Kirb Drops the Gauntlet of Challenge! (again)

Kirb Brimstone - In a response to the question "Who created Christianity according to Islam?" M. Rasheed wrote: "I would say it was Constantine, who used the Council of Nicea to determine which of the many, many, many competing doctrines, and which of the many writings, would become canon under the Western Christian banner, and receive governmental legitimacy."

Kirb Brimstone (that's me) responded:

Wow. Constantine? That is not remotely historical. You know we have pre-Constantine Christian literature (the Gospels, other New Testament writings, and the writings of the church fathers) all of which proclaim deity of Christ and resurrection. The only thing that the Council of Nicea did force Christians to make an official Creed of what they already believed. Anyone who thinks the council of Nicea had many competing doctrines just doesn't know what they are talking about. The Arian heresy and the traditional Christian doctrine were the only ones in dispute.

Constantine supported the Arian heresy and it lost in a vote of 2 to 298. lol

But okay, let's ignore all of that because it doesn't answer my question. I didn't ask who M. Rasheed thought founded Christianity, I asked who founded Christianity according to Islam?

The answer is Allah.

Surely you know this.

After all it was Allah who deceived people into believing that he was crucified.

Quran 4:157- 158
"That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah”; - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not: -

Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise; -"

So where did we get the idea that Jesus died by crucifixion? Not from the apostle Paul and not the Council of Nicea. We got it from Allah according to the Quran.

After all Allah is the best of all deceivers (according to Quran 3:54; 7:99; 8:30). So good was Allah at deception, that generations of Christians believed that Jesus died on the Cross.

Remember Christianity is fundamentally based on Jesus’ death and resurrection. Sad, that Jesus came and failed as a Messiah. I mean what did Jesus really do? Allah saved him from crucifixion and then told no one thus founding a false religion.

Not only did Allah trick the Jews into believing that Jesus was crucified he seemed to promote Jesus’ followers who were led astray.

Quran 61:14
"O ye who believe! Be ye helpers of Allah: As said Jesus the son of Mary to the Disciples, "Who will be my helpers to (the work of) Allah?" Said the disciples, "We are Allah's helpers!" then a portion of the Children of Israel believed, and a portion disbelieved: But We gave power to those who believed, against their enemies, and they became the ones that prevailed."

According to this Surah, Allah allowed the Christians to prevail over the Jews. Who is the Quran talking about? Not the Muslim followers of Christ. We have no record of Muslim followers of Christ. So, they died out quickly if they existed at all.

So, when did Christians prevail? I must agree with Yusuf Ali who attributed it to the Roman Christians:

Yusuf Ali's commentary, footnote 5448 says:

"A portion of the Children of Israel - the ones that really cared for Truth - believed in Jesus and followed his guidance. But the greater portion of them were hard hearted, and remained in their beaten track of formalism and false racial pride. The majority SEEMED at first to have the upper hand when they thought they had crucified Jesus and killed his Message. But they were soon brought to their senses. Jerusalem was destroyed by Titus in A.D. 70 and the Jews have been scattered ever since. "The Wandering Jew" has become a bye-word in many literatures. On the other hand, those who followed Jesus permeated the Roman Empire, brought many new races withing their circle, and through the Roman Empire, Christianity became the predominant religion of the world until the advent of Islam...."

It gets stranger in Quran 3:55

"Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute."

So not only did Allah create Christianity and help them prevail he promised to make those who followed Jesus superior until the day of resurrection.

*looks outside window*

Nope. The day of Resurrection has yet to come. So, Allah either lied or wasn’t powerful enough to keep his word.

Speaking of not powerful enough and not keeping ones word… Can God’s word be corrupted? According to the Quran it can’t be corrupted.

Quran 6:114-115
"Say: "Shall I seek for judge other than Allah? - when He it is Who hath sent unto you the Book, explained in detail." They know full well, to whom We have given the Book, that it hath been sent down from thy Lord in truth. Never be then of those who doubt.

The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfilment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all."

and Quran 18:-27

"And recite (and teach) what has been revealed to thee of the Book of thy Lord: none can change His Words, and none wilt thou find as a refuge other than Him."

Yep, incorruptible. So then is the Torah and the Gospels the word of God?

Quran 3:3-4
"It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong).

Yep. Torah and the Gospel is the word of Allah. Which leads me to wonder something else if Allah failed and his words was corrupted then why did he send Christians to a corrupted book?"

and Quran 7:157

"Those who follow the messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures),- in the law and the Gospel;- for he commands them what is just and forbids them what is evil; he allows them as lawful what is good (and pure) and prohibits them from what is bad (and impure); He releases them from their heavy burdens and from the yokes that are upon them. So it is those who believe in him, honour him, help him, and follow the light which is sent down with him,- it is they who will prosper."

Now how could Christians find Muhammad in their corrupted Gospel centuries after the Council of Nicea? In fact, Christians and Jews are supposed to judge by this same corrupted revelation that Allah couldn’t stop from being tainted.

Quran 5:47
"Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.

Why is Allah sending us to our corrupted Gospels? If we judge by the Gospels we have, then we would be forced to concluded that the Quran is false. Allah even wanted them to stand upon these corruptions:"

Quran 5:68
"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." It is the revelation that cometh to thee from thy Lord, that increaseth in most of them their obstinate rebellion and blasphemy. But sorrow thou not over (these) people without Faith.:

Why would Allah ask Christians to stand upon a corrupted book? Wouldn’t Allah say get rid of them instead of pointing us to them?

If any of this is causing some doubts I recommend being a good Muslim and following Mohammed’s example in Surah 10:94:

If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in no wise of those in doubt.

I’ll be happy to help  ----

Now Mr. M. Rasheed has easily defeated the arguments presented here in the past. So I wanted to create a separate post just so everyone can see his solid response and watch me run away in defeat.

Muhammad Rasheed - A quick question for you to start.

1.) Why do you assume your interpretation of the Qur'anic verses you have selected... filtered through your Christian lens... is the correct one that supports your doctrinal views, when the central thesis of the Qur'an itself denies your faith's central beliefs regarding a crucified-turned-divine Jesus Christ?

Muhammad Rasheed - 2.) Kirb wrote: "Who created Christianity according to Islam? The answer is Allah."

The belief system you call "Christianity" -- with it's worship of the final Hebrew messenger, concept of Original Sin, rejection of righteous deeds to save the soul, etc. -- was not created by the One God. The Christ Jesus (peace be upon him) never know any of these concepts, as they were invented after his mission was complete. The religion of God was what was actually practiced by Jesus himself to demonstrate to the believers how to worship the One God. This is the religion that Allah created, and it never bore the name "Christianity" for the brief time period it was actually practiced on earth before the 'divine Jesus' usurpation happened. There is no god but Allah, the One God of Abraham, and He is not the Author of falsehood.

Muhammad Rasheed - 3.) Kirb wrote: "...we have pre-Constantine Christian literature (the Gospels, other New Testament writings, and the writings of the church fathers) all of which proclaim deity of Christ and resurrection"

This is hardly a full listing you've offered. You just listed the works that make up the current NT with amendments pretty much. The Apocryphal writings conflict with your preferred version of Christianity, which is why they are apocryphal. You mentioned Arianism, but there were other schools of doctrine as well. Cherry-picked bits and pieces of chunks of them eventually came to form the Christianity you know today. The Gnostics were a famous early Christian group with conflicting beliefs about who Jesus was and how he functioned exactly. The followers of James the Just were a major presence at the time, with James of course being the leader of the First Church of Jerusalem. That group definitely did NOT believe in a divine Jesus, and in fact followed a pure monotheistic belief system little different than Islam. The purpose of the Nicene Council was to definitely distinguish between all the so-called Christian doctrines, and definitively determine who Jesus really was. James' religion was obviously left on the cutting room floor.

Interestingly, the Christian scholar Oscar Cullmann pointed out that the Aramaic descriptor "mari" that Jesus was addressed by during his earthly lifetime, wasn't different than "rabbi," but it was the translation of 'mari' into 'kyrios' that caused the original confusion. In Greek, 'kyrios' means more than 'lord' and people quickly made the 'Jesus is divine!' leap once they had that rolling off their tongues. The Christian scholar Aloys Grillmeier pointed out that it was Paul who innovated the concept of actually worshiping Jesus as 'Lord,' as well as the concept of a pre-existing Christ, both of which heralded the so-called "Apostolic Age" in Christian literature scholarship

Muhammad Rasheed - 4.) Kirb wrote: "So where did we get the idea that Jesus died by crucifixion? We got it from Allah according to the Quran."
No, you got it from the enemies of Allah and His messenger, who boasted that they killed Jesus because they tried to kill Jesus. lol God saved the messenger, and made it appear as if they succeeded so they would not continue to pursue Jesus and his family. The religion was built up around the doubts and conjectures of a people who only thought they knew the truth of the matter, but in fact knew nothing. Today you can even find the doctrinal descendants of those same people rejecting the truth as revealed by Jesus' God in favor of those same long ago crafted conjectures.
Muhammad Rasheed - 5.) Kirb wrote: "After all Allah is the best of all deceivers (according to Quran 3:54; 7:99; 8:30). So good was Allah at deception..."
Why do you all insist upon translating 'mukhat' as 'deceive' when it means 'plan'? Do you think it aids in building your credibility in accurately translating the Qur'an?

Muhammad Rasheed - 6.) Kirb wrote: "Sad, that Jesus came and failed as a Messiah. I mean what did Jesus really do?"
Allah said the Christ didn't fail at all. In fact, He said they all were successful in performing that which they were anointed to perform, i. e., preach the Word of God and instruct the people in scripture and wisdom. Pointedly, Allah said it was not their job to make the people believe, but only to preach the Word clear & true. Allah confirmed that they did so, and thus earned their Reward. This includes the Christ Jesus, son of Mary, who was also successful in doing what his Lord commanded of him.
Muhammad Rasheed - 7.) Kirb wrote: "According to this Surah, Allah allowed the Christians to prevail over the Jews. Who is the Quran talking about? Not the Muslim followers of Christ. We have no record of Muslim followers of Christ. So, they died out quickly if they existed at all."
lol James the Just, the hand-picked heir of the Christ's message (who was actually more famous than his anointed big brother during the time period), was the leader of the First Church of Jerusalem, whose group was a major force to contend with. He and his followers were definitely Muslim, as they practiced the uncompromising monotheistic religion taught to them by the Christ himself.
Muhammad Rasheed - 8.) Kirb wrote: "...he promised to make those who followed Jesus superior until the day of resurrection."
Those who dedicate themselves to belief in the One God who made them are inherently superior to those who do not. Should they die in that believing state, they will thus remain in that superior position over the enemies of truth till the Resurrection. The battle is a spiritual one, not material. Do not be fooled by the shallow ebb & flow of earthly rises to power. They are inconsequential as the war will indeed be won by the One God. Glory be to He!
Muhammad Rasheed - 9.) Kirb posted: Quran 6:114-115'Say: "Shall I seek for judge other than Allah? - when He it is Who hath sent unto you the Book, explained in detail." They know full well, to whom We have given the Book, that it hath been sent down from thy Lord in truth. Never be then of those who doubt. The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfilment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all.'"
The argument here isn't towards the People of the Book, but to the pagan Arabs. "The Book, explained in detail" God is referring to is the Qur'an. God is the very Author of truth & justice; and when truth & justice are so achieved in any circumstance, God's Word is manifest. 
In every previous generation that molested their scripture, God always anointed a messenger to realign the people back to the purity of His newly-revealed Word to set things aright. Even in the case of the People of the Book and the Torah and Gospel, despite their efforts to change their charges to benefit their own vanities and lusts... BEHOLD! God anointed a new messenger, and revealed a new scripture to right the wrongs they unjustly attempted! Note that the Qur'an specifically addresses those specific corruption attempts, because He did indeed hear and know their schemes as they formed. As I mentioned above, the Qur'an bluntly addresses those items very early in its pages to let the schemers know that God was not fooled.
Muhammad Rasheed - 10.) Kirb posted: "and Quran 18:-27'And recite (and teach) what has been revealed to thee of the Book of thy Lord: none can change His Words, and none wilt thou find as a refuge other than Him.'"
Here God is talking directly to the prophet, so the "none can change His Words" part is referring to no one can change them on the revelation route from God, through the angel, to Muhammad (pbuh).
Muhammad Rasheed - 11.) Kirb wrote: "Yep, incorruptible. So then is the Torah and the Gospels the word of God?"
The current form of the Torah is what is left of the original Law of Moses, now the watered down memories of the ancient revealed scripture. The four Gospels of the NT are not the revelation of God even if I were to pretend they were actually the writings of the men whose names they bear. The actual Gospel -- the revealed message spoken by Jesus to the children of Israel was never collected in written form, and is conspicuously absent from the NT writings collection. Those writings were derived from things Jesus said, several times filtered through many people until they got to this form. Jesus' message was carried over by James' camp, until it faded away to be resurrected anew in the Qur'an.
Muhammad Rasheed - 12.) Kirb posted: Quran 3:3-4"It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong)."
God sent down the Torah to Moses and the Injil to Jesus. These were the pure and unfiltered Word of God, that were no different than how the Qur'an reads, from God's Voice. The work we call "Torah" today doesn't sound like that, but was obviously written later by people talking ABOUT Moses' adventures. It is clearly not the original scripture given to Moses but tales told about that event by later scribes. And again, the Gospel of Jesus is a lost Book, with only the fumes of its memory present in the NT's writings collection.
Muhammad Rasheed - 13.) Kirb wrote: "Yep. Torah and the Gospel is the word of Allah."
There is no evidence supporting this statement.
Kirb wrote: "Which leads me to wonder something else if Allah failed and his words was corrupted then why did he send Christians to a corrupted book?"
With the Qur'an among us... having confirmed, fulfilled and realigned the previous scripture back to the Path... obviously Allah did NOT fail in keeping His Word safe. That's what the cycle of new messengers and new revelation was all about, the phoenix-like rebirth of the ever-enduring Word of Allah. But now the cycle is complete, and the canon of sacred scripture is secure for the ages.
Muhammad Rasheed - 14.) Kirb posted: "and Quran 7:157"Those who follow the messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures),- in the law and the Gospel;- for he commands them what is just and forbids them what is evil; he allows them as lawful what is good (and pure) and prohibits them from what is bad (and impure); He releases them from their heavy burdens and from the yokes that are upon them. So it is those who believe in him, honour him, help him, and follow the light which is sent down with him,- it is they who will prosper."
This is actually the second part of a quote from God, in which He is paraphrasing something He told Moses long ago on Mt Sinai. Here He's actually telling Moses about the future coming of the Arab unlettered prophet.
Muhammad Rasheed - 15.) Kirb wrote: "Now how could Christians find Muhammad in their corrupted Gospel centuries after the Council of Nicea?"
Because before the rise of Islam, the envious among the People of the Book had no reason to fear the concept of a new prophet being prophesied, because each of them assumed such a figure would belong to their own camp -- the Jews assumed "that prophet" would be a Jew, and the Christians assumed he would be a Christian. It wasn't until the rise of Al-Islam, and centuries of our epic debates, did the theologians guarding the previous scriptures decide to downplay and eventually remove altogether the doctrine of a newly-arriving prophet.
Kirb wrote: "In fact, Christians and Jews are supposed to judge by this same corrupted revelation that Allah couldn’t stop from being tainted."
The revelation of the Qur'an was the definitive act of God removing the taint that you all allowed. Did He not say that He freed the Christ of the blasphemies you said about the messenger and his mom? God cleared their name of your taint with newly-revealed scripture sent down for the task.
Muhammad Rasheed - 16.) Kirb posted: Quran 5:47"Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel."
Kirb wrote: "Why is Allah sending us to our corrupted Gospels?"
He's actually not. That verse is part of a sequence in which God says that He revealed scripture to each camp's prophet -- to Moses, to Jesus, and to Muhammad -- and as He sent scripture down said to each the poetic quote "Let the people of the [Law/Gospel/Qur'an] judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel." When He finished with the Qur'an's part, he added that Muhammad had the authority to judge between both the Jews and the Christians, implying that this last scripture abrogated what the People of the Book held.
Kirb wrote: "If we judge by the Gospels we have, then we would be forced to concluded that the Quran is false."
Then you should let them go as they clearly have you courting hellfire. Bow down to the One God with unflinching monotheism as a Muslim and be saved.
Kirb wrote: "Allah even wanted them to stand upon these corruptions:"
No, He was speaking to the peoples of the distant past who had just received their fresh scripture as the messengers still walked among them. This sequence was a poetic retelling of past events in a creative and specialized form.
Muhammad Rasheed - 17.) Kirb posted: Quran 5:68"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." It is the revelation that cometh to thee from thy Lord, that increaseth in most of them their obstinate rebellion and blasphemy. But sorrow thou not over (these) people without Faith."
Kirb wrote: "Why would Allah ask Christians to stand upon a corrupted book? Wouldn’t Allah say get rid of them instead of pointing us to them?"
You're missing the relevance of the "and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord" part. He's telling you to accept ALL the revelation as truth, which is the Muslim's position "BELIEF IN THE BOOKS." That means by default that the Qur'an confirms, fulfills and abrogates the previous scriptures as it corrects those areas they were allowed to stray. In other words, God is telling the People of the Book to become Muslim.
Muhammad Rasheed - 18.) Kirb wrote: "If any of this is causing some doubts..."
Not even remotely.
Kirb wrote: "...I recommend being a good Muslim and following Mohammed’s example in Surah 10:94: 'If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in no wise of those in doubt.'"
In the verses before this, God recaps what happened during the Exodus adventures, so that's why He's telling the prophet to confirm with the doctors of the Law if he has doubts that this was really coming from God and not an over-active imagination.

Michael Daniels - M. Rasheed wrote: "This is hardly a full listing you've offered." 

Let's put things in historical context here. Jesus lived in the first century. The Council of Nicea took place in 325. By that time Biblical canon had already been established and the understanding of the nature of Christ and other essential doctrines were widespread among people then known as Christians. The things decided at the Council were by overwhelming majorities from as diverse a group as was available.

Michael Daniels - So roughly 300 years later the Qur'an is recited. There is no mention of James or any apocraphal writings. If there were other writings that explained better what Christianity should be why not reference them. The Qur'an doesnt even reference James own canonical writing, but it does laud the Gospels which firmly establish Christian doctrine, as does James the just btw.

Muhammad Rasheed - Michael wrote: "The Council of Nicea took place in 325. By that time Biblical canon had already been established..."

Meanwhile, the literal purpose of the Nicene Council was to determine what was to be canon in Western Christian literature.

Michael Daniels - This is absolutely, uneqivocably false. Look up the wiki under. "Common Misconceptions". I can't do links from my phone.

Michael Daniels - M. Rasheed wrote: "Why do you assume your interpretation of the Qur'anic verses you have selected..."

You seem to be saying here the Qur'an contradicts itself. Why wouldn't the cited scriptures agree with the central theme? You've provided no alternate interpretation in which they do.

Muhammad Rasheed - Oh. Because the verses he pulled are referring to concepts and events other than Kirb's doctrinal biases want them to mean. Early in the second Surah, Allah says point blank that the Hebrew messenger was not divine, he didn't get crucified, and he only preached the same message as all the other prophets, which includes Muhammad (peace be upon them all). This is all part of the Qur'an's central message that the entire religion of Islam is built around. So why would anyone assume that carefully cherry-picked quotes meant the opposite of what they definitively mean in context of the big picture message they were packaged in?

This sloppy paradox appears to be the foundational structure of Kirb's entire argument here, that he oddly has such confidence in.

Michael Daniels - Because they say what they say. And you've now given four more posts and failed to provide a context for these scriptures that fit them into the "central theme".

Muhammad Rasheed - The verses do "say what they say," but to decode them using a doctrinal lens that's fundamentally opposed to their contextual message, while stepping over and ignoring the verses that do provide that context, is intellectually dishonest, or just plain deliberately manipulative. In this case, with both you and Kirb, I don't believe it's a case of the latter, but that of a strong myopic viewpoint from two people trained in a myopic view since your youth. For you, the pauline doctrine interpretation makes perfect sense because you don't know anything else within a religious context. That's what it looks like when your "research" never ever strays outside of the narrow walls of your dedicated myopic point of view. That's why you two always respond the way you do when I reference the numerous Christian scholars whose work steps outside of the pauline doctrine literature to show where that body of work fits in to a bigger picture, which always shows Paul in a very different, oft unflattering light than you were trained to see him in. To my continuous amusement, those same Christian scholars never denounce their belief in Paul (which is why I take the time to point out that they are indeed "Christian scholars"), but are always able to weirdly compartmentalize the doctrine they were trained in, versus the stark truth of their consistent findings within the historic record. On cue, you and Kirb always treat them like heretics, because the facts support what the Qur'an says.

In other words, Kirb doesn't have a leg to stand on in this thread. It looks like he's flopping around like a beached fish to me, genuinely confused that I don't accept his interpretation of his carefully compiled Qur'anic verses at face value. I expect him to remain confused, as his audience is the people who think exactly the way he thinks, who will only hi-five him and reinforce the fallacies they all accept as truth.

Michael Daniels - And still another post where you fail to explain the Quranic verses Kirb cited. In fact you seem to be saying if they don't agree with the central theme they should be ignored. That's not proper from a legitimate holy book. It should be cohesive.

Muhammad Rasheed - The cohesiveness with the Qur'an's actual message is exactly what I'm arguing. You and Kirb seem to believe isolated verses can magically support the pauline doctrine's 'divine jesus' concept that the Qur'an point blank condemns just because you want them to, and you call that "cohesiveness" to the message. Naturally I have to reject that as a blatant slap in the face to both logic AND reason.

Michael Daniels - What you seem to be rejecting is explaining those scriptures. That's okay. I wont ask you to anymore. If you dont feel comfortable or up to it I won't force the issue. Just know that it reads as contradictory.

Muhammad Rasheed - I would imagine that it would only seem as if my posts were contradictory if the reader insisted that those verses could only possibly be interpreted through a pro-pauline doctrine lens, while refusing to ever even try to interpret the Qur'an through the main precepts that it builds the religion of Al-Islam from.

Otherwise l can't see how my posts would be considered contradictory from a more objective standpoint.

Michael Daniels - I'm sorry. Maybe yhe fault is mine in communicating. If you gave me a scripture from the Bible that seemed to be contradictory (and there are some that seem so) I would break that scripture down and explain the the specific context as to why it was not contradictory but in fact complimentary to the Biblical premise. I can do this because all Biblical scriptures are God breathed and designed for just such purposes. Are you not able to do this with the Qu'ran?

Muhammad Rasheed - Sure. This is all material that the three of us have covered numerous times in the past. There's nothing new here. The wall we always run into is that -- despite what the Qur'an says about Jesus from the Islamic standpoint -- you both still emphatically insist that when Allah references the Gospel, He must be referring to the NT as you hold it today, as opposed to the revealed scripture spoken by the Christ specifically, which is conspicuously no longer on earth. This is the source of the 'contradictory' illusion from your POV. Finding the message of God in your scripture with the help of the People of the Book requires a learned scholar with a big picture scope of the caliber of learned figure typically rejected by the Deacon and Kirb Brimstone level of Christian believer. Your type of Christian generally fails to retain the info when I take the time to explain what the Qur'anic verses that you use in your "ministering to our lost Moslem brethren" tool kit actually mean, and in fact you even dismiss my explanations as either apologetic, dishonest, "MRasheed-isms" and just otherwise not as accurate as your pauline-slanted interpretations.

So yes, I am able to do so, and have done so and I will do so again shortly (see above), no doubt to receive the same responses as before. The one consistent thing I notice when arguing with you two is you never hear me. Our discussions are a lot like living in that Groundhog Day movie with Bill Murray. lol

Kirb Brimstone - @Michael Daniels... Luv ya brother but I wanna post my response


See Also :

The Return of Kirb Brimstone

RESPONSE - Former Muslim Turned Christian Conversion Tale

Breaking Down Liberalism with Charles Mills

Logos Your Way & I Goes Mine

The Truth About "Islamic" Slavery

Debunking the Debunking: Yes, the GOP is Racist

Deep Space Exploration - Planet #1818: Kirby's World

Killing Blacks For Fun & Profit