I pray that the living God will restore him to health. Ameen.

Advertisements


Categories: God

128 replies

  1. Is anyone giving dawah to Nabeel? Is there someone who can objectively and decisively prove to him that Islam is true and that Christianity is a man-made construct? Can somebody prove to him and to us all that Jesus was neither a Trinitarian and nor did he preach vicarious atonement and that the NT contradicts the OT?

    Like

    • Jesus taught vicarious, substitutionary atonement very clearly – Mark 10:45; Mark 14:24; Matthew 26:28

      Christianity comes from God – “all Scripture is God-breathed” – including the New Testament, the true Injeel

      You should read Nabeel’s story in “Seeking Allah, finding Jesus” where David Wood befriended him and just starting asking questions. Nabeel studied the Qur’an and the Hadith (and was shocked at many Hadith) and the Bible and eventually came to question Islam, and eventually became a Christian.

      Jesus is the Kalimat’allah کلمه الله – “Word of God” from all eternity – John 1:1; who was born of the virgin Mary – so Jesus had no human father. The Word is always with God from eternity past. The word comes from the thoughts and mind – and the Spirit of God is always with God. The mind/word and Spirit were always with God.

      “the Word became human and dwelt among us . . . John 1:14

      Thanks for praying for Nabeel.

      He has a good attitude as he goes through this trial.

      Where does he get the power to respond so well to trials?

      The Holy Spirit that God promises to believers in Jesus. (John 7:37-39; Romans 5:1-5)

      I cannot imagine the pain he went through as I listened to him tell of his experience there in this video. Wow.

      37 Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying,
      “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink.
      38 He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.’”
      39 But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

      John 7:37-39

      1 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
      2 through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God.
      3 And not only this, but we also rejoice in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance;
      4 and perseverance, proven character; and proven character, hope;
      5 and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.

      6 For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.
      7 For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die.
      8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

      Romans 5:1-8

      Like

    • Ken Temple

      You said;
      You should read Nabeel’s story in “Seeking Allah, finding Jesus” where David Wood befriended him and just starting asking questions. Nabeel studied the Qur’an and the Hadith (and was shocked at many Hadith) and the Bible and eventually came to question Islam, and eventually became a Christian.

      I say;
      Why is he telling Christians that he knew Islam because he came from Islam and is an “ex-Muslim”? Knowing very well that he did learn Islam from David Wood.

      We wish him speedy recovery anyway.

      Thanks.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Ken Temple thanks for replying, you are quite knowledgeable. Do you think I should read Nabeel’s book? Will it really convince me that Christianity is the Truth? What if I convert to Christianity and it happens to be false and I end up in hell? How can one be so certain that Jesus Worship , Trinity etc is the absolute Truth? What if Islam is right then what? I mean there is always the risk. Did you used to have doubts about the Holy Spirt and God?

      Like

    • Ken Temple, who died on the Cross, the Divine Nature or the Human Nature or Both? And was the Death of Jesus on the Cross also the Death of the Other Persons of the Triunity? And what does “death” mean with God?

      Like

  2. think –

    I understand and agree that “Ahmadiyeh” (Qadiani) is considered a heresy of Islam.

    He was raised that way, and they used the Qur’an and knew about the Hadith, but did not study them deeply until he was challenged.

    He knows that; and in fact explained all the things that the Ahmadiyeh agree with Sunni Islam in several of his own videos.

    Like

    • It is about telling lies and lied. Why? He learnt Islam from David Wood because he does not know certain things until David Wood Taught him. Imaging learning Islam from David Wood, Jay Smith, Lizzie etc. and claim you are expert in Islam because you are an “ex-Muslim” . That is what Nabeel is doing to Christians and collecting their money. Wouldn’t it be lie?

      You as a reverend, instead of telling him the truth as Dr. James White did, you rather defend his lies. Christ watching you Ken. Dr. James White is cleared by Christ on this one but you have the sin of concealing the truth Ken. Nabeel is a liar and Dr. James White and any rational human being will say so. Dr. James White is the truth sayer that’s why the hypocrites are against him. You ditch him as your mentor on this one.

      Thanks

      Like

    • imagine not imaging

      Like

  3. I agree with Dr. White that Nabeel should have it made more clear every time, that he was a ex-Ahmadi Muslim; – my point is that he did explain that sometimes, but not enough, from the perspective of yours and other Sunni Muslims, I get that.

    Like

    • So he lied. Will you be happy if an ex Protestant Christian who converted to Islam to be claiming to be an ex Catholic Christian who eats the flesh of Jesus? That will be a clear lie. That is what Nabeel is doing to get money from Christians. Some Christians want lies about Islam, that is why Ravi Zacharios ministry is rich. Dr. James White ministry is becoming poor because he tells the truth.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • the analogy is not a good one, since Nabeel fully admits he was an Ahmadi Muslim.

      One’s opinion about oneself is not a deliberate lie – in his opinion, Ahmadi is a kind of Muslim, since they agree with the 5 pillars and 6 articles of belief; and he explained the difference.

      Like

    • Mirza Ghulam Ahmad himself said what Nabeel wouldn’t tell his Christian audience: those who say they are Muslims but reject his prophethood are considered disbelievers who are condemned to eternal perdition.

      I pray Nabeel gets well soon.

      Liked by 2 people

    • or Nabeel just did not know much about ALL the details ( I am sure he knew some of them) of the differences between Ahmadiyeh or Sunni Islam (at the time that David Wood started witnessing to him), since they themselves think that are the final expression of Islam.

      Nabeel explained why in his opinion, Ahmadis are Muslims; and also he understands and explains the issue of the “seal of the prophets” issue and the claim that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad made for himself. (the video is also on You Tube)

      http://blog.nabeelqureshi.com/2011/06/ahmadiyya-and-islam-are-ahmadis-muslims.html

      Like

    • “Conclusion
      Ahmadis are Muslims. The vehement disagreement by orthodox Muslims has to do with peripheral doctrine, not defining beliefs or practices. It is a symptom of their readiness to label each other kafir at the drop of a hat.”

      The disagreement is of central importance: the truth or falsehood of the prophethood of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Also, as the prophet of Ahmadiyyat he called (see previous link to the official Ahmadiyyat website) Muslims eternally damned disbelievers, ie, kuffar.
      Nabeel would say anything to make himself a former member of mainstream Islam.

      Like

    • Muslims are disbelievers according to Ahmadiyyat. So when Nabeel was presenting himself as a former Muslim, he was lying plain and simple: https://www.alislam.org/library/books/Essence-4.pdf
      Mirza Ghulam Ahmad himself said what Nabeel wouldn’t tell his Christian audience: those who say they are Muslims but reject his prophethood are considered disbelievers who are condemned to eternal perdition.

      I pray Nabeel gets well soon.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Ken Temple
      July 30, 2017 • 10:31 pm
      the analogy is not a good one, since Nabeel fully admits he was an Ahmadi Muslim.
      One’s opinion about oneself is not a deliberate lie – in his opinion, Ahmadi is a kind of Muslim, since they agree with the 5 pillars and 6 articles of belief; and he explained the difference.

      I say;
      The Catholics and Protestant agree Jesus is God and they agree on 3 Persons 1 God; Does that mean a protestant to lie that he eats a blood of Jesus Christ?

      That is what Nabeel did. He said if he remained in “his own religion” he would have gone to fight in Syria. Ahmadis do not go to Syria to fight. This is a clear lie. Dr. James White will not be punished for this sin because he tell the truth. Those who are stubbornly defending Nabeel’s lies will have hell fire waiting for them unless they repent and say Nabeel is indeed a liar like Dr. James White did.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • I already agreed with Dr. White on that; and Nabeel is suffering with cancer (with a very godly attitude); so there is no point at this time to keep harping on that. We both agree to pray for him.

      Like

  4. Seeker of Truth wrote:

    Ken Temple thanks for replying, you are quite knowledgeable.

    Thanks!

    Do you think I should read Nabeel’s book?
    Yes

    Will it really convince me that Christianity is the Truth?

    Only God knows, as only God can convince a person on the inside. Only God converts a person in their heart; all the book and the Bible verses do is give you the information and truth; but it is up to God to convince your heart and mind.

    What if I convert to Christianity and it happens to be false and I end up in hell? How can one be so certain that Jesus Worship , Trinity etc is the absolute Truth? What if Islam is right then what? I mean there is always the risk. Did you used to have doubts about the Holy Spirt and God?

    If you truly convert, that is, if God converts your soul (the Spirit of God causes you to be born again), you will not end up in hell and you will have true peace and assurance – the level of assurance that God expects. God never expects us to be infallibly certain of anything, as only God can have that quality. But we can be reasonably certain of God’s peace, forgiveness, and assurance of heaven, based on the promises of God’s word. Humans always have some doubts; we are human. Trusting in God does not mean “no doubting”, rather, it means we keep trusting Him even when tempted or in pain or trouble and when we have doubts, to keep reminding ourselves of the truth of God and His promises in the Scriptures.

    As C. S. Lewis wrote:

    “Faith is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods.”
    (Mere Christianity, page 140, 2001 updated edition. originally 1952.

    The promise of God for believers in Christ:

    6 “Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”
    7 Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.”
    Galatians 4:6-7

    Like

    • Ken Temple, who died on the Cross, the Divine Nature or the Human Nature or Both? And was the Death of Jesus on the Cross also the Death of the Other Persons of the Triunity? And what does “death” mean with God?

      Like

    • Jesus as one person with 2 natures truly died on the cross; but death does not affect the divine nature; and even with that “death” does not mean “cease to exist” – as humans, when we die, the soul /spirit continues to live on ward – either in heaven with God or in hell; and the souls/spirits await the day of resurrection, when the bodies will be re-united with their souls/spirits.

      A good debate on these issues was between Abdullah Kunde and James White:

      https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2013/08/18/debate-can-god-become-a-man-james-white-vs-abdullah-kunde/

      Like

    • Death did not affect the other persons of the Trinity at all – the Father, nor the Holy Spirit. Death only pertains to the human body.

      death cannot affect God, since God is Spirit (John 4:23-24) and something has to be physical and created in order to be affected by death. Even so, Jesus is one Person with 2 natures and truly died on the cross. Trying to figure it out beyond that is impossible. God knows the mysteries and secret knowledge.

      His Divine nature and power gave Him the power to raise Himself from the dead. John 10:18

      “no one takes My life from Me; I lay it down voluntarily; and I take it up again; I have authority to lay it down and take it up again.”

      John 2:19-22
      “destroy this temple, and in 3 days I will raise it up again” “this He spoke about the temple of His body”

      All three persons of the Trinity were involved in the resurrection.

      1. God the Father raised Jesus from the dead. (Acts 2:24, 32; 3:15, 26; 4:10; 5:30; 10:40; 13:30, 33, 34, 37; Rom. 4:24; 6:4 [through the glory of the Father]; 10:9; 1 Cor. 6:14; Gal. 1:1; Col. 2:12).
      2. Jesus the Son raised Himself from the dead. John 10:18; 2:19-22

      3. the Holy Spirit was involved in raising Him from the dead. Romans 1:4; 8:11; 1 Peter 3:18

      Like

  5. Nabeel is a liar, and Allah knows how many muslims suffered because of his lies in the west.
    I think we should move on. Allah knows the best regarding his soul.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. Amen. May Allah heal him and make it easier for him.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Shalom Sir Yahya Snow. I hope you are well. Are you able to refute Nabeel’s core thesis that ”Jesus is God”? And that destroyed the Law upon the Cross?

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Dr Shabir Ally emailed me:

    Liked by 2 people

  8. Seeker of Truth wrote:
    Shalom Sir Yahya Snow. I hope you are well. Are you able to refute Nabeel’s core thesis that ”Jesus is God”? And that destroyed the Law upon the Cross?

    All true Christians believe in the Deity of Christ. (that Jesus is God by nature) but all Christians believe Jesus is a man also. He is both.

    A good book on the Deity of Christ is:

    Another good one is “the Lord of Glory” by B. B. Warfield

    Dr. White’s book, “The Forgotten Trinity” is also very good; and has at least one of the chapters on the Deity of Christ.

    Like

    • Why are the conservative evangelicals, who were [many if not most] were taught the Trinity before they could find the eisegetical devices to substantiate their beliefs, as children, but not the other scholars/historians and ”liberal” Christians etc Unitarians etc to be believed over them? Bart Ehrman’s ”How Jesus Became God” also deals with the same subject and does not lead to the same conclusion as yours. Why should I believe an Ex-Ahmadiyya Trinitarian Apologist [note Nabeel is not a scholar or anything but a doctor] over a Top Bible Scholar who was the student of Bruce Metzger, the greatest textual critic, Bart Ehrman? And Bart Ehrman is not alone, TOP TRINITARIAN SCHOLARS ARE SAYING:

      JESUS DID NOT CLAIM TO BE GOD.

      Larry Hurtado, Mike Licona [Mike says ”the Holy Spirit is not defined as a separate person and nor is it regarded as God, but rather we imagine it so”]

      What kinds non-sense is this? N.T Wright rejects that Jesus claimed to be God. Prof Alister Mcgrath a Trinitarian theologian acknowledges that Jesus did not claim to be God etc but rather was a Slave of Allah, who rejected the Gentiles as Dogs/Whores. Prof Anthony Buzzard; Prof Dirk; Prof Dale Tuggy etc all testify that Tertullain is right: Jesus is not God. But nay, you would rather have us reject them in favor of Pastor Steven Anderson. Why did Justin Bass, who debated Dr Ehrman, admit that Jesus is not God nor claimed to be One, but ”we believe it so that we may enjoy eternal hell for we are a stubborn, blind race. Cursed by Allah and the Messengers, Prophets and the Scholars. Indeed we wish to be with Satan, our Father and Savior”

      Do you agree that if Jesus is not God, then you are a Polytheist? Let us imagine that Jesus is not God, which you actually agree, since you believe his human nature is not God but created thing, do you agree then then you are a pagan?

      Liked by 1 person

    • You need to provide the quotes and page numbers of what you claim that Mike Licona said, or NT. Wright, or Alister McGrath – those quotes do not sound them at all – please provide the book with page number or if on video or a You Tube video, please provide.

      Like

    • Another question: Why should I accept the NT as the words of God or as scripture from God, even though it is filled with errors, exaggerations, lies, contradictions, mistakes and perfect internal contradictions? Why should I believe that God inspired the NT, if He failed to protect it from errors, lies, contradictions and corruption?

      Liked by 1 person

    • How do you know the NT has any contradictions, errors, or lies?

      Like

  9. Dr. White also debated Jalal Abu Al Rubb on the subject of the Deity of Christ.

    “Is Jesus God?”

    This is part 1 – also look for part 2 to the side to get the full debate.

    Like

  10. No one believes that Jesus “destroyed the law” on the cross.

    Only some aspects of the law of God were abrogated – the ceremonial laws, Jewish feast laws; civil laws, punishment laws.

    But God’s moral law still stands and will always be.

    “the law is holy and good and righteous” – Romans 7:12 (the apostle Paul said this)

    and 1 Timothy 1:8-11

    8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly.
    9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers,
    10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine
    11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

    Like

    • Did Jesus divide the Law into these parts and then tell you to reject some whilst upholding the others? Did Jesus divide the Laws as ”the ceremonial laws, Jewish feast laws; civil laws, punishment laws.”? Where is your proof, if you are a Christian? If he did not, why invent another category, like the ones you invented for the top invention, the Trinity?

      Like

    • Jesus clearly changed the food laws in Mark 7:19. See context of whole passage, Mark 7:1-23

      Like

    • Why do you always quote Paul the former Pharisees to prove a point about Jesus? Is Paul a member of the Trinity? Also, how does Paul know Jesus so well, much more than the Disciples, even though he has never met him?

      Liked by 2 people

    • The apostle Paul’s writings are inspired Scripture. “God-breathed” ( 2 Timothy 3:16) All the 27 books of the New Testament, the true Injeel, are “God-breathed”. God sent prophets in the OT and Jesus had apostles in the NT to preach and teach the gospel and to write Scripture.

      Acts 9, 22, 26 and Galatians 1 and 1 Cor. 15 show us that Jesus appeared to Paul and called him as an apostle, and his message is the same as the other apostles.

      Galatians 2:7-10
      But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised
      8 (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles),
      9 and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Peter and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 They only asked us to remember the poor—the very thing I also was eager to do.

      Like

    • Why should I trust Paul about Jesus? I can believe in Jesus, theoretically, and still reject Paul as one who worshiped the Devil, as the Ebiontes did. Why use Paul’s letters to justify Paul’s doctrine. Where is the Doctrine of Jesus? Where is the Old Testament demonstrating the foundation for the Trinity, Hypostatic Union etc and vicarious atonement. Jesus never wrote the NT.

      Like

    • Paul does not worship the Devil. The Ebionites were a false religion; many of them did not believe in the virgin birth, which goes against Islam. The Jews in fact did not accept that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary, as Islam did accept that 600 years later.

      The OT gives prophesies of the Messiah, the suffering servant to come and be the vicarious atonement for sins – Isaiah 52:13-15, 53:1-12; Daniel 9:24-27.

      The OT speaks of the Holy Spirit that created the world with God the Father – Genesis 1:1-2; Psalm 104:30

      Jesus appointed apostles to preach the message and they wrote the message down; Jesus spoke of the Holy Spirit who would come and “guide them into all the truth” and “bring to remembrance all that I have taught you” (John 14:26; 15:26; 16:12-14)

      Jesus told the apostle John to write the book of Revelation – Revelation 1:1-3; 1:10-11; 1:17-20; chapters 2 & 3; 22:16.

      all the NT books were written as God-breathed Scripture because Jesus gave them revelation (Galatians 1-2) and what they were preaching and teaching was Spirit inspired truth. ( 1 Corinthians 2:10-16)

      Like

  11. James White also debated Shabir Ally Twice on “Is Jesus God?” here is one of them

    Like

    • And in each one James got refuted. It’s a big mistake when you use the church’s sermons when you debate muslims.

      Like

    • You answer this question first:

      If Jesus is not God, would yours belief of Jesus as God and worship of him as God, be Polytheism and would you consequently burn in hell, deservingly so?

      Like

    • Yes, but Jesus is God – the eternal Word – John 1:1 – “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” The eternal Son – John 17:5
      He was with God the Father in eternity past.
      He was (and is) God by nature/substance/essence ذات ، جوهر

      Like

    • ”For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,”

      Like

    • Yes, the Messiah will be born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14) and be called Immanuel (God with us) and “Mighty God” (Isaiah 9:6). These Old Testament prophesies were fulfilled in Jesus the Messiah. (Matthew chapters 1 and 2)

      Like

  12. ” Jesus as one person with 2 natures truly died on the cross; but death does not affect the divine nature; and even with that “death” does not mean “cease to exist” ”
    All this nonsense is pointless since God by definition doesn’t die
    “LORD, are you not from everlasting? My God, my Holy One, you will never die. You, LORD, have appointed them to execute judgment; you, my Rock, have ordained them to punish.”

    Like

  13. “”Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.”
    Imagine if a christian preacher/pastor defined Jesus to jews like what Peter did in his first speach to jews! It would be the worst sermon about Jesus according to christians.
    The irony here is that christians keep telling us that jews in the first century should have learnt the nonses concept of god man by that sermon!

    Like

    • Abdullah1423 – keep reading Acts 2:22-24.

      22 “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know— 23 this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. 24 But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power.

      Even the Jews of the first century knew that Jesus died on the cross and that their leadership (chief priests, Pharisees) tried him and forced Pilate to crucify Him. They admitted this.

      The empty tomb and word of God in the NT proves the resurrection of Christ, which proved that His atonement for sin was real and effective; it was a powerful atonement against sin. The final sacrifice, prophesied by Genesis 22, Exodus 12, Lev. 1-7, 16-17, Isaiah 52-53, Daniel 7:24-27 and even hinted at by the Qur’an in Surah 37:107. “we have ransomed him with a mighty sacrifice”.

      Like

    • “But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death,…”

      Proof in Acts that God raised Jesus and saved him from death.

      Liked by 1 person

    • “The final sacrifice, prophesied by ….”

      Also Acts proves the disciples of Jesus did not believe in him being a final sacrifice.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Ken, how could that prove that Jesus is their god who is supposed to be the second person in the trinity, and who has 2 natures, which does not contradict the oneness of god!? 🙂

      Would you ever train missionaries to speek like Peter about Jesus?

      Repeating your nonsense , especially about Quran doesn’t work, and it gives us a sign how desperate you are to prove that your god ( emptied) himself to be a lamb while in the same time you say a ram is enough for someone to be saved! So sad!

      Liked by 1 person

  14. That passage in Acts 2:22-24 proves that the cross, atonement, and resurrection are true. “God” in that passage means “God the Father”. You have to go to other passages about the Deity of Christ, and other passages show that Jesus has 2 natures. You cannot expect everything to be in one verse or one passage.

    The substitute of the ram in Genesis 22 (and which Surah 37:107 affirms, 600 years after NT) points to the future meaning of substitutionary sacrifice, that Jesus Himself said He fulfilled that – Mark 10:45; 14:24.

    John the Baptist Yahya یحیی proved that Jesus, by His sacrifice, was the fulfillment of the sacrificial system of innocent lambs, (rams, sheep, goats, etc.)

    “Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” John 1:29

    Yahya spoke the truth.

    Like

    • That passage tells you that Jesus is a ( man/ created being)!
      If a created being got nailed , then his God raised him from the death, who could that prove that he himself is a god?
      Moreover, how was supposed from jews to understand this nonsense from that speach?

      “and which Surah 37:107 affirms, 600 years after NT)”
      You are a liar and nothing else. You have not answered any key question regarding this subject. Repeating lies doesn’t turn them to be facts. The irony here is that your translation got titled for Genesis 22 as ( God tests Abraham). It’s a test and a reward.

      Yahya pbuh was washing people including your “god” so their sins would be forgiven before your god got nailed on the cross!
      Unfortenatly, your corrupted gospel describes that great prophet as less than the least in the kingdom of God.

      ” Yahya spoke the truth”
      So he is not Elijah as he said. Do you accept?

      Like

    • Ken Temple
      Yes, Jesus was sent by the Father, but He also came voluntarily and voluntarily laid down His life on the cross, becoming the atonement for sins; and He raised Himself up from the dead (with the Father and Holy Spirit also)
      John 10:17-18
      “No one takes My life from Me, I lay it down voluntarily on my own initiative; and I take it up again; I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again . . . “
      I say;
      Yes, Jesus was sent…….-Ken Temple.
      but he also came voluntarily-Ken Temple.
      Ken, does someone who was sent for a purpose meant the person came for the purpose without being sent?
      Voluntary is the opposite of sent
      Voluntary
      done, given, or acting of one’s own free will.
      “we are funded by voluntary contributions”
      synonyms: optional, discretionary, elective, noncompulsory, volitional; permissive
      “attendance is voluntary”
      Send
      verb
      1.cause to go or be taken to a particular destination; arrange for the delivery of, especially by mail.
      “we sent a reminder letter but received no reply”
      synonyms: dispatch, post, mail, address, consign, direct, forward; transmit, convey, communicate; telephone, phone, broadcast, radio, fax, email; datedtelegraph, wire, cable
      “they sent a message to HQ.
      Source: https://www.google.ca/search?rlz=1C1AVFC_enCA749CA749&q=what+is+send&oq=what+is+send&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l4.20526.23838.0.24610.4.3.1.0.0.0.88.246.3.3.0….0…1.1.64.psy-ab..0.4.249…0i67k1.RoR8KFXoV4c
      t is absolutely a big lie to say someone who was sent was not CAUSED TO GO. We are not kid here Reverend Ken. Teach this nonsense to your congregation and not here.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • Isaiah 6:8

      Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

      Isaiah volunteered – “here am I, send me”

      both voluntary and sent by God.
      Jesus voluntarily came and voluntarily gave up His life (John 10:18) and was sent by God the Father.
      case closed.

      Like

  15. The author of Acts in Acts 8:26-40 by the way they understood and quoted from Isaiah 53, certainly shows both Philip and the author of Acts understood that Jesus is the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 and the final sacrifice for sin.

    Like

    • The disciples continued to offer sin sacrifices in the temple after the elevation of Christ. Biblical fact.

      Liked by 1 person

    • some did, but it was a transition time period ; but the Acts 8 passage proves they understood Isaiah 53 was about Jesus as the final sacrifice for sin.

      Like

    • Ken Temple

      July 31, 2017 • 5:57 pm

      some did, but it was a transition time period ; but the Acts 8 passage proves they understood Isaiah 53 was about Jesus as the final sacrifice for sin

      I say;
      You are wrong. The Jews then till today, did not believe Jesus died for their sins. The Jews did not and still do not today believed Jesus is the final sacrifice for their sin. You can not say this in a synagogue or to any Jew.

      They will beat you to death. Will you say they are right? because you believed they pick up stones to kill Jesus so they were right he is God. Jesus said he was a messiah not he was God.

      1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOTx5Prbi70

      Thanks.

      Like

    • Ken Temple

      July 31, 2017 • 5:57 pm

      some did, but it was a transition time period ; but the Acts 8 passage proves they understood Isaiah 53 was about Jesus as the final sacrifice for sin

      I say;
      You are wrong. The Jews then till today, did not believe Jesus died for their sins. The Jews did not and still do not today believed Jesus is the final sacrifice for their sin. You can not say this in a synagogue or to any Jew.

      They will beat you to death. Will you say they are right? because you believed they pick up stones to kill Jesus so they are right he is God. Jesus said he was a messiah not he was God.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • Ken Temple
      July 31, 2017 • 5:57 pm
      some did, but it was a transition time period ; but the Acts 8 passage proves they understood Isaiah 53 was about Jesus as the final sacrifice for sin

      I say;
      You are wrong. The Jews then till today, did not believe Jesus died for their sins. The Jews did not and still do not today believed Jesus is the final sacrifice for their sin. You can not say this in a synagogue or to any Jew.
      They will beat you to death. Will you say they are right? because you believed they pick up stones to kill Jesus so they are right he is God. Jesus said he was a messiah not he was God.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • “some did, but it was a transition time period ;”

      So the Jerusalem Church, the disciples closest to Jesus ever, where hypocrites after receiving the HS according to Ken Temple. Explains a lot.

      Liked by 2 people

    • The only place where there is anything about the Christian Jews still offering sacrifices in the temple is in Acts 21:17-26; but they did that in order to be a witness to the Jews who were not believers in Jesus; and also to the Jewish Christians who were still sensitive to the Levitical ceremonial laws.

      James and Paul and other Jewish Christians probably looked on this as a testimony of the truth of the OT sacrifices, and that they pointed to the Messiah, (as a sacrificial lamb, sheep, ram) substitute, as a witness to the Jews.
      Both James and Paul are applying the principles of 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 in witnessing to the Jews here.

      But even then, the strategy did not work, as we see the reaction in Acts 21:27 and following, leading to Paul’s arrest and the rest of the book of Acts is a result of that.

      The book of Hebrews in 68 AD is progressive revelation after the events of Acts 21-28 (~ 58-62 AD), and 70 AD and the destruction of the temple proved that God in His sovereignty wanted to show that Christ is the final sacrifice and fulfillment of the Levitical laws.

      Like

    • “some did…”

      Including Paul, evidently. Hmmm….

