Friday, 19 July 2013

Debate Review: /does Prophet Muhammad Exist in the Bible (Osama Abdallah and Anthony Rogers)

Previous debate review: Sam Shamoun v Osama Abdallah (On Prophet Muhammad (p)):
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/debate-was-muhammad-true-prophet-osama.html


I don't recommend this debate - it's a hard watch and is characterised by many annoyances and the viewer would not gain anything from it that he/she could not gain from a Dr Shabir Ally debate on this topic or Zakir Hussain's debate v Samuel Green. Dr Shabir Ally's debate with Anis Shorosh or Zakir Hussain's debate with Samuel Green are more beneficial for learning a particular Muslim argumentation in a clear and concise fashion.

Upon reflection and scrutiny Osama Abdallah won this debate due to the strength of his points regarding Deuteronomy 18:18 despite Osama Abdallah inexplicably confining himself predominantly to the Old Testament and offering a poor verbal presentation which was characterised by a lack of fluidity, coherence (at times) and continuation.

 Osama Abdallah could have (and should have) presented more mainstream Muslim argumentation (such as that from the Song of Solomon and that pertaining to the paraclete in John 14:6) and presented the material with more structure so the audience could follow along better. The interesting story here is that for those who focus on argumentation solely (which should be all of us) Osama won the debate despite his presentation style being quite poor and lacking structure plus fluidity (at times). I personally believe Osama was not well prepared for the debate (he had a number of debates in a short period of time and accepted the debates at very short notice - which is not the wisest move) which actually makes it even more interesting that the Muslim position came out dominant.

However, it must be noted, Osama's position only comes out on top after post-debate scrutiny and an appeal for consistency - things which Osama offered little in the actual debate though there are a few notes added into the debate video released by Osama which aid the viewer in following along.

 The Christian (Anthony Rogers) was much more fluent and generally was clear in his presentation. He seemed to be playing up to the fundamentalist Christians in the audience which did not make for comfortable viewing. He did offer a sound insight into the Christian argumentation and made some interesting argumentations when discussing the Biblical passages. His style was overly abrasive and he seemed to be characterised  by his unfair bias and thus losing all sense of objectivity.

In the middle of the debate he starts to interpolate his own bits into the Bible though his eisegesis was interesting it did actually aid Osama's argumentation! Did anybody in the audience notice or were they all asleep? Aside from this he seemed to be simply borrowing from dodgy sites off the internet - as evidenced by his espousal of the dishonest citing of Al-Tabari and other shoddy internet hate-site material. Anthony Rogers is one who has a history of interpolating his own bits and meanings into Biblical texts as shown by his belief that an angel in the Old Testament is God (last I checked on this guy he believed an angel in the Old Testament was God). He did not depart from his bad habit of adding his own bits to the Bible - this meant he was tough to listen to and was presenting material which was not exactly Biblical.

I think to the unbiased lay audience member, or the one-off lay viewer who does not review nor analyse the points the speakers brought up, the Christian position would have seemed stronger concerning whether Prophet Muhammad was mentioned in the modern day Bible.

However the review brings up some reflections which actually show Osama's position was much stronger than Anthony's.

Review

Upon analysis Osama Abdallah made some very good points and convincing argumentation too. He let's the audiene know Islam (submission to the Will of God) is the original religion. Abdallah cited Rabbi Ben Abrahamson to support his assertion that Muslim is the title of the believers (perhaps he could have used the reference to those who do the Will of God in Mark 3:35 as well). More on Rabbi Ben Abrahamson:

http://harunyahya.com/en/Short-videos---Dont-miss/29003/rabbi-ben-abrahamson-is-explaining

Osama gives similarities between Prophet Moses and Prophet Muhammad whilst presenting a case for Deut 18 referring to Prophet Muhammad. In fact this fits nobody better than Prophet Muhammad as his similarity with Prophet Moses is noticeable. Thinking about it, hearing the Trinitarian Christian espousing the belief this prophecy is about Jesus is surreal. I mean, didn't Rogers and the Christian audience members stop to think that he is equating the person who he believes to be God with Prophet Moses? Did alarm bells not ring? They should have!

Anthony Rogers was floundering here and his desperation to counter the Muslim claims concerning Deut 18:18 not only led him to the presentation of unscholarly and inaccurate materials but also  inconsistent argumentations.

Anthony’s poor researching was further highlighting by a blunder where he attempted to impugn his opponent for writing Isaiah 7:14 was about Prophet Muhammad – it turned out Osama Abdallah had no knowledge of this alleged claim!

Osama generally adopts an esoteric approach to the Bible

Osama adopts this approach but does not tell  nor explain this to the audience thus making him difficult to follow for the Christian audience throughout the debate. Bad communication. All he had to do was at the on-set of his presentation state his methodology much in the way Zakir Hussain did on this topic in his debate with Samuel Green and thus use it as a crux to appeal for consistency throughout the debate

Note: Origen (early CHRISTIAN scholar 185-254) believed Scripture had multiple levels of meaning. Apparent and esoteric meanings – foreshadowings, typologies.

To enable the Christian audience to understand and empathise with his style of argumentation Osama is advised to cite the Christian use of Hosea 11:1-2 to build a case for consistency during the debate

When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. But the more they were called, the more they went away from me. They sacrificed to the Baals and they burned incense to images. [NIV]

Christians as per Matthew 2:14 claim Hosea 11:1 is about Jesus – it’s discernably about the nation of Israel yet Christians use an approach for Hosea 11 that they would not permit for a Muslim to use when showing examples of what he/she feels to be prophecies of Prophet Muhammad in the Bible.

Here the Christian is using an approach similar to Origen's and similar to the approach Osama Abdallah displayed in this debate.

Osama missed an important appeal to consistency here and thus allowed his opponent to be inconsistent when dismissing his (Osama’s) claims. This was a crucial mistake by Osama setting an inconsistent and unfair tone for the debate (this oversight by Osama may have been due to his lack of preparation time)

In general, Osama offers a lot of references without expanding on them much; it would have been more appealing to a Christian if he had stated his esoteric approach and to elaborate on each verse he was appealing to in order to stimulate the listener to further thought and research.

Of course not all Biblical references Osama appealed to would fall under the esoteric approach - the main one being Deut 18:18 which is a clear prophesy about one to come who will be like Prophet Moses.

In this debate, as Osama did not present argumentation from the Song of Solomon or argumentation related to the Paraclete in John 16, the debate was going to be centred around Deuteronomy 18:18 and thus won/lost on this argumentation.

Mini Debate Concernng Deuteronomy 18:18

A prophet to come who will be like Moses; Abdallah states the big similarity is that both Muhammad and Moses came with a Law. To be frank, there are numerous similarities between Prophet Muhammad and Prophet Moses. Even the Christians would not dispute such. Here are the points of similarity Osama highlighted:

 Normal birth, married, had children, came with a new law, passed away, Moses was accepted by his (Jewish) people as a whole but Jesus was not (according to is own did not receive him, they all forsook him and fled at the) most Jews do not accept him (though Jesus was a Jew) whilst most Arabs accept Muhammad as a Prophet, both Muhammad and Moses were rulers of their respective people, Jesus was not.

So Osama highlights a number of good similarities between Moses and Muhammad whilst also showing they cannot apply to Jesus

For Osama to underline his point to the Christian audience it would have been advised to cite a non-Muslim who believes in Prophets Muhammad and Moses being similar, Reverent James Dow:

"As a statesman and a lawgiver Moses is the creator of the Jewish  people. He found a loose conglomeration of Semitic people, none of  whom had been anything but a slave, and whose ideas of religion were a  complete confusion. He led them out and he hammered them into a nation. with a law and a national pride, and a compelling sense of being chosen by a particular God who was supreme. The only man in history who can be compared even remotely to him is Mohamet


From among thy brethren

Arabs and Jews are cousins. Abdallah misses an opportunity, despite mentioning it, to link this with:

I tell you, the Kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation that will produce the proper fruit. [Matthew 21:43 NLT].

This goes back to Abdallah’s lack of structure to his presentation – much of the core material was there but he left the audience to join the dots when he as the presenter should have been making it easier for them to follow his points. Here Abdallah is arguing that Jesus in 21:43 is informing the Jews a new nation [the Arabs] will take up the message next so it will leave the Children of Israel.

Osama also mentioned the word 'ach' was used to signify the brotherhood of Jews and Arabs. This word can mean relative and kinship so is not simply restricted to blood brother

All in all, Abdallah made the case that Arabs are indeed the brethren of Jews so strengthened the affirmative position and left Rogers with no room to manoeuvre. Or did he?

Rogers actually showed his staunch bias in this regard as he did not even grant the meaning which was offered by Abdallah. Erm, Strongs Accordance at Blueletterbible.com confirms the possible meaning of 'relative' and 'kinship' so is not simply restricted to blood brother. Rogers looked silly here due to his extreme bias which was a feature throughout the debate.

Anthony Rogers then presents a case based on context as the word brethren earlier on in this chapter refers to Israelites. This is a good point Rogers raises – one that must be given further thought. Having said that this point does not mean the meaning in Deut 18:18 cannot be the broader meaning rather than the restricted meaning. Coupled with Matthew 21:43 and the legitimate definition of 'relative' Osama had a strong case for this prophecy to be related to an Arab. However, Anthony did bring an interesting argument forward concerning context.


Another problem Rogers faces here is that of inconsistency as he would argue Hosea 11:1 refers to Jesus thus if Rogers is willing to employ such a broad mode of interpretation when considering what he believes to be prophecies of Jesus in the Old Testament he would look more than a little inconsistent when preventing Muslims from using a legitimate definition of the word 'ach' in their argumentations regarding Deut 18:18.

In all reality, Anthony despite raising an interesting objection he as a Bible-believing Christian was being inconsistent

Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument.

Arguing for the other side without knowing it?!

Anthony Rogers gets confusing in his attempt to argue against the similarities between Moses and Muhammad which highlights his lack of knowledge. He inadvertently shows Prophet Muhammad is like Prophet Moses!

~35 min. He argues the one like Prophet Moses is somebody who spoke dierectly with God. Erm, Prophet Muhammad did speak directly with God in the night Journey.

Anthony scores an own goal here!

He scores another own goal...

Anthony Rogers also sets a criteria that the prophet like Moses is expected to perform miracles. He then claims that Prophet Muhammad did not perform any miracles. This is a falsehood on the part of Anthony Rogers due to his poor understanding and research into Islam. Prophet Muhammad performed a number of miracles (by the Will of God) see here:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/did-prophet-muhammad-p-perform-miracles.html
 
So this reflected badly on Anthony as he had not done his research and was arguing against the Muslim claim but unknowingly was confirming it as two of the criterions he put forward in his attempts to exclude Prophet Mhammad from Deut 18 (namely performance of miracles and direct communication with God) re-inforce the Muslim position!

However, Rogers in the same opening statement changes the goal-posts again and makes the claim that the Prophet should see God. Here we see Anthony adding his own bits to the proceedings out of a desperation to argue against Osama's stance on Deut 18:18

The Trinitarian problem for the claim Deut 18 refers to Prophet Jesus is that this is problematic for Trinitarian beliefs. I mean, here you have Anthony believing Moses is like the god according to Trinitarianism (Christian Trinitarian belief is Prophet Jesus was a ‘god-man’ -100% human and 100% God). Also it flies in the face of the Trinitarian belief that Prophet Jesus is God as it implies that 'the Prophet' will be raised up by God and thus have a God. Notice, Deut 18 is not teaching  about God coming down but rather about sending a Prophet like a man (Prophet Moses)

If you as a Trinitarian Christian believe Prophet Jesus is God then it's inconsistent and problematic for you (based on your theological presuppositions) to say your God has more similarities to Prophet Moses than Prophet Muhammad does with Prophet Moses. Think about it!

This is an issue the Trinitarian Christians need to ponder upon. Their beliefs in the incarnation nor their beliefs in three persons of God do not solve this problem.

Genesis 17:20

And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation. [NIV]

Even the Christian apologist Anis Shorosh claims this Biblical verse refers to the Muslims.

Thus the question we are left with, if the Ishmaelites (Arabs) are to be a great nation then are they not going to have a Prophet and a religion from God? Food for thought, there's a double-serving when one combines this with Deuteronomy 18.

Deuteronomy 33:2

Anthony was superficial and inconsistent in his dismissal of Abdallah’s claims concerning this verse. Anthony claims it’s in the past tense and about the Lord.

Firstly, Anthony is inconsistent as Hosea 11:1 is in the past tense about Israel whilst he and other Christians would claim that it’s about Jesus. So Anthony was operating a double-standard. One standard for the verses he believes to be prophecies about Jesus (a standard of acceptance) whilst he had a standard of rejection for this verse simply because it’s argued to be about Muhammad. Anthony's bias evidently led him to inconsistency - inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument

Secondly, Anthony claims this is about the Lord. However, the Muslims who argue this verse refers to Muhammad do not believe Muhammad is God. They simply look at the verse in an esoteric fashion whilst also understanding the concept of agency in the OT. Thus the verse (if the concept of agency is applies) is speaking about the agent/s of God

Again, notice Anthony's approach of accommodation regarding Hosea 11:1 yet utter rejection with regards to Abdallah's appeal to Deut 33:2.

If Anthony and other Christians are willing to use an esoteric approach to what they believe to be prophecies of Prophet Jesus in the OT then why disallow Abdallah and other Muslims who use the same approach for verses they believe could refer to Prophet Muhammad?

Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument

Note: this is the section where Anthony was found to be presenting a fudged narration from Al-Tabari. It appears his colleague Sam Shamoun had tricked him regarding this narration. Amateurish and misleading, see here for more information:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/facts-for-honest-not-for-dishonest.html

Osama and Isaiah 29:12

In fact this fits Prophet Muhammad like a glove fits a hand. Prophet Muhammad repeated verbatim the words of God (the Quran)

Isaiah 29:12 Then the book will be given to the one who is illiterate, saying, "Please read this." And he will say, "I cannot read." [NASB]

This again fits Muhammad like a glove fits a hand. Prophet Muhammad’s experience in the cave when he first received Revelation passed on by the Archangel Gabriel from God seems a remarkable fulfilment of this Prophecy in Isaiah. There is no arguing against this – the verse and the facts speak for themselves. The Muslim speaker need not have said anything else and the Christian speaker would have been foolish to argue against it.

Silly argument from John 1

Anthony presented a silly argument: because the people asked Prophet John the Baptist whether he was 'the Prophet' and that he was not an Arab then this means the Jews were expecting a Jew not an Arab. Anthony was simply relying on a mistake on the part of these people. In any case their mere asking John the Baptist does not necessarily mean they believed the Prophet could not have been an Ishmaelite (Arab)

 In fact Anthony was being inconsistent as the same passage shows the Messiah will be distinct from 'the Prophet' thus Jesus could not have been 'the Prophet' mentioned in Deut 18.

 Would Anthony accept that or would he say the people questioning Prophet John were mistaken?

 Think about it. Anthony offers an inconsistent and superficial argument which may well have been found to be satisfactory to some of the fundamentalist Christians in the audience but for those who review these matters this was simply highlighting the lack of  solid argumentation coming forth from the Trinitarian camp.

Quran and science

The debate veered off to the topic of science and the Quran. Anthony just ran with a couple of shoddy internet hate-site claims. The first one being the age-old ‘sperm produced between the back bone and ribs’. This just further highlights Anthony’s shoddy researching – internet hate sites are not edifying. This claim has been explained and debunked here:

http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/clarification-sperm-production-and-quran.html
 
Rogers showcases his reliance on internet hate-sites and his lack of research as well as  lack of consistency again. He claims the Quran teaches the stars stop 'angels' from ‘secretly sneaking’ into God’s presence. This is incorrect.

However Muslims do believe the stars do drive away shayatin (devils which are not angels but rather jinn). An interesting point here is that stars move at great speeds due to gravity (though they appear quite static to us casual viewers on earth). So quite how Anthony can criticise the belief of shayatin being driven away by stars (in light of their speed and emittance of heat and fire) is beyond me. It gets even more inconsistent and desperate as Anthony (as a Bible believing Christian) believes Angels came down from Heaven and had sex with human women resulting in offspring which were giants.

Now if Anthony has enough faith to believe that then he is simply being ludicrously inconsistent in criticising Muslims for believing stars drive away shayatin (devils) whom are not angels but jinn

Pagan influences

Rogers goes down similar argumentation lines his colleague David Wood did previously regarding pagans in pre-islamic Arabia - further showing Anthony’s bias and lack of research as well as original argumentation. Here is Dave Wood receiving a sharp rebuke for this line of argumentation:

http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/refuted-pagan-origins-of-islamic.html

The Debate in full - Anthony Rogers v Osama Abdallah on 'Is Prophet Muhammad in the Bible?'


May Allah send his peace and blessings upon Prophets Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (and all the others). Ameen

Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk

Related:

Prophet Muhammad mentioned by Prophet Jesus:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/prophet-jesus-mentioned-prophet.html

47 comments:

Anonymous said...

The world's worst debate review ever. Why won't you debat Anyhony? You keep talking about him. Please no excuses. I want to see him obliterate your arguments just like he did Osama's.

Royal Son said...

Yahya, you wrote: "Secondly, Anthony claims this is about the Lord. However, the Muslims who argue this verse refers to Muhammad do not believe Muhammad is God. They simply look at the verse in an esoteric fashion whilst also understanding the concept of agency in the OT. "

I would like to know - is this what you wanted us to wait for, or do you have anything else to say?

I ask because I don't see an agent in Deuteronomy 33:2. Could you please point it out? Some further exegesis would be appreciated.

You said that Muslims look at this verse in an esoteric fashion. Is this a standard practice for Islamic exegesis? I'm interested if the same methodology can be utilized in the understanding of Qur'anic passages in light of Surah 3:7. Furthermore, in light of your description of such interpretation as esoteric, would you agree that the plain, unforced and objective reading of the text is that the passage is referring to God and not to Muhammad?

Finally, I would just like to know if you as a Muslim have 100% confidence that this passage is referring to Muhammad such that you would teach all your brothers and sisters in Islam such an interpretation as valid and true?

Thank you for your responses,
Royal Son.

Anonymous said...

Royalson, Yahya can't answer he can only delete comments. Don't waste tour time with this guy.

Radical Moderate said...

LOL so since Muslims believe that words have no meaning that means that Deut 33:2 is about Mohamed.

Brilliant logic

Radical Moderate said...

Yahya snow wrote...

"In fact this fits Prophet Muhammad like a glove fits a hand. Prophet Muhammad repeated verbatim the words of God (the Quran)

Isaiah 29:12 Then the book will be given to the one who is illiterate, saying, "Please read this." And he will say, "I cannot read." [NASB]"

My Response:

Where did Mohamed I'm sorry allah say those words VERBATIM? Did he say them in English?

Anonymous said...

Christians mad coz antony rogers got exposed. radical is a hater.dnt be mad

Radical Moderate said...

Yayha Snow

So this "Rabbi" says that "the purpose of Islam is to make straight the path for the Messiah that is to come"

But Islam teaches that the Messiah is Jesus, so therefore this Rabbi is WRONG.

Anonymous said...

Yahya is too afraid to debate Anthony. That speaks volumes. He knows he would get mauled.

Radical Moderate said...

Muslims are mad coz Osama Abdulla got exposed. Yahya Snow is a hater.dnt be mad

hajjandumrah said...

Pretty good post. I just stumbled upon your site and wanted to say that I have really enjoyed
reading your site. Any way I'll be subscribing to your feed and I hope you post again soon.

flights to Umrah
cheap flight to jeddah
flights to jeddah
umrah jeddah flights
umrah flights from London
cheap flights to umrah

hajjandumrah said...

Pretty good post. I just stumbled upon your site and wanted to say that I have really enjoyed
reading your site. Any way I'll be subscribing to your feed and I hope you post again soon.

flights to Umrah
cheap flight to jeddah
flights to jeddah
umrah jeddah flights
umrah flights from London
cheap flights to umrah

Royal Son said...

I don't think Yahya will delete my posts. He agreed to provide the review where the issue is mentioned, and now that it's here I'm sure he wouldn't find it inappropriate to discuss the pertinent matters.

Anonymous said...

Osama won debate

Radical Moderate said...

Snowman

The Christ denying Jew that Osama and yourself have appealed to, quotes Macadamizes.

Just wondering do you believe what he said about Macadamizes?

BTW you accuse us Christians of spamming in case you haven't noticed hajjandumrah is a real spammer lol.

Radical Moderate said...

Yahya must still be sleeping like Most Muslims during Ramadan they sleep during the day and eat all night. Just like Jesus did

Anonymous said...


Radicalmoderate R u mad? Do u hav job? How many dollar u giv Sam? When u come ac room? Why u hater? Ur boy got pwnd :)

Anonymous said...

From Minoria:

Certainly the Deut 33 passage directly talks about Yahweh,I dont think it is a strong point in favor of Muh. in the Torah,the strongest one,the only one really,where you dont have to include symbolism as its part,is Deut 18:17-19,about the possibility of it(since it could also be about a JEW).

About that the Paraclete cant be the Holy Spirit of tradition for X reasons,even granting,for argument`s sake,that it is not,it is still about a spirit,not a man,that is the direct meaning of the word.

This thing about concessions for argument`s sake(even if you dont agree) is something very common.You see it all the time in debates:

1.Richard Carrier,atheist, conceded,for argument`s sake,X points,to William Craig,at the beginning of the debate(but saying he didnt believe it)but that STILL his argument was better.

2.Dan Barker,atheist,did the same in the debate with Licona.

3.Craig and Licona and Gary Habermas(a great debater)have done the same in debates,conceded that for argument`s sake the gospels are NOT the word of God,are full of contradictions,etc,yet they believe that still their argument is better.

4.Bart Ehrman,in his book ''Forged'',says,in effect, that if it is accurate that Paul,for example,used a scribe who wrote some of his letters in his own style but using Paul`s ideas and with his approval,then those letters are not forgeries.He believes they are but is open to conceding it is possible they are not.Those letters(Titus,1 and 2 Timothy,Colossian,Ephesians) are in a style so different from Paul(though they claim to be by him)that scholars universally consider them forgeries.

From what I can see David Wood and the others who debate on Moh. in the Bible are not willing to argue considering another scenario(even if they dont agree with it)and to show that their position is better.

Insisting all the time that the Koran says the Torah and Gospel are incorrupt gets the debate nowhere.Craig,Licona,Barker,Carrieracted differently.Even SAMI ZAATARI,in one debate,conceded,for argument`s sake,at the beginning,X points,but he said his argument would still be better.I really dont think the Moh in the Bible debate will become any different,it has become stagnant because the Christians who debate it do not use the technique adopted by Carrier,Licona,Habermas,Craig,etc.That shows a real lack of wanting to explore new ideas.In the end it is all about ideas.Jose Marti,the very great poet of Cuba(no Christian) wrote a famous line:

"How do you defeat an idea?By another idea."

But when others are unwilling to explore new scenarios,new techniques,new methods,then that show an inability to think outside the box.

Radical Moderate said...

Anonymous who said...

"Radicalmoderate R u mad? Do u hav job? How many dollar u giv Sam? When u come ac room? Why u hater? Ur boy got pwnd :)"

Whats your nick in the ac room and the next time I go in I will look for you.

Anonymous said...

Anthony proved the prophesies in gen 18:18 was about Jesus, because "Jesus spoke face to face with God".

In other words he proved Jesus wasn't God and contradicted his most fundamental confusion, the trinity.

Radical Moderate said...

Anon said...

"
In other words he proved Jesus wasn't God and contradicted his most fundamental confusion, the trinity."


Really? How does one divine person seeing another divine person in the the Trinity contradict the trinity? Really think before you write.

Anonymous said...

Anon Muslim is blinded by hate. Thinking is not an option for him.

Yahya Snow said...

@ Radical

You wrote: "How does one divine person seeing another divine person in the the Trinity contradict the trinity?"


I would advise you to think before you write. Really.

When you start talking about two divine persons seeing one another then people switch off and think you're a polytheist (regardless of whether you say they are a unity)

My question to you is, where are you getting this trinity from. Really, where do you get it from. Which verse in the Bible?

Can you give me 1 verse? Surely if you believe Jesus wanted you to believe in the trinity then you would believe Jesus would have spoke abut it seen as it's the core belief? Where does Jesus speak about it? I mean he had followers, if he was preaching the trinity (something radical for Jews) then people would have been talking and writing about it at that time.

Just for clarification, I don't believe Jesus (P) taught the trinity.

PS don't respond with, where do you get tawhid from - that's simply concerning the Oneness of God which we as Muslims can point to Chapter 112 of the Quran (the first verse).

Yahya Snow said...

@anon (the one championing Anthony Rogers)

Anthony has my email address.

As for him 'obliterating' my arguments. Stop. Please just stop with your Rambo talk.

Anthony and I have debated in the past and he was really struggling in that debate. Just use the search facility on this blog and find my material on the debate topic.

The reason why he struggled is because of his stance - it's a weak stance. thus it's easy to argue against him. In that particular instance he was trying to argue for an angel (yes, an angel) to be God in the OT.

Now you tell me if it takes Rambo style debating to knock that argument down or just one or two humble points?

Testosterone is not required. Keep the Rambos and Arnold Schwarzenegers out of the debate arena.

This is a problem in the debate arena, people think they are special and have puffed out chests.


Here you have Anthony struggling against me and then struggling against Ijaz ahmed on the same debate topic. His ego and blind adherence did not allow him to re-evaluate his beliefs. Why debate the guy if he is not even going to bother to ponder upon the argumentation strengths/weaknesses?

People like you don't help because you enable people to live in delusions. Here you are championing a bloke who believes an angel (yes an angel) in the OT is God.

As for this debate review, I simply highlighted Anthony's arguments and pointed out the flaws.

Osama Abdallah won the debate upon reflection on this review or any thought out review.

Invitation to Islam

Pophet Jesus (p) taught people to do the Will of God (Mark 3:35) in order to become his brothers, mothers or sisters. A Muslim means one who submits to the Will of God. Do you want to become a brother of Jesus? If yes, become a Muslim. Now is the time.

Learn about Islam:
http://www.thedeenshow.com/

Royal Son said...

Yahya: Does "An esoteric fashion" describe the manner in which Muslims should interpret scripture including their Qur'an? Could you justify this in light of Surah 3:7?

Would you agree that the objective, unforced, plain reading of the text is that Deuteronomy 33:2 is speaking of YHWH and not Muhammad?

You mention the principle of agency. Could you please point out who the agent is in Deuteronomy 33:2 and who the agent is representing from that same verse? I'm interested to see where you get this principle from.

Does this principle of agency likewise occur in the Qur'an?

Are you 100% confident as a Muslim that Deuteronomy 33:2 is the word of Allah, and that you are not committing shirk by attributing divine authorship to something that could be simply the words of men, applying the Muslim understanding that the Bible is hopelessly corrupted?

Thank you for your responses.

Yahya Snow said...

@minoria

Thanks for acknowledging the credibility of the Muslim claims regarding Deut 18:18

As for the word 'spirit' it can mean 'prophet'. See this bible verse:

"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world,"
[1John 4/1]

Minoria, see this site for more info on Islam:

http://www.thedeenshow.com/

Yahya Snow said...

@Royal Son

Firstly to clarify, the argument regarding Deut 33:2 is not one which comes from me.

It's late try to remind me to discuss this with you tomorrow or later on next week, inshaAllah.

Thanks for your interest.

PS If I forget, please just copy and paste your comment into ANY comment section so we can discuss this. I think these are important issues that are worthy of RESPECTFUL dialogue.

Thanks

Please also look into:

http://www.thedeenshow.com/

Radical Moderate said...

Yahya Snow said...

"Anthony and I have debated in the past and he was really struggling in that debate. Just use the search facility on this blog and find my material on the debate topic."

My response:

Really where, when? How can I get a copy of this debate to listen to it?

Are you the Muslim equivalent of Ergun Canner?

Anonymous said...

@radmod

"Really? How does one divine person seeing another divine person in the the Trinity contradict the trinity? Really think before you write."

I don't know, I'm just sure Anthony wasn't sayin what you try to say here. He said that Jesus was face to face with God and made a clear distinction between Jesus and God. Let me refrase, God saw God face to face and thus fulfilled the prophesy of Moses? But there is only one God? What a strange belief...

Royal Son said...

Yahya - I think you posted a response to me here but it seems to have gone. Could you repost it please?

Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Sam sham looks and lies like caner. Radical moderator u get money for supporting Sam and tony. Or u giv them money. Tell truth how much money u given to Sam in ur life ?

Anonymous said...

How much money did your prophet get from his followers as booty?

Radical Moderate said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Anon wrote...

"He said that Jesus was face to face with God and made a clear distinction between Jesus and God."

My Response:

Congratulation that is a core belief in the doctrine of the trinity. A clear distinction between the father and the son.

Radical Moderate said...

Yahya Snow wrote...

" In that particular instance he was trying to argue for an angel (yes, an angel) to be God in the OT."

My Response:

Snowman just like Ijaz you have demonstrated that you do not understand Anthony Rogers argument. It went completely over Ijaz's head, so much so that he had a poll done to figure it out.

To funny.

Anonymous said...

"Congratulation that is a core belief in the doctrine of the trinity. A clear distinction between the father and the son."

Well, Antony didn't say father and the son and I understand why you have a hard time to accept that statement. but that is a problem between you and Allah Allmighty, Allah forgives those who ask for His forgiveness, He is the Forgiving most Mercyful.

Anonymous said...

Anon said...

"Well, Antony didn't say father and the son and I understand why you have a hard time to accept that statement"

My Response:

He doesn't have too state father and the son. The context is clear. And second since I fully understand what AR said and you don't, I'm not the one who has the problem. It is you who has the problem.

Anyway man please think a little more before you type.

Anonymous said...

If Anthony is a Christian he has to make the distinction between the father, son and holy ghost, but to say that Jesus saw God and spoke to God and heard God is really to say that Jesus isn't God.

Do you think that his statement "Jesus spoke face to face with God" is correct?

And if You believe that Jesus is God, is it than correct to say that "God saw God face to face" and thus fulfilled the prophesy of the OT?

Anonymous said...

From Minoria:

Hello Yahya:

You stated:

"Thanks for acknowledging the credibility of the Muslim claims regarding Deut 18:18

As for the word 'spirit' it can mean 'prophet'. See this bible verse:

"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world,"
[1John 4/1]"

I know that verse(1 John 4:1)but it refers to a completely different culture and language from that of Jesus.Jesus spoke no Greek,his culture was Jewish,not Greek(as was that of the listeners to which 1 John was directed to,a Greek culture).

Chapter 14 of John refers to a speech said in Aramaic,a language very similar to Hebrew(like Spanish and Portuguese)and in that language and culture a spirit was always a spirit,never a human.As far as I know there is nothing in any Hebrew and Aramaic book written by Jews(like the Talmud,the Qmran writings,etc)where a spirit in Hebrew or Aramaic is a human being.If it were so then Muslim debaters would have pointed it out a long time ago.

Radical Moderate said...

To the Anon who wrote...

"If Anthony is a Christian he has to make the distinction between the father, son and holy ghost, but to say that Jesus saw God and spoke to God and heard God is really to say that Jesus isn't God."

My Response:

Jesus is God, so Jesus did see God face to face since he is God and comes from God.

You continue on:

Do you think that his statement "Jesus spoke face to face with God" is correct?

My Response:

Yes of course I do, I'm a Christian.

You continue:

"And if You believe that Jesus is God, is it than correct to say that "God saw God face to face" and thus fulfilled the prophesy of the OT?"

My Response:

Yes, the pre incarnate Word before coming as Jesus of Nazareth is God was God and saw God face to face.

Radical Moderate said...

To the Anon who wrote...

"If Anthony is a Christian he has to make the distinction between the father, son and holy ghost, but to say that Jesus saw God and spoke to God and heard God is really to say that Jesus isn't God."

My Response:

Jesus is God, so Jesus did see God face to face since he is God and comes from God.

You continue on:

Do you think that his statement "Jesus spoke face to face with God" is correct?

My Response:

Yes of course I do, I'm a Christian.

You continue:

"And if You believe that Jesus is God, is it than correct to say that "God saw God face to face" and thus fulfilled the prophesy of the OT?"

My Response:

Yes, the pre incarnate Word before coming as Jesus of Nazareth is God was God and saw God face to face.

Yahya Snow said...

@Minoria

The point here is that the word spirit can refer to a Prophet. Your own Bible confirms such.

This is for you to reflect on brother.

I also notice some of the fundamentalist Christians on the internet have been insulting you. Try and ignore them.

@ Royalson

The comment was caught up in the spam box as I made a few comments in one sitting. You should be able to view it now.

Thanks

@ Radical

You believe Jesus is God. Don't make the statement like it's a fact.

Yahya Snow said...

Oh I just noticed a Trinitarian (radical) wrote:

'Jesus is God, so Jesus did see God face to face since he is God and comes from God. '

Now if one does not see issues with that then they are unwilling to think.

Radical Moderate said...

@Yahya Snow you wrote...

"Now if one does not see issues with that then they are unwilling to think."

My Response:

Snowman why don't you show us you can think and explain what the issue is?

Radical Moderate said...

Yahya I do have another question for you, Im unsure as to what Mohamed is. Is her a prophet or is he a Warner or is he a messenger?

Royal Son said...

Ok Yahya, I see your comment has made its way back. Thank you for that. I look forward to your coming response when time permits.

On another note, in reading your review of the debate itself, I observed that you handed the victory to Osama purely on the basis of his argument for Deuteronomy 18:18. However, Anthony pointed out that the context demonstrates that the bretheren being spoken of are the bretheren of the Levites, which of course would refer to the remaining 11 tribes of Israel. In light of this you acknowledged that it was an interesting point that you would need to look into.

I draw attention to this Yahya, because if Anthony is correct regarding the interpretation based upon the context, then it would seem to me that the single point that you felt won Osama the debate is actually lost to Anthony. In fact, there is absolutely nothing in the text that would lead one to look beyond the 12 tribes of Israel to some foreign peoples. Such an interpretation breaks the flow and intention of the text.

I would like to point out a couple of other things as well. You mention that Muhammad did in fact see Allah face to face in the Night Journey. However, I do not see any Hadith which recount the Night Journey, ever mentioning Muhammad seeing Allah's face. Could you please direct me to the reference which mentions Allah's face?

With regards to what Radical Moderate is saying, the doctrine of the Divine Trinity is certainly compatible with the "prophet like Moses" seeing God face to face. God is often used as an appellation of any one of the three persons of the Divine Trinity, much like in Acts 20:28 which speaks of God's own blood. The understanding in that verse is not that the Father shed blood, nor the Holy Spirit, but specifically the Son. In like manner, Christ the Son saw God face to face. In other words, He beheld the Father. To back up this interpretation, we find Peter identifying Christ as the prophet like Moses in His sermon in Acts chapter 3 and Stephen's defense in Acts 7 likewise identify's Christ as that prophet like Moses. Would you not agree that these are the earliest interpretations of Deuteronomy 18:18 we have attributed to Christ's followers? I believe you would be hard pressed to find something to the contrary in the manuscript tradition that would lead you to original readings of these verses against the ones that we have in the New Testament.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.