My debate with pastor Angelos. Is the Bible the absolute word of God?

Response to Chris Claus on 1 John 2:22.

Recently in a conversation with Br. Ijaz Ahmad he brought to my attention an issue regarding 1 John 2:22. This obviously isn't new information for Biblical scholars or students of textual criticism. It's good timing to examine this passage since it was mentioned prominently in the debate between Mr. Claus and Br. Aqil on the topic of, "Is the Prophet Muhammed Pbuh Prophesied in the Bible". Mr. Claus raised an argument quoting 1 John 2:22, where he indicated that this verse applies to the Prophet of Islam Pbuh. I questioned Br. Ijaz about this when he was advising me on apologetics methods. Even though Br. Ijaz was unable to contribute his personal opinion on the debate as he was the moderator, I asked him about 1 John 2:22 :

"Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist--denying the Father and the Son." - 1 John 2:22.

I was shown actual textual evidence regarding 1 John 2:22: Manuscript GA 023 

(Note: A correction was made by Br. Ijaz, the word Sinopensis was incorrect).

For verse 22, everything in this verse, after, "Who is the liar, if not one denying that Jesus is..." is missing. It does not contain, "Such a person is the antichrist--denying the Father and the Son."

The above manuscript greatly affects the claim made by Mr. Claus who stuck to the idea that this verse applies to the Prophet of Islam Pbuh, if one is looking at the earliest textual evidence of this verse. 

For the record GA 023 has folios dating between ~300 CE and 600 CE, this folio (page) falls into the earlier period of ~300 CE. This is the earliest manuscript of  1 John we have. It is missing the phrase after, "Who is the liar".

In short 1 John 2:22 has missing words after, "Who is the liar," and a partial text until, "Jesus is". The words, "Such a person is the antichrist--denying the Father and the Son," are later additions to later manuscripts.  

I advise my Christian friends to not use this verse as their shield in the future, as this is only going to backfire on them. I would like to thank Br. Ijaz Ahmad for giving me this information.

--------------

According to the New Testament Moses is the Antichrist

Jesus was never mentioned by Moses by name, nor did Moses accept Jesus as "Christ the Messiah". Let's go to 1 john 2:22 and use its criteria to identify who is the Antichrist

Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the Antichrist--denying the Father and the Son. (1 John 2:22)

Doesn't this show that Moses of the Bible was the Antichrist for denying Jesus as the Christ. If you disagree please show us where Jesus was called the messiah by name in the Torah. think about it if Moses really did mention Jesus by name or call him the Messiah allegorically, why then don't we find any such explanation of this allegorical saying interpreted by Jewish rabbis in any of their classical writing's throughout history?

there are no early writings from Jewish rabbis regarding Jesus being mentioned by Moses. the Talmud/ Mishna make no mention of Jesus being the Messiah. No orthodox Jew ever made mention of Jesus being the son of God, or said Moses said the son of God will be the Messiah.

Then he said, "When I was with you before, I told you that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and in the Psalms must be fulfilled." (Luke 24:44)

Jesus even said Moses spoke everything about him, so where do we find the explicit mention of Jesus by name in the Torah by Moses or any other Prophets per say?

If Moses was unaware of Jesus, then we can conclude using 1 John 2:22 he was the Antichrist.

Now, there is a way out from this Christians? All they have to do is, admit the Torah they have has been corrupted/altered by those evil rabbis, who took the name of Jesus out. Which probably would make more sense, rather than twisting their text and trying to find a name which isn't in there in the first place.

One wonders if the Jews would accept such absurdity from Christians for admitting their so called saviours name being erased?

Jesus said I am He (Christians are desperate now)

The woman said, "I know that Messiah" (called Christ) "is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us." (John 4:25)

The above verse from context is about the Samaritan women who has a discussion with Jesus, which starts off after a journey to Samaria Jesus was tired and asked the women for some water and its continues...  Now after a long chat coming to verse 25 we read that the women was aware of a messiah to arrive who will EXPLAIN EVERYTHING!  what did Jesus reply ?

Then Jesus declared, "I, the one speaking to you--I am He."

(John 4:26)

Here we can read Jesus explicitly declared He was the Messiah which no Muslim on The planet will reject, however point to be noted here is Jesus referred himself as HE in context to Messiah thus he meant Messiah... So when we read in the very same book of John Jesus calling himself He one can easily make the distinction that he's referring himself as the Messiah and this also also includes John 8:24

I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he (Messiah), you will indeed die in your sins." (John 8:24)

This can also be verified by his very own disciple Peter, when Jesus asked him who he was he replied you are the Messiah!

"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Peter answered, "You are the Messiah." (Mark 8:29)

Just for the records the Aramaic texts states The Living God, but I assure you this is not true as the Aramaic text does not say Living God rather it's been rendered by translators. I have seem the Aramic text and did not find Living God but only He so we can see the deceptive motive..

----------

If a man cannot consider himself to be Good how does he Become God? Take for instance book of mark when the Jew calls him Good and Jesus replies he is not Good rather only God is Good, if he really was God this will be consider as he lied? And God doesn't lie

"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone.

(Mark 10:18)

So let's not get carried away with making a man into a God rather let God have his high status like he is due...

kill the non believers say's the Bible

Man takes precedence over his Wife!

To the woman He said, "I shall surely increase your sorrow and your pregnancy; in pain you shall bear children. And to your husband will be your desire, and he will rule over you." (Genesis 3:16)

Notice from the above text how Yahweh punished Eve for eating the fruit. Compare her punishment with Adam, it seems clear, Yahweh was lenient towards man and extremely harsh towards the woman. Let’s take a closer look at the text, women will bear labour pain. Question is, how could a loving caring God make every  women on earth suffer with such a traumatic pain for the error of one person?

Here's the interesting part, the husband of the woman will be her desire and he will rule over her. Jewish commentator Rashi gives us a good explanation of what that means:

Rashi's commentary :

And to your husband will be your desire: for intimacy, but, nevertheless, you will not have the audacity to demand it of him with your mouth, but he will rule over you. Everything is from him and not from you. — [from Eruv. ad loc.]

Classical commentator Rashi explains this verse is saying women have no right  over their  husband, they can't even demand intimacy even if they had the urge to. The key point to note is MAN WILL RULE OVER HIS WIFE. This is such a strong  statement  giving man all power to dominate over his wife. What does it mean  "Rule over you"?

If you search the word "Rule" in any English dictionary you'll find it typically means :("exercise ultimate power or authority over an area and its people. control of or dominion over an area or people.) in other words the husband is the sole ruler, King, authority, judge dominator over his wife. Which means the husband does what he likes when he likes, taking precedence and his wife cannot do anything about it other than accepting his decision. 

Here's the problem Christians face. If man is the master over his wife making  her no less than a servant, then what prevents him from beating her? There is  no prohibition in the bible regarding wife beating.  Think about it, if the husband is her desire who rules over her, it's natural he can beat her if she displeases him. If the bible allows the master to beat his servant whether man or women (Exodus 21:20) what could  prevent the husband from beating his wife since he is her master who owns her. She has no free will.

 

Let's break this down :

 

The desire for a woman will be her husband.

 

Her husband will rule over her.

 

Women has no say nor can she demand anything from her husband.

 

Her husband has all power and authority to do what he likes.

 

Her husband can beat her as he is her ruler 

 

The bible does not prohibit wife beating.

Let the bible speak!

Peaceful or violent ?

God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. (2 Thessalonians 1:6-8)

--------------

The above passage raises a couple of serious problems for Christians. Notice how the texts read during the second coming of Jesus he will have alongside with him powerful Angels who will punish those who do not obey the gospel of Jesus!. Think about this for a moment, Christians tell us Jesus is a loving peaceful man who never hurt a fly. Yet this passage portrays a very evil dangerous figure no less than Hitler who was trying to dominate the world.

One of the other problem found in this passage is the short time span? What do we mean by that let me elaborate. According to the passage when Jesus arrives with his angels and finds  anyone who is not obeying him should be destroyed seems very unfair, why because from a historical point the story of Jesus  did not reach each and every person. Which means hundreds and thousands were unaware of Jesus and his gospel. If that's the case and Jesus was supposed have arrived those innocent people who knew him not would have been destroyed!. Paul himself wrote in Thessalonians that he is expecting Jesus anytime which says a lot if Paul was living during the 1st century. There are other passages found in the bible which reads that the second coming of Jesus will be a very violent one.

at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,.....

      (Philippians 2:10-11)

But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.'" (Luke 19:27)

I want to point out that the above passage says anyone who doesn't obey the gospel of Jesus will be destroyed. You can say Luke 19:27 is a parable which is true, but note this is talking of Jesus's second coming

Now coming back to The Initial passage 2 Thessalonians 1:6-8 if Christians were going to apply this standard of Muslims them we will pass with flying colours. How did I come to this concludes well Muslims believe in the Gospel of Jesus Pbuh, we do not believe In the gospels (plural) rather the singular Gospel which was originally given to Jesus Pbuh. And in the Gospel of Jesus we find the true message where Jesus Pbuh himself said to worship Allah Swt the true God and not to associate partners with him if anyone does then paradise will be forbidden for him. Every Muslim on the planet accept and obey such command. 

However on the other hand Christians believe in what Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John said they don't have the gospel of Jesus. This is a fact which Christians admit to. So in short Jesus of the bible returns he will bring Angels and kill whosoever doesn't obey him. This also means the freedom of religion will be taken away.

Ask yourself this question is Jesus of the bible loving and peaceful or violent taking away all religious freedom killing innocent people!

No blasphemy was committed!

MISHNAH. THE BLASPHEMER IS PUNISHED ONLY IF HE UTTERS [THE DIVINE] NAME. (I.e., the Tetragrammaton YAHWEH) R. JOSHUA B. KARHA SAID: 

(Talmud Sanhedrin 55b)

Here's the problem nowhere in the entire New Testament did Jesus ever utter the word Yahweh nor was the name Yahweh used by any of his disciples ?? So how could Jesus have been condemned as a blasphemer when he never uttered the name?

Neither did Jesus ever call himself God explicitly, which again could not condemn him as a blasphemer? Just for the record when Jesus supposed to have said :

Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? ( John 14:9)

Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. This  alleged statement was specifically said to his disciple not to the Jewish rabbis, scribe Pharisees. Since the Jews were not present there this cannot apply as blasphemy as no Jews heard this statement to use it against him. Now coming to the statement such as :

Before Abraham was i am & I and the father are one. A closer inspection of these two alleged sayings nullify any idea of Jesus calling himself God or omitting blasphemy:

"You are not yet fifty years old," they said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!
(John 8:57)

------------------------

Notice from the above text, once read from context we find that the jews and jesus were having a face to face dialogue. Jesus spoke about Abraham that he was waiting to see his days..

“Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” (v56)

Yet the jews answered back :

"You are not yet fifty years old," they said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!
(John 8:57)

Now why did the jews say YOU ARE NOT FIFTY YEARS OLD? AND YOU HAVE SEEN ABRAHAM?? What difference would it make if jesus was 500 years old since the time gap between Abraham and Jesus would have been 4000 years...

Unless they were speaking of a man who lived during the time of Jesus called Abraham which would make more sense saying your not fifty and you know Abraham.

Its like saying your not 60 years old how can you say you saw JFK ( ex president) now the question is if jesus was meant to declare his divinity then why didnt he say before Adam was Iam?? Thats if we take the Iam as God even though thats not what it means! Why stop at Abraham how about Noah do you see the problem this causes for christians

This tells us according to john there must of been a man during the first century called Abraham whom the jews were taking as a pious man

Here's another problem 

John 8:57: 

TEXT: "and have you seen Abraham?"
EVIDENCE: p⁶⁶ S^c A B C D K L W X Delta Theta Pi Psi f1 f13 28 33 565 700 892 1010 1241 Byz Lect lat vg syr(p,h,pal) most cop(north)
TRANSLATIONS: KJV ASV RSV NASV NIV NEB TEV
RANK: B

--------

NOTES: "and has Abraham seen you?"
EVIDENCE: p⁷⁵ S* 0124 syr(s) one cop(north) cop(south)
TRANSLATIONS: RSVn NEBn TEVn

COMMENTS: A few copyists apparently changed the Jews' question to be more like Jesus' statement in verse 56 ("he would see my day; and he saw [it]").

The Textual Variant changes the entire message  of the IAM saying wouldn't you say

-------------------

Jesus did not call himself God John 10:30 nor did he blaspheme 

I and my father are one ( John 10:30) a typical saying used  by every Christian evangelist. if only they read the entire episode of what was said by each side, they could  have spared themselves from such embarrassment . Not only did Jesus call the Jews god's (John 10:34) he also proved them wrong by calling himself a son of god negating such statements by the Jews!

Jesus encounters the Jews 

The Jews ask, who he really is?

Jesus tells them, he is doing his father’s job i.e. working for God

Jews we’re still unsure ?

Jesus responses to them by saying “i and the father are one”

Jews picked up stones to stone him

Jesus challenged them by saying, why are they stoning him?

Jews replied to Jesus saying he blasphemed calling himself God

do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? (John 10:36)

Jesus is confirming he is not God rather a son of God, in Jewish understanding this means a Servant of God. also note psalm 82:6 ye are gods meaning judges, the John 10:30 could mean the Jews didn't accept Jesus as a judge like themselves! Again John 10:30 doesn't qualify Jesus as God.

The question is why was is charged for blasphemy when he never committed such an act?

A short review of Mr. Chris claus & Br. Aqil's debate

The countless amount of red herrings committed by Mr. Chris Claus during his debate with  Br. Aqil really took the biscuit. The entire debate can be found on this page courtesy of MAP (Muslim Apologetics Podcast). During the debate Br. Aqil Produced many evidences and proofs  from the bible where Prophet Muhammed Pbuh is Prophecised.  This obviously was too much for Mr. Chris Claus to handle, Rather then making a consistent response for the evidences produced Mr. Chris went off topic & misquoted his own bible. I urge everyone to watch this debate carefully and see it for yourself on who was on and off topic.

Now I would like to also respond to a few points which Mr. Chris made during his debate. I will show you how Mr. Chris was very inconsistent and unaware how his own comments backfired on him. Here are some of the claims made by Mr. Chris :

Mr. Chris said one of the standards of prophethood according to the Torah is God would speak to his prophet face to face like he spoke to Moses. He quoted Deuteronomy 34 and Numbers 12. Basing his argument on those passages  Mr. Chris thought he could make a solid point. Unfortunately Mr. Chris's bold attempt only backfires on him. If one the standards of being a True Prophet is God speaking to them face to face then his saviôur Jesus has failed that standard without a doubt. There is not a single verse in the entire New Testament which reads Yahweh and Jesus had a direct one to one conversation like Moses did not a single verse Everytime Jesus spoke to Yahweh he got no reply!. How ironic Mr. Chris was basing his argument on such a high standard which his own saviôur failed upon.

Chris  goes on by citing verses from the Quran and adds his own commentary he first cited Quran Chapter 96

 Proclaim! (or read!) in the name of thy Lord and Cherisher, Who created- (Surah 96:1) 

And then Quran Chapter 28

46. Nor wast thou at the side of (the Mountain of) Tur when we called (to Moses). Yet (art thou sent) as Mercy from thy Lord, to give warning to a people to whom no warner had come before thee: in order that they may receive admonition.47. If (We had) not (sent thee to the Quraish),- in case a calamity should seize them for (the deeds) that their hands have sent forth, they might say: "Our Lord! why didst Thou not sent us an apostle? We should then have followed Thy Signs and been amongst those who believe!"48. But (now), when the Truth has come to them from Ourselves, they say, "Why are not (Signs) sent to him, like those which were sent to Moses?" Do they not then reject (the Signs) which were formerly sent to Moses? They say: "Two kinds of sorcery, each assisting the other!" And they say: "For us, we reject all (such things)!"49. Say: "Then bring ye a Book from Allah, which is a better guide than either of them, that I may follow it! (do), if ye are (Surah 28:46-49)

Had Chris read the entire context then he wouldn't of cherry picked a single verse giving his own commentary which earlier he himself was speaking against cherry picking?. Notice from the context how the story of Moses Pbuh is mentioned which the disbelievers used as an objection here's an actual commentary of  verse 48 which Chris was speaking about.   

----------

That is, “Why has not Muhammad (peace be upon him) been given all those miracles which had been given to the Prophet Moses (peace be upon him)? He also should have shown us the miracle of the staff; his hand also should have shone like the sun; his deniers also should have been struck with storms and plagues from the earth and heaven; and he also should have brought them commandments written on stone tablets.” 

 This is a reply to their objection, which implies: “The disbelievers of Makkah had not believed in Moses (peace be upon him) either, nor followed his teachings. Therefore they had no right to say: Why has the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) not been given the same miracles that were given to the Prophet Moses (peace be upon him)?” In (Surah Saba: Ayat 31), this saying of the disbelievers of Makkah has been related: “We shall never believe in this Quran, nor in any other Book which came before it.” ( Islamic studies Tafheem commentary Surah 28:48)

-------------

It's pretty obvious that Mr. Chris hasn't read the Quran with full attention nor was he aware of this verse which clearly and explicitly destroys his entire baseless argument. Just to add Jesus was asked by the Jews to show signs to prove he was a true prophet which he eventually said no sign shall be given? 

It is not given to any human being that Allah should speak to him except through revelation, or from behind a veil, or that a messenger (an angel) be sent to him who reveals to him by Allah's leave whatever He wishes. He is All-High, Most Wise. (Surah 42:51)

Notice how the above verse from the Quran tells us the different methods of revelations and one of them is sending a Messenger (an Angel) to bring revelations. And this is spoken by Allah Swt for us Muslims the words of Allah is sufficient. What the Torah says does not change what we believe in and for the record there is not mention in the Torah where an Angel cannot bring revelation to a Prophet of God, Again Mr Chris shows no consistency.

Let's move on Mr. Chris now brings up the idea that Jews and  Christians are the sons of God and and Prophet Muhammed Pbuh was against this idea of the Jews and Christians  which obviously goes against the teaching of the Torah Deuteronomy 14:1 - 32:6-20. He also quoted from the Quran Surah 19 and Surah 5 which refutes this ill ideology that God has children's (sons) the two Surah that Mr. Chris used in support for his  argument actually goes against it and completely destroys them 

(Both) the Jews and the Christians say: "We are sons of Allah, and his beloved." Say: "Why then doth He punish you for your sins? Nay, ye are but men,- of the men he hath created: He forgiveth whom He pleaseth, and He punisheth whom He pleaseth: and to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between: and unto Him is the final goal (of all)"  (Surah 5:18)

Notice how Allah Swt is saying if the Jews and Christians really were the sons of God why do they get punished for their sins? Would a father punish his children's for sins? The verse goes on to say they are men's I.e mortal people who can not be part of God in any way. And to Allah Swt belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between. It's more acceptable to say we humans are the servants of Allah Swt as he Allah Swt created us. And this is found in Surah 19.

90. At it the skies are ready to burst, the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin,91. That they should invoke a son for ((Allah)) Most Gracious. 92. For it is not consonant with the majesty of ((Allah)) Most Gracious that He should beget a son. 93. Not one of the beings in the heavens and the earth but must come to ((Allah)) Most Gracious as a servant. (Surah 19:90-93)

Note A Master would be able to Save and punish  his servant as he pleases he has no restrictions and a master is not ordered nor emotionally give be in. The next point I want to address is when Chris was trying to interpret Deuteronomy 33 

And he said, The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them. (Deuteronomy 33:2)

It's fascinating how Mr. Chris lacks on simple biblical exegesis. He completely misquoted the verse of Deuteronomy adding a big here and a big there which his own bible forbids!. He said the Lord came from  Sinai is speaking of God I.e Yahweh is the figure being spoken of ? What does The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them really mean? Let's find out from biblical commentaries :

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

2-4. The Lord came—Under a beautiful metaphor, borrowed from the dawn and progressive splendor of the sun, the Majesty of God is sublimely described as a divine light which appeared in Sinai and scattered its beams on all the adjoining region in directing Israel's march to Canaan. 

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

The appearance of God on Sinai is described as a sunrise. His light rose from Sinai, and the tops of the hills of Seir caught its rays. The full blaze of light shone on Paran. (Comp. Psalm 1:2 : “Out of Zion, the perfection of beauty, God  hath shined.”)

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

2. The Lord] Jehovah; as frequently, the Divine Name opens the poem; see on Deuteronomy 1:6.

Sinai] See Deuteronomy 1:2; Deuteronomy 1:6, on Ḥoreb, and on the view that the mountain lay in Se‘îr cp. Jdg 5:4.

rose] Like the sun: rays, or beams, forth.

Benson commentary 

 Rose up from Seir — Namely, when, upon the removal of the cloud of glory, they marched from the neighbourhood of Idumea, in which is mount Seir. The original word signifies that his presence rose upon them like the sun from the mount, (Malachi 4:2,) 

Pulpit Commentary

Verse 2. - And he said. Here begin the words of Moses. He commences by depicting the majesty of Jehovah as he appeared to Israel when he came to make the covenant with them and give them his Law. The Lord came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them, etc. Seir is the mountain land of Edom to the cast of Sinai. Mount Paran is probably the range of lofty hills which form the southern boundary of the Promised Land to the north of the desert of Et-Tih. These places are not mentioned as scenes of different manifestations of the Divine glory, but as indicating the extent to which the one manifestation given at Sinai reached. The light of the Divine glory that rested on Sinai was reflected also from the mountains of Seir and Paran

The above commenters have debunked Chris's claims that Yahweh the figure spoken of was actually there? No it's referring to a divine glory like the sun being present there. He also goes on to say the Hebrew word used in the verse for 10,000 doesn't actually mean that it only means multitude? But does it really let's find out. The Hebrew word used is (רְבָבָה) rebabah which does mean 10,000 there are many many verses which uses the same Hebrew word saying 10,000. Take for example the verse below and other references alongside.

Five of you will pursue a hundred, and a hundred of you will pursue ten thousand (רְבָבָה rebabah), and your enemies will fall by the sword before you. (Leviticus 26:8)

Genesis 24:60, Deuteronomy 32:30, Deuteronomy 33:17, 1. Samuel 18:7-8, 1 Samuel 29:5, psalm 3:6, psalm 91:7, Micah 6:7, Songs of Solomon 5:10 etc etc...  Another false claim made by Chris debunked.. 

Another random subject Mr. Chris jumped on to was Isaiah 9:6 where he used it as a prophecy referring it to Jesus as he was specifically focusing on the Hebrew word el gabbor mighty god? Let's examine his claim and falsify it using his own bible. 

Firstly accords to Jewish scholars Isaiah 9:6 is not referring to Jesus at all rather it's referring to King Hezekiah as Hezekiah means mighty god, which is only a name given to him not that he really is god. The bible is full of people and objects who bear the name of God below is a few example.

country of Ephraim, whose name was Elkanah son of Jeroham, the son of Elihu, the son of Tohu, the son of Zuph, an Ephraimite. (1 Samuels 1:1)

Hebrew ( אֱלִיה֛וּא) ’ĕ-lî-hū  means my god is he!, Does that make Elihu a god?

Year after year this man went up from his town to worship and sacrifice to the LORD Almighty at Shiloh, where Hophni and Phinehas, the two sons of Eli, were priests of the LORD. (1 Samuel 1:3)

Hebrew ( עֵלִ֗י) Eli means my god Does that make Eli a god?

He went to his father's home in Ophrah and on one stone murdered his seventy brothers, the sons of Jerub-Baal. But Jotham, the youngest son of Jerub-Baal, escaped by hiding. (Judges 9:5)

Hebrew (יוֹתָ֧ם) yō-w-ṯām jotham means the perfect god Is jotham a perfect god??

There he set up an altar and called it El Elohe Israel. (Genesis 33:20)

Hebrew (אֱלֹהֵ֥י אֵ֖ל) the god, is the altar god?

Moses built an altar and called it The LORD is my Banner. (Exodus 17:15)

Hebrew ( נִסִּֽי׃ יְהוָ֥ה) yahwh is the banner Is god the banner of the alter?

The above textual proofs from the very bible Chris use's is sufficient to prove Isaiah 9:6 

el

 

gabbor

 mighty god carries no strength in proving Jesus was god or Prophesied. Chris further went on to say that the book of Isaiah was not good enough to use as prophetic evidence by brother 

Aqil

 as Isaiah does not qualify as one of the book for the Torah I.e the law and that's according to Chris's standard. Chris was saying show me one credible scholars evidence who takes Isaiah as one of the books of the law?. This probably was one of the biggest bad move Chris made as his very own 

saviôur

 whom he was preaching about exposed him. Brother 

Aqil

 not only refuted him on this but literally made him feel embarrassed by showing how Jesus himself referred to psalm as the law John 10:34- John 15:25 etc...

How about when Jesus went to the synagogue and read out from the scroll of Isaiah and the indeed this prophecy has been fulfilled?. He was using Isaiah's scriptures to prove his prophet hood why didn't he use the Torah why use Isaiah?. Did he not say in Luke 24 that everything about him was mentioned by Moses?. And this leads to another point raised by Chris He quotes 1 John 2

Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist--denying the Father and the Son. (1 John 2:22)

According to Mr. Christ whoever rejects Jesus then he is the Antichrist. And he implied this towards the Prophet of Islam Pb uh. Here's the dilemma Chris falls into if he thinks anyone who denies Jesus then is he the anti Christ. Jesus was never mentioned by Moses by name. nor did Moses accept Jesus as Christ, using your criteria of 1 john 2:22 doesn't this show that Moses of the bible was the anti Christ. Now If you disagree please show us where Jesus was called the messiah by name in the Torah. Luke 24:44 Jesus even said Moses spoke everything about him, so where do we find the explicit mention of Jesus by name in the Torah by Moses.

He also shared the most used statement by every Christians preacher on the planet. I am the way life and truth. Chris thinks that Jesus of the bible was the only man on earth who is the way to salvation, wrong Chris as Muslims we believe each and every Prophets Pbut are the way and truth, here is what the Quran says about Prophet Muhammed Pbuh. 

The Way Truth and Life yes Prophet Muhammed Pbuh is Mentioned with such Qualities :

He is on the straight path the Right Way

And indeed, (O Muhammad), you guide to a straight path. (Ash-Shura 42:52)

Say: "O men! I am sent unto you all, as the Messenger of Allah, to Whom belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth: there is no god but He: it is He That giveth both life and death. So believe in Allah and His Messenger, the Unlettered Prophet, who believeth in Allah and His words: follow him that (so) ye may be guided." ( surah 7:58)

Then We put thee on the (right) Way of Religion: so follow thou that (Way), and follow not the desires of those who know not. (Surah 45:18)

( also quote Surah 36:3-4)

-------------------------

He is Sadiq (Truthful) 

And when the believers saw the clans, they said: This is what Allah and His (Prophetic) Messenger promised us, and Allah and His (Prophetic) Messenger are true, and it only added to their faith and submission (to Allah). (33:22)

He brought the truth

And say: The truth has come and the falsehood has vanished away. Undoubtedly, the falsehood is ever bound to vanish. (17:81)

And he who has come with the truth and he who accepts it as the truth, such are those that guard (against evil). (39:33)

---------------------------

He calls you to that which gives you life

O you who believe! Answer (the call of) Allah and the (Prophetic) Messenger when he calls you to that which gives you life, and know that Allah comes between the man and his own heart, and that to Him you shall be gathered. (8:24)

Note I also have a paper to refute Jesus of the bible is the only way and Truth here's the http://mustafa-apologist.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/jesus-answered-i-am-way-and-truth-and.html

Those were a few points I wanted to address showing how inconsistent Mr. Chris was once again I urge everyone to watch the debate and then decided for yourself..

Son of Baal and sons of Zeus !

James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means "sons of thunder"), (Mark 3:17)

-------------

Why was James and John called "SONS OF THUNDER"? Luke tells us what James and John said when the people of Samaritan did not welcome Jesus.

And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?

(Luke 9:54)

Notice how James and John said to Jesus does  he want them to Command fire to come down from the heaven!. This is a very powerful statement made by his disciples which Jesus himself could not do. The only person who actually did this physically was Elijah.

Elijah replied to the captain of fifty, "If I am a man of God, let fire come down from heaven and consume you and your fifty." Then fire came down from heaven and consumed him and his fifty. 
(2 Kings 1:10)

It's amazing how the disciples felt offended because Jesus was rejected by the Samaritans, they were willing to destroy and entire village summoning fire from the heavens!. Even though Jesus had rebuked them the fact they made that attempt to try and wipe them off, they could not tolerate anyone making mockery or disrespecting their master.

This obviously gave them the title as the SONS OF THUNDER!. did  Jesus not know he made his disciples into demigods. The ancient Greeks believed Zeus to be the god of Thunder!.

Zeus /ˈzʲuːs/ (Ancient Greek: Ζεύς, Zeús, [zdeǔ̯s]; Modern Greek: Δίας, Días [ˈði.as]) was the sky and thunder god in ancient Greek religion, who ruled as king of the godsof Mount Olympus. His name is cognate with the first element of his Roman equivalent Jupiter.

This gets even worse as from my previous paper  I've shown how Yahweh is a pagan god Baal, and if his disciples were the son of the thunder god Zeus what does that tell you? Paganism at its best!

http://mustafa-apologist.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/yahweh-called-himself-baal-and-in-that.html

Paul and his 500 unknown witnesses ?

and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. 

(1 Corinthians 15:5-8)

It's funny how Paul never mentioned Mary Magdalene at all how comes? How absurd that Paul gave a random number of 500, yet gave no more information about them?. Why did Paul omit Mary Magdalene since the very first person according to the gospels was Mary Magdalene. Doesn't this tell us that Paul was not really aware of the so called resurrection event!. Paul even goes as far as saying :

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8)

Notice how Paul said anyone who preaches a different gospel then what he has then let them be cursed. Point one is that Mark, Matthew, Luke and John decades later preached a different gospel since not a single quotations Paul made about Jesus is found in any of the gospels. Point two the four gospels explicitly mention Mary Magdalene as a disciple of Jesus and allegedly for the first to meet Jesus after the so called resurrection event, which Paul never made any mention of. Clearly that a problem for Christians to solve.

The other problem we have with Paul's exaggerated number is that Peter statement contradicts with it.

And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,) (Acts 1:15)

The above tells us Peter spoke to about 120 people not 500. Nor does the gospels speak of Jesus allegedly met with 500 people? Also one has to question why did Paul say 500 and did he expect to get caught out?. And the answer is no why because of many reasons below is a list of few reason why Paul could have lied written by Bob Seidensticker he makes some extremely valid point why the whole appearance to  500 witnesses  cannot be accepted.

Let’s think this through. Imagine that we’re in that church in Corinth and we have just received Paul’s letter.

1. What does “appeared” mean? Jesus “appeared” to Paul as a vision (Acts 9:3–9), but Paul uses the same verb to refer the appearance of Jesus to Peter, James, and the 500 as well as to Paul. Could Paul think that the appearance to everyone was as a vision?

2. Who are these 500 eyewitnesses? Names and addresses, please? To find out, someone would need to send a letter back to Paul, at that moment 200 miles across the Aegean Sea in Ephesus. If a church member had the money, time, and guts to write this letter, why would Paul have deigned to reply?

Even if Paul had witnessed Jesus in front of the 500 (he hadn’t), it’s possible he wouldn’t have known a single person in that crowd. And even if Paul thought the number were accurate, “500 eyewitnesses” might be all he had heard, and he wouldn’t have been able to back it up with any evidence.

3. How many will still be around? Paul wrote this epistle in about 55CE about a supposed event that occurred over 20 years earlier. Of the 500 eyewitnesses, how many are still alive and still in Jerusalem, ready to be questioned?

4. Who could make this trip? Jerusalem is 800 miles away, and getting there would involve a long, dangerous, and expensive trip.

5. How many candidates for this trip? Paul had only started the church in Corinth a couple of years earlier. There would probably have been less than 100 members.* Would even one have the means and motivation to make the big trip to Jerusalem?

6. Who would challenge Paul? If the founder of the church says something, who’s likely to question it? There might well have been people who were unimpressed by Paul’s message, but these would never have joined the church. Others within the church might have become disappointed and left. Even if these people had wanted to embarrass Paul, they wouldn’t have been in the church community to learn of the claim.

7. What did the eyewitnesses actually see? Let’s imagine that we have the money and daring to make the trip, we have a plan for whom to interview in Jerusalem, and we’re rebellious enough to spit in the face of our church’s founder to see if he’s a liar.

After many adventures, we reach Jerusalem. What will the eyewitnesses say? At best they’ll say that, over 20 years ago, they saw a man. Big deal—that’s uninteresting unless they saw him dead before. Had they been close enough to the movement to be certain that they recognized Jesus? Human memory is notoriously inaccurate. There’s a big difference between the certainty one has in a memory and its accuracy—these don’t always go together.

8. So what? Suppose all these unlikely things happen: we make the long trip, we search for eyewitnesses, and we conclude that Paul’s story is nonsense. If we successfully make the long trip back, what difference will this make? Even if we had the guts to tell everyone that Paul’s story was wrong, so what? Who would believe us over the church’s founder? We’d be labeled as bad apples, we’d be expelled from the church, the church would proceed as before, and Paul’s letter would still be copied through the centuries for us to read today!

9. Why is this even compelling evidence? No gospel uses this anecdote as evidence. For whatever reason—that they’d never heard it or that they had and felt that it was uninteresting—the gospels argue that this is unconvincing evidence. Why should we think otherwise?

The above list made by Bob Seidensticker completely destroyed Pauls Lies to Corinthians.

------------------

For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brothers at once; of whom the greater part remain to this present, but some are fallen asleep. (1 Corinthians 15:3-6)

Question :

1) Where in scriptures (Tanack) does it state, Jesus will die for sins?

2) Where in scriptures (tanack) does it state, Jesus would be buried and rise after 3 days?

3) Paul said Jesus met Cephas first? Where in the gospels does it say Cephas was the first to meet Jesus?

4) Paul after meeting Cephas, Jesus met the twelve. who was the twelve disciples since Judas was included?

5) Paul said Jesus was seen by 500 brothers. who exactly were these people, why didn't Paul give any names?

6) Paul said 500 brethren saw Jesus. Paul made no mention of Mary Magdalene and the other Mary's or the empty tomb? Didnt Jesus have any female disciples? Luke says he did?

7) If Paul was the earliest to write about the resurrection, why did he not speak of the empty tomb?

Paul was not aware of the empty tomb, nor was he aware of Judas Iscariot or Mary.

we conclude by Paul's own admission

"If my lie is spreading the truth of God why am I judged a sinner " (Romans 3:7)

But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice, (Philippians 1:18)