So a Christian missionary group (acts17apologetics) attempted to convince Muslims to believe in a "man-god" and to preach their doctrines to Muislims. The Christian makes many absurd claims during the video; the purpose of the video was to correct the christian (David wood) on his claims. Here is a Muslim response (by Yahya Snow):
Synopsis:
*The missionary claims Allah was in the fire (Quan 27:7-9). This is an unsupported claim. Discussed in the video. The missionary mentions this in order to convince Muslims of the Trinitarian Christian idea of a "man-god" (pagans were fond of "men-god" back in the days)
*The missionary also claims the Quran has two natures (physical and eternal). Muslims do not believe this. The missionary misunderstood the Muslim belief (deliberately?). The claim is debunked in the video.
*The video also highlights the fact that the missionary needs a bigger god. It points to the illogical nature of Christianity as well as the lack of reliability of Christian "proof-texts".
*The idea of God's love is discussed. In doing so we notice a contradiction within the Bible. We alos learn Allah is the Most Loving.
*The idea of God's Justice is discussed and we learn the god of Christianity is not just at all. Whilst Allah (God) is the Most Just.
*We also learn Jesus was praying to God (Allah) thus Jesus cannot possibly be God.
Here is Farhan's response to Acts 17 Apologetics (from the farhan00 channel):
Here is Davids whole video without being chopped up into little bits and filled with deceptive erroneous information like Yahyas work.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.answeringmuslims.com/2010/08/how-can-god-die.html
I CHALLENGE ANY MUSLIM HERE (IF THEY ARE BRAVE OR WANT TO LEARN MORE ABOUT AL HAQQ) TO TAKE ALL OF YAHYAS WONDERFUL ARGUMENTS, CLICK ON THE VIDEO I POSTED, AND PRESENT THEM IN THE COMMENTS SECTION BELOW THE VIDEO TO TEST THEM OUT.
SEE HOW WEAK AND FRIGILE WHAT YAHYA PRESENTS TRULY IS. BUT THIS IS ONLY FOR HONEST TRUTH SEEKERS, WHO ACTUALLY THINK THESE ARGUMENTS OF YAHYAS FLY.
IF YOU THINK WHAT YAHYA SAYS MAKES SENSE, I ENCOURAGE YOU TO GO AND ASK THOSE HE IS SO DESPERATELY AND DECEPTIVELY TRYING TO REFUTE.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe video makes the following claims about the Gospel of John:
ReplyDelete1:53 "…we all know the Gospel of John is not worth the paper it's written on when it comes to theological absolutes."
3:05 The Gospel of John is “unreliable and unbelievable.”
I find it curious that some Muslims appeal to the authority of “modern scholarship” when the same modern scholarship rejects such truths as the Virgin Birth of Jesus and His bodily ascension into heaven.
Would Muslims believe the authenticity of the Gospel of John if modern scholarship one day saw the errors of its ways and maintained the eyewitness authenticity of the book?
It is currently fashionable for many “modern scholars” to reject the authenticity of the Gospel of John. But it has well been said, “he who marries the spirit of the age will become a widower in the next.” Believe in the Jesus who died on the cross and rose again from the dead,
John 5:24
“I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.
John 11:25-26
Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies;
and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?”
www.trinityismonotheism.com/
LIARRRS!!
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deicide
Deicide is the killing of a god. The term deicide was coined in the 17th century from medieval Latin *deicidium, from de-us "god" and -cidium "cutting, killing")
The concept is applied to the Crucifixion of Jesus specifically.
UR GOD DIED FOR 3 DAYS
There have always been debates on the authenticity of the "gospel of John" and there is even a christian tradition that the alleged author of john died BEFORE it was even written.
ReplyDeletewood's porn gospel contains the first use of sex toys
ReplyDelete“Thou hast also taken thy fair jewels of my gold and of my silver, which I hael 16:17)d given thee, and madest to thyself images of men, and didst commit whoredom with them” (Ezeki
"You built yourself a high place at the top of every street and made your beauty abominable, and you spread your legs to every passer-by to multiply your harlotry. New American Standard Bible (©1995) Ezekiel 16:25
ReplyDeleteKing James Bible
Thou hast also committed fornication with the Egyptians thy neighbours, great of flesh; and hast increased thy whoredoms, to provoke me to anger. Ezekiel 16:26
Anonymous, are you missing the part which says "WHORE"?
ReplyDeleteGod does NOT approve of these actions in the Bible. Compared to your Prophet dressing in Aishas clothes, apperantly Allah though it would be wise to see Muhammad ONLY when he crossdressed in Aishas clothes...no other womans clothes, JUST AISHA
And what about Allah approving of whoredom in heaven? Hmmmm?
Allah also seems to approve of another man kissing Muhammad all over his belly button and armpits.
u r one of the most dirty and repulsive christians ive ever seen "Anonymousing". u keep repeating lies and nonsense AND YOU NEVER BROUGHT THE HADITH THAT I CHALLENGED YOU TO BRING.
ReplyDeletedid u know ur going to marry the lamb as a virgin in ur "heaven"??
2 Corinthians 11:2 (New International Version)
2I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him.
7Let us rejoice and be glad
and give him glory!
For the wedding of the Lamb has come,
and his bride has made herself ready.
8Fine linen, bright and clean,
was given her to wear." (Fine linen stands for the righteous acts of the saints.)
9Then the angel said to me, "Write: 'Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!' " And he added, "These are the true words of God."
and there is no marriage without consummation so you're getting it on with the lamb in ur christian heaven!
Thanks Anonymous, yes i did know that.
ReplyDeleteI think the only challange you pose is to the mental health association.
Did you read the crossdressing hadith i provided you with? Or the one you acknowlaged where Muhammad is getting kisses on his belly from another man? Hmmm...MUST be sahih, eh?
Muhammad(saw) crossdressed? Not even the enemies of his time accused him of this. But this is to be expected from the likes of Anonymousing whose interest lies not in learning Islam academically, but through the eyes of an illiterate bigot. And as for the man kissing him, it is no different from when the Prophet's blood fell into a cup of milk and one of his devotees drank it. It has nothing to do with homosexuality, but everything to do with infusing oneself with the sacrosanct.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, the main issue is can God die? I say no because God is the greatest being conceivable and any being that dies or is capable of dying cannot be greater than a being that does not die. It is as simple as that!
I'm surprised Anonymousing is still celebrating his Al Haqq argument. Apparently, someone didn't notice my responses, and someone didn't notice how Anthony Rogers who tried to espouse the same view was humiliated for using faulty logic. But this is to be expected from illiterate bigots who can shout all day long about how they know so much about Islam and yet not be able to publish a single drivel of theirs in scholarly journals.
Ibn, you must be kidding; I left our last discussion because you demonstrated you don't know what it means for a term to be fully distributed.
ReplyDelete-----
If Allah alone is al-haqq and Jesus is al-haqq, then Jesus is Allah.
Jesus is al-haqq
.: Jesus is Allah
-----
It is simple modus ponens.
So far from humiliating me, you proved you are a philosophical wanna-be.
By the way, your irrationality is on full display in your prior comments. If a person's being unpublished proves that his arguments are drivel, then the fact that you, in so far as you are commenting here under a name that makes it impossible to identify you as a published individual, makes your responses drivel.
Face it, the only person commenting here who has been published in any form is me. But I'm not dumb enough to rest the validity of what I say on the fact that I have been published.
anthony
ReplyDeleteCorrection
Allah alone is 'al haqq + 98 other attributes'
Jesus is 'al haqq'
therefore allah <> jesus
You forgot about the other 98 attributes.
Speak of the devil, its Anthony Rogers! His new argument is:
ReplyDelete"If Allah alone is al-haqq and Jesus is al-haqq, then Jesus is Allah. Jesus is al-haqq.Jesus is Allah."
This time you actually got it right! At least you got the form of the argument right. This, however, was not the form in which you previously presented your argument, which was "God is Creator. Allah is Creator. Therefore Allah is God" (in that vein, 'Allah is Haqq, Jesus is Haqq, Allah is Jesus').
I'm sure when I challenged you to prove that it was a logically valid form, you glossed through Copi's book (which btw I also possess) but could not find anything to support your faulty reasoning. I forgive you. It is not your fault that God created you stupid.
As for the argument you presented in the valid form, although it is a red herring in the context of this post, I'll still humor it.
The second premise (Jesus is al-Haqq) is a presupposition which is tantamount to begging the question. Ouch!
Ibn-2; Paratus-0
Wait folks, there's more!
AR: If a person's being unpublished proves that his arguments are drivel, then the fact that you, in so far as you are commenting here under a name that makes it impossible to identify you as a published individual, makes your responses drivel.
You are attacking a straw man. I didn't say that being unpublished means one's arguments are drivel. I simply pointed out that Anyonymousing and his ilk's boasting about their findings of Islam is misplaced considering that no one in academica takes any of their claims seriously (hence the absence of their articles in scholarly journals).
Ibn-3; Paratus-0
Criminals like the idea of sitting as judge over their own trials; that's why Ibn has a tendency to tell us what he thinks the score is.
ReplyDeleteIbn is anxious to tell us that he owns Copi's textbook on logic, but owning a book is no excuse for not reading it. And even if Ibn were to get around to reading it, that of itself would not make him rational anymore than me reading the Qur'an would automatically make me evil. I no more follow the Qur'an than Ibn does Copi.
Since our argument has been over the validity of arguing from Jesus being the truth to the conclusion that Jesus is God, it is a red herring to say the second premise above is question begging, for if Ibn read Copi he would know that the question of the truth of an arguments premises is distinct from the question of whether the form of the argument is valid.
Now since our argument has been whether such a conclusion can be validly inferred, and since Ibn has granted in the above form it can be, I can pretend with him that his previous inability to understand the argument was due to an error on my part. For as it stands now, he has claimed for himself a victory in a previous battle, but conceded to me the war.
HeeHee! look at IBN squirm while he tries to get out of his "undistributed middle" blunder of ignance. (yes Ibn, the illiterate bigot wrote IGNANCE not ignorance :)
ReplyDeleteThis time you actually got it right! At least you got the form of the argument right.
The whole time bro. Anthony is repeating the same argument!
In fact, I MADE THAT ARGUMENT ALSO! THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUTH!! Ibn doesnt seem to understand...poor Ibn...
And it so hilarious!!!! IBN IS HIS OWN SCORE KEEPER :D LOL Dude, seriously, dont flatter yourself!
I was just waiting for this guy to make a jerk out of himself again...ahh good chuckle. And again, and again...
Anthony, I say you go on and pretend away for Ibn :) Maybe some seekers of AL HAQQ will actually analyze the info and bow before their Lord and Master Christ Jesus! (besides your info and your comments are awesome!)
LOL what a belly laugh :D again and again and again...LOL Like that energizer commercial, just keeps going and going and going LOL
And here is Muhammad dressing up in Aishas clothes (IE CROSSDRESSING, IE HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVITY)
ReplyDeleteSo Um Salamah went and talked with the prophet but he did not respond to her. When the group asked her what the prophet said she told them that he did not respond. So they asked her to go talk to him again until he responds… then the prophet said to her, “Do not hurt me with Aisha, for the inspiration did not come upon me when I was IN A WOMAN’S GARMENT(fee thawb imra’ah) EXCEPT THAT OF AISHA.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith Number 2393)
:-o
Watch Ibn say its "unauthentic" now or that im commiting the "undistributed middle fallacy" by posting it wrong LOL!
Am I presenting my post in the correct FORM Ibn?
what a joker, and I actually thought this guy was one of the more honest and knowlageble ones on here...
Here is the current score
ReplyDeleteAnthony: 1 Million
Ibn: - 1 Million
Oh im just teasin!
To Anthony Rogers:
ReplyDeleteQuran 9:114 Abrahim is called HALIM, which is the name of God.
Quran 37:101 Ismail is called HALIM.
Also in the Bible, God is called Savior, and also Moses was called Savior, Does that mean that Moses is God?
Stop this cheap reasoning.
As usual, Anthony starts his post with a bunch of nonsense before actually getting to the point, not that his point is any less nonsensical. If you recall, when Anonymousing brought up the topic of Jesus being Al Haqq based on a faulty logic, I took his argument to task on a logical ground whereas sam 1528 argued that having one divine quality does not make him God. In continuation of that post, I am perfectly justified for challenging the second premise of your argument which is that Jesus is Al Haqq. You even entertained the argument that having one quality is tantamount to having all the qualities, to which I responded only to be met with your silence.
ReplyDeleteAs for Anonymousing, being the groupie that he is there was nothing of substance in his post.
Regarding the hadith, I simply which scholar has made it acceptable for men to wear women's clothing based on this hadith?
Ibn, is that all you have left? Well, then, I will just conclude with a good horse laugh.
ReplyDeleteOur good and humbled brother in humanity Ibn spake:
ReplyDeleteIf you recall, when Anonymousing brought up the topic of Jesus being Al Haqq based on a faulty logic, I took his argument to task on a logical ground
Is that it Ibn? Or did you just not understand the argument in the first place? But good job, I see you finally got it and admit it to a certain poiint you can grasp.
And it doesn’t matter about Allah's 98 other names, that’s not the least bit relevant, its not even the logic behind the argument! Both you and sam15 have been hedging around the point! You are not straightforward, you plot and plan.
But you all know what the greatest thing is!
ReplyDeleteIt's that I said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about Jesus being AL HAQQ on this thread. I used it repeatedly referring to plain ole truth.
This goes on to demonstrate IBN cant help thinking about HIM every time he sees or hears those words!
Every time good Ibn reads the words AL HAQQ, he remembers! He knows! Jesus is his Lord, Jesus is on his mind!
Oh Ibn, how much you must hate that simple name, alhaqqu. How must it anger you to read it.
Ibn said,
ReplyDelete"I simply which scholar"
Oh lookie! All of a sudden you get tounge tied! Your simply saying perhaps? Well im simply saying that Muhammad dressed up in Aishas clothing.
I dont think any scholar would ever want to touch that one!
Peace...
To Anonymousing:
ReplyDeleteThe argument of Aisha clothe is an old Arab Christian lie, I can't believe it's still in use!!
The Arabic for "Thawb" is a piece of tissue, which can be a clothe or ANYTHING ELSE. So please, have respect for your God given brain, and find another argument.
"Criminals like the idea of sitting as judge over their own trials; that's why Ibn has a tendency to tell us what he thinks the score is."
ReplyDeleteCan we say the same for Acts 17?
No, they enjoy the distinct advantage of video footage to silence liars and slanderes.
ReplyDeleteOne More Muslim,
ReplyDeletethank you for answering my question and not calling me a dirty xxxtian.
I must say that it doesnt make much sense to say that "Muhammad wore Aishas piece of tissue". And even if i were to entertain the idea that thawba means "piece of tissue" (which i dont - im going with the translation which says garment) then I would still be left with Muhammad putting on Aishas piece of tissue. Why in the world did Muhammad wear a woamans piece of tissue?
was it a burka? maybe...all we know is that it was thawb.
so i watched the whole video by David wood. i must say, while david is an aright guy, this piece of work was not even worth responding to. david doesn't understand the verses 27:7-9. Allah didn't come down to earth and into the fire. he can do whatever he wants but he isn't going to come down to earth even though he's closer to us then our own viens. the relation david tried to make of Allah being in the fire to god coming down to earth as a human being is completely contradictory.
ReplyDeleteTo Anonymousing:
ReplyDeleteYou still don't get it. The Prophet was not wearing Aisha's piece of tissue, it's not even something to wear. That's only your distorted imagination. All what the Prophet meant was that he received revelation in the house of Aisha. It's an old Arab Christian argument, and it's a silly argument. There are many Hadiths against wearing women clothes, silk tissues, a Muslim cannot even wear Gold. Men wearing women clothes is the sign of the last day. try to find an original argument, not borrowing from Arab Christian propaganda!
What do you think of those who say that Jesus was sexually deviant based on Mark's gospel, and the naked disciple of Jesus? Why do you make such low cheap shots?
Assalamu alaikum,
ReplyDeleteAdding to onemoremuslim's comments.
The Qur'an states about women and their husband's "Hunna lebasun lakum wa antum lebasun lahunn...." which literally means "they(women) are clothing for you and you (men) are clothing for them...", this is how the hadith is to be understood and this is how the mufassiroon of the hadith understood it.
This was a clarification for muslims to understand. Now out of the non-muslims, the ones who have disease in their heart will refuse this understanding and prefer to follow their wild imagination which only projects their inner perversion. And the hadith about the man who kissed the prophet's chest "Sawad", any decent muslim who knows the story can only laugh at the ridiculous claims about nonesense such as homosexuality etc.