      Like

    • “The only place where there is anything about the Christian Jews still offering sacrifices in the temple is in Acts 21:17-26; but they did that in order to be a witness to the Jews who were not believers in Jesus; and also to the Jewish Christians who were still sensitive to the Levitical ceremonial laws.

      James and Paul and other Jewish Christians probably looked on this as a testimony of the truth of the OT sacrifices, and that they pointed to the Messiah, (as a sacrificial lamb, sheep, ram) substitute, as a witness to the Jews.
      Both James and Paul are applying the principles of 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 in witnessing to the Jews here.

      But even then, the strategy did not work, as we see the reaction in Acts 21:27 and following, leading to Paul’s arrest and the rest of the book of Acts is a result of that.

      The book of Hebrews in 68 AD is progressive revelation after the events of Acts 21-28 (~ 58-62 AD), and 70 AD and the destruction of the temple proved that God in His sovereignty wanted to show that Christ is the final sacrifice and fulfillment of the Levitical laws. ”

      Wow, so they were just pretending to offer the sacrifices and take the Nazirite vow simply to “witness” to Jews. That seems like a fancy of saying that they lied simply to deceive unsuspecting Jews.

      The way Paul ranted about people who still insisted on living by the Jewish laws, you would think he would have sternly refused to take part in the sacrifices or take the Nazirite vow. But no, he just pretended to do those things only to deceive people. What was that saying…by their fruits, you shall know them?

      Liked by 1 person

  16. And in each one James got refuted. It’s a big mistake when you use the church’s sermons when you debate muslims.

    Actually, Dr. White refuted the 2 Muslims in both debates. I suppose by “the church’s sermon”, you mean Philippians 2:5-8. The passage in Philippians 2:5-8 is very early (60-62 AD) and God-breathed Scripture.

    And when Shabir admitted it was early, he gave the debate to Dr. White, since the thesis of the debate was,

    Did the Earliest Followers of Jesus Believe in His Deity?

    Like

    • Philippians 2:5-8 does not claim the divinity of Jesus. The Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53 is not the Messiah.

      Like

    • yes it does – “although existing in the form of God” = existing in the nature of God, “He emptied Himself”, “He humbled Himself”, “becoming a servant”, “becoming a human”, etc. Fully compatible with John 1:1-5 and John 1:14 & many other NT passages on the Deity of Christ.

      5 “Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,
      6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
      7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.
      8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. ”
      Philippians 2:5-8

      Like

    • All the NT testifies that the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 52:13-15 to 53:1-12 is the Messiah Jesus – Jesus said that He Himself is that Servant – Mark 10:45; along with Luke in Acts – Acts 8, Peter in 1 Peter 2:18-26; John (the whole gospel, book of Revelation; Paul (Romans 10:16), etc.

      Like

    • James got crushed in both debates. He was preaching. I don’t think any serious listener would believe that preaching is a good argument, and that why one of christian audience got grilled and statred shouting out against dr. Ally.

      May you tell us what that was which your god emptied himself from?
      Why your god could not say what your prophet paul said about himself?

      Like

    • 1) Paul was not trinitarian and did not believe Jesus was Jehovah, but subordinate to him
      “When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all” 1 Cor 15:28

      2) You should not interpret Phillipians 2 using John’s Gospel but by using Paul’s other genuine epistles. Biblical scholarship admits the fruitlessness of harmonising different gospels and letters with each other, each author had his own christology and message.

      3) “In the form of God” means just that. A statue may have the form of a human being but is not a human being. The greek word here is “morphe”.

      4) “(He) did not consider equality with God something to be grasped” meaning that he was not equal to God and could never be, so he decided to humble himself.

      5) Paul’s christology was adoptionist and subordinationist, i.e: he believed that Christ was adopted upon his resurrection, not that he was eternally the son of God; and he believed the Son is subordinate to the Father, 1 Cor 15; so your reference to John 1 is self-defeating.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Ken Temple
      I do not subscribe to the NT writers’ interpretation of OT passages. There are different explanations of who the Suffering Servant is, the Messiah is an unlikely candidate.

      Like

    • Ken Temple
      July 31, 2017 • 7:00 pm
      yes it does – “although existing in the form of God” = existing in the nature of God, “He emptied Himself”, “He humbled Himself”, “becoming a servant”, “becoming a human”, etc. Fully compatible with John 1:1-5 and John 1:14 & many other NT passages on the Deity of Christ

      I say;
      What a blaspheme! God emptied Himself? like a snake emptying himself from his skin. You see snake does not want the old skin, so if someone stole it, it is not bothered. But God want His attributes like immortal, all knowing etc. So when your God emptied Himself, who was there to guide his property for him? Satan could steal God’s attribute when your God emptied Himself to confuse you Christians into bringing God is 3 Persons/people.

      Allah is always immortal, all knowing etc. He never empty Himself before He can forgive sins.

      God became a servant-Ken Temple. If you do not repent from this blaspheme, hell will be your abode.

      Thanks.

      Like

  17. Aa JW. The man who has mastered the art of verbal gymnastics. I just can’t stand listening to his nonsense when asked a serious question. Whenever he is pushed in a corner with questions he CAN’T answer, he always switches to Shakespeare mode and gives emotional speeches.

    Liked by 2 people

    • “Whenever he is pushed in a corner with questions he CAN’T answer, he always switches to Shakespeare mode and gives emotional speeches.”
      Exactly!
      The problem with christians that they think it’s just the “holy spirit” starts its work upon Jame 🙂 ! So pathetic!

      Like

  18. ….
    R
    “That is why there is the Father Yahweh and the Son Yahweh and the Holy Spirit Yahweh. Three eternal persons in ONE substance/nature/essence. The Father was pleased that the Son was willing to voluntarily come and offer Himself as a guilt offering – Isaiah 53:10
    But the Lord was pleased
    To crush Him, putting Him to grief;
    If He would render Himself as a guilt offering,

    John 10:18
    “No one takes My life from Me; I voluntarily lay it down on My own initiative; I have authority to lay it down and take it up again . . . ”

    Mr temple, please tell me where Isaiah says that the PUNISHED THING is the almighty?

    Where did u invent this from in is 53?

    Mr temple, if you are an honest person, you will see there is nothing voluntary going on in Isaiah 53. The suffering thing/things is accustomed to illness, being PERSECUTED and taken away from Torah rule.

    Mr temple, how many persons are PUNISHING the thing which BECAME? 2 or 3?
    does the father experience being PUNISHER AND PUNISHED?

    you have sender and sent

    You have punished and punisher, how is that which is PUNISHED 1 yhwh with the PUNISHER?

    Please tell me how does 1 nature exist as punisher and punished at the same time?

    I think these texts are proof that Christians worship more than one god.

    ..

    Like

  19. Jesus Himself said He was eternal and God by nature ( John 8:24; John 8:56-58, John 20:28; John 10:30; John 14:9; John 17:5)

    Like

    • assuming your interpretation is correct, why did this jesus of yours say that he is COMMANDED what to say? Look at your blasphemy , a mere finite mortal said “eternal and god by nature”
      so how does “eternal god” exist as COMMANDER AND COMMANDED?

      Like

    • cause He voluntarily came to be the sacrifice for sins; out of His love.
      John 10:18

      What part of “voluntarily came” and “love” do you not understand?

      Like


    • where does john 12:49 say anything about voluntarily being commanded? Your god was commanded what to say before he was sent, right?

      Was the fathers job just a postman delivery boy who wants to whoop his son? Do you see love when father punishes his son?

      Like

    • You wrote <>

      In Philosophy, there are two forms of truth apriori and posteriori. An example for the former is ”no object can be completely red and green simultaneously”. An example for the latter is when a fact is observed and experimental true, such as ”The ending of Mark is an invention and not part of the Original Mark”.

      Your assertions that Jesus made those claims is not based on either of those two forms of knowledge. It is neither self-evident nor observationally proven that Jesus said those things-you assume is to so based on no proof.

      On the contrary, scholars insist that Jesus did not make those claims, for instance, why does not he make those claims in the synoptics? Because this is a latter development. Either way, Jesus did not write the text. Furthermore, even were Jesus to say those things, it does not matter, since millions of Bible believers and thousands of scholars read those texts as evidence of Unitarianism! People like Prof. Buzzard, Dale Tuggy etc.

      Premise A : Jesus Said XYZ (John 8:24; John 8:56-58 etc) no evidence exists for this premise. Where is the proof for this? Nowhere.

      Premise B: The Texts in John ( John 8:24; John 8:56-58 etc) Self-Evidently teach that Jesus is of the same ousia as God i.e they are numerically identical. Again, that is not the only interpretation nor is it self-evident.

      Conclusion: Jesus is God. This conclusion of yours is false since both of the previously underlying premises are false. Since Premise A has no evidence and is rejected by 99.99% of scholars. Premise B is disputed by Scholars, Unitarians , Jehovah Witnesses etc. So the conclusion is not valid.

      Try again.

      By your method alone, we must accept the following:

      And [mention] when Jesus, the son of Mary, said, “O children of Israel, indeed I am the messenger of Allah to you confirming what came before me of the Torah and bringing good tidings of a messenger to come after me, whose name is Ahmad.” But when he came to them with clear evidences, they said, “This is obvious magic.” Qur’an 61: 6

      Premise A : Jesus Said : ”..bringing good tidings of a messenger to come after me, whose name is Ahmad.”

      Premise B: The verse refers to Prophet Muhammad of Islam

      Conclusion: Jesus Approves Muhammad and hence Islam is True.

      This is your method. I did not bring any tape recording of Jesus, nothing, just verse from the Qur’an. I assume it is what Jesus said. I base the next premise on it. And lo behold the conclusion flows from it. Obviously you will dispute my premises and hence reject my conclusion. I have done the same to yours, for good reasons.

      Like

    • Since Premise A has no evidence and is rejected by 99.99% of scholars.

      Do you have any hard evidence of that percentage?

      Like

    • Anthony Buzzard and Joseph Good got trounced in the debate with Dr. White and Dr. Michael Brown.

      https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2013/06/21/trinity-debate/

      Like

    • except Jesus did not say that in Surah 61:6; but He did say the contents in the gospel according to John. the apostle John was an eyewitness of Jesus ministry, crucifixion and resurrection and he wrote the 4th gospel. The gospel of John is God-breathed word of God, as all 27 books of NT are.

      Like

    • Ken Temple
      July 31, 2017 • 11:08 pm
      cause He voluntarily came to be the sacrifice for sins; out of His love.
      John 10:18

      What part of “voluntarily came” and “love” do you not understand?

      I say;
      Jesus did not come voluntarily. Jesus said so many times in the Bible that, he was sent.
      Proof
      English Standard Version
      And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent

      Ken, why lie to us?

      Like

    • Yes, Jesus was sent by the Father, but He also came voluntarily and voluntarily laid down His life on the cross, becoming the atonement for sins; and He raised Himself up from the dead (with the Father and Holy Spirit also)

      John 10:17-18
      “No one takes My life from Me, I lay it down voluntarily on my own initiative; and I take it up again; I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again . . . “

      Like

    • Sir Ken Temple, as I early stated this verse, you agreed with the Church that indeed it is referring to Jesus, as ”Mighty God” etc in (Isaiah 9:6). You are wrong. This passage is not Messianic in the least, nor is it referring to Jesus by name at all. Nor is it saying the Messiah a Man is God also. All of these are the inventions of the Church. This passage proves that Christianity is a lie since they rely on such lies to propagate the biggest lie of all time that Jesus is God! Does this not scare you and make you think rightfully ”What else are the Church lying about and lied about”? These two links completely shatter the Christian delusions about Isaiah 9:6. I have posted the two links, go over them carefully. Thanks. Read honestly and respond with truth.

      http://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/who-is-the-child-in-isaiah-95-6/

      Like

    • The Rabbi is technically right about the first 2 verbs in Isaiah 9:6 – “born” and “given” are in the Perfect tense, which signifies completed action. But the “his name will be called” is correct for it is what is called a “Waw-Consecutive” and it is in the imperfect tense (Hebrew has no future; rather “perfect” (completed) and “Imperfect” (incomplete).

      Hebrew does not have “past” or “future” rather “perfect” and “imperfect” and we have to interpret the perfect as completed action, but in context it could be pointing to completed action in the past or future; and usually, we render the imperfect as our “future”, but that also can be about past action, according to context.

      Prophesies can take what is called the Prophetic perfect – the future fulfillment of the prophesy is so certain that it is rendered in the grammar in the past tense. It is like the Lord is saying, “It will be been done for certain.”

      The problem is that the context of 9:1-2 points to the “latter times” –

      But there will be no more gloom for her who was in anguish; in earlier times He treated the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali with contempt, but later on He shall make it glorious, [meaning in the future] by the way of the sea, on the other side of Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles.”

      2 The people who walk in darkness
      Will see a great light;

      This was fulfilled in the future in Matthew 4:16, when Jesus went to live in Galilee of the Gentiles.

      Furthermore, the prophesy cannot be about Hezekiah, because it says “the increase of his government and peace there will be no end” (verse 7)- cannot be about Hezekiah. (Isaiah prophesied of the future Babylonian captivity and lack of lasting peace in his days, in Isaiah 39). The wickedness of Hezekiah’s son, Manasseh was a major cause of the Babylonian captivity. see 2 Kings 21:11-16

      “There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace,
      On the throne of David and over his kingdom,
      To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness
      From then on and forevermore.
      The zeal of the Lord of hosts will accomplish this.”

      This can only be about the Messiah Jesus, because His rule and reign is forever in heaven and His kingdom is over all.

      He is called “the Mighty God” (Isaiah 9:6) “El Gibbor” אל גבור , “El” is short for Elohim, and cognate with Allah, and Gibbor is cognate with Jabbar. and the same phrase is used of the Almighty God in Isaiah 10:21

      “A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God.”

      So, the prophesy of Isaiah 9:6 is about Jesus the Messiah.

      Like

    • In the Talmud the verse is translated as follows: “For unto us a child is
      born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder:
      and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty, Judge,
      Everlasting, Father, Prince, and Peace. [Sanhedrin 94a].

      Obviously this
      is an authentic Jewish translation. So, even thought the first two are the Qal Perfect, the next two verbal idea point to future.

      Like

    • You wrote:

      ”Jesus Himself said He was eternal and God by nature ( John 8:24; John 8:56-58, John 20:28; John 10:30; John 14:9; John 17:5)”

      Where is the proof that Jesus said that? Did Jesus write it with his hands? Can you prove anything? Why do 100% of textual scholars reject the fact that Jesus said those words?

      Like

    • Mr temple, to command is to control, clearly the fathers MIND controls the sons mind and your jesus clearly says that the father will judge because his (Jesus’) words are NOT his.

      They are commands from commander . The person of Jesus is controlled .
      The person of Jesus clearly admits he has a controller and he was told what to say before he came. The father is NOT told what to say, he has no commander and the fathers commands come from the fathers mind which implies the son and father do not SHARE one mind. Father judges, Jesus doesn’t
      Fathers words, not the sons
      Father commands , Jesus commanded
      please explain how can ALMIGHTY be commanded???

      Like

    • Ken Temple you wrote :

      ”except Jesus did not say that in Surah 61:6; but He did say the contents in the gospel according to John. the apostle John was an eyewitness of Jesus ministry, crucifixion and resurrection and he wrote the 4th gospel. The gospel of John is God-breathed word of God, as all 27 books of NT are.”

      We will go by your claims step by step. Where is your proof that Jesus ”did not say that in Surah 61:6”? Where is your proof?

      You further claim that ”but He did say the contents in the gospel according to John.” Again, where is your proof other than empty claims of theology? If you do not possess secular proof, than you are merely making a theological statement, not a factual claim. How do you know John wrote that? Who is John? What are the names of his parents and grandparents? Are there any witnesses to prove that ”John’s” parents, family etc are truly what you claim they are? Are there any evidences which prove the lineage, reality and factual accounts of this ”John”? Also, are John’s family testifying that indeed John wrote the Gospel and Jesus approved of it? Is there any objective evidence is not biased, within the time-frame of Jesus approving John’s Gospel? Why did Jesus not protect this Gospel from corruption, if he inspired it? Why did not God protect it? Pericope de Adultera is a corruption and it is in John. Blatent corruption and proof that this scripture is suspicious and has undergone multiple redactions and editorial revisions; which is why they destroyed the autographs.

      You make exaggerated claims : ” the apostle John was an eyewitness of Jesus ministry, crucifixion and resurrection and he wrote the 4th gospel.”

      Brother WHERE IS THE PROOF? Baseless claims. All scholars reject this non-sense. You are not a textual critic.

      This last claim proves you worship the Devil. The Father of Lies. Paul’s Father.

      ”The gospel of John is God-breathed word of God, as all 27 books of NT are.”

      Where does the NT say ”ALL 27 BOOKS OF NT ARE GOD BREATHED WORD OF GOD”?

      Which of these NT’s are God Breathed?

      Marcion’s Canon.
      Tatian’s Diatesseron.
      Codex Sinaiticus.
      Textus Receptus.
      Codex Vaticanus.
      Codex Alexandrius.
      Codex Bezae.
      Codex Syriac.
      Codex Washingtonesis.
      Nestle Aland Greek New Testament Codices through to the 28th Edition..
      UBS 1 through 5 Greek New Testament Editions.
      John Mill’s 1707 Greek New Testament Codex.
      Codex Ephraemi-Rescriptus.
      Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament (1881)

      SO IS THE BIBLE RELIABLE? ? Or Should We Follow the Real Truth? Top Christian Scholar, Apologist, Evangelist and Philosopher Answers the Question :

      “I’m quite willing to say these documents could be erroneous in many respects, could be inconsistencies (sic), contradictions…” Dr William Craig Lane.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Ken Temple
      August 1, 2017 • 3:44 pm
      Yes, Jesus was sent by the Father, but He also came voluntarily and voluntarily laid down His life on the cross, becoming the atonement for sins; and He raised Himself up from the dead (with the Father and Holy Spirit also)
      John 10:17-18
      “No one takes My life from Me, I lay it down voluntarily on my own initiative; and I take it up again; I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again . . . “

      I say;
      Yes, Jesus was sent…….-Ken Temple.
      but he also came voluntarily-Ken Temple.

      Ken, does someone who was sent for a purpose meant the person came for the purpose without being sent?

      Voluntary is the opposite of sent

      Voluntary
      done, given, or acting of one’s own free will.
      “we are funded by voluntary contributions”
      synonyms: optional, discretionary, elective, noncompulsory, volitional; permissive
      “attendance is voluntary”

      Send
      verb
      1.
      cause to go or be taken to a particular destination; arrange for the delivery of, especially by mail.
      “we sent a reminder letter but received no reply”
      synonyms: dispatch, post, mail, address, consign, direct, forward; transmit, convey, communicate; telephone, phone, broadcast, radio, fax, email; datedtelegraph, wire, cable
      “they sent a message to HQ.
      Source: https://www.google.ca/search?rlz=1C1AVFC_enCA749CA749&q=what+is+send&oq=what+is+send&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l4.20526.23838.0.24610.4.3.1.0.0.0.88.246.3.3.0….0…1.1.64.psy-ab..0.4.249…0i67k1.RoR8KFXoV4c

      It is absolutely a big lie to say someone who was sent was not CAUSED TO GO. We are not kid here Reverend Ken. Teach this nonsense to your congregation and not here.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • Ken Temple
      August 1, 2017 • 3:44 pm
      Yes, Jesus was sent by the Father, but He also came voluntarily and voluntarily laid down His life on the cross, becoming the atonement for sins; and He raised Himself up from the dead (with the Father and Holy Spirit also)
      John 10:17-18
      “No one takes My life from Me, I lay it down voluntarily on my own initiative; and I take it up again; I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again . . . “
      I say;
      Yes, Jesus was sent…….-Ken Temple.
      but he also came voluntarily-Ken Temple.
      Ken, does someone who was sent for a purpose meant the person came for the purpose without being sent?

      Voluntary is the opposite of sent
      Voluntary
      done, given, or acting of one’s own free will.
      “we are funded by voluntary contributions”
      synonyms: optional, discretionary, elective, noncompulsory, volitional; permissive
      “attendance is voluntary”
      Send
      verb
      1.cause to go or be taken to a particular destination; arrange for the delivery of, especially by mail.
      “we sent a reminder letter but received no reply”
      synonyms: dispatch, post, mail, address, consign, direct, forward; transmit, convey, communicate; telephone, phone, broadcast, radio, fax, email; datedtelegraph, wire, cable
      “they sent a message to HQ.
      Source: https://www.google.ca/search?rlz=1C1AVFC_enCA749CA749&q=what+is+send&oq=what+is+send&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l4.20526.23838.0.24610.4.3.1.0.0.0.88.246.3.3.0….0…1.1.64.psy-ab..0.4.249…0i67k1.RoR8KFXoV4c
      t is absolutely a big lie to say someone who was sent was not CAUSED TO GO. We are not kid here Reverend Ken. Teach this nonsense to your congregation and not here.

      Thanks.

      Like

  20. John lied to you. The proof is that mark and Matthew don’t have this beloved guy present and in one reading of Luke only Peter legs it to the tomb. This john guy was a liar , he read the earlier gospels and had to inject more witnesses into the story.

    Like

    • It’s quite obvious john is a liar, I made a mistake when I said “more witnesses” since there wasn’t any, john was troubled by this so he needs those males.

      Like

    • The apostle John, the writer of the 4th gospel, wrote the truth, he did not lie. Since the Qur’an contradicts the NT and comes 600 years later, it is the one that is lying.

      the gospel of John was already established in history as truth for the Christians. The oldest manuscript that we have today is from the gospel of John (from John 18) – P-52 – the John Rylands fragment. Dated from around 125 AD. This is much older than the Qur’an and establishes the one who is telling the truth vs. the one who came later and made up a completely new religion based on hearsay, heretics, legends, Jewish midrash and misunderstandings and a garbled message.

      Like


  21. some did, but it was a transition time period ; but the Acts 8 passage proves they understood Isaiah 53 was about Jesus as the final sacrifice for sin.

    when a person is easily controlled and taken away, then he is “like a lamb”
    where did you get the idea that acts 8 says jc was a sin sacrifice when Luke clearly DOES NOT USE Isaiah 53 for the reasons u mentioned. Luke does NOT see sin sacrifice in Isaiah 53

    Like

  22. Premise A : Jesus Said XYZ (John 8:24; John 8:56-58 etc) no evidence exists for this premise. Where is the proof for this? Nowhere.

    . Since Premise A has no evidence and is rejected by 99.99% of scholars.

    Where is your evidence that 99.99 % of scholars say Jesus did not say those texts in John?

    Like

  23. Where is your proof that Jesus ”did not say that in Surah 61:6”? Where is your proof?

    Because there is nothing in the NT nor any textual variant nor even in apostolic tradition that Jesus said that.
    Papias wrote some things about about Jesus confronting a sinful woman caught in adultery, so that is one piece of early evidence that may be about John 7:53-8:11. That could be evidence of tradition that came from the apostles that is recorded by Papias, but is not in earliest manuscripts; but also may be evidence that John 7:53-8:11 is true. But there is not one shred of evidence for Surah 61:6 that came 600 years later.

    However there is nothing about “the praised one” / Ahmad / periklutos in early church history, the manuscript evidence, nor in the context of John 14, 15, and 16.

    John chapters 14, 15, and 16 – the comforter, the paraklatos, the one called alongside to help, the helper, the advocate. Because of Surah 61:6 and the claim that “Ahmad” is in the gospel, Muslims try to find that “Ahmad” ( احمد – meaning, “praised one”, another form of Muhammad (محمد) in these passages by claiming that the “Paraclete” / paraklatos / παρακλητος (the helper, comforter, counselor) was originally “periklutos” (praised one).

    John 14:16-17

    John 14:26;

    John 15:26;

    John 16:7

    There is no evidence of any textual change from Periklutos to Paraklatos. Muslims have to claim that originally the text said, “periklytos”, but that someone later changed it. However, there is no textual variant that would point to any evidence of periklutos in those texts in john 14 or 16.

    παρακλητος – the helper, the comforter, the one called alongside to help

    περικλυτος – “praised one” big difference.

    And there is no textual evidence in any manuscript that backs up “periklutos” (praised one) Dr. White (in his debate with Zakir Hossein) makes an excellent point about the vowels in Greek being part of the word.
    This is about the Holy Spirit who will be given to the disciples/ believers in Jesus (John 7:37-39), when Jesus ascends to the Father (see also Acts 2:33-36); it is not about someone coming 600 years later. John 13-17 is a consistent whole. It is Trinitarian in structure; describes the different roles of Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and how they relate to one another. How they relate to one another in speaking to one another, communicating, etc. speaks of personal relationship and person-hood. That is why “person” describes the three-ness of the Trinity, and nature/substance describes the Oneness of the Trinity.

    Also, the context of the passage demonstrates conclusively that Surah 61:6 is false:

    “Another comforter of the same kind”, Greek: allos / αλλος will be with believers forever (John 14:16) He will be in the disciples; in believers. (John 14:17) This verse alone defeats the Muslim’s arguments for the John 14 and 16 and the “Ahmad” argument, because Muhammad cannot be “in” the disciples nor any Christian in the future. The world cannot see the Holy Spirit, but the world, the people knew Muhammad as a man – Muslims who accepted him as a prophet and the Quryaish pagans who rejected him and fought battles and wars and caravan raids against him. His life was “of this world”, physical, and in the context of much war. “Spirit” is not human, He is Spirit (John 14:17; 14:26; 16:13) dwells within believers – John 14:17 – “He abides with you and will be in you.” That alone makes it impossible for the paraclete to be Muhammad of Arabia. The paraclete is called, “the Holy Spirit”, and “the Spirit of Truth”. He is a spirit, not a man, like Muhammad. The Holy Spirit will bring to remembrance all things (John 14:26) that Jesus taught, yet there is nothing much in the Qur’an from Jesus’ teaching or the NT. There is no quote from the New Testament. The Qur’an knows nothing as quotes from NT – no new info. (there are references to Jesus as Al Masih, virgin born, son of Mary, taught the gospel, was given the “Injeel”, did miracles, etc. yes, but no direct quotes.) No quotes; only phrases like: Jesus is the Messiah, virgin born, prophet, “a Word from Allah”, a spirit from Allah. John 15:26 – the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. This is Deity language – proceeding out from the Father. The Paraclete is sent by Jesus (John 15:26 – “I will send to you from the Father”) The Paraclete / Holy Spirit Testifies to Jesus (John 15:27) and glorifies Jesus. (John 16:14) If Mohammad is sent by Jesus then Jesus is God; since only God sends prophets. The Holy Spirit Guides the disciples into all the truth, in the first century, leading them to write the NT down by 99 AD, not people 600 years later.

    The early church also believed the gospel of John as we know it today for 600 years straight before Islam came.

    The arguments of Muslims regarding Surah 61:6 have been defeated thoroughly.

    Like

    • “Papias wrote some things about about Jesus confronting a sinful woman caught in adultery, so that is one piece of early evidence that may be about John 7:53-8:11”

      why did the story go missing in matthew, mark and luke ? how do you know papias did not invent the story? papias is the guy who lies to repeat the story telling of other christians, so maybe he got it from christian story tellers ? we know christian fiction writers existed in the first century, just look at the man in the tomb (even if he was an angel) VS the angel who comes down and floors the guards.

      Like

    • that is why God set it up for 4 gospels – 4 records of eyewitnesses of one and same truth; like one witness on each corner of a car accident. Matthew and John – eyewitnesses; Mark wrote for Peter, who was eyewitness; and Luke investigated the history and witnessed the testimony of all the other disciples and Mary and Paul. Since each one is like an eyewitness on one corner of a car accident, it is not necessary to demand that all have every detail of each other.

      Like

  24. richard carrier thinks there was no trinity :

    Of course, Keller’s heretical obsession with The Trinity leads him to rule out any Christian who rejects the “great ecumenical creeds,” declaring them, in effect, fake Christians. Which is a typical Evangelical move: erase the entire history of Christianity. And pretend all other Christians who don’t agree with them are “not real Christians.” But as I wrote when Weikart tried this same fallacy to exclude Hitler from being called a Christian:

    [He uses] a fallacy of special pleading, by using a biased definition of Christianity as only trinitarian Christianity (a requirement of membership in the World Council of Churches). That not only excludes many famous Christian sects of the past and today (Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Unitarians, Arians, Cathars, Branch Davidians, People’s Temple of the Disciples of Christ, some Quakers), but it excludes even the original Christians over the first sixty plus years of the movement, including Saint Paul the Apostle, and every Christian Paul knew. No Christians originally believed in the trinitarian view that Jesus was God. In fact that was an alien notion to Christians across the first two lifetimes of its original growth (OHJ, pp. 148-52). It was actually a later perversion of the religion, first seen in the final canonical redaction of the Gospel of John, probably originating in the early-to-mid second century (OHJ, pp. 92, 94-96, 267-69; see also Bart Ehrman on How Jesus Became God).

    Even those other sects, many of which still exist (and some, like Unitarianism, were professed by prominent Founding Fathers of the United States, like Thomas Jefferson), are certainly Christian sects, historically and theologically—they grew out of Christianity, and regard themselves as the true realizations of the original Christian faith. If they can’t be called Christians because they deviate at all from the original faith, then trinitarians can even less be called Christians, because they deviate just as much in that detail alone.

    Trinitarianism is a heresy. A perversion of Christianity as it was in its first generations and among its original apostles. And yet now, modern heretics declare all the original Christians heretics. Along with everyone else who has tried returning to that original faith. Welcome to Christian apologetics.

    Like

    • No one listens to Richard Carrier anymore – even the other atheists in his group expelled him, after all his lies and cheating on his wife was exposed and he pretty much admitted that atheism leads to no moral or ethical standards of right vs. wrong.

      As a Muslim, you should not use atheists arguments anyway.

      Like

  25. “The apostle John, the writer of the 4th gospel, wrote the truth, he did not lie. Since the Qur’an contradicts the NT and comes 600 years later, it is the one that is lying.

    the gospel of John was already established in history as truth for the Christians. ”

    christians have no problem with excepting lies. we know they did it in the first century, JUST juxtapose the gospels. we know that when the writer of john read the synoptics, THE LIAR was not impressed.

    quote :

    In Mark, ostensibly the earliest, the story goes that the disciples ‘all left him and fled’ in the garden. A young man following Jesus’s captors was seized and escaped naked. Peter is afraid to admit to knowing Jesus. While at Jesus’s crucifixion, only women are mentioned, “And there were also women looking on from afar.” “And Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of Joses were looking on where Jesus was laid.” Any subsequent empty tomb story would therefore be limited to women, since we are told in the earliest Gospel that the men fled.

    In Matthew, ‘all the disciples left him and fled,’ adding at the crucifixion that ‘many women were looking on from a distance.’ And when Joseph sealed Jesus’s grave, “Mary Magdalene was there, and the other Mary, sitting opposite the grave.” Only women again.

    Luke is the first to omit that the disciples all fled at Jesus’s arrest. But he does note that it was “the women [who] followed after, and saw the tomb and how His body was laid,” i.e., women again, who saw where Jesus was buried. [Luke 24:12 about ‘Peter running to the tomb’ is a later insertion that does not appear in the earliest manuscripts.]

    John, the last Gospel written, bursts this mold open. The women are no longer watching the crucifixion ‘at a distance’ as in Mark and Matthew, but ‘they were standing by the cross of Jesus,’ and now there is also at least one man with them. This is a necessary redaction, since John has two men race each other to the tomb once Mary Magdalene tells the disciples it is empty, and they couldn’t run there unless they knew where it was, and they couldn’t know unless they had attended the crucifixion, which John says they did.

    I would say the earliest version of the empty tomb story had to employ women (see Mark above about the men ‘all’ having ‘fled’). And the earliest story about the women ‘not telling anyone’ (in Mark) explains the relatively late appearance of the legend of the empty tomb, i.e., ‘no one’ was ‘told,’ nor heard, about an empty tomb until later. The empty tomb legend only arose after various ‘appearance’ stories, like those related by Paul (who does not mention an ‘empty tomb’) had already spread.

    ////////////////

    if this disciple really did the things attributed to him in the fourth canonical gospel, then the other evangelists (or let us say mainly Mark) did some work to write him out of things? For example, Mark says that all of Jesus’ followers fled, and then has only women at the cross; John says that there were women at the cross, but then adds that this beloved disciple, a man (to judge by his pronouns), was also there (this is what I meant by him appearing out of nowhere; the list is given, which does not include him, and then… there he is). And Mark manages to get Peter into position for his denials without anybody’s help. And some manuscripts of Luke have Peter running to the tomb, no mention of another disciple. Would you agree that Mark et alii have seemingly completely ignored this disciple, even though he was, by this account, Jesus’ favorite?

    It is Luke 24.12, one of the so-called Western noninterpolations. (It is present in Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Vaticanus, but not in Bezae or Washingtonianus.)

    Like

  26. “of one and same truth; like one witness on each corner of a car accident.
    thats not what each writer of the synoptics was doing, so john the liar for jesus injected
    Matthew and John – eyewitnesses; Mark wrote for Peter, who was eyewitness; and Luke investigated the history and witnessed the testimony of all the other disciples and Mary and Paul. Since each one is like an eyewitness on one corner of a car accident, it is not necessary to demand that all have every detail of each other.”

    none of the synoptic writers place them selves in their stories. they don’t interact with jesus or the pals of jesus , so how can you say they were eyewitnesses when they don’t claim to be?

    you said luke “investigated”
    who was he investigating ? the disciples? if he was a witness he would not need to investigate, he would be at the scene, so was he investigating the pals of jeusus?
    did he think that some stories were inventions like the story of the adulterous woman?

    Like

    • Luke investigated everything carefully from the other eyewitnesses (see Luke 1:1-4) – the other disciples that did not write a gospel – Andrew, James the son of Alphaeus, Thomas, Bartholomew, Philip, Thaddeus, Simon the Zealot, etc. (James the son of Zebedee was killed by Herod Agrippa 1, in Acts 12:1-2, which Luke records. )

      and Luke also interviewed Mary, the mother of Jesus.

      Also, as traveling companion of the apostle Paul, the authority of Luke’s gospel is indeed apostolic.

      Like

    • investigation

      investigate
      ɪnˈvɛstɪɡeɪt/Submit
      verb
      carry out a systematic or formal inquiry to discover and examine the facts of (an incident, allegation, etc.) so as to establish the truth.


      Luke investigated everything carefully from the other eyewitnesses”

      is it because truth was mixed up with falsehood? why did he say “that you may KNOW the truth….” ?

      did jesus’ pals start story telling and making things up ?

      Like

    • “Luke investigated everything carefully from the other eyewitnesses (see Luke 1:1-4) – the other disciples that did not write a gospel – Andrew, James the son of Alphaeus, Thomas, Bartholomew, Philip, Thaddeus, Simon the Zealot, etc. ”

      that’s 7 people. 7 minds. but luke decides to rip off half of mark. did luke investigate because he knew everyone is born in sin and that which is born in sin tell lies?

      Like

    • “I’m quite willing to say these documents could be erroneous in many respects, could be inconsistencies (sic), contradictions…” Dr William Craig Lane.

      This is dedicated in the memory of Dr Mike Licona and Prof Bart Ehrman, both of whom fell from Grace when they spoke the Truth.

      Ken Temple, as I earlier stated, the proof that exists that the Bible is not the word[s] of God/ nor inspired etc, is primarily the existence of perfect internal contradictions and demonstrably historical errors. Dr William Craig Lane admits to the Bible being contradictory and inconsistent. But we do not to rely upon his authority, when Prof Bart Ehrman, a top textual critic/scholar tells us that are ”hundreds of thousands of internal contradictions, errors and forgeries in the Bible”. Since God does not produce contradictions or errors; therefore these are the words of human beings and the devils. The Bible also contains beautifully falsified prophecies[1st Thessalonians 4: 17 this is one example, there are hundreds more]; forgeries [Ending of Mark, Johannine Comma etc] and therefore it is clear it is not to be trust. The Bible testimony to this principle :

      “One who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much, and one who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much.” Luke 16:10

      However the Bible is not merely ”dishonest in a very little” [Ending of Mark; Johannine Comma etc] it is indeed ”dishonest in much” quite explicitly. Anyways, at any rate, as Dr Willaim Craig Lane reminds us : ”In many respects these documents [the Bible] are erroneous, inconsistent and contradictory”

      A Clear Instance of Biblical Falsehood is available to us, by which we can prove beyond doubt that the Gospels are not divinely inspired is Zombie Apocalypse; Massive Earth Shattering Earthquake; Angels openly moving rocks in Jerusalem! To think such an obvious miracle or miracles in Jerusalem would go unnoticed is unbelievable!

      51 When Jesus died, the curtain in the Temple was torn into two pieces. The tear started at the top and tore all the way to the bottom. Also, the earth shook and rocks were broken. 52 The graves opened, and many of God’s people who had died were raised from death. 53 They came out of the graves. And after Jesus was raised from death, they went into the holy city, and many people saw them.

      All secular scholars reject this passage as ”non-sense” and [almost] all Christian scholars refer to it as ”non-historical” in other words as Dr Willliam Craig Lane explains : ”It is basically bullshit”. Prof Mike Licona, a conservative evangelical scholar rejected this passage and claimed all scholars reject it as well, was ostracized by Pastor Anderson[s] community of top class scholars (NOT LOL SCHOLARS) as Kaffir. This passage never happened. Since consistency is the key ingredient, you earlier stated : ”Since the Qur’an contradicts the NT and comes 600 years later, it is the one that is lying.”

      Since Mathew Contradicts Historical Fact and the Other Gospels; He is One Lying Not Prof Mike Licona, Bart Ehrman, Dr Willaim Criag Lane and all the other scholars who curse Mathew for Lying!

      The FalseHood of Mathew 27 : 51-53 is not single example. Let me go through a whole list of lies in this Gospel which proves what Dr Willaim Craige Lane have been preaching all along!

      1) Mathew 15: 22 contradicts Mark 7: 26

      2) Mathew 9: 18 and Mark 5: 22-23 Dead or Not?

      3) Mathew 10: 2-4 and Luke 6: 13-16-Who was a disciple, Lebbeus (whose surname was Thaddeus) or Judas, the son of James?

      4) Mathew 27: 34”There they offered Jesus wine to drink, MIXED WITH GALL; AFTER TASTING IT, he refused to drink it.”

      Double Contradictions in one verse.

      But Mark says in 15: 23 ” Then they offered him wine MIXED WITH MYRRH, but he did NOT take it.”

      5) Mark 15: 25 and John 19: 14-15-Jesus crucified before the 3rd Hour or after the 6th Hour?

      6) Luke 1: 15, 1: 41, 1: 67, 2: 25 and John 7: 39–the ”Holy Ghost/Spirit” given or not?

      I have got 1 million more but this is enough. By the way, Isaiah 9:6 is not about Jesus at all. Just ask all the Christian scholars! My God, why do we need Da’wah when the Christian scholars do it for us?

      Which of these NT’s are God Breathed?

      Marcion’s Canon.
      Tatian’s Diatesseron.
      Codex Sinaiticus.
      Textus Receptus.
      Codex Vaticanus.
      Codex Alexandrius.
      Codex Bezae.
      Codex Syriac.
      Codex Washingtonesis.
      Nestle Aland Greek New Testament Codices through to the 28th Edition..
      UBS 1 through 5 Greek New Testament Editions.
      John Mill’s 1707 Greek New Testament Codex.
      Codex Ephraemi-Rescriptus.
      Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament (1881)

      Like

    • You did not add the poisonous snake verses that Dr. James White said he will never ever preach that verse in his Church.

      This is the believers of the verse being killed by poisonous snakes.

      That passage is close to Christian doctrine in the Bible. May be Ken Temple will be a true believer like this pastor by drinking poison and handling black cobra, black mamba and rattle snake.

      In Islam, even if one is praying and something dangerous approaches him, Allah says stop the prayers and ran for your dear life, Later you can continue your prayers in a peaceful atmosphere. Islam is the truth.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • Just imagine if this verse was in the Quran may God forbids. Christians would have used it to denounce Islam. It is not in the Quran but it is in the Bible just after a Christians Doctrine. Who inserted it close to Christian doctrine. Jay Smith, Shamoun, Lizzie, Hatun etc. are not talking about it, except Dr. James White who said he will never preach that verse in his Church.

      Ken Temple, will you preach the drinking of poison and handling poisonous snakes in your Church? If yes, start by handling poisonous snakes and drinking poison if you want us to believe the gospels are true. Without the tests, from you then the gospels are false and adulterated by men.

      Quran 2:79
      Sahih International:

      So woe to those who write the “scripture” with their own hands, then say, “This is from Allah ,” in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn

      Thanks.

      Like

  27. “Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first,[a] to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the TRUTH concerning the things about which you have been instructed.”

    investigate
    ɪnˈvɛstɪɡeɪt/Submit
    verb
    carry out a systematic or formal inquiry to discover and examine the facts of (an incident, allegation, etc.) so as to establish the truth.

    eyewitnesses don’t need to investigate , they get investigated . so how did luke know what is fact and lie, his WORDING clearly imply there were stories which needed investigating. to fix the problem for his soul, he ripped off half of mark . investigators don’t need written text if they are meeting with INDIVIDUAL eyewitnesses themselves.

    “Luke investigated everything carefully from the other eyewitnesses ”

    he was not an eyewitness , but an investigator? who was lying and who was telling the truth? what in the story was fact and what was INVENTION? why doesn’t the investigator tell us?

    “Also, as traveling companion of the apostle Paul, the authority of Luke’s gospel is indeed apostolic.”

    that “we” is injected into the text.

    Like

  28. Intellect,
    Why bring up the snake passage in Mark 16:18, since I fully agree with Dr. White and his work on textual critical matters? The snake handlers are nutty and ignorant folks who are mostly uneducated and live in the Appalachian mountains.

    I love his book, “The King James Only Controversy” – it is very helpful.

    If you guys- Muslims here in the last few com boxes that put up all sorts of different ancient manuscripts and mix it up with Greek texts (based on the manuscript evidence) and eclectic texts and even heretical canon (Marcion’s canon) – if you studied this book deeply you may understand what conservative Christians mean by “God-breathed” and “inerrancy”.

    “God-breathed” and “inerrancy” refer to the autographs, not copies; but analyzing all the copies of ancient manuscripts together gets us 99.99 % close to the autographs, and no textual variant affects essential Christian doctrine.

    https://www.amazon.com/King-James-Only-Controversy-Translations/dp/0764206052

    Like

  29. “I’m quite willing to say these documents could be erroneous in many respects, could be inconsistencies (sic), contradictions…” Dr William Craig Lane.

    You mean: William Lane Craig. And you need to provide the book, page number, etc. or video and minute mark of where he said that and what is he referring to when he says “these documents”. From what I understand, William Lane Craig believes in inerrancy; he just does not use that belief in his apologetic methods.

    This is dedicated in the memory of Dr Mike Licona and Prof Bart Ehrman, both of whom fell from Grace when they spoke the Truth.

    Licona has not “fallen from grace” – what do you mean by that?

    He is very different from Bart Ehrman, who admits he is not a believer and therefore Ehrman did technically “fall from grace” – he is an apostate – someone who once claimed to be a believer in Christ and now admits that they are not a believer.

    Like

  30. All secular scholars reject this passage as ”non-sense” and [almost] all Christian scholars refer to it as ”non-historical” . . .

    Some do, but most conservative Evangelicals accept it as historical.

    . . . in other words as Dr Willliam Craig Lane explains : ”It is basically bullshit”.

    I seriously doubt William Lane Craig said that or wrote that. You need to back it up with a book reference and page number or video. He does not talk like that.

    You seem to making stuff up and just copying and pasting from some other Muslim (or atheist) source that is just mixing things up in an incoherent way.

    Like

  31. 1) Mathew 15: 22 contradicts Mark 7: 26

    That is not a contradiction at all.

    The Phoenicians is another name for the Canaanite peoples that were in what is today called Lebanon (Tyre and Sidon are cities in Lebanon. In ancient times, Syria and Lebanon were considered the same ethnic area, (even Islam agrees with this as the whole area is known as Al-Sham / الشام ; so Syro-Phoenician is correct, and “Canaanite” is correct from Matthew’s perspective because the Canaanites and Phoenicians are the same ethnic people group. The Canaanites were the same ethnic people group that lived in the land of the borders of the promised land that God gave to Abraham and his descendants. Outside of those borders, as in Tyre and Sidon (Lebanon), they were considered “Gentiles” and “Greeks” (since the Greeks later conquered all of Middle East and mixed with the peoples there.

    All the Greeks (and Romans) and other non-Jews were considered “Gentiles” (“the nations” = ta ethna / τα εθνη = the ethnic people groups = non-Jews.

    So, there is no contradiction.

    You need to study the details and background and history better.

    Like

  32. Alleged contradiction:
    Mathew 9: 18 and Mark 5: 22-23 Dead or Not?

    Dr. White answered this in his several debates with Shabir Ally – especially the first 2 debates he had with Shabir. Look it up and study better.

    Like

  33. Brother Paul, I made a couple of comments which have not yet been posted. Any reason for this?

    Liked by 1 person

  34. 2 lines. I figured if I have a long comment with hitting the enter key twice, my message will not be posted. So I do not hit enter to insert space in my comments anymore.

    Like

Please leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: