462 replies

  1. Moar! PAUL!

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Targum (Aramaic commentaries on the TaNakh to help Jews who returned to the land after Ezra/ Nehemiah understand the Hebrew) Jonathan Ben Uzziel (lived 30 years before the birth of Jesus) wrote:

    (2 English translations of the Jonathan Targum on Isaiah 9:6)

    “The prophet said to the house of David, For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given, and He has taken the law upon Himself to keep it. His name is called from eternity, Wonderful, The Mighty God, who liveth to eternity, the Messiah, who peace shall be great upon us in His days.”

    “The prophet announced to the house of David that, A boy has been born to us, a son has been given unto us, who has take the Torah upon himself to guard it; and his name has been called by the One who gives wonderful counsel, the Mighty God, He who lives forever: “Messiah”, in whose day peace shall abound for us.”

    So, you kept saying, “no Jew before Christianity” , etc. So you are just flat out wrong on this. Jesus and His 12 (eleven true believers, excluding Judas Iscariot, the traitor) were all Jews and true believers in Jesus as Messiah and as dying for sins and rising on the third day. Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:32-33; 9:9 and 9:12 and Mark 10:45 (to come to serve as a servant, and “ransom for many” – points to Isaiah 52:13-15 and 53:1-12) also prove this beyond a shadow of doubt. full stop.

    You misunderstand Hebrew verbs.
    From Three prominent Hebrew grammars:

    “In Hebrew thinking, an action is regarded as being either completed or incompleted. Hebrew, therefore, knows of no past, present, or future tenses, but has instead a Perfect and Imperfect (which in context, lend themselves to a variety of shades of meaning).” (Jacob Weingreen, Phd. “A Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew”, page 56

    “. . . the Hebrew Perfect may be translated by the English past tense (he studied), present perfect (he has studied), or future perfect (he will have studied). . . . It must be emphasized that the Hebrew Perfect does not have tense (time of action) apart from context and issues of syntax. . . the perfect aspect denotes completed action, whether in the past, present, or future.” (Gary Pratico and Miles Van Pelt, “Basics of Hebrew Grammar”, p. 130)

    “All relations of time, absolute and relative, are expressed by these forms (hence a certain diversity in their meaning, section 106 ff.) or by syntactical combinations.”
    (Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, page 117)

    So the different English translations between the New Revised Standard Version and NIV and NASB, and ESV, for example – all show the completeness of the Prophetic Perfect. It is seen as a done deal, definitely going to be fulfilled – a future certainty. So, you spent a lot of time on the verb tense for your argument, but your argument fails, according to the reality of Hebrew grammar.

    Ibn Ezra, another famous Jewish Rabbinic commentator, wrote:
    “The correct view in my opinion is that all these names are names of the child.”
    (cited by Michael Brown, “Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus” volume 2, page 46)

    Like

    • Actually, jewish concept of “Messiah”  are radically different one with christian when the jewish rabbis/sages mention about “Messiah” they do NOT mean a “god-man savior from our sins”. Also specifically, the use in the Targumim of the Aramaic term מְשִׁיחָא (m’shiha) is not restricted exclusively to the meaning *the* ”Messiah”; it is also used in the same way as its Hebrew cognate מָשִׁיחַ (mashi’ah), “an anointed one“, used in the Hebrew Bible (eg.  I Samuel 24:7,11).

      You quoted  Ibn Ezra from brown, but I wonder why he don’t cite it fully. 

      He actually said:

      “There are those that say that Wondrous Adviser, etc. are the name of God, and the child’s name is “prince of peace.” And what I see to be correct is that all the names are the names of the child. Wonder, because God did wonders in his days, Adviser, as Hezekiah advised the king (2 Chron, 30:2) Mighty God because he was strong, Eternal Father because his kingdom’s line will continue through the house of David, and prince of peace because there was peace in his days.”

      So Ibn Ezra is clearly referring to Hezekiah.

      Like

      • You are right; I did not quote the part of Ibn Ezra on the issue in which he was wrong on. I focused on what he got right.

        Ibn Ezra was right on the aspect I quoted him on, but wrong that the child was Hezekiah.

        The point is the Targums comments that Isaiah 9:6 was about the Messiah to come, which Jesus fulfilled.

        Michael Brown is right to point out which Jews got which information right.

        Altogether, what I demonstrated is that it shows that Paul Williams was wrong in his argumentation in the video with the Christian guy at speaker’s corner.

        Like

      • Regarding the tense, brother Paul W. is absolutely correct that gramatically the verses were definitely written in the past tense. That is why it weight to the interpretation that the verses were about Hezekiah, who was alive at the time in other words a completed event in the past.. Yes, sometimes completed form can change to be in the future tense in biblical hebrew using conjunctive vav in front of the verb, but it is not the case in Isa 9:5, also from the context alone it is more preferable.

        Liked by 1 person

      • You did not seem to grasp what the Hebrew grammars tell us about the Hebrew verb. the Hebrew stems Qal or others, are in Perfect or Imperfect. Context and syntactical factors tell us whether it is past time or present or future. The passages are in the Prophetic Perfect – so sure and complete as to be seen as definitely going to happen – in the future.

        The quotes from Rabbinic sources show 2 things that got right that is in accordance with Christian / NT (mostly Jewish Christians) interpretation – 1. that Jews believed the passage (Isaiah 9:6) was Messianic. (about the future King from the line of David) and 2. that the names of the child are about the child. (in the part of Ibn Ezra’s statement that was correct.

        Like

      • You are the one who dont seem to grasp biblical hebrew. Verb inflection in biblical Hebrew recognze only by the state of the action, that is simply as perfect, i.e. completed, or imperfect, i.e. incompleted. The verb yulad יֻלַד – is a conjugation of the shoresh verb ילד in the 3rd-person, singular, masculine, perfect , in the pu’AL binyan, the passive intensive verb form, giving it the meaning has been born or was born ,  in other word it is past tense in English grammar.  To be future tense (imperfect action) the conjugation should be conjugated (and spelled) differently yiwwaled (יִוָּלֵד) e.g., Genesis 17:17.

        So brother Paul W. is correct gramatically speaking that it is in past tense. so called prophetic perfect tense is just a literary term, not grammar, and this term is abused by missionaries often they try to make these “future tense” claims whenever it suits them, regardless of the context (and also grammar, as in Isaiah 9:6).

        Some jews indeed understand it as a messianic because they thought it was Hezekiah was fulfilling messianic role not a god-man figure. Even Ibn Ezra who think that the divine titles belong to child understand that the child is Hezekiah himself

         

        Liked by 4 people

      • awesome Eric!

        Like

      • Hebrew recognze only by the state of the action, that is simply as perfect, i.e. completed, or imperfect, i.e. incompleted.

        Yes, I already agreed with that and understand that. It is in the Qal Perfect (completed action), Passive, 3rd singular – it is translated either past, perfect (has been) or is or will be (certain). It is a Prophet Perfect – the certainty is emphasized.

        But the whole section in chapter 7 (7:14 – the virgin birth of the Messiah to come, who will be called “Immanuel” = “God with us” and in 8:12-13 (Peter quotes this in 1 Peter 3:13-15, calling Jesus the Lord Yahweh), and 9:6 – that the child is “the mighty God” – all answers Paul’s question to the guy in the video – he asked “where is he called “God”? and there you have the answer.

        Like

      • KT: //all answers Paul’s question to the guy in the video – he asked “where is he called “God”? and there you have the answer.//

        No, we  dont have the answer.

        Your reasoning goes like this 

        Isaiah 7:14 – the virgin birth of a child to come, who will be called “Immanuel” = “God with us”
        Matthew quotes this in Mat 1:23, calling Jesus , child of the virgin birth
        Isa 9:6  says “the child is the mighty God’” (for the argument sake, although I dont see tht Isa 9:6 says the child is God)

        Therefore

        Jesus is child. (Step 1)
        child is God. (Step 2)
        Therefore, Jesus is God. (1,2)

        I believe you are commiting fulfillment fallacy here to “prove” that Jesus is God.

        In the same token, I believe I can “prove” that David is God. This is how:

        “Proving” that Jesus is God

        When the prophet Isaiah says “Prepare the way of the Lord” (Isaiah 40:3) the “Lord” there is God, Yahweh.
        Mark applies this to Jesus; the “Lord” when he quotes Isaiah is Jesus. (Mark 1:3)

        “Proving” that Jesus is David

        When the Psalmist says “The Lord says to my lord, ‘Sit at my right hand
        until I make your enemies your footstool’” the words “my lord” refer to David. (Psalm 110:1) (step 1)
        When Luke (and Peter) quote this Psalm, “my lord” refers to Jesus. (Acts 2:34-36) (step 2)

        Tie it all together

        Jesus is God. (Step 1)
        David is Jesus. (Step 2)
        Therefore, David is God. (1,2)

        Voila!  I just decipher one of bible secret

        Like

      • Except you are reading all the content backwards rather than forward that even the Jews agree with me – the Messiah comes from the line of David in the future. Which Jesus did. The fact that Jesus is also Son of God and God in the flesh has nothing to do with David as the human ancestor of Jesus.

        Even the Jewish leaders of Jesus’ day recognized that the Messiah would also be the Son of God. – Mark 14:60-64, quoting/alluding to both Daniel 7:13-14 and Psalm 110:1

        Like

      • No, it is just simple logic exercise. And the fact that you’re objecting to my the conclusion, uses the same sort of your reasoning simply prove that you are inconsistent with your theology. You are merely trying to make your theology “fit” in these verses.

        And btw, the fact that Jesus has no human father disqualify him as direct descendant of Davidic throne.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Actually, it is you and Muslims who try to make everything fit with their own theology, which came 600 years later and too late, after the real and true Scriptures (OT and NT) were already established and revelation was closed.

        No, because His human nature came from Mary, who was a descendent of David, from Nathan. Luke 3 proves this.

        Like

      • Kenny cannot refute Eric, so he pulls out the idiotic 600 years argument. This guy is pathetic!

        Like

      • I already refuted him several times. You guys just don’t want to admit it or see the truth.

        Like

      • You are an idiot. You refuted nothing and just repeat the same garbage over and over again. Typical brainwashed trinitarian apologist.

        Like

      • when you run out of arguments from logic or reason, (and sometimes even before then), you just resort to name calling and anger and ad hominem. The Lord Jesus Al Masih sees your wicked heart – calling someone a fool and an idiot – Matthew 5:21-26 – you are guilty of going to hell, Jesus المسیح Al Masih says.

        Like

      • Oh the whining starts anew! 😭

        Like

      • It is not “whining”, just solid truth and rebuke of your wickedness and sinful heart. You are the baby because when you get caught in doing evil arguments and violating Surah 29:46 (only use good حسن arguments), you resort to the ploy and tactic of saying “you are whining”, as if that has any merit.

        Like

      • Blah, blah, blah. You and your bff Shamoun whine like little girls when you get exposed as the charlatans you are. It’s hilarious! 😂

        Like

      • Actually, it is you who resort to the sinful and angry methods when you are exposed.

        Like

      • Uh huh, keep whining Kendra. You’re breaking my heart!

        Like

      • Matthew 5:21-26
        21 “You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘You shall not commit murder’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.’ 22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before [p]the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell. 23 Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering. 25 Make friends quickly with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way, so that your opponent may not hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. 26 Truly I say to you, you will not come out of there until you have paid up the last cent.

        Like

      • Blah, blah, blah. Ooh, I’m soo scared!

        Do you think I give a flip about what your contradictory gospels say? Making empty threats will not save your book from being torn apart when it is objectively tested without your brainwashed assumptions.

        Like

      • Surah 10:94, 5:47 and 5:68 indicates that you should take the text of Matthew 5:21-26 seriously.

        Like

      • More blind repetition? Atlas already smoked you on this. It must be tough getting burned by so many people on the same thread!

        Like

      • Truth never changes. Deal with it and smoke it in your Qaliyoon قلیون pipe if you have one. (what the Iranians/ Persians call it)

        Like

      • I’d rather blow it right in your face and watch you squirm, you pathetic whining heretic.

        Like

      • John of Damascus centuries ago, (675 – 749 AD, was also under the Umayyad Caliphate) recognized rightly that Islam is a heresy and false.

        https://facingislam.blogspot.com/2013/12/st-john-of-damascus-critique-of-islam.html

        Like

      • He was wrong.

        Liked by 1 person

      • how do you know he was wrong?

        Like

      • John of Damascus was just as big an idiot

        Like

      • …as you. Forgot to finish the statement!

        He’s already in his grave facing the punishment there in, and then he will face the eternal punishment of hellfire…unless he repented before he died. The same fate will await you if you don’t repent of your idolatry.

        Like

      • Except I have the guaranteed promise of eternal life – promised by Jesus Al Masih المسیح

        This is the promise which He Himself made to us: eternal life. 1 John 2:25

        “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.” Jesus, in John 5:24

        Like

      • A guarantee from a book written by anonymous con-artists is meaningless. It reminds of that clip from Tommy Boy. Chris Farley’s explanation of meaningless guarantees was right on! 🤣

        Liked by 1 person

      • The Bible is God-breathed and established 600 years before your late book and late prophet.

        Muhammad got a lot of his information from fables, apocryphal sources, myths, Jewish Midrash commentaries, heretical works, etc.

        Like

      • Nowhere does the Bible (OT & NT) claim it is God-breathed.

        Liked by 2 people

      • 2 Timothy 3:15 = OT
        2 Timothy 3:16-17 = expands to All Scripture, including NT – “God breathed”
        since he quoted OT and NT as Scripture in 1 Timothy 5:18 – quoted from Law (Deut) and Gospel (Luke and Matthew)
        John 14:26, 16:12-13 – Jesus predicted the Holy Spirit would come and lead them into all the truth.
        2 Peter 1:19-21 – Peter describes same process that Jesus promised.
        2 Peter 3:15-16 – all of Paul’s letters are inspired Scripture
        Jude 3 – “the faith that was once for all time delivered to the saints”
        Hebrews 1:1-3 – God has spoken once for all through His Son. The apostles and their disciples/friends/helpers wrote everything down that is necessary for life, salvation, godliness, doctrine (2 Peter 1:3-4; 2 Tim. 3:16-17), church practice (1 Tim. 3:14-15)

        Like

      • Another trinitarian misses the point! Where does Paul indicate that the BIBLE you have is “God-breathed”?

        Like

      • 2 Timothy 3:15 = OT
        2 Timothy 3:16-17 = all Scripture, both OT and NT, in principle, since he quoted from both OT and NT in 1 Timothy 5:18.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Even Bart Ehrman recognizes the falsehood of the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew:

        Mary, Jesus and the Palm Tree

        Now, in Koran 19:22-26 a story is told of Mary being pregnant with Jesus and then traveling to a far place to give birth where she then rests under a palm tree. God tells her to shake the trunk of the tree so dates would drop from it. Then she ate and drank becoming refreshed. This tale is found in the uninspired apocryphal book The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew (a.k.a. “History of the Nativity of Mary and the Infancy of the Savior”). It says,

        “Mary was fatigued by the excessive heat of the sun in the desert; and seeing a palm tree, she said to Joseph: Let me rest a little under the shade of this tree. . . . she looked up to the foliage of the palm, and saw it full of fruit, and said to Joseph: I wish it were possible to get some of the fruit of this palm. And Joseph said to her . . . I am thinking more of the want of water, because the skins are now empty, and we have none wherewith to refresh ourselves and our cattle. Then the child Jesus . . . said to the palm: O tree, bend thy branches, and refresh my mother with thy fruit. And immediately at these words the palm bent its top down to the very feet of the blessed Mary; and they gathered from it fruit, with which they were all refreshed” (The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, Ch. 20).

        As to the dating of this apocryphal book, Bart Ehrman argues for a date of composition in the first quarter of the seventh century which is prior to the rise of Islam and the spread of the Koran. He notes,

        “M. Berthold has argued that Pseudo-Matthew shows evidence of literary dependence on the Vita Agnetis of Pseudo-Ambrose, which itself was used in the De Virginitate of Aldhelm of Malmesbury in 690 CE. On these grounds, Psuedo-Matthew must obviously date to some time in the mid seventh-century at the earliest. In the most thorough analysis to date, Gijsel has maintained that even though direct literary dependence on the Rule of Benedict cannot be demonstrated, there are enough general similarities to suggest that the book was written when monastic orders were beginning to expand in the West, by someone invested in them. Largely on these grounds he makes a convincing argument that the text was produced in the first quarter of the seventh century, by a monk in the Latin-speaking West. . .” (Bart Ehrman, The Other Gospels, [Oxford University Press, 2014], p. 39).

        Thus, again we have the Koran orally borrowing fables from uninspired, earlier books.

        Like

      • Jesus Speaking from the Cradle

        Next, in various Koranic verses (e.g. Koran 3:41-42; 5:109-110; 19:29-31) we see Jesus speaking in his cradle. For example, Koran 19:29-30 says, “But she pointed to him. They said: How should we speak to one who is a child in the cradle? He said: I am indeed a servant of Allah. He has given me the Book and made me a prophet. And He has made me blessed wherever I may be, and He has enjoined on me prayer and poor-rate so long as I live” (Koran 19:29-30).

        This idea of Jesus speaking to his mother from the cradle comes from The Arabic Gospel of the Infancy of the Saviour. In that document we read, “. . . Jesus spoke, and, indeed, when He was lying in His cradle said to Mary His mother: I am Jesus, the Son of God, the Logos, whom thou hast brought forth, as the Angel Gabriel announced to thee; and my Father has sent me for the salvation of the world” (The Arabic Gospel of the Infancy of the Saviour, 1). Muhammad simply altered the wording to fit his theology. This document is dated from the fifth to sixth century (Bart Ehrman, The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot, [Oxford University Press, 2006], p. 47).

        The same idea of Jesus speaking from the cradle can also be found in the earlier Infancy Gospel of Thomas which the aforementioned Arabic Gospel of the Infancy utilized. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas says, “being an infant he [Jesus] uttered such things” (Infancy Gospel of Thomas, 15). This document is dated to the end of the second century (Fred Lapham, An Introduction to the New Testament Apocrypha, [A&C Black, 2003], p. 131). It is a Gnostic text and its story of Jesus speaking as an infant with wisdom was made up or invented to promote the Gnostic idea of Jesus’ extraordinary Gnosis or wisdom as well as him not being of this physical world but instead being spiritual. This is because, according to Gnostics, matter is evil and spirit is good (Fred Lapham, An Introduction to the New Testament Apocrypha, [A&C Black, 2003], p. 130).

        Thus, Muhammad incorrectly assumed these uninspired, apocryphal, invented Gnostic tales he heard orally were reliable and included them into the Koran. What a disaster. Muhammad did not have the Bible translated into Arabic, so he could not check if such stories were reliable and canonical.

        Like

      • Companions of the Cave

        In Koran 18:8-25 we are told about a legend of companions of the cave. In this story a group of seven youths and their dog take refuge in a cave from danger and miraculously they are able to sleep in it for about three-hundred years, after which they wake up and leave.

        This legend of seven sleepers or companions in a cave actually comes from two uninspired Syriac homilies of Jacob of Sarug in the early 6th century as well as Gregory of Tours’ Latin version from the late 6th century (Gabriel, Said, Reynolds, Seven Sleepers, ed. Josef W. Meri, Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia, [Routledge, 2006], p. 720). The story spread rapidly into other languages after its composition showing how attractive the silly legend was (Gabriel, Said, Reynolds, Seven Sleepers, ed. Josef W. Meri, Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia, [Routledge, 2006], p. 720).

        From:
        http://www.exegeticalapologetics.com/2018/05/original-sources-koran-stole-its.html

        Like

      • “Because the verbs יֻלַּד ,נִתַּן, and וַתְּהִי are conjugated in the perfect tense (and translated in English past tense), some object to the notion that this prophecy by Isaiah could apply to anyone who lived in the future (e.g., Jesus). However, note the words of the learned Jewish grammarian and commentator David Kimchi (the Radak) on this subject. In his Sefer Mikhlol, he wrote,

        And you should know that it is a typical behavior of the past tense verbs in the holy language to use the past tense in place of the future tense (which is marked by the letters איתן), and this is mostly in prophecies because the matter is clear as if past, because it has already been decreed.”

        Like

      • Also, Dr. Michael Brown, Phd in Semitic languages, points out that “Mighty God” אֵל גִּבֹּור (El Gibbor) is a title reserved elsewhere for Yahweh alone. (see Isaiah 10:21) (page 47, volume 2, “Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus”.)

        This Hebrew phrase is also used about Yahweh in Psalm 24:8

        Who is the King of glory?
        The LORD strong and mighty,
        The LORD mighty in battle.

        Isaiah 10:21
        A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God.

        Like

      • Classical jewish scholars had two different opinions whether or not  the El Gibbor is part of the child name in Isa 9:5, but those who think that it is like  Ibn Ezra,  believe that El Gibbor is part of the title for Hezekiah because he was strong!

        This term is also used for others in Ezekel 32:21

        From the depths of Sheol the mightiest of warriors eley gibborim (אֵלֵ֧י גִבּוֹרִ֛ים) speak to him and his allies; the uncircumcised, the slain by the sword, have gone down and lie [there].

        so brown is simply wrong.

        Liked by 2 people

      • p. 46 – Michael Brown: “There is only one problem with Ibn Ezra’s interpretation: He explains how the word Gibbor (strong one, hero, warrior) applies to Hezekiah, but he fails to explain how ‘el, “God” could refer to him.”

        He ignored the El word “God”.

        Jumping to Ezekiel 32:21 is committing the word study fallacy again, jumping to another context. Furthermore, that word is not from the word for “God”. Rather, according to the Accordance Hebrew software, it is from a root word meaning “ram” or sometimes translated “ruler” – איל or אול

        Like

      • “(El Gibbor) is a title reserved elsewhere for Yahweh alone.” that is your claim citing brown…

        I have shown you in this as simply wrong coz in Ezekiel 32:21 this title is used not for Yhwh, the same same root word El אֵל (Strong #410) meaning “God”. I really doubt you know your bible that well…

        Liked by 3 people

      • Again, you do word study fallacy and jump to a different context and different author. The word El there is not from El (God) but from a different word, meaning “ram” or “ruler” – in context, it was about mighty rulers who have died. Accordance Bible Software, shows that Hebrew word is from a different word that El for God.
        Also, since the OT is purely monotheistic, the plural there in Ezekiel 32:21 is translated “mighty chiefs” or “mighty rulers” , “mighty leaders”, “mighty ones”, etc. – it cannot mean “God” or “gods”, since there is only one God.
        There are about 6-8 other words with the same root of El – אל in Hebrew, but do not have the meaning of “God” – I am looking in my Hebrew Lexicon and Hebrew vocabulary list. Context determines which one, and there is different vowel pointing on them. (some of these Hebrew words with אל , with different vowel pointing, mean, a negative, “no”, “not”; some mean “unto”, “towards”, some mean “these”, some mean “the” definite article, as in Arabic ال = “the” (The New Brown Driver Briggs Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon, page 38-45)

        Like

      • Keep aside your irrelevant rambling, why dont you just concede that the idiom EL Gibbor can be used other that Yhwh contrary to what you previously claim! anybody who has rudimentary knowledge in hebrew know that the root “El” originally mean “power”.. it does not necessarily mean God as “the one and true God” ; Its semantic range include:
        god, god-like one, mighty one, mighty men, men of rank, mighty heroes, angels, god, false god, (demons, imaginations), mighty things in nature, strength, power

        The whole point is Ezekiel use of El is the same root with Isa 9:6 (=Strong H410)

        Screen Shot 2019-05-21 at 09.49.47Screen Shot 2019-05-21 at 09.49.09

        So you  are simply wrong…

        Liked by 4 people

      • Brother Eric, Kenny is incapable of being objective. He’s just going to keep repeating himself and pretending he has refuted you. That’s why everyone here knows him as nothing more than a broken record.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Well brother, he is just doing his job, missionary man is like salesmen, telling the same sales pitch over and over again and don’t get put off by intelligent arguments 😆

        Liked by 3 people

      • Yes, you are right on that.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Kenny finally admits that he is wrong about something! So, all that bling copying has yielded bitter fruits, eh Kenny? Maybe there is hope for you yet.

        Like

      • You are correct on El Gibbor, as far as the issue of semantic range, yes. The plural makes it clear that it does not mean “Gods” as really “Gods”, since there is only one God.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dr. Michael Brown, Phd. in Semitic languages and the OT, points out that Hezekiah could not be the child because he did not fulfill what the prophesy says. (p. 45, Volume 2, “Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus”) “. . . before he (Hezekiah) was dead, the prophet Isaiah informed him that his descendants would be taken into exile in Babylon (see Isaiah 39).” (ibid, page 45 – see this discussion in surrounding pages also)

        Also, because of the phrases in bold:

        For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
        And the government will rest on His shoulders;
        And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
        Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
        7 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.

        the emboldened phrases speak of an eternal ruling and reigning, which only Jesus at the right hand of the Father has accomplished.

        This also points to Micah 5:2
        “But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
        Too little to be among the clans of Judah,
        From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel.
        His goings forth are from long ago,
        From the days of eternity.”

        The Messiah is the eternal God by nature, both God and man. Even the Pharisees and Scribes confessed that Micah 5:2 was about the Messiah’s birth in the city of Bethlehem. (Matthew 2:1-12)

        Only Jesus the Messiah / Al Masih المسیح fulfills Isaiah 9:6-7 and 7:14 and 8:12-13 – He is indeed Immanuel, “God with us” and “El Gibbor” the mighty God, the prince of peace (John 14:27; Matthew 11:27-30; Romans 5:1-11; Luke 2:11-14; Ephesians 2:14)

        Like

      • Brown is no authority in judaism he is a xtian apologist.

        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.

         

        The problem is you ignored the context when using biblical idioms.  Particularly to the “FOREVER”.   The Hebrew phrase that is usually translated as “forever” or “for eternity” is עַד־עוֹלָם (ad olam).  Yet, this phrase doesn’t always literally imply “forever” or “eternity”, and there are biblical passages to demonstrate this, e.g.,

        1 Samuel 1:22 – But Hannah did not go up, for she said to her husband: “Until the child is weaned, then I shall bring him, and he shall appear before the Lord, and abide there forever.

        This speaks of the Prophet Samuel and  we know that he didn’t live “forever”.  This indicates that Samuel’s “forever” was considered to be 50 years.

        Now, returning to Isaiah 9:7, it is plausible that the jews can equally apply this example of what “forever”/”eternity” to the peace within the period of  Hezekiah’s time, yet he had contributed to the  Davidic throne somehow.

         

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dr. Michael Brown is a Jewish man, who later came to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, and so he is a Messianic Jew, a Jewish Christian. Then he got a Phd in Semetic languages and the OT. Your dismissal of those facts is a fallacious appeal to authority of a group that later set itself up specifically against the Messiahship of Jesus. (Rabbinic Judaism is a response to the NT and Christianity, almost all of NT Christianity was Jewish.)

        Actually I stayed in context of Isaiah 9, whereas you jumped to another context in 1 Samuel 1:22. You did the Word study fallacy without proper context.

        Like

      • You are the one who initially brought up jewish authority to table citing talmud and rabbinic commentaries in this post trying to fit your theology, then when it is proven otherwise then you start appealing to nobody in judaism ie a xtian apologist. How is that supposed to be an argument?

        Ad olam עַד־עוֹלָם doesn’t always literally imply “forever” or “eternity”, as you seems to understand, it can mean metaphorically as 1 Samuel 1:22 shows while the context is clear that it speaks of the Prophet Samuel, who was a Levite who lived to the age of 52. We know from the Hebrew Bibke that the years of service for Levites are 50 (Numbers 8:25). So clearly know that he didn’t live forever. Applying the same understanding to Isaiah 9:6 we can deduce that “forever”/”eternity” means here is when there was peace during Hezekiah’s time.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Also, anyone can comment on the merits of something or some argument and use the texts and facts, etc. It is not necessary to be an authority in modern Rabbinic Judaism. Obviously, when a modern Jew (as Dr. Brown did) comes to understand Jesus of Nazareth of the NT is the Messiah, then they would not longer hold to the ideas of Rabbinic Judaism, etc.

        Your argumentation is not logical.

        Like

      • You are right on this:
        Yet, this phrase doesn’t always literally imply “forever” or “eternity”, and there are biblical passages to demonstrate this,

        Depending on context, what you say is generally true.

        However, in that context of Isaiah 9:6-7, it seems to be saying that the child born, virgin born (with Isaiah 7:14), the Messiah(Isaiah 7-11 – 11:1 ff – the one who is a shoot and branch from Jesse, father of David – Messiah is the anointed king from the line of David), the Mighty God (God in the flesh), Wonderful Counseling, Prince of Peace, will rule forever.

        This was only fulfilled in Jesus, who is now at the right hand of the Father ruling and reigning with God the Father.

        Revelation 5:1-14
        Hebrews 1:1-4
        Ephesians 1:18-23
        Acts 2:24-36

        Like

      • The original context is Hezekiah, the child HAS been born and he also can be said fulfilled all those thingsm even the hebrew name Yechizqiyyahu יְחִזְקִיָּ֫הוּ comes from verb חזק (hazaq) to be strong, and (2) יה (yah), the shortened name of Yhwh so it can actually means: “Mighty God”.
        Rashi, Radak, Ibn Ezra, Mahari Kara, Metzudat David and Malbim (all of the standard commentaries printed in the typical Jewish study Bible) explain this verse in reference to King Hezekiah. There are some commentary who explain that the prophecies although could potentially have been fulfilled by Hezekiah yet ultimately will be fulfilled in Messiah obviously but they did not see a godman in the messiah.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Rashi, Radak, Ibn Ezra, Mahari Kara, Metzudat David and Malbim (all of the standard commentaries printed in the typical Jewish study Bible) explain this verse in reference to King Hezekiah.

        These are ALL late Jewish commentators who have already a-priori rejected Jesus as Messiah. (1100s AD to 1800s AD) So of course they are going to look for other explanations of who the child is in Isaiah 7, 8, 9, 11 is.

        They all reject Jesus as Al Masih (The Messiah) المسیح، which is a contradiction to what Islam says.

        The first century Jews and leaders recognized that the Messiah would be eternal (Matthew 2:3-6; Micah 5:2; Daniel 7:9-14) and that the Messiah would be the Son of God. (Mark 14:60-64; Matthew 26:62-68; Matthew 22:41-45; Mark 12:35-37)

        Like

      • The Jewish leaders, by their question to Jesus and their reactions, understood that the Messiah would be “the Son of God” in Mark 14:60-64.

        Like

      • Interesting to note also that targum Jonathan rendering goes against most xtian translation of Isa 9:6. that the divine titles pele yoetz֙ el gibbor avi-ad פֶּ֠לֶא יֹועֵץ֙ אֵ֣ל גִּבֹּ֔ור אֲבִיעַ֖ד belong not to the child but to the one who names the child ie his God. In Aramaic it says: Shemeih min kodam mafli etzah elaha gibbara kayam le’almaya msicha שְׁמֵיהּ מִן קֳדָם מַפְלִיא עֵצָה אֱלָהָא גִבָּרָא קַיָם לְעַלְמַיָא מְשִׁיחָא  (His name is called from eternity wonderful, the mighty God who liveth to eternity: the Messiah).

        While targum Jonathan seems like affirming the future Messianic interpretation of the passage, a position which surely does not contradict Islamic paradigm, but it does not affirm with christian concept of god messiah.

        Liked by 4 people

    • While christians are so obsessed with Isaiah 9, they forget that Jesus has never been called with those titles in their NT!

      Liked by 2 people

      • All through history, Christians have called Jesus, “the one born of the virgin Mary”, “Immanuel, God with us – God incarnate, God in the flesh, (Isaiah 7:14), – the titles and names in Isaiah 9:6 – are attributes that are referred to all through both the NT and Christian History – the Wonderful Counselor – Amazing, (many times in the gospels it says, “and they were amazed at His teaching”; full of wisdom and counsel, the Mighty God – God incarnate, the author of time and eternity (John 1:1-5; Hebrews 1, Colossians 1- same nature as the Father, God Himself – (Philippians 2) eternal (John 17:5); the prince of peace = the source of peace with God – Romans 5:1; John 14:27; Matthew 11:27-30; Ephesians 2:14

        Like

      • No where in your gospels is Jesus ever called Immanuel. See? It’s so easy to refute you, so that the rest of your rambling is irrelevant.

        Like

      • Yes He is right there in Matthew 1:23

        Like

      • Lol! Self-fulfilling prophecy! Where did any of the disciples, or even Paul, refer to Jesus as Immanuel? Matthew was making stuff up, as we already know. But where is the evidence that Jesus was also known as Immanuel by his followers?

        Like

      • Apparently, Kenny doesn’t know what a “self-fulfilling” prophecy is. I’ll leave it at that. Let’s see if he can figure it out.

        Like

      • Jesus has never been called with those titles in references you gave. There’s no need to lie about this fact. Indeed the fact that Jesus has never been called with these titles in the NT is very telling.

        Your interpretations are really irrelevant. I can say the exact opposite of what you said by using the same standard.
        “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.” So what now?

        ” are attributes that are referred to all through both the NT and Christian History – the Wonderful ”
        First, Those were titles according to the prophecy, and Jesus has never been called with them in the NT. There’s no need to lie about this fact as I said before.

        Second, christians history tells us that christians have been making stuff to make Jesus fit with some passages in the OT since the gospels got written as we see in this subject, so basically this’s a circular reasoning, and it doesn’t worth anything actually.

        Liked by 1 person

      • He is described and called those attributes all through the NT.

        Like

      • You may keep lying, but that would not change the fact that he has never been called with those titles in your bible.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Brother, Kenny will keep lying because the truth is just too inconvenient. He’s a good follower of Paul.

        Kenny, you are really a shameless liar. Isaiah 7:14 says nothing about an “attribute”. Immanuel was the NAME of the child. The Hebrew does not say that it is merely an “attribute”.

        Liked by 1 person

    • It’s obviously that you have no idea what you’re talking about Ken when it comes to the Qur’an.
      You use outdated sources to talk about Qur’an. Qur’an presents itself as an authority from Allah sw who knows everything. Your books whether they’re canonical or not are not the sources for Qur’an whatsoever, and any serious reading to the Qur’an tells this fact clearly. Qur’an came as a corrector & an arbiter of what christians and jews have. Moreover, Qur’an has many sharp points that it cannot be achieved except by accepting that it’s a miracle form God. For example, the sonship of Uzair in the jewish belief, it actually turns to be a miracle for Qur’an.

      On the other hand, let’s have a look to the writings of Paul.
      “and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.” (1 Cor 10:5)
      Some christian commentaries tell us that it is just a *jewish legend* that a rock travelled with the Israelites.
      Also, in the same chapter, Paul seems to be ignorant of the OT because he said “And we must not engage in sexual immorality as some of them did, causing 23,000 of them to die in one day.” (1 Cor 10:5) while the actual numbers is it appears in (Numbers 25:9) is 24.000!

      Like

      • The Qur’an cannot be from God because it cannot get established history right, that was already known for 600 years. (Surah 4:157)

        It cannot be from God because it got the doctrine of the Trinity wrong. (Surah 5:73-78; 5:116; 6:101; 19:88-92; 4:171)

        It thinks Mary the sister of Aaron and Mary mother of Jesus are the same person.

        It says it is ok for a husband to hit his wife. (Surah 4:34)

        It copied from Apocryphal, heretical, and Gnostic books also.

        And copied fables, like the cave of the seven sleepers.

        Sex maids also: Even Yasir Qadhi admitted here that most of the Ottomans and Abbasids were descendants of taking sex maids after the Jihad wars.

        Like

      • //The Qur’an cannot be from God because it cannot get established history right//
        As if your statement holds
        any value!

        ” copyist error”
        I’m fine with the idea that you think your bible has errors.
        But do you really think that 23900 is fine? It’s still an error.

        Liked by 1 person

      • A copying error is not error in the originals.
        We are honest and open with our textual variants.

        Like

      • //We are honest and open with our textual variants.//
        That’s simply not true! You have been forced because there’s no other option for you. The point that Paul used some jewish legends i his writings, and he was ignorant about some passages in the OT still stands.

        Liked by 2 people

      • //It cannot be from God because it got the doctrine of the Trinity wrong. (Surah 5:73-78; 5:116; 6:101; 19:88-92; 4:171)

        It thinks Mary the sister of Aaron and Mary mother of Jesus are the same person.

        It says it is ok for a husband to hit his wife. (Surah 4:34)

        It copied from Apocryphal, heretical, and Gnostic books also.

        And copied fables, like the cave of the seven sleepers.//

        Simply not true.

        //ven Yasir Qadhi admitted here that most of the Ottomans and Abbasids were descendants of taking sex maids after the Jihad wars.//
        It’s irrelevant! but your bible approves this act by the way. If you think the morality of your culture now is superior to that one in your bible, it’s really not my issue. It yours.

        Liked by 1 person

      • The authors of Numbers and 1 Corinthians are either estimating. (same way we say 2,900 is about 3,000) (23,800 = 24,000 estimate)
        or
        there is a copyist error somewhere.

        It does no harm to the original being God-breathed.

        Like

      • LOL!! Kenny the liar claiming that he’s “honest”! Oh, the hilarity!

        Like

      • “The authors of Numbers and 1 Corinthians are either estimating. (same way we say 2,900 is about 3,000) (23,800 = 24,000 estimate)
        or
        there is a copyist error somewhere.

        It does no harm to the original being God-breathed.”

        When you’re not lying, you’re using logica fallacies. You are a clown, dude!

        Why would a supposedly “inspired” author be “estimating”? Is your holy spirit so incompetent?

        It certainly does harm because it shows the Biblical authors, the scribes and the holy spirit were all incompetent.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. On Matthew 2:23 “as the prophets said, “He shall be called a Nazarene”

    Isaiah 11:1 is clear – the second word, “Nezer” נזר = “branch”, “rejected branch”.

    First, notice it says, “through the prophets” – plural. So he is speaking of a general concept that is in more than one prophet. “that what was spoken through the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene” (Matthew 2:23) “Nararene” – a Nazer – נצר – nzr – a rejected branch. Nazareth was a rejected city in the North, in “Galilee of the Gentiles”; it was rejected by the Jews in the south and around Jerusalem, since it was a Galilean town. (northern, Gentile, defiled by non-Jews). “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” (John 1:46; see also John 7:41 and 7:52)

    So, “Nazareth” describes Jesus being rejected by the Jews. Isaiah 14:19 – “like a rejected branch” = כְּנֵצֶר נִתְעָב כ = like נצר = NZR, Nazer, branch נתעב = rejected, despised Isaiah 11:1 – “then a shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse (father of David); and a branch (Nazer – נצר ) from his roots will bear fruit.” (see rest of Isaiah 11:1-10 – a very Messianic passage in the Jews minds. This is referred to in Acts 13:22-23; and Isaiah 11:10 is quoted in Romans 15:12)

    Isaiah 53:1-3 – concept of rejection, tender shoot, root out of dry ground

    Who has believed our message? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? 2 For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot, And like a root out of parched ground; He has no stately form or majesty That we should look upon Him, Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him. 3 He was despised and forsaken of men, A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; And like one from whom men hide their face He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. Isaiah 53:1-3

    There is another word for the Messiah as a “branch” צמח used often, combined with the concepts of shoot, root, sprout, and despised, shows that Matthew had many passages in mind when he wrote, “as it is spoken through the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene” – despised, rejected. Jeremiah 23:5 – Messiah will be a righteous branch. (צמח) Jeremiah 33:15 – a righteous branch (צמח )of David will spring forth Isaiah 4:2 – “branch of the Lord” (צמח) Zechariah 3:8 – “they are a symbol, for behold, I am going to bring in My servant the branch.” (צמח) Zechariah 6:12 – the one whose name is “Branch” (צמח) There are several words for “branch”(צמח is used more often) with root and shoot (Isaiah 53:1-3; 11:1) and “Nezer” (נצר) is not always used in every passage. But the concept of a branch, with the concepts of “shoot” and “root” and “rejected”; and the concept of being rejected combines all these passages as demonstrating what Matthew 2:23 was referring to.

    Like

    • John Charles Fenton said in his commentary that scholars agree that such a prophecy doesn’t have a known source.

      Also, Raymond Brown in his book the Birth of the Messiah said it’s the most difficult citation in the gospel for it is not linked to any known text.

      Both are christians by the way.

      Liked by 2 people

      • @ Abdullah1234
        I’ll spare Ken the time to wrire a post, ahem:

        LIBERAL SCHOLARS!!!! LIBERAL SCHOLARS!!!! LIBERAL SCHOLARS!!!!

        Your Prophet is 600 years later(as if relevant)

        LIBERAL SCHOLARS!!!! LIBERAL SCHOLARS!!!! LIBERAL SCHOLARS!!!!

        Liked by 2 people

  4. Also, for a Muslim to argue against Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew, a Jew and follower of Jesus, in Matthew 1:23 – the prophesy of the virgin birth of Messiah, which the Qur’an and all of Islam has always believed Jesus Al Masih was born of the virgin Mary, – for you as a Muslim to argue against the virgin birth, is rich indeed.

    chapters 7-11 of Isaiah are all about the Messiah to come, Immanuel.

    Also, Isaiah 10:21 calls Yahweh, the mighty God, אל גבור (El Gabbor), same name as applied to Jesus the Messiah in Isaiah 9:6.

    Like

    • We don’t know the author no matter how many times you say it’s Matthew. No one takes you seriously anymore and rightly so.

      Like

      • Whether is was Matthew himself, or the records of several other disciples (eyewitness accounts of the other disciples that did not have a true gospel written from their viewpoint, like Matthew AND Philip, Thomas, Bartholomew, James the Zealot, with John and Peter’s records also – that were collected together and written down in good Greek), that an educated disciple of Matthew put together – all based on true accounts and records of Jesus life and ministry – if the content is true, then it does not matter who exactly put the final edit on it. Matthew was a tax collector and knew some Greek – that his name is the traditional one in church history reflects his carefulness in recording things and events.

        In other words, you are not dealing with the content of what I have written. The content and truth of the gospel that is traditionally known as Matthew, is not dependent on whether he actually wrote it, or someone else wrote the final copy in Greek. (all based on the historical events and truths of Jesus’ birth, life, teachings, miracles, death, resurrection.)

        Also, many Targums written by Jews before Jesus, that I documented above, give a picture of Isaiah chapters 7-11 that shows the Jews did believe that Isaiah 7 and 9 and 11 are about the Messiah, so Paul’s mantra that he kept repeating, “no Jew before Christianity had that interpretation” – is wrong.

        Like

      • “””Whether is was Matthew himself, or the records of several other disciples (eyewitness accounts of the other disciples that did not have a true gospel written from their viewpoint, like Matthew AND Philip, Thomas, Bartholomew, James the Zealot, with John and Peter’s records also – that were collected together and written down in good Greek), that an educated disciple of Matthew put together”””

        Lol. More assumptions with ZERO evidence.

        “””all based on true accounts and records of Jesus life and ministry”””
        And even MORE assumptions. Let me go full Texas on ya:
        Where is your God damn proof BOY?

        “””In other words, you are not dealing with the content of what I have written. The content and truth of the gospel that is traditionally known as Matthew, is not dependent on whether he actually wrote it”””
        What??? An unknown author writing stuff about someone makes something extremely unreliable. Why does this have to be explained to you?

        “””Also, many Targums written by Jews before Jesus, that I documented above, give a picture of”””
        I wasn’t talking about that. My comment was on Matthew.

        Liked by 1 person

      • see the link I posted at Triablogue by Jason Engwer. Lots of articles there showing the evidence for Matthean authorship. You are ignoring the issue of content. All the 27 books being inspired is based on content and some kind of connection to an apostle (written under the content and authority of an apostle – they used amanuensis a lot. Silvanus / Silas for Peter in 1 Peter 5:12-13. Mark writing Peter’s memories and action sermons. Matthew and John could be gospels that use a lot of the recall of memories of all the other disciples that did not write a gospel. Jesus gave the promise of the Holy Spirit – who would lead them into all the truth. They eventually wrote every thing necessary down.
        Plus the early church had no other person they designated as the author of that gospel – Papias, Irenaeus, Tertullian. There is no need to doubt the truth of the history, theology and teaching of Matthew’s gospel.

        Like

      • fundamentalist apologetics.

        Like

      • But you are also a “fundamentalist” Muslim, if you believe that the Qur’an is the word of the one true creator God and follow the fundamental (basic, foundational) doctrines of Islam.

        So, your ploy (way of arguing) is moot; as if “fundamentalist” cannot also be intelligent and reasonable and logical.

        Like

      • “All the 27 books being inspired”
        That’s your own assumption. Deal with it.
        Show me ONE bit of evidence from Jason to prove it was Matthew. His article is just (sorry to say this) a joke.
        Like ‘o this gospel talks in this kinda way about Matthew’ or ‘This gospel is more jewish’ etc etc. You call that proof???
        Papias said Matthew’s gospel was written in Hebrew which is highly prolematic since t “our” gospel of Matthew is in Greek. Most scholars DO think the four gospels are anonymous. That’s a fact. Dan Wallace even admits this is the case.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Matthew as a canonical inspired gospel was already established as true and inspired (God-breathed) for 5 centuries before Islam came around. 600 years too late. Matthew teaches the virgin birth of Christ, and Islam got its information from that from all sorts of different Christians spread out into the Levant areas and Northern Arabia (including heretical sects and Gnostic groups), and those who already established Matthew as true for about 600 years.

        Like

      • “””Matthew as a canonical inspired gospel was already established as true and inspired (God-breathed) for 5 centuries before Islam came around. 600 years too late.””””

        Buahahahahaha.
        You were asked to prove Matthew was the author and all you bring to the table is a baseless statement ‘It was established’. Wow I’m blown away by the overwhelming proof of that wishful thinking. And just for good measure (and also because you’re Kenny, the broking record) you throw in the 600 years crap. As if that’s somehow relevant to it being Historical proof.
        Islam got its revelation from God, not your potato book. You make a historical claim, NOT one that’s based on faith. Islam was brought by a prophet which we accept through FAITH. So stop comitting equavalence fallacies. Lol and even if the prophet copied the virgin birth word by word (in your dreams), it still means NOTHING since it’s 0.0001% of that ‘gospel’ and no one ever said that the whole thing is false.
        You pretty much admitted in this last comment you made that you don’t have ANY evidence.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Islam and the Qur’an cannot be from God since it contradicts the previous revelation already established 600 years earlier.

        Islam got a few things right, that Jesus is the Messiah, born of the Virgin Mary, and did miracles and taught the gospel. But it got all that information from the people of the Book, along with the OT correct information on the prophets. (along with lots of legendary and Midrash material not part of Divine revelation.)

        Like

      • Stll evading and throwing out statements. It says it comes to correct the previous scriptures Q5:48. The Qur’an having texts that have similarities with non-biblical texts means nothing. Allah says the Qur’an is a reminder over and over again and that comes to confirm what came before it over and over again. The Jewish oral tradition is ENORMOUS, since they are the people that came before us and have had revelations before us then it only makes sence for there to be occurancies of similarities. The idea of the Qur’an confirming non-biblical texts as being some kinda proof against authenticity is one of the most rediculous things I’ve ever heard. Lol only xtians think the bible is the ONLY true text and that everything non biblical is not true. As if we care. Who are you to decide that?

        And not to mention the copy pastas your unknown potatoes make like the author of jude copying from the apocrophal document of the book of enoch. And the xtians then have the audacity to talk about plagerism.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Nope. Surah 5:46-48 speaks of confirming and guarding the previous Scriptures.

        It was only later after the Muslims unjustly attacked the Byzantine Empire with their Jihads, Qatals (slay and fight until they surrender, either convert to Islam or pay the Jiziye unjust submission tax, etc., Harb (War), etc. that they discovered the previous Scriptures contradict that Muhammad thought mistakenly was the content of the text. Then they had to come up with the principle of Tahreef al nas (corruption of the text), but the Qur’an never taught the Tahreef al nas تحریف النص , only Tahreef al maana (verbal, oral corruption of the meaning) تحریف المعانی .
        Surah 2:79 and 3:78 (they altar the Scripture with their tongues) are only about Tahreef Al Maana -oral, verbal corruption of the meaning, spread about by unlearned and ignorance and just hearing things. (which by the way, is what Muhammad himself did – he was just hearing things from heretical groups and then giving his own human interpretations on them.

        Like

      • Ken why do most Western non-Muslim specialists in the Qur’an disagree with you? They say the Qur’an clerly teaches the corruption of the previous scriptures.

        Liked by 2 people

      • No they don’t. Even if there is such a list; they are not credible. The meaning is plain.

        Like

      • Loool!!!!
        And where is your proof for ANY of this????
        Q 2.79 explicitly talks about TEXTUAL corruption.
        Do I have to school you AGAIN on this?
        Q 5:48 says it’s a guardian/criterion over the previous scriptures. It corrects the previous scriptures.
        The prophet HIMSELF said they have done away with the Torah and wrote a another scripture and are following it.
        So your lie about it being a later invention is just pathetic. I have schooled you on this before and you didn’t even dare to respond back.
        Sad.

        Liked by 1 person

      • 5:48 settles the issue for me. ‘Muhaimin’: that which testifies the truth that is therein and falsifies the falsehood that is added therein.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Context of Surah 2:75-79

        Muslims try to say 2:79 means the Torah was completely corrupted.

        Surah 2:75 – “a party/sect/group from among them” ( the Jews) ” فریق منهم , who used to hear the words of Allah and distort / change (the Torah) after they had understood it.
        This goes with Surah 3:78 – منهم لفریقا – “from among them there is a party/group” – a party among them who distort the Scriptures with their tongues

        Surah 7:159 – a faithful party / group of the Jews.

        Surah 3:113-115 – a faithful party of the Jews who stayed up late at night reciting the Scriptures.

        One party cannot totally corrupt all of the Scriptures because there are so many other copies globally of the Scriptures.

        So, it cannot mean that all of the original Torah was corrupted or lost.

        Keep reading to 2:85 – condemns people who don’t accept ALL of the Word of God. (in context, meaning The Torah or Tanakh)
        The context of 2:75-79 points to some parts that people were making up and going apart and saying “this is from Allah”, but it could not effect all the other Scriptures all over the world.

        I would add that 2:78 shows that this group is:
        a. Uneducated / illiterate
        b. Don’t know the Scriptures
        c. Only going by what they hear

        so this group of 2:79 are uneducated and illiterate and don’t know the Scriptures and only going by what they hear.

        This is seems to be what Muhammad did – he is just hearing things, doesn’t have the Scriptures in Arabic, and cannot read Hebrew or Greek, so he doesn’t know everything about the previous Scriptures and is just assuming that he understands them and approves of them, and assumes the Christians and Jews are teaching wrong things.

        Like

      • O brother, here we go again.
        Q 3:113-115 says NOTHING about the SCRIPTURES being pure. I already said the Qur’an is correcting the previous scripturesn, not rejecting them outright.
        Besides the Allah here is talking about those people of the Book that accepted the prophethood of Muhammad (saw) and recite (not the bible) but the Qur’an at night (Ibn Kathir). So quoting that verse proves nothing.
        Q 7:159 doesn’t even mention scripture. It talks about the tribes of Moses.

        Surah 2:79 clearly talks about WRITTEN corruption. You can spin it as much as you like.
        Of course it’s going to be a party corrupting it and not all Israelites. That wouldn’t make ANY sense. A text never gets corrupted by EVERYONE all of a sudden corrupting it. Corruption is always done by a party, NOT the WHOLE freaking people! And eventually the corrupted text overwhelmes and outraches the non-corrupted text, especially if the party responsible for the corrupted text are in a position of power, wealth and authority. I still don’t get why you don’t understand this BASIC fact.
        Q 2:85 has to do with the Jews accepting only what suits them at the time. This was during a battle.

        Q 2:85: Then, you are those [same ones who are] killing one another and evicting a party of your people from their homes, cooperating against them in sin and aggression. And if they come to you as captives, you ransom them, although their eviction was forbidden to you. So do you believe in part of the Scripture and disbelieve in part?…
        So it’s the eviction that they disbelieve in that Allah mentions, NOT the whole Torah!

        Q 5:43 has to do with stoning. The Jews who didn’t even believe in the prophethood of Muhammad (saw) would come to him to alleviate the punishment for adultery so they could avoid stoning. That’s why Allah got angry and said why do they come to you (they don’t even believe you’re the prophet) while they know full well what the punishment is cus it’s written in their Torah. So again NOTHING to do with the Torah being non-corrupted.

        Q 3:48 “And He will teach him writing and wisdom and the Torah and the Gospel”

        This is talking about God teaching JESUS the Torah and Gospel. Again irrelevant since it has nothing to do with the time of the prophet.

        Q 2:136 doesn’t even talk about scripture. It mentions the belief in the prophethood of Abraham, Isaac Ishmael, … and what has been revealed to them and what was given to Moses and Jesus. Yet again nothing about torah and gospel not being corrupted.

        Q 3:3-4 yet again says NOTHING about the Torah and Gospel being pure. Just that they were revealed and that the Qur’an confirms what came before.

        Q 5:47 says judge by what is revealed THEREIN. And Q 5:48 gives the way to do it: by using the Qur’an as a Muhaiminan over it.

        Q 10:94 talks about the pagans thinking the messengers should be angels, NOT men. So that’s why Qur’an 10:94 says ask them if you are in doubt about that. Since the corrupted versions of the scriptures make it clear that MEN do get send as messengers this disproves the pagan’s assesment.
        Again nothing to do with preservation of the bible.

        Q 5:68 this needs to be brought back and read in context with Q 5:48. They need to stand upon the Torah and the Gospel by using the Qur’an as a Muhaimanin.

        Q 6:115 talks about none being able to change His DECREE. It says:
        And the WORD of your Lord HAS BEEN FULFILLED in truth and in justice. None can alter His words, and He is the Hearing, the Knowing.

        The others either talk about no one being able to change the DECREE of Allah or His Book (i.e Qur’an). How does that prove the preservation of the torah and gospel????

        That was your rebuttal? What a joke!

        Like

      • The quote from Abdullah Saeed, professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies at the University of Melbourne, was devastating to Shabir Ally’s argument. (in one of his debates) Boom!

        “Since the “authorized” scriptures of Jews and Christians remain very
        much today as they existed at the time of the Prophet, it is difficult to argue
        that the Qur’anic references to Tawrat and Injeel were only to the “pure”
        Tawrat and Injeel as existed at the time of Moses and Jesus, respectively. If the
        texts have remained more or less as they were in the seventh century CE, the
        reverence the Qur’än has shown them at the time should be retained even
        today. Many interpreters of the Qur’an, from Tabari to Râzï to Ibn Taymiyya
        and even Qutb, appear to be inclined to share this view. The wholesale
        dismissive attitude held by many Muslims in the modern period towards
        the scriptures of Judaism and Christianity do not seem have the support of
        either the Qur’an or the major figures of tafsir.”

        Abdullah Saeed, professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies at the University of Melbourne

        THE CHARGE OF DISTORTION OF JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES, page 434-435

        Like

      • if anyone is guilty of Surah 2:78-79 – writing their own Scripture with their own hands and then claiming it is from Allah / God, it is Muhammad, founder of Islam.

        2:78-79 shows that this group is:
        a. Uneducated / illiterate
        b. Don’t know the Scriptures
        c. Only going by what they hear

        so this group of 2:79 are uneducated and illiterate and don’t know the Scriptures and only going by what they hear.

        This is seems to be what Muhammad did – he is just hearing things, doesn’t have the Scriptures in Arabic, and cannot read Hebrew or Greek, so he doesn’t know everything about the previous Scriptures and is just assuming that he understands them and approves of them, and assumes the Christians and Jews are teaching wrong things.

        Like

      • a party of them = one group that goes apart and writes stuff that is not Scripture means that the real Scripture still existed – this is proof because we have the Scripture that go back to Muhammad’s time and centuries before that, without corruption. (not counting the relatively few textual variants, none of which affect any major doctrine, etc.)

        The Qur’an in Surah 5:48, says it confirms and guards, not corrects.

        “The people of the Scripture” = اهل الکتاب
        Surah 5:68
        What written Scripture were they reading?

        Surah 10:94 – go and ask the people of the Scripture who have been reading the Scripture before you . . .

        What Scripture were they reading?

        Like

      • note again what al-Tabari says about the meaning of muhaimin:

        Regarding “muhaimin” Allah says that He brought down the book (Quran) to you O Muhammad, believing in the books that came before it AND A WITNESS TO THEM (the previous scriptures) THAT THEY ARE TRUTH FROM ALLAH, FAITHFUL TO THEM AND A PROTECTOR TO THEM. The root of “Haymana” means TO PROTECT and WATCH OVER, that is why it is said when a man watches over something and protects it he has “haymana” over it. The present form of the verb is “yu-haymen” and the noun is “haymana”. Based on what we have mentioned, the people of interpretation HAVE DIFFERED in their explanation of this word; for some said that it means to be A WITNESS.

        Al-Tabari’s exegesis of Surah 5:48 makes it quite plain that he didn’t believe that the Quran only confirmed those parts of the Holy Bible which agreed with it.

        Like

      • What a joke of a rebuttal!
        You conveniently IGNORE nearly everything I wrote and just repeat yourself. How about you deal with my points.
        Then you give me Tabari who says there is a difference of opinion which shows you proved nothing.

        Liked by 4 people

      • “note again what al-Tabari says about the meaning of muhaimin:

        Regarding “muhaimin” Allah says that He brought down the book (Quran) to you O Muhammad, believing in the books that came before it AND A WITNESS TO THEM (the previous scriptures) THAT THEY ARE TRUTH FROM ALLAH, FAITHFUL TO THEM AND A PROTECTOR TO THEM. The root of “Haymana” means TO PROTECT and WATCH OVER, that is why it is said when a man watches over something and protects it he has “haymana” over it. The present form of the verb is “yu-haymen” and the noun is “haymana”. Based on what we have mentioned, the people of interpretation HAVE DIFFERED in their explanation of this word; for some said that it means to be A WITNESS.

        Al-Tabari’s exegesis of Surah 5:48 makes it quite plain that he didn’t believe that the Quran only confirmed those parts of the Holy Bible which agreed with it.”

        From one of Sam Shamoun’s articles.
        https://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/muhaimin.htm

        Like

      • Affirming the Gospel and also calling Christians and Jews “the people of the book” (written Scriptures, الکتاب proves that the “gospel” (Injeel, انجیل ) – was written down and the only “Injeel” that was approved of and established by the Christians for centuries, written down is the whole 27 book New Testament.

        So, even the Qur’an unknowingly and ignorantly affirmed the New Testament, because of affirmed Jesus as Messiah, who was given the Gospel (Injeel), the written book of the people of the Scriptures.

        The Qur’an:

        Affirms/confirms مصدق the inspiration of the previous Scriptures – Surah 3:84, 2:136; 3:3-4
        Affirms/confirms مصدق the preservation of the previous Scriptures – Surah 5:47; 10:94 (between the hands – بین یدیه = what they have at the time of Muhammad)
        Affirms/confirms the authority of the previous Scriptures – 5:43 – why do they come to you when they have the Torah?
        5:47 – let the people of the Gospel judge by what God has revealed therein –

        5:68 – O people of the Scripture, اهل الکتاب you have no standing unless you observe/uphold/ hold fast to / do / obey the Torah and the Gospel, and what has been revealed to you from your Lord.”

        “Say, “O People of the Scripture, you are [standing] on nothing until you uphold [the law of] the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to you from your Lord.” And that which has been revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase many of them in transgression and disbelief. So do not grieve over the disbelieving people.” Qur’an Surah 5:68, Sahih International translation

        10:94 – Gospel and Torah authoritative for Muhammad also. Resort to the previous Scriptures; Ask the people of the book.

        and since none can change the words of Allah – Surah 6:114-5 (or 116 depending on different English translation/numbering system) and 18:27; (see also 6:34, 10:65)

        therefore, the previous Scriptures were not corrupted.

        Like

      • Ken, the New Testament does NOT claim to be revelation, so the Qur’an does not contradict previous revelation from God.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Yes it does. It is God-breathed. Even the Qur’an says it is light and guidance from God. The “Injeel” (Gospel) is the same thing as the New Testament. Previous revelation (OT and NT) was already established 600 years before late and false religion of Islam. Islam is just one man’s subjective claim, 600 years too late.

        Like

      • So no answer again, just blind repetition of the same tired-old mantra. Where does the Quran say that the “Injeel” is the same as the “New Testament”? Christians like to make fanciful leaps of logic when they have nothing else to go by.

        Liked by 3 people

    • //Many interpreters of the Qur’an, from Tabari to Râzï to Ibn Taymiyya
      and even Qutb, appear to be inclined to share this view. The wholesale
      dismissive attitude held by many Muslims in the modern period towards
      the scriptures of Judaism and Christianity do not seem have the support of
      either the Qur’an or the major figures of tafsir.”//

      This is absolutely not true. I’m not sure what the background or the motive is of Abdullah Saed to say that!
      Giant scholars such as Ibn Taymiyya and his student Ibn Kathir affirmed that the what jews and Christians have got corrupted. Ibn Tymmyaih was arguing
      against that school of though, which some Muslim scholars had adopted, which says (everything) in the bible is just a corruption!

      The major figure of tafseer is Ibn Abbas, the companion of the prophet pbuh, and his saying about the subject is found in Sahih Al Bukhari. Ibn Zaid, who was one of the earliest commentators in Qur’an affirmed this view in Tafseer Al-Tabri!

      To describe this view as it’s just a “modern attitude” is simply not true.

      You have been refuted about this subject in one of this blog’s subject, I cannot recall what it is now.

      All of this deviation to spin around the fact that Matthew did make stuff in his gospel will not help you.

      Liked by 2 people

  5. So, Matthew did not “make stuff up” – to go against him and his gospel is to go against Islam, since Matthew emphasized the virgin birth of Al Masih المسیح / the Messiah and the law of God.

    Like

    • Matthew certainly did make stuff up. You have not refuted my arguments.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Yes I did.

        1. You were wrong about the Hebrew verbs.
        2. You are wrong about “no Jew before Christianity” had views of the Messiah in accordance with the NT understanding of the Messiah.
        3. You are wrong about Matthew 2:23

        You spent most of your time on the first two points and I refuted the content of your video.

        The title of your article does not reflect most of the content of your video.

        Like

      • no Ken. You believe you refurted me, but in reality you did not. No one is persuaded by your ‘arguments’ in the slightest. Btw the NT does not claim to be revelation.

        The Quran does, in many places.

        Liked by 1 person

  6. sorry for typo in Nezer – should have been a צ and not a ז

    should be:

    “Nararene” – a Nezer – נצר – nzr – a rejected branch.

    Isaiah 11:1 is clear – the second word, “Nezer” נצר = “branch”, “rejected branch”.

    This is clearly one of the passages in the prophets that Matthew 2:22-23 is referring to.

    So, Matthew was not “making stuff up”.

    Like

    • lol what a lame argument.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Yes, it is a lame argument. Here’s why. Even those who propose the Isaiah-Matthew connection inevitably have to admit that “Matthew” was merely resorting to “wordplay”,[10] which implies that there really was no “Nazarene” prophecy and that “Matthew” just used a “common theme” (the Messiah as a “branch”) and linked it to the town of Nazareth. So how does that refute the obvious fact that “what was said through the prophets” wasn’t really said through the prophets?

      This brings us back to the issue of different words being used for “branch”. As previously noted, only Isaiah used the word “netser”, whereas Jeremiah used the word “tsemach”. No amount of mental gymnastics could succeed in finding a linguistic similarity between “tsemach” and “Nazarene”. But then why did “Matthew” use the phrase “what was said through the prophets”, if only one particular prophet used the Hebrew word that “Matthew” allegedly used in his “wordplay”? “Matthew” clearly referred to Isaiah by name in many places when appealing to specific alleged “prophecies” about the Messiah.[11] Wouldn’t it make sense to mention Isaiah when pointing to the alleged “Nazarene” prophecy? Why did “Matthew” muddy the water by referring to multiple prophets instead? This conundrum is not lost on many Christians. In his senior thesis at Liberty University, Dylan West noted the inconsistency and “weakness” of the Isaiah-Matthew connection:

      “[o]ne weakness is the use of “nēser” throughout the rest of the Old Testament. This word “occurs only four times in the Hebrew Bible,” with the other three passages not being Messianic. While there are other Messianic passages translated as “branch” into English, they do not use the word “nēser . ” The Hebrew word “semah” translated “branch” is used messianically, such as in the previously stated Jeremiah 23:5 passage. Therefore, while the branch theme may span multiple books in the Old Testament, the word “nēser” does not remain consistent with this theme. Additionally, the Septuagint translates the Hebrew for “nēser” to “ ἄνθος ” thus terminating “the linguistic connection for Greek speakers” which Matthew’s context primarily was.”[12]

      Echoing this sentiment and summarizing the conundrum, H. Daniel Zacharias writes:

      “[s]cholars of every stripe admit that there is no neat and tidy answer to Matthew’s quotation in 2:23. Every option has weaknesses and in this case it seems the argument with the most cumulative weight should be given priority.”[13]

      Zacharias also admits that if “Matthew” had Isaiah 11:1 in mind, then he was simply “making a play” on the word “netser”.[14] Based on this, he also admits that:

      “[in] this regard, Isa 11:1 as the origin suffers from the same pitfall as all of the other options – there is no one-to-one correspondence.”[15]

      https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2018/11/04/jesus-the-nazarene-matthews-fake-prophecy-and-allan-ruhls-worst-nightmare/

      Also, “Nazareth” was likely derived from “natsar”, not “netser”. “Natsar” is derived from the Aramaic word for “watchtower” (Ronald F. Youngblood, F.F. Bruce and R.K. Harrison, Compact Bible Dictionary (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2004), p. 431.).

      So yes, Matthew was making stuff up and Kenny’s argument is lame.

      Like

      • that is why the plural “prophets” is so important, and the concept of being despised and rejected, which Isaiah 52:13-15 and 53:1-3 brings out as the suffering Messiah who would die and be an atonement for sins and rise again. So, you did not refute anything at all. The town of Nazareth was despised; the Suffering Servant Messiah would be despised and rejected (Isaiah 53:1-3), therefore the connection that Matthew makes in 2:23 is a great fulfillment of all the prophetic passages of the Nezer and branch and rejected root and shoot that came from the line of Jesse / David.

        So Matthew is not making anything up.

        Like

      • The same mindless chatter from Kenny. Why am I not surprised?

        “that is why the plural “prophets” is so important, and the concept of being despised and rejected, which Isaiah 52:13-15 and 53:1-3 brings out as the suffering Messiah who would die and be an atonement for sins and rise again. So, you did not refute anything at all. The town of Nazareth was despised; the Suffering Servant Messiah would be despised and rejected (Isaiah 53:1-3), therefore the connection that Matthew makes in 2:23 is a great fulfillment of all the prophetic passages of the Nezer and branch and rejected root and shoot that came from the line of Jesse / David.”

        You just completely ignored the simple fact that no other prophet, other than Isaiah, used “netser” to refer to a branch, from which Matthew supposedly derived the connection to Nazareth. So there was no other prophet who even mentioned anything similar.

        “All the prophetic passages of the Nezer and branch…” you say? You mean all of Isaiah 11:1? This is why no one takes you seriously, Kenny.

        Also, regardless of whether was Nazareth was “despised” or not, there is still no etymological connection between it and “netser”. More likely, it was derived form “natsar”, which has nothing to do with a “branch” or being “despised”.

        “So Matthew is not making anything up.”

        Yeah, he was, and so are you. Christians being Christians, I suppose…

        Like

      • Apparently, Kenny doesn’t under the meaning of the word “plural”. What other prophets talked about these concepts? Ironically, in his diatribe, Kenny only Isaiah multiple times and no one else! You can’t make this stuff up! Oh wait, yes you can…if you are a Christian.

        Like

      • Apparently, Kenny doesn’t under the meaning of the word “plural”.

        Apparently, you cannot read or did not read my original comment to Paul’s video, – see toward the beginning in the comment thread.

        I quoted from several other prophets. (Jeremiah and Zechariah several times)

        so you are refuted and you are the one who makes lame arguments.

        Here is an excerpt from my first comment in the thread on Matthew 2:23:

        here is another word for the Messiah as a “branch” צמח used often, combined with the concepts of shoot, root, sprout, and despised, shows that Matthew had many passages in mind when he wrote, “as it is spoken through the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene” – despised, rejected. Jeremiah 23:5 – Messiah will be a righteous branch. (צמח) Jeremiah 33:15 – a righteous branch (צמח )of David will spring forth Isaiah 4:2 – “branch of the Lord” (צמח) Zechariah 3:8 – “they are a symbol, for behold, I am going to bring in My servant the branch.” (צמח) Zechariah 6:12 – the one whose name is “Branch” (צמח) There are several words for “branch”(צמח is used more often) with root and shoot (Isaiah 53:1-3; 11:1) and “Nezer” (נצר) is not always used in every passage. But the concept of a branch, with the concepts of “shoot” and “root” and “rejected”; and the concept of being rejected combines all these passages as demonstrating what Matthew 2:23 was referring to.

        Like

      • Original comment which you ignored, which includes multiple references from Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Zechariah and the concepts of branch, despised, rejected, shoot, root, all combined which so Matthew is right, = as it is written in the prophets (plural)

        https://bloggingtheology2.com/2019/05/13/matthew-made-stuff-up-paul-vs-christian-preacher-speakers-corner-hyde-park/comment-page-1/#comment-6458

        Like

      • “I quoted from several other prophets. (Jeremiah and Zechariah several times)

        so you are refuted and you are the one who makes lame arguments.”

        And apparently you can’t read because I already refuted the appeal to Jeremiah. “Tsemach” cannot be linked to Nazareth in any way, shape or form. As I stated in my article:

        “As previously noted, only Isaiah used the word “netser”, whereas Jeremiah used the word “tsemach”. No amount of mental gymnastics could succeed in finding a linguistic similarity between “tsemach” and “Nazarene”. But then why did “Matthew” use the phrase “what was said through the prophets”, if only one particular prophet used the Hebrew word that “Matthew” allegedly used in his “wordplay”? ”

        You have yet to explain this disparity and instead are just repeating the same useless garbage. Kenny being Kenny…

        Like

      • “Original comment which you ignored, which includes multiple references from Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Zechariah and the concepts of branch, despised, rejected, shoot, root, all combined which so Matthew is right, = as it is written in the prophets (plural)

        https://bloggingtheology2.com/2019/05/13/matthew-made-stuff-up-paul-vs-christian-preacher-speakers-corner-hyde-park/comment-page-1/#comment-6458

        Already refuted. Too bad… 😦

        So we are back to the original conclusion: Matthew made stuff up, and Kenny did too.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Zechariah also uses the word “tsemach” for branch. So at best, the only conclusion is that Matthew was just playing around with the word “Nazareth”, as I already pointed out in my article. Isaiah is the only one to use “netser” to refer to the Messianic “branch”. Thus, his statement “through the prophets” makes no sense. Only one prophet used the “similar” word (to Nazareth) “netser”, even though that word also has no etymological link to Nazareth. It’s no wonder that Christians have been struggling to explain this phantom prophecy for centuries, and there has never been any agreement as to what the hell Matthew was talking about!

        Like

      • You use word-study fallacy, instead of context and seeing the combination of the branch, rejected branch, root, shoot, etc. as combination of the Messianic fulfillment from line of David. Your arguments fail. I cannot help your blindness and stubborness. Only God can draw you and open your heart and eyes. John 6:44; Acts 16:14

        Like

      • You are a fool Kenny. I can’t help you being that way. You fools are the ones claiming that Matthew derived this phantom prophecy by using the “branch/netser” connection to “Nazareth”. But only Isaiah used netser for the branch. The others used a completely different word. Even your scholars admit that Matthew was simply doing “wordplay” given the similarity of “netser” to “Nazareth”. Such a wordplay would be impossible with “tsemach”. Get over it. You have lost…again. Your blind and mindless chatter means nothing in the fact of the facts.

        Like

  7. A couple more good Rabbinic quotes that show that Isaiah 9:6 was understood as Messianic:

    Babylonian Talmud (Tract Derech Erez Zutha):
    “Rabbi Hose the Galilean said: Also the name of the Messiah is called Peace, for it is written (Isaiah 9:6Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)): ‘Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.’”[2]

    Midrash Rabbah (Debarim 1):
    “The Rabbis lay the following words in the mouth of the patriarch Jacob: “I have still to bring forth the King Messiah as it is written: ‘Unto us a child is born.’”[3]

    Like

  8. Another interesting Rabbinic quote on Isaiah 9:6 –
    Iggereth Teman (Rabbi Moses ben Maimon writes to Jacob Alfajumi):

    “God named Him (the Messiah) with six names as He says concerning Him: ‘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, God, Mighty, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace’. That He calleth Him God in a distinctive manner, is to say with it, that His glory surpasses that of all other children of men.”

    So, Paul, all your “no Jew had” the idea of the Christian doctrine or interpretation of OT verses . . . ” mantra is wrong.

    Like

  9. Ken, Matthew, known as a disciple of Jesus was not the author of “The Gospel according to Matthew” listed in the current NT… do you understand and acknowledge that fact?

    Like

    • Most of my comments above do not even depend on that issue. I was responding to the content and argumentation of Paul Williams with the Christian guy in the video.

      Did you watch the video and understand all of my points above? Nothing is dependent on Matthew himself being the author.

      Very little, almost nothing in my above argumentation and responses to Paul W’s arguments was about whether or not Matthew the disciple of Jesus was the author of the Gospel according to Matthew.

      I accept Matthew as the author. Whether he compiled everything from all the disciples together and then a Greek student of his put it all together does not affect the content of the book – it is still “God-breathed” based on its content and apostolic authority as the contents are apostolic. (based on truth from all or more than one of the eyewitnesses of Jesus’ life, miracles, teachings, death, resurrection)

      The Four Canonical Gospels are the result of the promise of Jesus to the disciples in John 14:26 and 16:12-13.

      “The Holy Spirit will led you into all the truth” and “teach you all things” and “bring everything that you need to your remembrance”.

      The whole NT of 27 books is the result of that promise of Jesus to send the Holy Spirit to preach the truth and eventually write everything down that is necessary for life and godliness. (2 Peter 1:1-4; 12-21)

      Like

    • I don’t agree with liberal scholarship that questions Matthew as the author.

      Just as Peter used a Greek writer to write 1 Peter – 1 Peter 5:12-13 (Silvanus / Silas) – as his amanuensis – so Matthew could have gotten a Greek disciple of his to put it all together into good Greek and it would still have apostolic authority.

      Like

    • “I think the author misunderstands what Matthews statement about the Nazarene means. It does not mean literally that a number of OT prophets all prophecy that Jesus will be called a Nazarene. Realistically this would not be possible. It does not fit in the pattern of OT scripture.”

      Well how convenient! But tell that to Matthew. When he said that it was said through the Prophets, he meant through the Prophets. Your special pleading only goes to show how desperate christian apologists are.

      Liked by 2 people

  10. A claim of authorship can be equally falsified or fabricated just as the text itself so it doesn’t decrease the probability that this has occurred and a good example of this are the chains of narration which islamic apologists are fond of mentioning.

    I think the author misunderstands what Matthews statement about the Nazarene means. It does not mean literally that a number of OT prophets all prophecy that Jesus will be called a Nazarene. Realistically this would not be possible. It does not fit in the pattern of OT scripture.

    Unitarians project the Father of the NT on to Jehovah of the OT. If Jehovah of the OT was a father then he was a father in the complete trinitarian form of God as it is revealed in the NT. So the prophecy of Isaiah is not inconsistent with the trinity as Jesus was a father to Israel, along with the other persons of the trinity, before his incarnation.

    Like

  11. “Regarding the tense, brother Paul W. is absolutely correct that gramatically the verses were definitely written in the past tense. ”

    I don’t see any translations quoted in biblehub that give a past tense 7 v 14.

    Makes no sense in the context because it was dependent on the response of the king.

    PW’s translation is not even recognized as such.

    Isn’t the use of the word spirit confusing in Islam? In one case it means Jesus, in another Gabriel. Very confusing or not? Can Allah not define his terms more clearly?

    Like

  12. @ Ken

    Yeah the meaning is plain that your books are corrupt. Thank you we all agree on that.

    Liked by 2 people

  13. When br paul asks “are you going to refer to anything i just said”? I laughed with him lol

    Liked by 2 people

  14. But only Isaiah used netser for the branch. The others used a completely different word.

    You using a “word-study fallacy” rather than understanding all the relevant concepts in the prophets of branch, shoot, root, the concept of being despised and rejected, which is all over the prophets about the suffering servant Messiah and the connections to the city of Nazareth as a despised Northern City, in “Galillee of the Gentiles”, despised and rejected by the Southern Judahites.

    Like

    • You being a fool cannot refute my point, and instead babble on about the supposed “suffering Messiah” and the “connections to the city of Nazareth…”, which is nothing more than a non-sequitur. I have already shown that there is no etymological link between “netser” and “Nazareth”. Get over it, you pompous clown.

      Liked by 1 person

  15. The Jesus of history = the Jesus of Islam?
    Fundamentalist apologetics.
    Most Western non-Muslim specialists in the Qur’an disagree with you.

    Like

    • Another gem from the undecided voter? Most people don’t give a flip what you think.

      And actually, most “Western non-Muslims specialists” would agree with Islamic teachings that Jesus considered himself a prophet and the Messiah, but not God.

      Liked by 1 person

    • do they? Evidence..

      Like

      • The Jesus of History did not speak after his birth. He did not turn clay birth into living ones etc. pp
        And was crucified by the Romans.

        Like

      • Well, there you go! Once again, the undecided voter gives us a lesson in the historical method!

        Oh, but wait. there is just one problem. Historians don’t deal with miracles, just like scientists don’t deal with the supernatural. It doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

        But what historians have concluded about the historical Jesus (pbuh) coincides perfectly with the Islamic perspective. Jesus (pbuh) saw himself as a prophet and servant of God. This is what Islam teaches.

        Liked by 3 people

      • “But what historians have concluded about the historical Jesus (pbuh) coincides perfectly with the Islamic perspective. Jesus (pbuh) saw himself as a prophet and servant of God. This is what Islam teaches.”

        This kind of apologetic nonsense is symptomatic for the overall incredibility of this blog.

        Like

      • Another brilliant gem from the uv (I decided to an acronym to save time from now on)!

        Let me translate for the uv: I got owned and don’t know how to respond, so I’ll just it’s nonsense and run away.

        Like

      • “But what historians have concluded about the historical Jesus (pbuh) coincides perfectly with the Islamic perspective.”
        Historians conclude the Jesus of history was a prophet of Jewish apocalypticism, NOT a prophet of Islam.

        “Jesus (pbuh) saw himself as a prophet and servant of God. This is what Islam teaches.”
        Historical Jesus predicted the imminent end of wordly status quo, imminent day of judgement, the arrival of a celestial figure Son of Man…
        This has nothing to do with Islam.

        Like

      • Lol! The uv is feeling a little frisky today!

        Jesus was a monotheist who worshiped the God of Abraham. That makes him a Muslim, you idiot!

        As for Jesus supposedly preaching the end of the world, this is not a matter of consensus. For example, the late Geza Vermes was of the view that the apocalyptic prophecies in the NT reflected the beliefs of the early church and not necessarily that of Jesus.

        Like

      • “Historians don’t deal with miracles, just like scientists don’t deal with the supernatural.”

        Historians show us there is nothing supernatural in copy pasted “miracles” from apocryphal Christian sources. Thank God one may add.

        Like

      • Moving the goalpost, eh uv? As I said, historians don’t deal with stories of miracles. Having no way to respond to this, you decide to change the subject. Isn’t that typical of most misinformed uvs?

        Liked by 2 people

  16. @ QB

    Well, Ken has condemned you to Hell for calling him a fool but if its any consolation, David, Paul and Jesus will be there with you according to his books:

    The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds; there is none who does good. (Psalm 14:1)

    O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? zIt was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly aportrayed as crucified. (Galatians 3:1)

    You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or wthe temple that has made the gold sacred? (Matt 23:17)

    Liked by 1 person

  17. “The Bible is God-breathed and established 600 years before your late book and late prophet.

    Muhammad got a lot of his information from fables, apocryphal sources, myths, Jewish Midrash commentaries, heretical works, etc.”

    Here we go again. Ken goes on one of his trade-mark rambling sessions.

    The Bible is a hodge-podge of writings by anonymous con-artists and heretics. Later on, I will show the Bible borrowed from multiple non-canonical sources, but for now, suffice it to say that no rational person believes that the Bible is “God-breathed” or “established”. Debates about canonicity raged for centuries, and even today, there are different canons of the Bible. Kenny is a…what do you call it…oh yes…a FOOL.

    Liked by 2 people

  18. “Even Bart Ehrman recognizes the falsehood of the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew:

    Mary, Jesus and the Palm Tree

    Now, in Koran 19:22-26 a story is told of Mary being pregnant with Jesus and then traveling to a far place to give birth where she then rests under a palm tree. God tells her to shake the trunk of the tree so dates would drop from it. Then she ate and drank becoming refreshed. This tale is found in the uninspired apocryphal book The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew (a.k.a. “History of the Nativity of Mary and the Infancy of the Savior”). It says,

    “Mary was fatigued by the excessive heat of the sun in the desert; and seeing a palm tree, she said to Joseph: Let me rest a little under the shade of this tree. . . . she looked up to the foliage of the palm, and saw it full of fruit, and said to Joseph: I wish it were possible to get some of the fruit of this palm. And Joseph said to her . . . I am thinking more of the want of water, because the skins are now empty, and we have none wherewith to refresh ourselves and our cattle. Then the child Jesus . . . said to the palm: O tree, bend thy branches, and refresh my mother with thy fruit. And immediately at these words the palm bent its top down to the very feet of the blessed Mary; and they gathered from it fruit, with which they were all refreshed” (The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, Ch. 20).

    As to the dating of this apocryphal book, Bart Ehrman argues for a date of composition in the first quarter of the seventh century which is prior to the rise of Islam and the spread of the Koran. He notes,

    “M. Berthold has argued that Pseudo-Matthew shows evidence of literary dependence on the Vita Agnetis of Pseudo-Ambrose, which itself was used in the De Virginitate of Aldhelm of Malmesbury in 690 CE. On these grounds, Psuedo-Matthew must obviously date to some time in the mid seventh-century at the earliest. In the most thorough analysis to date, Gijsel has maintained that even though direct literary dependence on the Rule of Benedict cannot be demonstrated, there are enough general similarities to suggest that the book was written when monastic orders were beginning to expand in the West, by someone invested in them. Largely on these grounds he makes a convincing argument that the text was produced in the first quarter of the seventh century, by a monk in the Latin-speaking West. . .” (Bart Ehrman, The Other Gospels, [Oxford University Press, 2014], p. 39).

    Thus, again we have the Koran orally borrowing fables from uninspired, earlier books.”

    Kenny’s stupidity knows no bounds! Notice how Ehrman clearly states that the book may have been written in the “first quarter of the seventh century, BY A MONK IN THE LATIN-SPEAKING WEST…” There are 2 points to make here:

    1. First quarter of the 7th century would mean between 600-625 CE, which is right around the time the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was preaching in Mecca, and eventually in Medina.
    2. It was probably written in Latin, which would have made it inaccessible to Arabs.

    These points are emphasized in Mustafa Akyol’s book “The Islamic Jesus”. He states:

    “…others recalled that this apocryphal gospel was ‘composed at a date too late to have had an impace on the Qur’anic text,’ and also written in the Latin language somewhere in the Christian West, a medium far removed from the Arabic Qur’an” (p. 116).

    Akyol also points to the discovery of a church in 1992 roughly midway between Jerusalem and Bethlehem. It was a Byzantine church known as the “Seat of the God-bearer”. On the site of this church, according to a 6th century pilgrim known as the “Piacenza Pilgrim”, there was a stream of water which he described as “indescribably sweet to drink…” (pp. 116-117).

    So what we have here is a far older tradition than just the narrative in Pseudo-Matthew. Moreover, some scholars actually date Pseudo-Matthew to as late as the 9th century. This includes Daniel Wallace (p. 244, n. 43).

    So Kenny’s stupidity and poor research are exposed again.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Amazing refutation, brother!
      Robert Miller, in his book borne divine, said it’s written between 8th CE-9th CE (i.e. After Islam)
      The Westminster Dictionary of New Testament and Early Christian Literature and Rhetoric says it’s written between between 8th CE-9th CE.

      The Qura’nic narrative is unique to begin with even if that gospel had been written before Islam which is NOT the case.

      Liked by 1 person

  19. @ Ken

    You’re absolutely right I misread the command so please forgive me. The verse in context is taking about calling a “brother” (i.e. a fellow Christian) a fool:

    brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.

    1. Since QB is talking to a disbeliever not a fellow Christian this does not apply to him.

    2. Since David(as) is talking to disbelievers this does not apply to him

    3. Since Jesus(as) is talking to disbelievers it does not apply to him

    4. BUT Paul IS talking to fellow Christians so the verse DOES apply to him.

    Let that sink in for a bit…

    Liked by 1 person

  20. “Thus, Muhammad incorrectly assumed these uninspired, apocryphal, invented Gnostic tales he heard orally were reliable and included them into the Koran. What a disaster. Muhammad did not have the Bible translated into Arabic, so he could not check if such stories were reliable and canonical.”

    LOL, the non-sequiturs are amazing! Just because something is not found in your so-called “canonical” gospels does not mean it cannot be true. Even the gospel of John states that Jesus performed many miracles which could not be documented.

    Liked by 1 person

  21. “Companions of the Cave

    In Koran 18:8-25 we are told about a legend of companions of the cave. In this story a group of seven youths and their dog take refuge in a cave from danger and miraculously they are able to sleep in it for about three-hundred years, after which they wake up and leave.

    This legend of seven sleepers or companions in a cave actually comes from two uninspired Syriac homilies of Jacob of Sarug in the early 6th century as well as Gregory of Tours’ Latin version from the late 6th century (Gabriel, Said, Reynolds, Seven Sleepers, ed. Josef W. Meri, Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia, [Routledge, 2006], p. 720). The story spread rapidly into other languages after its composition showing how attractive the silly legend was (Gabriel, Said, Reynolds, Seven Sleepers, ed. Josef W. Meri, Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia, [Routledge, 2006], p. 720).”

    Again, just because something is not in your gospels does not mean it cannot be true.

    Like

  22. Now that I have refuted Kenny’s desperate rambling session, let us now look at examples of Biblical borrowing from pagan, apocryphal and other sources. This is not a complete list, but just what I can come with off the top of my head.

    1. Genesis 49 – Jacob’s prayer for his sons

    “But his bow remained steady,
    his strong arms stayed[l] limber,
    because of the hand of the Mighty One of Jacob,
    because of the Shepherd, the Rock of Israel,
    25
    because of your father’s God, who helps you,
    because of the Almighty,[m] who blesses you
    with blessings of the skies above,
    blessings of the deep springs below,
    blessings of the breast and womb.” (Gen. 49: 24-25)

    As Mark S. Smith states in his book “The Early History of God” (1990):

    “B. Vawter, D.N. Freedman, and M. O’Connor argue that verses 24-26, part of the blessings to Joseph, represent a series of divine epithets, including two titles of Asherah” (p. 16).

    Smith also states:

    “The phrase sadayim waraham in verse 25e echoes Ugaritic titles of the goddesses Asherah and Anat” (p. 17).

    And later he states:

    “Breasts-and-Womb might be a title attributed to a goddess, paired with the standard male imagery of El as father” (p. 19).

    So, the Bible borrowed from pagan mythology and egregiously applied it to a prayer of the blessed Jacob for his son Joseph (pbut)!

    2. Daniel 7 – The Ancient of Days

    I have pointed this out many times. The “Ancient of Days” is an aged deity with white hair. This is a direct copy of the Ugaritic descriptions of El.

    3. Revelation 12 – The Woman Clothed with the Sun

    the “woman” is most certainly a reference to the Church and not to Mary. Of course, the “child” that she gave birth to was the Messiah (i.e. Jesus), and the “dragon” that tried to “devour” him was Satan. Yet these “signs” were most probably based on the author’s knowledge of ancient pagan myths. For example, many scholars point to the similarities between the imagery of Revelation 12 and the myth of the birth of the pagan god Apollo. As Professor Pheme Perkins of Boston College explains:

    “[t]he ‘woman clothed with the sun’ would easily remind the audience of the Roman use of the story of the sun god, Apollo. […] The Apollo myth said that Python was seeking to kill Leto, who was pregnant with Apollo, Zeus’ son. Zeus has the north wind rescue Leto by carrying her off to an island. Poseidon, the sea god, then contributes to rescuing the woman by covering the island with waves.”[95]

    Similarly, John Pippy sees parallels between Revelation 12 and the “woman clothed with the sun” and Egyptian mythology regarding the goddess Nut. He states:

    “Nut plays an important role, not only in events surrounding the daily birth of the sun-god at sunrise, but also in the sun-god’s struggle against evil forces which strive to destroy him before he can complete his reign in the daytime sky…”[96]

    https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2015/05/31/the-book-of-revelation/

    Another pagan source for the supposed “God-breathed” and “canonical” Bible. This is getting embarrassing!

    4. The Nativity – Gospel of Matthew

    Regarding the myth of the Magi, Geza Vermes observed:

    It is conceivable that another relatively recent event influenced Matthew and prompted him to introduce the Magi into his narrative. This was the visit to Rome in the late 50s or early 60s AD of the Armenian king Tiridates and his courtiers, whom Pliny the Elder designates as Magi (Natural History 30:6, 16-17). This Tiridates is said to have come to Rome to worship the emperor-god Nero in the same way as Matthew’s Magi came to worship the newborn Messiah of the Jews. A further curious coincidence which may have caught Matthew’s attention is a detail noted by the Roman chronicler Cassius Dio. After Tiridates had been confirmed by Nero as king, this group of ‘Magi,’ like the ‘wise men’ of the New Testament, did not return by the same route as the one they followed coming to Rome (Roman History 63:1-7).” (The Nativity: History and Legend (London: Penguin Books, 2006), p. 112.)

    5. Jude and Enoch

    The Book of Jude (a canonical book) makes reference to the book of Enoch (an apocryphal book). Jude 1:14-15 states:

    “Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all of them of all the ungodly acts they have committed in their ungodliness, and of all the defiant words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.””

    Scholars have recognized that this passage is taken from 1 Enoch 1:9. (http://wesley.nnu.edu/index.php?id=2126)

    So there you go. That’s all I can think of for now. If I find more, I will post them here.

    Like

    • @ QB

      Oh, nice Iknow I for one would like a comprehensive list.

      Also, I noticed Ken is still shedding those crocodile tears for Persia and Rome. Is he not aware QB that they provoked those fights by arming the apostates during the Ridda Wars and not just sitting their bathing next to their chocolate rivers and gumdrop forests?

      Liked by 1 person

      • Qur’an, Surah 9:28-29 – “fight the people of the book”, etc.

        What is really interesting is verse 28 – “if you fear poverty, soon Allah will enrich you”. the reason for that was because Muhammad had conquered the Hijaz (the Arabian peninsula, especially around Mecca and Medina, and no pagans or idol worshippers were allowed. That means the Muslims could not get tax or penalty money from the pagans. Surah 9:5 – “fight the unbelievers where ever you find them”, proves this, and several Hadith that says “no two religions will be allowed on the Arabian peninsula” see Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 288, and other Hadiths, quoted at the bottom of this article *) They were all killed or driven out or converted to Islam. So now, there is no revenue from the pilgrimmages, so, according to verses 28-29, they will allow the Christians and Jews to be in the Islamic state, provided they surrender and don’t fight/resist, and pay the Jiziye with humiliation, and they cannot evangelize or build new churches or even criticize Islam.

        Qur’an 9:28—O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.

        Qur’an 9:29—Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

        Qur’an 9:30—The Jews call Uzair a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the son of God. That is a saying from their mouth; (In this) they but imitate what the Unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!

        Ibn Kathir, The Battles of the Prophet, pp. 183-4— “Allah, Most High, ordered the believers to prohibit the disbelievers from entering or coming near the sacred Mosque. On that, Quraish thought that this would reduce their profits from trade. Therefore, Allah, Most High, compensated them and ordered them to fight the people of the Book until they embrace Islam or pay the Jizyah. Allah says, “O ye who believe! Truly the pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise. Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” Therefore, the Messenger of Allah decided to fight the Romans in order to call them to Islam.”

        Tafsir Ibn Kathir (on Qur’an 9:30)—”Fighting the Jews and Christians is legislated because they are idolaters and disbelievers. Allah the Exalted encourages the believers to fight the polytheists, disbelieving Jews and Christians, who uttered this terrible statement and utter lies against Allah, the Exalted. As for the Jews, they claimed that Uzayr was the son of God, Allah is free of what they attribute to Him. As for the misguidance of Christians over Isa, it is obvious.”

        Like

      • Another copy and paste rant. You want to take this one Stew? 😁

        Like

      • “copy and paste” From my own article: (why not? rather than have to retype everything?)

        https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2014/08/14/dhimmi-%D8%B0%D9%85%D9%91%DB%8C-in-islam/

        Like

      • Lol! And you copied that from “Answering Muslims”! 🤣😂🤣

        Give it up Kenny. Every time you open your mouth, you expose yourself as a charlatan more and more.

        Like

      • If they correctly documented from Ibn Kathir, the Qur’an, and Hadith, why not use them?
        No one has refuted their logic and reason and use of those texts.

        It is you who are a charlatan and you don’t know how to be honest with your own texts.

        Like

      • You are an idiot. Why not just shut your mouth so you can stop embarrassing yourself? So you admit to copying and pasting? Yes? 😂

        Like

      • More copy and pasting? Do you enjoy embarrassing yourself?

        Like

      • Where did Jesus say, “I am God, worship me”? As we have
        seen, Jesus claimed to be the First and the Last, the forgiver of
        sins, the Light, the Truth, the Final Judge, and the
        Resurrection. Jesus proclaimed that he had glory with the
        Father before the world was created, that he is Lord of the
        Sabbath and of King David, that he had seen Abraham, and
        that he is greater than God‟s Temple. Jesus has a unique
        relationship with the Father, he can answer prayers, he is with
        his followers no matter where they are, he has total authority
        on earth and in heaven, he is with his followers forever, and
        he owns everything. Jesus even demanded that he be honored
        just as the Father is honored. While someone may argue that
        one or two of these points could be interpreted differently,
        when we see them as a whole, these obviously are not the
        claims of a mere human being. They are not even the claims
        of a mighty prophet. These are claims only God can truly
        make. This is why Christians believe that Jesus is God.
        POSTSCRIPT: THE ISLAMIC DILEMMA
        Since the Bible obviously supports the Christian view of
        Jesus, Muslims who want to deny the deity of Christ will have
        to argue that the Gospel has been corrupted. But if the Gospel
        has been corrupted, why does the Qur‟an command Christians
        to judge by the Gospel? By commanding us to judge by what
        we find in the Gospel, the Qur‟an has inadvertently ordered
        Christians to reject Islam!
        But it gets worse for Muslims. The Qur‟an affirms the
        inspiration and reliability of the Christian Scriptures (3:3-4,
        5:47, 5:66, 7:157, 10:94), as well as man‟s inability to corrupt
        God‟s Word (6:114-115, 18:27). Muslims therefore cannot
        reject what the Gospel says, which leaves them with quite a
        dilemma. If the Gospel is reliable, Islam must be false, since
        the Gospel presents Jesus as God. Alternatively, if the Gospel
        is unreliable, Islam must be false, because the Qur‟an tells us
        that the Gospel is the Word of God. Either way, Islam is false,
        and anyone who is searching for the truth will never find it in
        the Qur‟an.

        Like

      • Kenny is getting desperate yet again! Since he has been utterly smoked for like the 5th time, he goes on another long rant in a desperate attempt to change the subject.

        No one cares what the Bible claims what Jesus said. We cannot trust this book, as it was written by anonymous con-artists who had theological agendas. They copied from pagan myths and other sources, thereby proving that they were not “inspired”.

        Give up your man-worship, you idolater. Is it really worth your soul to be so engrossed in idolatry?

        Liked by 2 people

      • Not changing the subject; rather showing that cutting and pasting is good when the content is good and right and truthful and it saves time to “cut and paste”. Nothing wrong with it. Deal with it and smoke in your Qaliyoon pipe. قلیون

        Like

      • No, no Kenny. All it shows is that the blind are leading the blind. You have been smoked so many times for being a blind copy-paster, which is why you keep jumping from topic to topic. You are a pathetic loser. Smoke that and get over it. 😆

        Like

    • Anything can be associated with anything in this manner. Non sequitur.

      Like

    • Yes, everyone that I know agrees that Jude used / alluded to the information in the non-canonical Book of Enoch, in Jude 1:14-15.

      It only means that correct information was in the Book of Enoch, not that the whole thing was inspired.

      The book of Enoch was never a part of the Roman Catholic Apocrypha books. (note: difference between “The Apocrypha” (noun, a set of intertestamental books) vs. apocryphal (adjective).

      The other issues (Jacobs’ Prayer in Genesis 49; the Magi, Revelation 12) are not convincing and seem forced.

      Like

      • Pathetic! Once again, we see Kenny’s bias and double standards. Thank you Kenny for showing everyone why you are a laughing stock!

        Your excuses show that you always want the benefit of the doubt for your silly scriptures but would never extend that same benefit to the scriptures of other religions.

        Your claim that the other examples “are not convincing” is further proof that you are not to be taken seriously. The parallels between your Bible and the other sources are clear to those with a rational mind and who are not blinded by their trinitarian bias.

        Like

      • Not really, seeing that the “Magi” was a common word for the eastern group of wise men among both the Babylonians, Persians, and Medes, and in fact, the Greek word “magos” μαγος comes from the Iranian word for the Zoroastrian priests, Moq مغ – they viewed fire as a symbol of the good god in Zoroastrian thought – Ahura Mazda – and the Arabs assumed they were “fire-worshippers” and the hard g sound was changed to a “j” sound – Majoosian – مجوسیان

        So the entourage with the Armenian king who came to see Nero is just common understandings for “wise men of the east”.

        The Greeks, when they conquered Persia, associated those Zoroastrian and religious priests with “magic”, which our English word also derives from. The English word is used to translate the words in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek (which came from Persian) to describe the wise men, priests, religious leaders of both the Babylonians and Persians and Medes in the book of Daniel.

        Like

      • They came to worship Nero and even took a different route back home. That sounds a lot like Matthew’s myth of the magi. No wonder he was the only one to mention it. He certainly had an imaginative mind!

        Like

      • similarity does not prove literary dependence

        Like

      • You would want that, wouldn’t you trinitarian?

        Like

      • “The Ancient of Days” and El in Ugaritic.

        These are common ancient near east ideas. “El” was used by pagans in a pagan sense. But just because the etymology is cousin / cognate with Elohim, Eloha, Eloah, Allah, Ela, etc. – does not mean that Muslims are not seeking / attempting to worship the one true Creator God of Monotheism. In the same way “Ancient of Days” is a way of expressing the eternal nature of God into eternity past (a difficult concept to grasp); and the hair as white as snow, white as wool, etc (Daniel 7:9) is a symbol of the wisdom and omniscience of God.

        It does not mean that there is borrowing; rather it means that even pagans have vestigates of the truth of the one true God – as in Romans 1:18-26; 2:13-15; Ecclesiastes 3:11-14; Psalm 19:1; Acts 17 – creation, the cosmos, design, order, beauty, morality, family, right and wrong, justice, etc. – all these things point to the truth of the One true God of the Bible. (both OT and NT – Trinitarian Monotheism)

        Like

      • Is everyone seeing this? This guy is hilarious! Notice the special pleading and double standards littered throughout his rant. Amazing!

        El was an aged deity. So was God in Daniel 7. That was a direct copy of the Canaanite myth.

        Like

      • Except El and the Ancient of Days in the Hebrew Scriptures is about the one true Montheistic God – the Sovereign Creator.

        Whereas the others are pagan.

        So, you have no prove of “direct copy”.

        Like

      • Except that the sovereign God is not an old man. Your Bible is a copy of pagan mythology. Get over it.

        Liked by 2 people

      • God is not an elderly man, true. But a wise, elderly man is a symbol / manifestation in a vision of His wisdom. Metaphorical language.

        Like

      • Your problem is bigger than that, believe me.

        Like

      • “God is not an elderly man, true. But a wise, elderly man is a symbol / manifestation in a vision of His wisdom. Metaphorical language.”

        The lies keep coming out of your mouth! Have you no shame?

        Daniel had a VISION. In this “VISION”, he saw God seated on a throne. He had white hair like an old man. There is nothing “metaphorical” here.

        Like

  23. “Nowhere does the Bible (OT & NT) claim it is God-breathed. ”

    My bible does:

    For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

    All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

    Liked by 1 person

  24. King James Bible

    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, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

    None of the translations on biblehub agree with Mr. Kisam.

    Like

  25. “Debates about canonicity raged for centuries, and even today, there are different canons of the Bible. ”

    There never was and never will be a formal ecclesiastical authority to decide the matter. The church did and could decide for itself without being dictated to by any human authority.

    if the apochrypha was in it would have been in by being read from the beginning.

    Like

    • How do you know they weren’t being read from the beginning? You see how you assume things? That’s the problem with trinitarians.

      Jude clearly relied on Enoch, so it was being read at that time. Why wasn’t it included?

      Like

  26. How do you know Enoch was written before Jude?

    Like

  27. Here is another example of Biblical authors using their creative license to copy and adapt the myths of their time to their agendas:

    The myth of a revivified Nero coming to conquer Rome with Parthian support was commonly believed around the time Revelation was written. Thus, it is not surprising that Revelation contains a clear “prophecy” of armies from the east coming to fight for the beast:

    “[t]he sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up to prepare the way for the kings from the East.”[121]

    Commenting on this verse, Mounce states:

    “…the historical context of John’s imagery favors the interpretation of the kings as Parthian rulers.”[122]

    In fact, the myth of Nero leading an army from Parthia was widely known even to non-Romans and invariably found its way into Jewish and Christian circles as well. Scholars have long known that the myth of “Nero redivivus” is found in apocryphal works like the Sibylline Oracles and the Ascension of Isaiah.[123] As for the former, Mounce explains that (emphasis in the original):

    “[t]he tradition that Nero, although dying by his own hand, would return from the East leading a great army of Parthian warriors is preserved in the Sibylline Oracles (4:115-39).”[124]

    Even if apologists could somehow prove that a Parthian army led by Nero was not what the author of Revelation had in mind, but rather some Russian or Middle Eastern (Islamic) army in modern times, they must still ask themselves some logical questions: what modern army would need the Euphrates River to dry up first before it could advance on the Holy Land? What modern army, using technology like helicopters and airplanes, would be held back because of a river, as the Book of Revelation claims? The fact is that when the Book of Revelation was written, the Euphrates River served to separate the Roman Empire from the Parthian Empire. It was a natural barrier which served to keep Rome safe from a Parthian invasion.[125] Hence, given that the first two clues provide strong evidence of the Nero myth in Revelation, there is little doubt that the author of Revelation had Nero in mind.

    https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2015/05/31/the-book-of-revelation/

    Liked by 1 person

    • There is a lot of evidence that “666” = Nero Caesar in Hebrew.
      and the kings of Revelation 17:9-10 – one is – points to Nero being the Emperor at the time of the writing of the book of Revelation. So maybe Revelation was written around 67-68 AD, before Nero killed himself.

      “five have fallen, one is” – if you start with Julius Caesar you end up on the sixth one being Nero.

      1. Julius Caesar
      2. Augustus
      3. Tiberias
      4. Caligula
      5. Claudius

      “five have fallen”

      “one is”

      6. Nero

      note: I don’t necessarily endorse any other thing as this website, just that that chart is convenient to “copy and paste”. yeah. I did it. Copy and pasting is a good thing when truthful and useful and saves time too!

      Like

      • Actually christians don’t know if it’s 666 or 616 according to Daniel Wallace.

        Liked by 1 person

      • A Latin copyist when translating Revelation into Latin put 616 because it added up to Neron Casar in Latin. Or it is a different spelling of the name Nero by dropping the final n in Neron. (Metzger, 2003, p. 308) Both point to Nero. In Hebrew it was written “Neron Casar”

        Like

      • It’s very ironic that the mark of beast is one of God’s servants according to your prophet Paul. What a mess!

        Liked by 2 people

      • Only if the government is doing the authority that it is suppossed to do. (punish evil doers and reward good people who obey the law) If you read Romans 13 and 1 Peter chapter 2 you would see that he does not approve of everything, but only the authority to do right vs. wrong – government does not have the authority from God to do wrong or oppression.

        Like

      • //f the government is doing the authority that it is suppossed to do.//
        Let’s see,
        When Paul said those words, the Roman Empire was an occupier of the holy land, it’s a dictatorship form of authrity, It’s soaked in Paganism, for killing the jews, and it’s in the buseiness of conquering. However, they are the servants of God whom you should obey should obey, and “anyone who rebels against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and they will be punished”!
        Remind me, what’s your problem with Islam exactly, mr hypocrite?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Ken gets nuked again.

        It seems to me that there was a definite attempt on the part of Paul to placate the Roman authorities.

        Like

      • Unlike you Kenny, I actually research everything. I don’t lazily copy and paste.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Yeah, I know there is lots of evidence that Nero is the beast in Revelation. That is why Revelation is a false book. None of its so-called “prophecies” came true. Thank you for confirming what I was saying! You should leave Christianity now!

      The author of Revelation was just another con-artist pretending to be “inspired” and deceiving people with his supposed “visions”. But all he was doing was taking the pagan myths of his time and adapting them for Christians. The use of 666 (616) and other proofs show this clearly. I documented all of it in my article.

      Liked by 1 person

  28. “2 Timothy 3:15 = OT
    2 Timothy 3:16-17 = all Scripture, both OT and NT, in principle, since he quoted from both OT and NT in 1 Timothy 5:18.”

    Still not getting it. 🤦

    Did Paul quote from every single book in both the Tanakh and the New Testament? Come on, Kenny! Think!

    Like

    • He did not have to – 2 Tim. 3:15 shows that he already thought all the OT Tanakh was holy Scripture.

      They he expands the principle to “all Scripture” in verse 16. Since he quoted NT also (Luke 10:7; Matthew 10:10) and he includes all of his letters – 1 Cor. 2:10-16; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; and Peter affirms all of Paul’s letters also as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16), then the principle is taught for even books that were not written yet in 67 AD when Paul wrote 2 Tim. and Peter wrote 2 Peter.

      Like

      • “He did not have to – 2 Tim. 3:15 shows that he already thought all the OT Tanakh was holy Scripture.”

        My goodness. Your idiocy knows no bounds. Do you know what the meaning of a “non sequitur” is?

        You said that Paul quoted from both the OT and the NT. But the NT was not yet complete, so what he regarded as “scripture” would have been very different from what you regard as “scripture”.

        In order for your statement about the OT to make sense, you would have to show that Paul quoted from every single book from the Tanakh as you have it. Of course, you cannot do that. Therefore, your statement is nothing more than a non sequitur.

        “They he expands the principle to “all Scripture” in verse 16. Since he quoted NT also (Luke 10:7; Matthew 10:10) and he includes all of his letters – 1 Cor. 2:10-16; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; and Peter affirms all of Paul’s letters also as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16), then the principle is taught for even books that were not written yet in 67 AD when Paul wrote 2 Tim. and Peter wrote 2 Peter.”

        First a non sequitur, and then another one! The stupidity never ends with Kenny!

        2 Peter “affirms all of Paul’s letters” you say? How do you know he was referring to “all” of Paul’s letters as you know them?

        And 2 Peter was written by Peter? Do you really think you can get away with that lie? No Kenny, 2 Peter was not written by Peter. It was written by yet another anonymous con-artist. Moreover, the historical evidence shows that there were major debates regarding 2 Peter. Keith Akers notes that the Muratorian canon fails to mention Hebrews, 1 Peter, 2 Peter and others like James “The Lost Religion of Jesus: Simple Living and Nonviolence in Early Christianity, p. 16”. He also states that even by the time of Eusebius, there were disputes surrounding James, Jude, 2 Peter and 2 John.

        Like

  29. the Muratorian canon fails to mention Hebrews, 1 Peter, 2 Peter and others like James “The Lost Religion of Jesus: Simple Living and Nonviolence in Early Christianity, p. 16”. He also states that even by the time of Eusebius, there were disputes surrounding James, Jude, 2 Peter and 2 John.

    Yes, everyone knows these facts. I learned that in 1984-1985 in church history classes in seminary. (Early Christianity, Roland Bainton, pages 132-134. see also, F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, pages 158-169.)

    But the Muratorian canon does affirm all four gospels, Acts, the 13 letters of Paul, Jude, 1-2 John, and Revelation.

    Yes, some areas disputed or questioned some books, but other areas knew of them and accepted them. So?

    Clement of Rome, one of the earliest non-canonical early church writers, affirms Hebrews. ( 96 AD)

    I Peter is affirmed by Polycarp, Mathetas, Irenaeus, Tertullian

    Like

    • And yet like a typical liar, you try to make it sound like your pathetic Canon was decided from the beginning! Your lies keep getting exposed.

      “So”, you ask? Well, what is shows that you Christians couldn’t agree on which books were Canon and which weren’t. These disagreements would not have arisen if the authorship was certain. Ding, ding, ding!

      Like

      • @QB

        Ken:
        So, what that we don’t know who wrote our books. We all agreed on it for no reason so there.

        Also just want to throw this out there, Erasmus just tried to make it sound like all Christians were reading the same things.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Exactly. These guys are all liars. Did you see how Ken tried to act like it’s nothing new and that “everyone knows this”. But if he knows full well that his Canon was not stabilized until centuries after Jesus, then why is he pretending like it was set from the beginning? He is just a list, plain and simple.

        Like

      • Since they were all individual and separate scrolls in the first and second centuries -there was no such thing as a book like our modern books with a binding – the first codexes were individual sheets tied together in late 2nd century and early third century. – since they were separate scrolls sent to different areas, it is natural to see that many churches and areas did not have all the scrolls all at one time. And because of persecution, and difficulty of travel and communication, it took time to get all of them under one “book cover” so to speak.

        The canon in its original meaning (criterion, standard, rule, measuring rod) was already in existence in the first century, as soon as the ink dried on each document.

        As soon as the ink dried on each of the 27 documents at the time of their writing; they were God-breathed Scripture. The process of discovering and sifting is a different issue. Ontology vs. Discernment / discover of what already existed.

        Like

      • See Stew? Ken keeps lying through his teeth.

        Like

      • That is not lying. It is true facts of early church history. you are an evil character. You don’t know how to argue with good methods. you don’t obey Surah 29:46
        All you do is name calling and ad hominem and sinful anger methods.

        Like

      • Whining again Kendra? The only evil is coming from you, you lying demon. You lie through your teeth to uphold your idolatrous religion.

        I’ve refuted every piece of garbage you have brought. It’s not ad hominem when I refute you and then mock you in the process. It’s just good ol fun! 😁

        Like

      • You have not refuted anything. You are pitiful little person with an arrogant wicked heart. Difference of opinion is different than lying. At least Stew’s behavior is better. You discredit your religion as you violate Surah 29:46, which is good – keep up your sinful anger and hatred and insults and ad hominem attacks – it helps show Islam for what it does to people’s hearts.

        You have not remedy for the internal sins of hatred and anger and bitterness, jealousies, arrogance, pride, lust, etc.
        Mark 7:20-23

        All you have is dead external rituals and threats of Sharia punishments to keep in line – fear and dread. Dead legalisms.

        Like

      • You are an evil, blind trinitarian pagan who knowingly lies and spreads falsehoods as truth. You deserved to be mocked for that. Get over it demon. I refuted you on everything and you have been desperately bouncing around all the topics you brought up. You even inadvertently proved that the Bible is false by admitting that Revelation was speaking about Nero! 🤣😂

        Liked by 1 person

      • How does understanding Nero as 666 and the king as “one is” at the time of writing in Rev. 17:9-10 lead to proving it is false?

        You need to research more.

        Kenneth Gentry – Before Jerusalem Fell
        Gary DeMar – Last Days Madness and “End Times Fiction”
        R. C. Sproul – “The Last Days According to Jesus”

        Shows good evidence that Revelation was written before Nero died, around 67 or 68 Ad.

        You have not refuted anything at all.

        Like

      • Um idiot, if Nero was the beast, then all the prophecies pertaining to him should have been fulfilled in his time. But when did an army come from the East? When did the Euphrates dry up?

        Like

      • You refer to Revelation 16:12.
        Revelation chapters 6-19 are mixtures of past and future events; full of symbols and metaphors.

        Like

      • Irrelevant. All that matters is that Revelation falsely prophesied the return of Nero. The author incorrectly used a Roman myth, which proves that he was not “inspired”. This also proves that the Bible is not “God-breathed” and that Christianity is a false religion.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Moreover, the myth of Nero redivivus was widely believed by Romans. It was nothing more than a pagan myth, and yet the author of Revelation used it in his “visions”. Ergo, Revelation is false.

        Liked by 1 person

      • A date of composition during the reign of Nero doesn’t make sense. If anything, a date after his death is more rational. The reason is that Revelation refers to the beast as being previously wounded. This refers to Nero’s death and the belief that he would return. Obviously, the myth would only have spread after he died. However, scholars disagree on the date. Some say after Nero’s death, others say during Domitian’s reign.

        According to the USCCB, the date of the composition of the book “in its present form” was around the end of the reign of the Roman emperor Domitian, who ruled from 81-96 CE.[11]  However, according to Mounce, it has also been dated as early as the reign of the emperor Claudius (41-54 CE), and as late as Trajan (98-117 CE), though he notes that the “majority of scholars” place its authorship “either during the reign of Domitian…or toward the end or immediately after the reign of Nero…”[12]  On the other hand, Mack argues that neither the reign of Nero nor the reign of Domitian can serve as the inspiration for John’s book, but he still acknowledges a date of “around the turn of the first century”.  He states:

        “Nero’s ‘persecution’ in 64 C.E. doesn’t work because (1) it was not a persecution but an ad hoc, localized, scapegoating strategy that everyone understood to be the action of a madman, and (2) in any case was highly exaggerated by Tacitus, who reported it in order to discredit Nero.  The second ‘persecution’ under Domitian…won’t do either, although it was then that early Christian legend dated John’s Revelation.  Modern scholars cannot find any evidence for a Domitian persecution.”[13]

        Thus, it seems prudent to date the composition somewhere around the late 1st-century to the early 2nd-century, with the time period during the reign of Domitian being a strong candidate, in spite of the lack of evidence of any “persecution” during his reign.[14]

        https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2015/05/31/the-book-of-revelation/

        Liked by 1 person

      • Your whining won’t save you Kendra. Get ready for some more mocking. Lying demons deserve nothing less.

        Like

      • Go ahead and mock more – it shows your religion gives you no power over sin and anger and evil in your heart. Thanks for demonstrating how impotent Islam is to help you overcome your sinful anger and bitterness.

        Like

      • Thank you good sir, I will! And thank you for showing that Christians are impotent in the face of hard-hitting facts and mockery for their lies. 😉

        Liked by 1 person

      • “All you have is dead external rituals and threats of Sharia punishments to keep in line – fear and dread. Dead legalisms.”

        I just stand in absolute amazement at xtians who say trash like this. First they just give a statement of ‘o they are meaningless rituals with no connection to God’ as if these pagans know what a connection to God is and as if their mere saying somehow is proof as if God Himself has spoken.
        And what’s more pathetic is that the Hebrew bible is FILLED with rituals. FILLED WITH IT.
        But nooooo they are NOT meaningless and dead external rituals. Nonono, of course not. And noooo the SEVERE punishments, that will make even the Sharia shy, is not based on fear and dread or to keep everyone in line with the alternative being that everyone would leave the false pagan religion of yahweh because it’s so batently false. No of course not!!! That’s only reserved for Islam, not for the pagan religion known in the bible!
        How dare we say otherwise!

        You are a people blinded by the devil. For he has convinced you that you don’t really have to do any rituals for God. Just BELIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVE baby!
        BELIEVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE and JEEEEEESSSSSSSSUUUUUUUUUUSSSSS will give you a free ticket to Heaven? And THESE pagans have the audacity to talk about a connection to God and doing works for God????

        Liked by 3 people

      • This joker is a laughing stock for good reasons. Just look at his biased and selective answers to all the questions asked.

        Liked by 2 people

  30. @ QB
    Basically…

    Like

    • But we do know. The only anonymous book of the NT is Hebrews. could be Barnabas, Silas, Luke for Paul.

      Like

      • Another lie! Where does it say in Mark that he wrote it? Where does it say in Matthew that he wrote it?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Martin Hengel, an eminent scholar, (recently passed away) who I believe even Paul Williams used him at least once at one of his three blogs; wrote (in the quote):

        As far as the title (“kata Markov” = according to Mark), Hengel insists that the lack of the smallest shred of any other name for the gospel is important. “The unanimity of testimony to the titles of the Gospels, for which there are still no variants of any kind in this early period, rules out a late origin” (p 66) for the title.

        R. T. France has an extended discussion of this issue in his commentary on Mark, on pages 39-40.

        France points out that:

        “In contrast to this general skepticism, Martin Hengel’s Studies in the Gospel of Mark offers a robust argument for taking the patristic accounts of Mark seriously. Hengel is particularly scornful of the repeated assertion that the gospels are ‘anonymous’ documents, to which the names of authors were conjecturally attached sometime in the second century. his study on the titles of the Gospels argues that as soon as more than one written version of the ευαγγελιον was in circulation some label would be necessary in order to distinguish them, and the only such labels we know are the traditional terms κατα Μαθθαιον, κατα Μαρκον, etc. which are found with remarkable unanimity from as early as we can trace the titles of the books. Hengel points out how improbable it is that a late conjectural attribution could have produced such unanimity and left no trace of alternative attributions. He also quotes Tertullian, Adv. Marcion 4.2.3, as typical of the the view that a ‘gospel’ not bearing the name of its author could not be accepted as authoritative. It is thus altogether improbable that gospel books cold have circulated in the latter part of the first century without titles, and those titles took the form of a statement of authorship. The tradition that Mark was the author of this gospel therefore goes back even earlier than Papias, close to the time of the book’s own composition. ” (R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark, pages 39-40)

        A footnote # 80 on page 39 says:

        “. . . most modern books (including this commentary) are also ‘anonymous’; it is only on the title page and cover that the author is named. And ancient manuscripts regularly carried titles or colophons which might be expected to identify the word contained in them; it was in such titles rather than in the text itself that the author’s name would be found.”

        In short, every evidence that we have when we have the title page of the gospels, κατα Μαθθαιον, κατα Μαρκον, Κατα Λυκαν, κατα Ιωαννην (John) are all there, when extant.

        Like

      • So no evidence, just an appeal to authority. Got it.

        Liked by 1 person

      • This Roman Catholic, Dr. Brant Pitre, also did a great job in defending the gospels and shows that the 4 canonical gospels are not anonymous, contrary to Bart Ehrman and other’s claims. Pitre’s book, “The Case for Jesus” is excellent and everything I have seen it it, a Protestant would agree with. I have read most of all of it.

        Like

      • Dr. White fried Bart Ehrman to a crisp in this video, back in 2009. I remember listening to this back then and understanding how deceptive Ehrman is by being so selective in his emphasis.

        Like

      • More appeals to authority? Still no evidence? 🤦

        Liked by 1 person

      • All the quotes and videos are filled with evidence. You are just too stubborn and blind to want to research and investigate. You are too backwards and narrow to investigate the evidence. You only look for things that confirm your own presuppositions and assumptions.

        Like

      • Sure, sure. Kenny the blind copy paster is accusing others of being “narrow”. Don’t worry Kenny. Your humiliation will continue unabated.

        I’m still waiting for the evidence I asked for. Will you provide it?

        Liked by 1 person

  31. “The original context is Hezekiah, the child HAS been born”

    That doesn’t work.

    In the same chapter is a prophecy given in the past tense, that was fulfilled by Jesus.

    The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined.

    If you are looking in to the future you can describe it with the past tense as Isaiah does. That is one aspect of prophecy.

    Like

  32. You’re pathetic Kenny.
    I demolished your childish ‘Qur’an affirsm the preservation of the bible’ trash which you have YET to respond to.
    All you did was repeat yourself and now you copy paste this crossdressing pervert and dare to say ‘they have good info and have not been refuted’? LOL!!!

    Pathetic! Go to my response and watch how I answer every verse that you and that pervert names. And now be a man and refute me.

    And looool: “the forgiver of
    sins,… These are claims only God can truly
    make.”
    Well that means your godhead exists of at least 14 ‘persons’ since the disciples could forgive sins.

    Like

    • the problem is you did not demolish my points and I already responded to it.

      Like

      • I did. You “responded” but just repeated yourself and pretend that’s a refutation. Asking like ‘What scripture were they reading?’ Is that an answer???
        Whatever they were reading I told you what the Qur’anic answers were. Judge by the Gospel by using the Qur’an as a Muhaiman.
        How does asking ‘What text were they reading’ refute any of this????

        Try again!
        Refute them one by one!
        your Jesus is anything BUT God. He said he can do NOTHING by himself. All authority was GIVEN to him. He did NOT know the Hour. If Only God can forgive sins like your favorite crossdressing perv says then that makes the discples God too. And we can go on and on and on!

        Liked by 1 person

  33. And these EXPLICIT PLAIN statements from the PROPHET himself make clear what he thought:

    The Bani Israel wrote a book, they followed it and left the Torah. (This hadith was reported in Tabarani’s Al Mu’jam Al Awsat and was authenticated by Sheikh Nasr Al Deen Al Albani in his Silsila Al Ahaadeeth Al Saheeha, hadith no. 2832.)

    The Bani Israel as a long time passed and their hearts became hardened, they invented a book from themselves. It took over their hearts and their tongues. (This hadith was reported in Al Bayhaqi’s Shu’b Al Eemaan, Volume 2, no.439. Sheikh Nasr Al Deen Al Albani has authenticated this hadith in his Silsila Al Ahaadeeth Al Saheeha, hadith no. 2694.)

    You have NEVER dealt with these hadiths. NEVER, and you can’t so you’ll dance around the issue.

    Liked by 2 people

    • @ Atlas
      Yes I got tired of hearing these stupid claims and made an entire article refuting them on their lack of reading comprehension.

      I have sent this to him about 3 times now and he still keeps repeating it which is why I now ignore him on the subject.
      https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2019/02/24/corruption-of-the-scriptures-part-i-does-islam-confirm-the-bible-as-a-scripture-from-god/

      Apparently kuffar think we should ignore clear cut statements for ambiguous ones like they did in regards to trying to “prove” the Trinity.

      Liked by 2 people

      • @ Ken

        Awwww… thank you I try because Lord knows you guys are a test of patience.

        @ Atlas
        Absolutely the amount of rituals and punishments in the text is mind boggling. I mean thwy are literally called the “YHWH Cult”

        https://www.jstor.org/stable/3267625

        Liked by 1 person

      • Looks like you’ve got a groupie fan Stew!

        Liked by 1 person

      • Exactly!

        Like

      • @Stewjo004
        At the beginning of your article, you quoted Surah 6:115, but you jumped to other contexts and quoted a bunch of others, yet failed to quote the immediate context of 6:115, which is 6:114, which is an obvious indication of written Scritpure and the previous written Scriptures.

        أَفَغَيْرَ اللَّهِ أَبْتَغِي حَكَمًا وَهُوَ الَّذِي أَنزَلَ إِلَيْكُمُ الْكِتَابَ مُفَصَّلًا ۚ وَالَّذِينَ آتَيْنَاهُمُ الْكِتَابَ يَعْلَمُونَ أَنَّهُ مُنَزَّلٌ مِّن رَّبِّكَ بِالْحَقِّ ۖ فَلَا تَكُونَنَّ مِنَ الْمُمْتَرِينَ – 6:114
        SAHIH INTERNATIONAL
        [Say], “Then is it other than Allah I should seek as judge while it is He who has revealed to you the Book explained in detail?” And those to whom We [previously] gave the Scripture know that it is sent down from your Lord in truth, so never be among the doubters.

        وَتَمَّتْ كَلِمَتُ رَبِّكَ صِدْقًا وَعَدْلًا ۚ لَّا مُبَدِّلَ لِكَلِمَاتِهِ ۚ وَهُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْعَلِيمُ – 6:115
        SAHIH INTERNATIONAL
        And the word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice. None can alter His words, and He is the Hearing, the Knowing.

        So, right off, at the beginning, you failed.

        I read through the whole article, but it would take some time to investigate every detail; and more time to write up more and more. Lord willing, if I have the time, I will continue this take down of your speculations.

        But the failure at the beginning with Surah 6:114-115 is big.

        Also, the chart of the NT (and the OT) which you call “Frankenstein books” are interesting mishmashes of classical liberal theories ( I learned about the OT “JDEP Theory” and “Q” as a theory in 1983-1988 in seminary; nothing new. (Q = Quelle = Source – but no one has ever found any such document as “Q” – it is a hypothetical theory of what the source for the material in Matthew and Luke have that have in common, but that is not in Mark. There are many other 3 source and 4 source theories. But you just added in other things like just asserting, “lies”, “myths”, “secular Hellenistic Philosophy”; “Theological essays, from Philo”, etc. – all of this is conjecture on your part. You are just throwing every thing you can you into the mix to cause doubt and confusion. But the evidence is that no one has found these other documents that the liberal theories are based on. That is all they are – speculations and theories – even like one of the phrases in one of your Qur’anic passages that you quoted from:

        “All of this is just guessing into the Beyond, . . . ” (from Surah The Cave, الکهف Al Kahf 18:22-29)

        From the outset, you are still just assuming and presupposing that the “Torah” and “Gospel” were only oral revelation from God and later corrupted through the writing process and redaction process over decades, etc. (maybe you think centuries for the Torah and OT)

        And yet, the Qur’an still calls the “people of the Scripture” (اهل الکتاب ) and “the people of the Gospel” اهل الانجیل – there are still exhortations to resort to the previous written documents, even though “gospel” was first the message of Jesus that He preached orally – Mark 1:14-15. But the eyewitnesses such as Peter, John, Matthew and others contributed to all the contents we have in all four gospels. The Lord Jesus promised to “teach them all things, and to bring to their remembrance everything I have taught you” (John 14:26)

        The point is that eventually, all the truths of the gospel (and the Torah, Zobur, and Prophets) were written down, and they were all established at the time of Muhammad.

        Jesus promised the disciples that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all the truth. (John 14:26; 16:12-13), and they wrote all that is necessary down. (2 Peter 1:3-4; 12-21; 3:1; 3:15-16) Peter’s message is basically: “I am being diligent (by writing) (see especially 1:12-15 and 3:1), so that after I die and I am gone, you will have something to look to and read and stir up your minds in the truths you have been taught”. (summary of 2 Peter 1:12-21 and 3:1) “We have a more sure word of prophesy of Scripture (written) because of Peter’s eyewitness testimony and because it was written down.” (verses 19-21)

        It is late and that is all I have time for tonight. I spent a lot of time reading your article and looking up the Qur’anic verses and contexts. I wish you put the reference in the text rather than a footnote, but oh well, that’s ok I guess. It takes more time the way you set it up as the Qur’an references into footnotes.

        Like

  34. Ken if u want to say that verse 114 in surah 6 is directly related to 115 then that’s s fine but it doesn’t help ur case in the slitest.
    The verse talks about the BOOK meaning the Qur’an. It then only implies that the Qur’an can’t be changed. The focus there is the Qur’an.

    Liked by 1 person

  35. @ Ken

    I’m going to help you out a bit. When interpreting a writer’s work you look for other places where the writer talks about a similar subject, you don’t just isolate verses in a vacuum and “run with them”. The verse:

    “The Word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and justice. There is no power that is capable of changing His Words because He is the All-Hearing and Knowing.”

    Is CLEARLY talking about God’s Decree of sending people to Hell not His Scriptures. Let’s look at the surrounding context (Emphasis mine):

    6:112. And ˹so˺ in this way I have made for every prophet an enemy for him. There were evil ones from both humans and demons. They would inspire each other with propaganda but had your Lord wanted they would not have done that, so leave them and what they make up alone.
    6:113. I allowed this only so that those who don’t believe in a life to come, will have their hearts incline towards that and become obsessed with it, so that they can earn these sins they’re constantly committing.
    6:114. So is it anyone other than God that you should look to make decisions from when it’s He who revealed to you the Scripture at the perfect occasion, explained in detail? Those who I gave the Scripture before know well that this is sent down from your Lord with a purpose, so never be among the doubters.
    6:115. The WORD of your Lord has been FULFILLED in truth and justice. There is no power that is capable of changing His words because He is the All-Hearing and Knowing.
    6:116. If you were to follow most of whoever is on the earth they will misguide from God’s path, because they’re following nothing but assumptions and are doing nothing but making things up.
    6:117. Your Lord knows who will go away from the path just as He knows who is truly committed to guidance.

    Elsewhere in the Quran the “Word” is explained:
    32:12. If only you could see the guilty when they will be standing before their Lord with heads hanging in shame saying: “Our Lord, we’ve seen and heard, please send us back so that we can do good, we’re now completely convinced…”
    32:13. And when I respond: “If I had wished, I could’ve given every soul its true guidance, but THE WORD from Me has come true, that I will fill Hell with demons and men together.”

    This is in reference to God talking to Satan when he gets banished:
    7:18. I said: “Leave here, disgusted, flawed and banished. I swear if any of them follow you I will fill Hell with every single one of you.”

    This verses’s context has nothing to do with God’s Scriptures but His decree of sending people to Hell which can be clearly seen in context. Interpreting Scripture with Scripture is standard exegesis.

    Moving on to the chart several points here:

    1.There are two dominating theories to the synoptic problem (Farrer and Q) I just went with “Q” because it’s the LEAST damning view for “the gospel according to…” writers. You see Ken, “the gospel according to…” writers plagiarized from each other. They have word for word copies in Greek so that is not independent attestation. It’s kinda like if you and I were in school, and our test papers look like this:

    Ken Stewjo004
    X1. A A
    2. C C
    3. C C
    4. B B
    X 5. D D
    6. A A
    7. The board is black 7. The board is black

    For us to have the EXACT same word usage means one of us copied the other. You have to explain why these alleged witnesses have plagiarized each other. Q just makes the most sense for the copying if you agree Mark is the earliest.

    2. As for Philo etc, no that is again not me. That is Robert Fortuna breaking down John’s sources. It is originally a gnostic source that proto orthodox adapted which is why it’s so weird. All of the Logos stuff is lifted directly from Philo (who more than likely inspired Valentinus who started the Gnostics) Just compare John’s Prologue with Philo and in the prologue is the all names of the Archon:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo%27s_view_of_God#The_Logos

    https://www.gotquestions.org/Philo-of-Alexandria.html

    3. Regarding the Injeel, as of the time of this post I believe Jesus’s(as) parables in Aramaic form is it:

    1. Early Christians thought they came from God
    2. They are in a language the people he is sent to understands
    3. They are all Islamic
    4. When the Quran quotes from it, God quotes the parables
    5. Early documents coming out of the oral stage is Jesus’s sayings and parables
    6. Everyone used them.

    But God knows best. The corruption came into play at several major points:

    1. Since parables are riddles their easy to twist the meanings to.
    2. Paul- TONS of innovation and belief issues. Also, all the NT is essentially based on him or his students
    3. Destruction of the church of Jerusalem
    4. Marcion- He started the trend of calling bios about Jesus(as) “the gospel”
    5. Rise of the Gnostics

    5. I agree with you and I prefer to put them up top for easy reference as well but its QB’s blog and that’s how he wants it set up.

    Like

  36. Decree of judgment – while this is also true, you cannot say that he is not also including the fact that these judgements and decrees are written down, that is why in Surah 6:114 he emphasized the warnings given to them in the previous Scriptures. That is why he exhorts the people of the Scriptures to resort to their own written books – Surah 5:47 and 5:68 and for Muhammad to ask the people of the Scriptures who are reading the book before him. (Surah 10:94)

    “So is it anyone other than God that you should look to make decisions from when it’s He who revealed to you the Scripture at the perfect occasion, explained in detail? Those who I gave the Scripture before know well that this is sent down from your Lord with a purpose, so never be among the doubters.” (Surah 6:114)

    When interpreting a writer’s work you look for other places where the writer talks about a similar subject, you don’t just isolate verses in a vacuum and “run with them”.

    I agree, but that was not my point. One should look at the immediate context first, then go to other places where the writer talks about a similar subject. The fact that you did not first look at the immediate context of Surah 6:114-115 demonstrates I am right – it refers to both – God’s decrees of judgement and that fact that they are written down – Scriptures.

    Like

    • @ Ken
      Now let’s pause for a second and go one passage at a time. Its funny that you criticized me for going to other parts for interpretation and then do the exact same thing. This phrase: “the word of your Lord became true” means something. This is only used in the Quran as a reference to His decrees never His Scriptures. The verse’s immediate context is these demons anf humans are inspiring each other to he enemies to the prophets. God then references something He said earlier. Stop reading Shamoun and read the passage yourself, look back at 6:112

      6:112. And ˹so˺ in this way I have made for every prophet an enemy for him. There were evil ones from both humans and demons. They would inspire each other with propaganda but had your Lord wanted they would not have done that, so leave them and what they make up alone.

      Now jump forward 3 verses to our verse in question:

      6:115. The WORD of your Lord has been FULFILLED in truth and justice. There is no power that is capable of changing His words because He is the All-Hearing and Knowing.

      What is the word (i.e decree) that has been fulfilled? What God said to the Devil when he was banished (and he said that he was going to attack Adam’s(as) children):
      “I will fill Hell with humans and demons”.

      I.e. like these ones inspiring each other to fight against the Prophet(saw). God is basically saying to the Prophet(saw): “I was right in what I said earlier ignore the foolishness they’re saying as they only hurt one another. “. The part you highlighted is God playing off the pagan Arabs asking the Jews and Christians tribes about prophethood (and thus are part of the “inspiring one another” and the decree) This entire passage is actually ironic considering what certain people are doing in twisting the Quran. They are a living manifestation of this verse.

      Like

      • So Kenny and his bff Shamoun are part of the human-demon alliance that is condemned in the Quran!

        You see what happens when you blindly and lazily copy and paste, especially from the likes of Shamoun, Kenny? You get exposed as the hell-bound liars that the Quran condemns! Smoke that, why don’t ya! 🤣

        Like

      • I always read them for myself and think about it. I just use the “cut and paste” option when it saves time.

        When Shamoun has good content, I will commend him; when he behaves wrongly and sinfully, I will rebuke him.

        Deal with it and smoke it in your Qaliyoon pipe. قلیون

        Like

      • You’re just a pathetic apologist who uses whatever material fits his agenda. Deal with it while I continue to blow that smoke in your face. 😁

        Like

      • Deal with the content and logic and reason; and that is proof that I am not pathetic; rather you are.

        Like

      • 😂 Stew has dealt with it, moron. You just keep repeating shamoun’s garbage ad nauseum because you were nothing else to go by.

        Like

  37. Shamoun makes this point: (yes, I am copying and pasting in order to save time. Smoke it in your قلیون pipes buddies!)

    1. Muhammad refers to the previous revelations such as the Torah and the Gospel as still being extant during his lifetime.

    “those who follow the Messenger, ‘the Prophet of the common folk, whom they find written down WITH THEM IN THE TORAH AND THE GOSPEL, bidding them to honour, and forbidding them dishonour, making lawful for them the good things and making unlawful for them the corrupt things, and relieving them of their loads, and the fetters that were upon them.” S. 7:157

    God has bought from the believers their selves and their possessions against the gift of Paradise; they fight in the way of God; they kill, and are killed; that IS a promise binding upon God IN THE TORAH, AND THE GOSPEL, and the Koran; and who fulfils his covenant truer than God? So rejoice in the bargain you have made with Him; that is the mighty triumph. S. 9:111

    They say, ‘Why does he not bring us a sign from his Lord?’ Has there not come to them the clear sign of WHAT IS IN THE FORMER SCROLLS? S. 20:133

    Truly it is the revelation of the Lord of all Being, brought down by the Faithful Spirit upon thy heart, that thou mayest be one of the warners, in a clear, Arabic tongue. Truly IT IS IN THE SCRIPTURES OF THE ANCIENTS. Was it not a sign for them, that it is known to the learned of the Children of Israel? If We had sent it down on a barbarian and he had recited it to them, they would not have believed in it. S. 26:192-197

    Thou seest them bowing, prostrating, seeking bounty from God and good pleasure. Their mark is on their faces, the trace of prostration. That is their likeness IN THE TORAH, and their likeness IN THE GOSPEL: as a seed that puts forth its shoot, and strengthens it, and it grows stout and rises straight upon its stalk, pleasing the sowers, that through them He may enrage the unbelievers. S. 48:29

    Or has he not been told of what IS in the scrolls of Moses, and Abraham, he who paid his debt in full? S. 53:36-37

    Note the use of the present tense, i.e. “IS,” “IN,” when speaking of the previous revelations.

    https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2019/03/09/the-qurans-confirmation-of-the-judeo-christian-scriptures-2/

    Like

  38. Say: “O People of the Book! Ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord” (Surah 5:68).

    How can the Jew or Christian, stand fast by the Law and the Gospel, if the Law and the Gospel have been corrupted or abrogated? Again, the assumption of the Qur’an is that the scriptures that the Christians and Jews have is the reliable word of God. (Samuel Green)

    The Qur’an is assuming that the books were written down and the Jews and Christians had them. the repeated phrase in the Qur’an “between the hands” = present with them at the time – proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

    Like

  39. Stewjo004, in his article:
    Corruption of the Scriptures: Part I – Does Islam Confirm the Bible As a Scripture from God?

    Wrote:

    If the Scriptures of the Christians and Jews were good, there would be no need for Islam or the Qur’an.

    That is not what the Qur’an says for the reason why God gave revelation / the Qur’an:

    Surah 16:36
    God sent apostles to every nation [ but what about Hindus, Buddhists, Tribal pagans ?]

    Surah 36:2-6
    The Arabs got it last – they needed warning. They did not have the Scriptures in their own language, Arabic.

    Surah 34:43-44
    Also
    32:3
    35:24

    There was no warner for the Arabs before Muhammad

    Surah 42:7
    Needed a book in the Arabic language

    Surah 46:12
    Purpose of the Qur’an: The confirm the previous Scriptures in Arabic, because they didn’t have the Torah or the Gospel in their own language.

    “And before it was the scripture of Moses to lead and as a mercy. And this is a confirming Book in an Arabic tongue to warn those who have wronged and as good tidings to the doers of good.” Surah 46:12

    6:155-157
    So the Arabs could not complain that they did not have revelation.

    “And this [Qur’an] is a Book We have revealed [which is] blessed, so follow it and fear Allah that you may receive mercy.
    [We revealed it] lest you say, “The Scripture was only sent down to two groups before us, but we were of their study unaware,”
    Or lest you say, “If only the Scripture had been revealed to us, we would have been better guided than they.” So there has [now] come to you a clear evidence from your Lord and a guidance and mercy. Then who is more unjust than one who denies the verses of Allah and turns away from them? We will recompense those who turn away from Our verses with the worst of punishment for their having turned away.” Surah 6:155-157

    Like

  40. To begin, this is an illogical argument because one can take any religious text and add or delete a verse from it. There’s no magical force field around the text itself.

    Thank you! Yes, that is why the charge of 2:79 and 3:78 holds no water, considering that it was a “party of them” that misinterpreted the book and a group that wrote things down and claimed it is from God, etc. – it would not result in the wholesale loss of the Bible (Torah, Zobur, Prophets, Gospels, NT) because there were so many other copies of the Bible before and at the time of Muhammad.

    All we have to do is to do comparison and textual criticism and we can get to the originals with 99.9 certainly, giving allowance for copyist errors and textual variants. (which we are open and honest about)

    Like

    • Lol, the blind leading the blind! Corrupting the interpretation could also lead to textual corruption as well. If someone said “I am Godly” and overtime, people started interpreting it as “I am God”, such a corruption could easily be written down and eventually accepted as authentic.

      And no, your Bible did not have a lot of “copies”. That is just a pipe dream of yours. Smoke on that. Get it? 😉

      Like

  41. @ Ken

    You’re jumping the gun a little too early have we settled that 6:115 is not about Scripture but God’s Decree? If yes we can move to the next one.

    Liked by 2 people

    • It has to be both, since God’s decrees and judgements are written down for the next generations to know and follow.

      Like

      • The mufassir Ken Ibn Temple thinks he knows better!

        Even after you have been educated, you still refuse to admit that you got nuked.

        Do you honestly think that every single decree of God gets written down by humans? Think Ibn Temple, think!

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ Ken

        As Qb stated no all His decrees are not written down for us for example, when the Hour will occur, when so and so will die, etc.

        Now because I don’t know if you’re being difficult or are lacking in comprehension, here is the passage again READ SLOWLY:

        6:112. And ˹so˺ in this way I have made for every prophet an enemy for him. There were evil ones from both humans and demons. They would inspire each other with propaganda but had your Lord wanted they would not have done that, so leave them and what they make up alone.
        6:113. I only allowed this so that those who don’t believe in a life to come, will have their hearts incline towards that and become obsessed with it, so that they can earn these sins they’re constantly committing.
        6:114. So is it anyone other than God that you should look to make decisions from when it’s He who revealed to you the Scripture at the perfect occasion, explained in detail? Those who I gave the Scripture before know well that this is sent down from your Lord with a purpose, so never be among the doubters.
        6:115. The WORD of your Lord has been FULFILLED in truth and justice. There is no power that is capable of changing His words because He is the All-Hearing and Knowing.
        6:116. If you were to follow most of whoever is on the earth they will misguide from God’s path, because they’re following nothing but assumptions and are doing nothing but making things up.
        6:117. Your Lord knows who will go away from the path just as He knows who is truly committed to guidance.

        Since you reject my interpretation that God is saying that evil people and demons sit there and misguide each other and so God uses this to make enemies for every prophet. And that one should only look to God to help because He has revealed the Qur’an and that people who had revelations previously know that what is being said in it is true. So because all these people misguide each other God’s decree He made earlier that He will fill Hell with humans and demons is true because He Hears and knows everything about them and if you follow most people they will misguide you because they don’t know what their talking about and God knows best who will deviate from His path just like He knows who want to commit to His guidance.

        I want you IN YOUR OWN WORDS to explain verse by verse this passage above. I want a specific focus on the following:

        1. What do God’s Scriptures can never be changed (as you claim the verse means) have to do with the surrounding context of humans and demons inspiring each other to be enemies to the prophets?

        2. In our verse were discussing, what word has been fulfilled?

        3. God mentions if you follow most people on Earth you will be misguided from His path. How is this relevant to the above?

        Liked by 1 person

  42. other God’s decree He made earlier that He will fill Hell with humans and demons is true

    where is that part in the passage of 6:112-6:117 ?

    Like

  43. As Qb stated no all His decrees are not written down for us for example, when the Hour will occur, when so and so will die, etc.

    That is true, but judgment on the evil wickedness of humans and demons / devils is written down for sure, both in the previous Scripture and the Qur’an – so, that is not a very good point. You have not shown that the principle that God will not allow His word to be corrupted so as to be totally lost is not also taught in Surah 6:114-115

    He even says he warned of this decree in the previous Scriptures, so you have not excluded the principle that it includes the written Scriptures for the people in the future to be warned against doing evil.

    Jesus and Paul and John and Peter also warned of false teachers and false prophets and enemies of the faith that will come and try to destroy the truth and lead people astray.

    The previous Scriptures speak of their judgment and destruction. There is no changing the words of God. There is a judgment day.

    The previous Scriptures also speak of the devil and demons and humans being cast into hell / the lake of fire.
    Matthew chapter 25; Revelation chapter 20

    You have not excluded the warnings of written Scripture.

    Like

    • “That is true, but judgment on the evil wickedness of humans and demons / devils is written down for sure, both in the previous Scripture and the Qur’an –”

      You just repeated the same ludicrous argument but just worded it differently. Do you think that every single act of wickedness is written down for every single person or demon? You have not refuted this point. Every decree is not necessarily written down by humans. The point still stands.

      Like

    • @ Ken

      I hold this passage has NOTHING to do with the previous Scriptures purity or corruption period point blank. So I do not have to prove this verse is talking about the previous Scriptures being corrupted. YOU are claiming this passage is about the previous Scripture’s purity. As for filling hell with humans and demons that is what is called “allusion”. God is “alluding” to something else He said earlier, in this case, this specific decree found elsewhere. This fits the entire surrounding context of evil humans and demons inspiring each other with propaganda against the prophets as well as this entire chapter:

      6:4. No sign is presented to them from their Lord’s revelations except that they deliberately ignore it and turn away.
      6:5. They LIED against the Truth when it came to them, but the very thing they laughed at will come back to attack them.

      6:11. Tell them: “Travel throughout the land and look at what was the fate of those who called this a LIE.”

      6:21. And who is worse than someone who would randomly make up LIES about God or deliberately LIE against His verses and revelations? Indeed those who do wrong will never succeed.

      6:33. I know that what they say makes you sad. It’s not you, they’re calling a LIAR, it’s God’s revelations that those who do wrong are trying to refute.
      6:34. There were Messengers who were rejected before you. But they remained patient when they were rejected and persecuted until My help came to them. NONE CAN CHANGE GOD’S WORDS and you’ve already received news about what happened with these Messengers.

      (Clearly an allusion to the Decree that God will help His messengers:
      58:21. because God has decreed: “I and My Messengers will prevail…” So know that God is the Almighty and is always able to enforce His Will.
      Also further strengthens my position about the word being fulfilled that we’re discussing is an allusion to another passage about a Decree)

      6:68. When you come across people who distort or speak with disrespect about My revelations turn away from them until they move onto another subject. If Satan makes you forget, then, when you have remembered, don’t sit with those who are doing wrong.

      Now later in the same chapter:

      6:128. On the Day He gathers everyone together it will be said: “Demon group! You have seduced a great many humans.” Their followers among the people will say: “Lord, we utilized each other, but now we have reached the deadline You’ve set for us…” and the reply will be: “Your home is the Fire, and you will remain there unless God wishes otherwise…” Your Lord is the One to pass Judgment and is All-Knowing.
      6:129. That is how I make some who do wrong befriend others on account of what they continue to earn…
      6:130. “Demon and human group! Did messengers not come from among your own kind reciting My revelations to you and keep warning you of this Day of yours that you had to meet?” They will reply: “We testify against ourselves…” It was the worldly life that deceived them, but they will testify against themselves that they were ungrateful disbelievers.
      6:131. That’s because God would never destroy any nation unjustly, while their citizens had no idea or hadn’t been warned.

      6:147. If they continue to LIE ON YOU, tell them: “Your Lord has incredible and vast mercy, but His punishment will never be diverted from the convicted criminals.”
      6:148. They’re just going to respond: “If God had wanted, we nor our parents would’ve worshipped others with Him. And we wouldn’t have made anything forbidden.” But this is how those who came before them LIED against the Truth as well, until they tasted My punishment, My war. Do you have any knowledge at all of this? Bring it out and show us because you’re doing nothing but following assumptions and guessing.

      As can be seen, my interpretation fits the entire theme of the chapter and the surrounding context with an allusion to another spot in Scripture. Since you reject this I want you to break it down for me verse by verse the passage we’re discussing in your own words:

      6:112- This is about…
      6:113- Now what is being stated is… this ties in within the passage or chapter by…

      Liked by 1 person

      • I hold this passage has NOTHING to do with the previous Scriptures purity or corruption period point blank.

        yes it does because 6:114 says so – it also contains the warnings of going to hell in the previous Scriptures.

        [Say], “Then is it other than Allah I should seek as judge while it is He who has revealed to you the Book explained in detail?” And those to whom We [previously] gave the Scripture know that it is sent down from your Lord in truth, so never be among the doubters.

        Like

      • Just because verse 114 mentions those who had received the scriptures, does not mean that the next verse is talking about those scriptures. Verse 114 is referring specifically to the PEOPLE who received the scriptures, not the scriptures themselves.

        The topic of verse 115 is also not the scriptures, but God’s decrees. Stew has provided ample evidence for this. All Kenny has done is mindlessly repeat the same non-sequitur and opinions.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Stew, you are asking too much of Kenny. He can only do blind copy/pasting.

        Liked by 2 people

  44. It is very interesting that even Ibn Kathir, when commenting on 6:114, also shows how this is similar to Surah 10:94 – a classic passage that proves the Qur’an affirms the Bible (OT & NT) and calls the Christians and Jews, the people of the Scripture (written Scripture) – “those who were reading the Scriptures before you”

    This, beyond doubt, shows the Scriptures were not corrupted or lost and that the Qur’an affirms the previous written Scriptures, not just the original revelations of the Torah and Injeel.

    ——
    (while it is He Who has sent down unto you the Book, explained…) in detail,

    ﴿ وَٱلَّذِينَ ءَاتَيۡنَـٰهُمُ ٱلۡكِتَـٰبَ ﴾
    (and those unto whom We gave the Scripture) the Jews and the Christians,

    ﴿ يَعۡلَمُونَ أَنَّهُ ۥ مُنَزَّلٌ۬ مِّن رَّبِّكَ بِٱلۡحَقِّ‌ۖ ﴾
    (know that it is revealed from your Lord in truth.) because the previous Prophets have conveyed the good news of you coming to them. Allah’s statement,

    ﴿ فَلَا تَكُونَنَّ مِنَ ٱلۡمُمۡتَرِينَ ﴾
    (So be not you of those who doubt.) is similar to His other statement,

    ﴿ فَإِن كُنتَ فِى شَكٍّ۬ مِّمَّآ أَنزَلۡنَآ إِلَيۡكَ فَسۡـَٔلِ ٱلَّذِينَ يَقۡرَءُونَ ٱلۡڪِتَـٰبَ مِن قَبۡلِكَ‌ۚ لَقَدۡ جَآءَكَ ٱلۡحَقُّ مِن رَّبِّكَ فَلَا تَكُونَنَّ مِنَ ٱلۡمُمۡتَرِينَ ﴾
    (So if you are in doubt concerning that which We have revealed unto you, then ask those who are reading the Book before you. Verily, the truth has come to you from your Lord. So be not of those who doubt (it).) (10:94)

    The conditional `if’ in this Ayah does not mean that `doubt’ will ever occur to the Prophet. Allah said,

    ﴿ وَتَمَّتۡ كَلِمَتُ رَبِّكَ صِدۡقً۬ا وَعَدۡلاً۬‌ۚ ﴾
    (And the Word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice.) Qatadah commented, “In truth concerning what He stated and in justice concerning what He decided.” Surely, whatever Allah says is the truth and He is Most Just in what He commands. All of Allah’s statements are true, there is no doubt or cause for speculation about this fact, and all His commandments are pure justice, besides which there is no justice. All that He forbade is evil, for He only forbids what brings about evil consequences. Allah said in another Ayah,
    ——

    http://www.recitequran.com/tafsir/en.ibn-kathir/6:114

    Like

    • “It is very interesting that even Ibn Kathir, when commenting on 6:114, also shows how this is similar to Surah 10:94 – a classic passage that proves the Qur’an affirms the Bible (OT & NT) and calls the Christians and Jews, the people of the Scripture (written Scripture) – “those who were reading the Scriptures before you”

      This, beyond doubt, shows the Scriptures were not corrupted or lost and that the Qur’an affirms the previous written Scriptures, not just the original revelations of the Torah and Injeel.”

      Oh for goodness sake…

      Do you think that your non-sequiturs prove anything? You are simply inserting your own interpretations wherever you feel the need.

      Surah 10:94 is contextually linked to the story of the Exodus, and how the Pharoah was defeated. Immediately after finishing the story, verse 94 says that if you are in doubt, ask those who have been reading the scripture before you (i.e., the Jews and Christians). The “doubt” is regarding the story just told. It is not a wholesale command to seek knowledge from the Jews and Christians.

      And wouldn’t you know it? The very source Kenny tries to use to prove his non-sequitur actually refutes him further:

      “And the Word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice.) Qatadah commented, “In truth concerning what He stated and in justice concerning what He decided.””

      In other words, the verse is talking about Allah’s decrees.

      Not only that, but Kenny neglected to quote the test of Ibn Kathir’s commentary:

      “(None can change His Words.) meaning, none can avert Allah’s judgment whether in this life or the Hereafter,”

      Interesting indeed!

      Liked by 1 person

      • Are not God’s written words also His written decisions / decrees, His word ?

        The principle still stands.

        Otherwise you have no guarantee that the text of the Qur’an has not been lost or corrupted.

        Like

      • Kenny, why don’t you just admit that you are a clown and that you were proven wrong? At least admit to the latter and keep some of your dignity.

        You claimed that God’s decrees are written down, which I refuted. God’s decrees are way too numerous to be written down by humans. That point still stands and you have failed to refute it.

        And in fact, we do have a guarantee in the Quran that God would preserve it. This promise has been fulfilled.

        Liked by 2 people

      • “God’s decrees are way too numerous . . . ” I never claimed that all of God’s decrees (decisions, judgments) are written down; rather all that is necessary for us humans to understand how to live life properly are written down. Do you agree with that? (that God has given us everything we need for life and living a righteous/holy/godly life)

        Like

      • You said the following:

        “That is true, but judgment on the evil wickedness of humans and demons / devils is written down for sure, both in the previous Scripture and the Qur’an”

        Do you think every judgement is written down?

        God gives us everything to live by but that doesn’t mean that His decrees are always written down. There are many types of decrees.

        Liked by 1 person

  45. فَإِن كُنتَ فِي شَكٍّ مِّمَّا أَنزَلْنَا إِلَيْكَ فَاسْأَلِ الَّذِينَ يَقْرَءُونَ الْكِتَابَ مِن قَبْلِكَ ۚ لَقَدْ جَاءَكَ الْحَقُّ مِن رَّبِّكَ فَلَا تَكُونَنَّ مِنَ الْمُمْتَرِينَ – 10:94

    So if you are in doubt, [O Muhammad], about that which We have revealed to you, then ask those who have been reading the Scripture before you. The truth has certainly come to you from your Lord, so never be among the doubters.

    Interesting that in this verse, the Qur’an uses the singular “you” ک (singular ending on several words) several times, pointing to him, a singular person, Muhammad.

    Proof that the Qur’an affirms the previous Scriptures.

    Like

    • @ Ken

      You’re jumping the gun again Ken let’s finish one candy bar before opening another.

      Now the appeal to Ibn Kathir(rh) doesn’t help you because:

      1.He agrees with me irs the decree notice his quote of Qatadah(rh):

      Qatadah commented, “In truth concerning what He stated and in justice concerning what He DECIDED.”

      Nothing to do with the purity or corruption of the Scripture. He is talking about the Decree.

      2. Ibn Kathir(rh) follows one of 3 major interpretations of 10:94 I hold that Imam Razi makes a much stronger case of the meaning and it is the pagan Arabs. But this is outside the discussion at the moment.

      3. You read everything except what he commented earlier:
      “devils of mankind and the devils of the Jinns. The word, Shaytan, describes one who is dissimilar to his kind due to his or her wickedness. Indeed, only the Shayatin, may Allah humiliate and curse them, from among mankind and the Jinns oppose the Messengers. `Abdur-Razzaq said that Ma`mar narrated that Qatadah commented on Allah’s statement, inspiring one another with adorned speech as a delusion.) means, they inspire each other with beautified, adorned speech that deceives the ignorant who hear it,”

      So again Ibn Kathir(rh) and I are saying the exact same thing we differ on only 10:94. What your stating does not fit the chapters theme nor the context of the passage. I just listed 8 references within the SAME chapter we are discussing about the humans and demons inspiring one another to fight against the prophets. Then God says He already willed they would beforehand when He Decreed He fill Hell with humans and demons as He says elsewhere in the Quran. Also the SAME phrase used in this passage is ONLY in relation to the Decree and NEVER Scripture. And that the phrase is used twice inbthe SAME chapter and it alluded to another decree.

      So please explain how this interpretation makes sense:
      Humans and demons inspire one another to fight the message. ALL MY Scripture’s are pure!!!

      Yea this is bad reading comprehension combined with God using them as living proof of the verse.

      Liked by 2 people

  46. @ QB

    If it makes you feel better you got me a few times by like 30 seconds lol.

    Like

  47. Are not God’s written words also His written decisions / decrees, His word ?

    How would we know anything that God wants us to know in the following generations, unless it was written down?

    The principle still stands.

    Otherwise you have no guarantee that the text of the Qur’an has not been lost or corrupted.

    Like

    • @ Ken

      There is no “principle” you and Shamoun are simply misreading the text. This verse is not a proof for or against the Qur’an textual integrity as it is simply NOT about the Scriptures period point blank. The only thing you are trying now to cling to the part in the verse :
      “…Those who I gave the Scripture before know well that this is sent down from your Lord with a purpose…”

      The two Jalals commentary is the final nail in the coffin:

      “The following was revealed when they asked the Prophet (s) to appoint an arbiter between him and themselves…this is intended to affirm to the disbelievers that it is the truth.
      https://www.altafsir.com/Books/Al_Jalalain_Eng.pdf

      So the reason for the revelation of the verse had nothing to do with Scripture integrity it is what I said earlier that the Jews and Christians during the time of the Prophet(saw), were part of the humans and demons that inspired propaganda and whom God said He will fill hell with. This is God mocking them.

      As has been clearly demonstrated now the verse:

      “None can change the word of God” is not about the Scripture but His Decrees which He calls his “Word” or “Words” throughout the Quran and the SAME chapter.

      Like

  48. I was busy.

    Neither of you established that the plural of words in 6:115, “none can change the words of God” does not also include God’s written word in principle.

    There are lots of juicy quotes in “The Study Qur’an” (Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Caner K. Dagli, Maria Massi Dakake, Joseph E. B. Lumbard, editors [as Paul Williams likes to say, “your own scholars”) on pages 383-384, at 6:114-115.

    “114 Here, as elsewhere, the Quran connects proper judgment among human beings directly to the sending down of the Book (see also 2:213; 3:23; 4:105; 5:43-49)” (page 383)

    “The warning, “so be not among the doubters” (in the present tense as well as in 10:94) may be addressed to the Prophet (c.f. 2:147; 3:60; 11:17), since the imperative is in the second-person singular (la takunanna) . . . ”

    “The Word of thy Lord is fulfilled” may mean that God completes His Revelation – namely, the Qur’an – as a whole (T = Al Tabari), see 6:154, where the same is said of the Book given to Moses, as as 9:32 and 61:8, where it is said that God completes His Light, which is commonly understood to mean His Guidance or Revelation. Many commentators interpret the Word of they Lord here to refer collectively to the commands, prohibitions, promises, threats, rewards, and punishments contained in the Qur’an, indicating that they will all be fulfilled. (Q, R, T, Z)” (pages 383-384)

    T = Al Tabaria
    Q = Qurtabi
    R = al Razi
    T = Al Tabari
    Z = al Zamakhshari

    (commentator key – page lxii to lxix)

    on page 300, commentary on Surah 5:47-48

    “The continuing validity of these two scriptures is also suggested at 5:68: “O people of the Book, you stand on naught till you observe the Torah and the Gospel and that which has been sent down unto you from your Lord.”

    “. . . the Qur’an – as confirming the Book that came before it, just as the Gospel confirms the Torah. The Qur’an is also described as “confirming” earlier Scriptures in 2:41; 89, 91, 101; 3:3, 81; 6:92; 35:31; 46:30. The Quran is further describes as a protector (muhaymin) over the previous Scriptures, meaning that the Qur’an testifies to the validity of the earlier Scriptures and serves as their trustee, keeper, and guardian. (T, Z)”
    [Note: nothing about being a “quality control” of sifting out the good parts from the suppossed corruptions or additions or suppossed forgeries”]
    Rather is says it confirms and guards and protects what was with the people of the Scriptures at that time.

    (ibid, page 300)

    on 2:79
    “. . . an account of some Jews who wrote something down and pawned it off on the ignorant Arabs for a profit . . . ” (ibid, page 38)

    So, my point still stands.

    Like

    • @ Ken

      Again jumping topics? I’ll keep this simple because you must think I’m stupid as you keep trying this WE ARE NOT MOVING ON TO ANY OTHER VERSE THAN THE ONE WE ARE DISCUSSING UNTIL AN AGREEMENT IS MADE.

      Now with that being said, really Ken that’s the best you could come up with? The plural “words” is obviously no one can change God’s decrees

      6:115. The Word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and justice. There is no power that is capable of changing His words because He is the All-Hearing and Knowing.

      Next, the “Study Quran” has no scholars on it is comprised entirely of deviants and non-Muslims so it quite frankly means nothing to me. But notice a key quote from your reference:

      “Many commentators interpret the Word of they Lord here to refer collectively to the commands, prohibitions, promises, threats, rewards, and punishments contained in the Qur’an, indicating that they will all be fulfilled.”

      Notice nothing to do with the Scriptures as you and Shamoun claimed, they like I have been saying, says it is referring to the decrees so ALL the scholars you listed like Tabarari, Razi, etc agree with me so this actually hurts you more.

      Now that I have established the context and THE SAME PHRASE IN THE SAME SURAH is talking about God’s decree let’s now look elsewhere in the Qur’an for where word/words are used:

      11:119. except for the few your Lord has shown mercy to, and that’s why He created them. The Word of God became true: “I will fill Hell with demons and humans together.”

      32:13. And when I respond: “If I had wished, I could’ve given every soul its true guidance, but the Word from Me has come true, that I will fill Hell with demons and men together.”

      66:12. As well as Mary, the daughter of Amram who guarded her virtue, so I breathed My Spirit into her. She believed in her Lord’s Words, His Scriptures and was among the devout…

      46:18. Such people are the ones who the Word has come true on, along with all the nations, both Jinn and human, that went before them. They’re forever failures.

      6:34. There were Messengers who were rejected before you. But they remained patient when they were rejected and persecuted, until My help came to them. None can change God’s words and you’ve already received news about what happened with these Messengers.

      11:40. When My Judgement came and the pot boiled over. I told him: “Place on board two of every kind, and your own family, except those whom the Word has already been passed on along with whoever else has believed.” Though very few believed with him.

      28:63. And those that the Word will come true on will say: “Our Lord, these are the ones we led astray. We led them astray because we ourselves were lost, but now we disown them before You, they didn’t really worship us!”

      36:7. But have no doubts, the Word has already been confirmed on majority of them, therefore they won’t believe.

      36:69. I have not given him knowledge of poetry, nor is it befitting for him to have been a poet. This is nothing but a Reminder and a clear recital,
      36:70. to warn whoever is alive, and justify the Word against the disbelievers.

      Are you going to claim ALL these mean the Scriptures Ken? Because we’re arguing about immediate context and chapter we now take exegesis from other spots in a work to get an author’s intended meaning. Consistency from the author would indicate it means decree in the passage we’re discussing as well.

      Liked by 2 people

      • the “Study Quran” has no scholars on it is comprised entirely of deviants and non-Muslims so it quite frankly means nothing to me.

        Non-Muslims? deviants? who is who and which one is which?

        Caner Dagli and Joseph Lumbard defended Islam in a dialouge / debate that they had against John Piper and Al Mohler. (about the Common Word statement)

        “means nothing to me” – Same as my feelings for liberal scholars like Christopher Tuckett and James D. G. Dunn and Raymond Brown, Bart Ehrman, etc. that Paul W. likes to promote and quote.

        Although Richard Bauckham and F. F. Bruce are good scholors, some points that Paul W. emphasizes I disagree with them on, and yet other points that Bauckham has made that go against Paul’s interpretation of Mark 10. Bauckham said, “of course Jesus is claiming to be God” (using double entendre)

        https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2015/09/28/one-of-paul-bilal-williams-favorite-conservative-christian-scholars-proves-him-wrong/

        Like

      • The principle that God does not allow His word (whether oral decrees or judgments or written down in Scripture), still stands as a principle, and Surah 6:114-115 includes the written word, since he refers to the people of the Scriptures and their previous books.

        Like

      • . . . .contained in the Qur’an, indicating that they will all be fulfilled.”

        you made my point, as the Qur’an has the written words and decrees. Writing things down, helps the people of future generations to know what God’s will is.

        The principle stands.

        Like

      • ‘Amir b. Shahr said :
        I was with the Negus when his son recited a verse of the Gospel. So I laughed. Thereupon he said : Do you laugh at the word of Allah, the Exalted?

        Grade : Sahih (Al-Albani)
        Reference: Sunan Abi Dawud 4736
        In-book reference : Book 42, Hadith 141
        English translation : Book 41, Hadith 4718

        Like

      • Lol and what verse was this? And from what gospel???
        How does that even back up your argument. Who said everything from even today’s gospel isn’t from God???
        Terrible argument.

        Liked by 1 person

  49. @ Ken

    Being a “defender of Islam” does not mean you are qualified, I have seen many well-meaning Muslim/Non-Muslims give a trainwreck of commentary before. All these people in the “Study Quran” are Non-Muslims, nobodies or deviants. If I recall (and I could be incorrect I would have to check) they didn’t even have one scholar from Ahlul Sunnah which is what 80-90% of Muslims in the world are.

    Moving on I have answered this objection with the People of the Scripture. You are ignoring CLEAR CUT things and trying to focus on the “ambiguity” which is why things like the Trinity were created. Let’s do a recap on my evidence:

    1.Scholarly Commentary
    ALL agree with me it is God’s Decree and NONE have said that His Scriptures are not able to be changed as you and Shamoun claimed.

    2. Context
    As I listed previously the immediate context of the passage and theme of the chapter is the evil human and demons inspiring one another so God’s Scripture not being able to be changed doesn’t even make sense.

    3. “The word has been fulfilled”
    This phrase is used over a dozen times in the Quran (including in the same chapter we are discussing) to indicate it is God’s decree. It even explicitly states what it is I will fill humans and demons in Hell together” which fits the theme of the chapter of humans and demons inspiring one another with propaganda against God’s religion and message.

    4. People of the Scripture:
    The verse was revealed because they asked for an arbitrator insincerely. They are part of the humans and demons inspiring one another with propaganda again falling into the decree of Hell being filled with human and demons.

    Liked by 2 people

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: