Thursday, 25 July 2013

Samuel Green Debates with Ijaz Ahmed

Samuel Green, an Australian Christian preacher discusses the fact that the New Testament teaches Jesus (p) is not all-knowing. The discussion is with Muslim apologist Ijaz Ahmed of Calling Christians.

One can easily see Samuel Green is not making sense and appears confusing. I just hope Samuel and any other Christian who saw this conversation thread thinks about this tonight and sincerely gives the pure monotheism of Islam a thought.

1  Ijaz Ahmad

1  Ijaz Ahmad (1)

1  Ijaz Ahmad (2)



Trinitarians are left refuted by their own New Testament teachings which teach Jesus (p) is not all-knowing. It's time to accept the plain and obvious - Jesus (p) is not divine but rather he is a Prophet of God.

Jesus 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: 


Anonymous said...

Radical moderate is a hater

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

Anonymous said...

What r the last two comments to do with this?

This post no about radical. What a hater this Muslim be.

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

From Minoria:

Part I

The way I see it is this,regarding Jesus not knowing everything,not even the hour of his second coming.Any NT scholar will tell you that passage passes the criterion of embarassment of the historical method.It has no propaganda value.

For a Muslim,that is ok,he was not God,just a man,he didn't know everything.


1.Now they are now both Muslim,by self-definition.

2.They both began as non-Christians,who later converted to Christianity.

3.Reza Aslan says he began as a nominal Muslim.His father later became an atheist and his mother a Christian,ex-Muslims.He came to the US at the age of 7 and became an evangelical Christian at 15,then was a believer for several years,then began studying Christianity in the university and lost his faith.

4.Reza then became a Muslim again and Paul Williams became a Muslim.

Anonymous said...

From Minoria

Part 2


It is "Zealot:the Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth"(2013) where he says that Jesus was in favor of overthrowing the Roman power in Palestine,in other words,would even be in favor of a violent revolution.


Paul Williams and Reza Aslan are not the typical Muslim (or typical Christian) who know nothing about NT scholarly debates about Jesus.They know the conclusions.And that scholarship says:

1.Even the most radical NT group(except for 3 or 4 guys who say Jesus never existed),the atheistic,skeptical Jesus Seminar(who don't accept Jesus resurrected)accept as very probable that the historical Jesus said,repeatedly,that he would be killed SOON,in his lifetime.It appears in sayings even the Jesus Seminar accepts,according to their method.

2.And that the historical Jesus said he would could back a second time,in "this generation".And it didn't happened,so he was a failed apocalyptic prophet.

Anonymous said...

From Minoria:

Part 3:

Now Williams and Aslan know all this,in fact Aslan in his interviews says he has a Phd in religion and is a scholar,academic.


Williams and Aslan can not or should not deny what Islam says about Jesus:

1.He was a prophet.

2.He will return a second time(it appears in hadiths)

3.He was never killed(the Koran says so)


The Koran also says Jesus will die and resurrect again.Muslims say this means:

When Jesus returns again he will die and be resurrected.

Anonymous said...

Part 4

From Minoria:

In the Koran Jesus even says he would never have said anything contrary to what Allah would have wished.


1.NT scholarship says the historical Jesus said several times he would be killed in his lifetime.The Koran says he never died.


That makes him a false prophet,it is a major thing,not a minor detail like "it will rain tomorrow"(and it does not).

Also NT scholarship says the historical Jesus was wrong on the timing of his second coming.That makes him a false prophet on a major thing a second time.

Paul Williams and Reza Aslan know all this,they know the technical reasons,so I don't know why they continue to accept their religious belief if,from the academic scholarship they accept,Jesus was a false prophet.

Yahya Snow said...


What do you mean it makes him a false prophet?

Where does Jesus predict he will be killed in a reliable source?

Anonymous said...

From Minoria:

Hello Yahya:

The passages are here:

The Q source:

Sign of Jonah saying:Matthew 12:40/Luke 11:29-30

Also in Q Jesus says that his disciples must be willing to take up the cross to follow him(Matthew 16:24-26/Luke 9:23-24)The master can't demand more from his disciples than what he is willing to do,and taking up the cross means to die.

In 3 of the gospels Jesus says he will be killed:

First time:

Mark 8:31: (repeated in Matthew 16:21/Luke 5:35)

Second time

Mark 9:31: (repetead in Matthew 17:22-23/Luke 9:44)

Third time

Mark 10:33-34: (repetead in Matthew 20:18-19/Luke 18:31-33)

The parable of the vineyard

Here it is particularly convincing since it has no resurrection element,the body is just thrown over(an element highly unlikely to be included if it were made up)

Mark 12:1-9:(repetead in Matthew 21:33-39/Luke 20:9-15)

A woman washes Jesus while alive,for his coming death

Mark 14:3-8:(repeated in Matthew 26:-12,John 12:1-8)

Two extra passages in John

John 2:18-22

John 12:23-33

Then another case in Matthew 27:62-64 (from the mouths of his enemies)

Anonymous said...

From Minoria:

I forgot to add this,which is more technical.Reza Aslan must certainly know this,maybe Paul Williams also.

I have pointed to these verses verses before but there is more than meets the eye:

Mark 8:31(repeated in Matthew 16:21-23)(the first time Jesus said to his disciples he would die)

Later in Mark 8:32-33(repeated in the Matthew version) PETER,later one of the 3 leaders of the church(with James and Paul):

1.Is against what Jesus says

2.Jesus hears it and calls him Satan

The 2 things meet the criterion of embarassment of the historical method(plus a double attestation).It would have been embarassing to say Peter had been against Jesus and even worse to have him called the Devil.

It is very unlikely people would have invented that so the basic idea would come from the historical Jesus:his claim that he would die in his lifetime.


Judaism does not have the idea of a dying Messiah.

1.The Messiah is not supposed to be killed or die,

2.He will come and rule forever.

The disciples,like Peter, and other Jews thought Jesus had a good claim to be the Messiah,and so Jesus saying he would die is in conformity with the criterion of dissimilarity(it goes against the culture and beliefs of the society) of the historical method.

It also has the criterion of multiple attestation of the historical method.


Mark 9:31(repeated in Luke 9:44-45)(the 2nd time Jesus told his disciples he would die)

In Mark 9:32(and also in the Luke version),when the disciples hear it they do not understand him.

That is also an element of embarassment,making them seem dumb,unlikely to be invented.But really it is not that they understood nothing,it is that in Judaism the idea of a dying Messiah is an oxymoron,absurd,he will come and rule forever.

Here the reaction of the disciples is in conformity with the criterion of coherence(something in accord with the culture) of the historical method.


Luke 18:31-33(when Jesus told the disciples the third time he would die)

In verse 34,that follows,again it is written the disciples did not understand,at all,what he was talking about.Again,element of embarassment and criterion of coherence.