn is a powerful psychological tool for racial superiority and inferiority?

This is another problem in Christian culture. A culture which is immersed in imagery of Jesus p and thus a culture which effectively sends out subconscious messages of racial superiority and inferiority. This would equally apply to cultures depicting Jesus as a Black man too.

This is an elephant at the back of the room when it comes to racial equality within Christian societies.


I skimmed through your article and this comment leapt out:

 A further reason for thinking the son of Man title is probably an authentic reference used by Jesus is the use of it in John's Gospel as well as the Synoptics (thus giving independent attestation)

You appear to intimate you believe material exclusive to John's Gospel is not as credible. Jonathan can explain his reasoning behind the comment, perhaps he was just trying to convince the sceptic. Either way, I'd recommend people to get a taster to some of the issues surrounding the reliability of the Gospel of John.

Lastly, I sensed you took umbrage to my closing comment in the video where I theorised you may well have been indoctrinated in your youth into believing the Christian evangelical interpretation. I don't really recall my thought pattern while writing that into the video - I'd like to think it was not a barb directed at you but was written to assist Trinitarians to question what has influenced them to believe in concepts such as the Trinity and Vicarious Atonement. The underlying subconscious reasons and the confirmation biases that are out there.


Reza Aslan and the Son of Man Title

Prophecies about the Messiah

Is the Gospel of John reliable?

What does the Aramaic word name for Jesus tell us?

Reza Aslan on Gospel Writers, Luke and Matthew

Jews had their versions of AlQaeda and ISIS (Extremists)

Title "Son of God" does not mean Divinity

More about the Paraclete

Sharia Law against terrorism

Christians having dreams and converting to Islam


Learn about Islam

Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk