A central question regarding the transmission of the Qur’an is whether this transmission was essentially written or oral. (This is a distinct subject from the question of the Qur’an’s original orality, discussed earlier.) Islamic tradition argues that the Qur’an’s transmission was firmly controlled by the practice of oral recitation; the revelations received by Muhammad were learned from him as recitations by his followers, and were sometime later written down to form the Qur’an text we have today. These traditional accounts usually revolve around the stories of the so-called ‘Uthmanic recension or vulgate of the Qur’an prepared at the orders of the third caliph, ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan (d. 35/656). The doctrine of the “ ‘Uthmanic recension” was long accepted by a number of Western scholars as well, and with it the belief in an unbroken tradition of oral recitation.52
Doubts have been shed, however, on this traditional view. Burton, de Prémare, and many others have emphasized the suspect character of the traditional reports about the ‘Uthmanic recension.53 Moreover, there is mounting evidence that the Qur’an text, or parts of it at least, must at some stage in its history have been transmitted in purely written form, without the benefit of a controlling tradition of active recitation.54 This evidence takes the form of recognizing in the Qur’anic text misunderstood words, hypercorrected words (the “lectio facilior”), or stray marks which then became incorporated into the recitation, something that could only happen if the oral recitation were derived from the written text rather than the other way around.
Fred Donner
Doubts have been shed, however, on this traditional view. Burton, de Prémare, and many others have emphasized the suspect character of the traditional reports about the ‘Uthmanic recension.53 Moreover, there is mounting evidence that the Qur’an text, or parts of it at least, must at some stage in its history have been transmitted in purely written form, without the benefit of a controlling tradition of active recitation.54 This evidence takes the form of recognizing in the Qur’anic text misunderstood words, hypercorrected words (the “lectio facilior”), or stray marks which then became incorporated into the recitation, something that could only happen if the oral recitation were derived from the written text rather than the other way around.
Fred Donner
Forwarded from Protestant Post (Dr. Basedologist)
Calvin: Monotheism Insufficient -- ICR 1.4.3
It makes little difference, at least in this respect, whether you hold the existence of one God, or a plurality of gods, since, in both cases alike, by departing from the true God, you have nothing left but an execrable idol.
It makes little difference, at least in this respect, whether you hold the existence of one God, or a plurality of gods, since, in both cases alike, by departing from the true God, you have nothing left but an execrable idol.
Investigating parallel texts in both the Qur'an and outside sources
Prostration to Adam
https://youtu.be/QlN_y4OLq8k
Prostration to Adam
https://youtu.be/QlN_y4OLq8k
YouTube
Investigating the Qur'an Episode 1
Dr. Costa delivered this lesson on the Trinity Channel in 2012
Answering Islam
https://vm.tiktok.com/ZGd2MDUTn Are the gospels anonymous? KingsServant vs Paul Williams
Also, Papies writings in the early second century, specifically mentions mark az Peter's interpreter and Matthew as the author of a gospel in Hebrew of Aramaic.
Answering Islam
https://vm.tiktok.com/ZGd2MDUTn Are the gospels anonymous? KingsServant vs Paul Williams
But before that here are Internal scriptures:
Gospel of Matthew:
Internal Evidence: The Gospel of Matthew is traditionally attributed to the Apostle Matthew, a tax collector. The text reflects a strong familiarity with Jewish customs, teachings, and the Tanakh, which is consistent with a Jewish author.
Matthew 9:9: The Gospel references Matthew’s own calling, with the verse: “As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector’s booth. ‘Follow me,’ he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him.” This suggests that the author had firsthand knowledge of his own story.
The Gospel also contains an emphasis on Jesus fulfilling Hebrew prophecies (e.g., Matthew 1:22-23, Matthew 2:5-6), a characteristic of someone who was intimately familiar with Jewish law and traditions—fitting for Matthew the tax collector, who would have been well-versed in Jewish Scripture.
Gospel of Mark:
Internal Evidence: The Gospel of Mark is traditionally attributed to John Mark, who was a companion of the Apostle Peter. Early Christian writers such as Papias (around 130 AD) stated that Mark wrote his Gospel based on Peter's teachings.
Mark 14:51-52: This passage includes a detail not found in the other Gospels: “A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, he fled naked, leaving his garment behind.” This is considered a unique detail that many scholars believe reflects Mark’s personal presence at the events, as it seems an unlikely story to invent.
Mark’s Gospel is also known for its fast-paced, direct style and its emphasis on the actions of Jesus, which fits with Mark's role as a scribe or interpreter for the more verbally eloquent Peter.
Gospel of Luke:
Internal Evidence: Luke, the physician and companion of the Apostle Paul, is traditionally recognized as the author of the third Gospel. Luke is a detailed and scholarly writer, and his prologue gives insight into his method of writing.
Luke 1:1-4: “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.”
This introduction makes it clear that Luke is writing as an investigator, relying on eyewitness accounts. Luke’s association with Paul and his medical background provide credibility to his attention to detail and accuracy in recounting the life of Jesus and the early church.
Luke also has a second volume, the Acts of the Apostles, which is written in the same style and addresses Theophilus, reinforcing that the same author wrote both books.
Gospel of John:
Internal Evidence: The Gospel of John is attributed to the Apostle John, the "beloved disciple." Though the author never explicitly names himself, there are references within the text that suggest his authorship.
John 21:24: “This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.” This is widely understood to refer to John, the "beloved disciple." It suggests that the testimony was written by someone who was present and had firsthand knowledge of the events.
The Gospel of John also contains intimate details and personal reflections about Jesus, consistent with someone who was close to him, such as John’s depiction of the Last Supper and the unique discourses of Jesus found only in this Gospel (e.g., the “I am” sayings).
The Gospels contain internal evidence that supports their traditional authorship by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. These include references to the authors' own experiences, their close relationships with the apostles, and direct statements within the texts themselves that point to their authorship.
Gospel of Matthew:
Internal Evidence: The Gospel of Matthew is traditionally attributed to the Apostle Matthew, a tax collector. The text reflects a strong familiarity with Jewish customs, teachings, and the Tanakh, which is consistent with a Jewish author.
Matthew 9:9: The Gospel references Matthew’s own calling, with the verse: “As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector’s booth. ‘Follow me,’ he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him.” This suggests that the author had firsthand knowledge of his own story.
The Gospel also contains an emphasis on Jesus fulfilling Hebrew prophecies (e.g., Matthew 1:22-23, Matthew 2:5-6), a characteristic of someone who was intimately familiar with Jewish law and traditions—fitting for Matthew the tax collector, who would have been well-versed in Jewish Scripture.
Gospel of Mark:
Internal Evidence: The Gospel of Mark is traditionally attributed to John Mark, who was a companion of the Apostle Peter. Early Christian writers such as Papias (around 130 AD) stated that Mark wrote his Gospel based on Peter's teachings.
Mark 14:51-52: This passage includes a detail not found in the other Gospels: “A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, he fled naked, leaving his garment behind.” This is considered a unique detail that many scholars believe reflects Mark’s personal presence at the events, as it seems an unlikely story to invent.
Mark’s Gospel is also known for its fast-paced, direct style and its emphasis on the actions of Jesus, which fits with Mark's role as a scribe or interpreter for the more verbally eloquent Peter.
Gospel of Luke:
Internal Evidence: Luke, the physician and companion of the Apostle Paul, is traditionally recognized as the author of the third Gospel. Luke is a detailed and scholarly writer, and his prologue gives insight into his method of writing.
Luke 1:1-4: “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.”
This introduction makes it clear that Luke is writing as an investigator, relying on eyewitness accounts. Luke’s association with Paul and his medical background provide credibility to his attention to detail and accuracy in recounting the life of Jesus and the early church.
Luke also has a second volume, the Acts of the Apostles, which is written in the same style and addresses Theophilus, reinforcing that the same author wrote both books.
Gospel of John:
Internal Evidence: The Gospel of John is attributed to the Apostle John, the "beloved disciple." Though the author never explicitly names himself, there are references within the text that suggest his authorship.
John 21:24: “This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.” This is widely understood to refer to John, the "beloved disciple." It suggests that the testimony was written by someone who was present and had firsthand knowledge of the events.
The Gospel of John also contains intimate details and personal reflections about Jesus, consistent with someone who was close to him, such as John’s depiction of the Last Supper and the unique discourses of Jesus found only in this Gospel (e.g., the “I am” sayings).
The Gospels contain internal evidence that supports their traditional authorship by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. These include references to the authors' own experiences, their close relationships with the apostles, and direct statements within the texts themselves that point to their authorship.
Forwarded from Iranian~Biblical~Zionism! (Messianic)
Abdullah :Its a valid question. If you are RELIGIOUSLY required to support jews having a country and its such an integral part of your religion how come your lamb-man-god didn’t utter a word or object when he was there and saw romans there ruling!
He was a man that said give ceaser what belongs to ceaser.
So when he was alive why didn’t object to roman authority?
*Why didn’t he say jews should rule it?????*
He was a man that said give ceaser what belongs to ceaser.
So when he was alive why didn’t object to roman authority?
*Why didn’t he say jews should rule it?????*
Forwarded from Iranian~Biblical~Zionism! (Messianic)
Answering Islam
Abdullah :Its a valid question. If you are RELIGIOUSLY required to support jews having a country and its such an integral part of your religion how come your lamb-man-god didn’t utter a word or object when he was there and saw romans there ruling! He was…
My final ever effort to explain about the God of the Bible to you !
—and may God deal with you if you mock or waste my time more then you already have !
Look kid, you’ve fundamentally misunderstood the God of the Bible and His promises. Why? Because of your Islamic indoctrination. You’ve been fed a narrative where Allah’s behavior—changing his mind, favoring one group today and cursing them tomorrow—is passed off as divine. First, let’s clear this up: God doesn’t change. He’s not like Allah, who spins the roulette wheel of divine favoritism—saying one thing today, then abrogating it tomorrow.
Numbers 23:19 is crystal clear: “God is not human, that He should lie, not a human being, that He should change His mind.” From the very beginning, the God of the Bible had a plan—a promise—and that promise wasn’t about favoritism or tribal alliances. It was about grace—eternal, unchanging, and bigger than any political ambitions. Contrast that with Allah, who changes his stance whenever it suits him.
God’s Covenant Through Sarah, Not Hagar! Don't cry its not like am a Jew oe Hagar is you're mommy ! We all get invited through the same covenant that ran through gods promises to Abraham through his wife Sarai !
God’s covenant wasn’t through Hagar and Ishmael. It was through Sarah and Isaac. The Bible couldn’t be clearer. In Genesis 17:19, God says: “Your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish My covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.” Did you catch that, Murad? Everlasting. Not a temporary arrangement. And let’s not forget Genesis 21:12, where God says: “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”
Oh, and when Sarah told Abraham to send Hagar and Ishmael away, Abraham hesitated. But God Himself affirmed Sarah’s decision in Genesis 21:10-12: “Do not be distressed about the boy and your slave woman. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” This wasn’t favoritism—it was God’s sovereign plan. Even the Quran indirectly affirms this in Surah Al-Saffat (37:112-113): “And We gave him glad tidings of Isaac, a prophet, one of the righteous. And We blessed him and Isaac.” Yet Islamic theology conveniently flips this narrative to replace Isaac with Ishmael. Why? To justify their claim over Israel and the promises of God.
The toxic Favoritism of Allah
Allah’s inconsistent, tribal favoritism couldn’t be more different. In Surah Al-Baqarah (2:47), Allah says: “O Children of Israel! Remember My favor that I bestowed upon you and that I preferred you above all others.” Sounds nice, right? But then, in Surah Al-Imran (3:110), he switches allegiance, declaring Muslims as “the best nation.” What happened? Did Allah change his mind? Was he upset the Jews didn’t meet his expectations? This kind of divine favoritism on a whim doesn’t inspire trust—it creates division.
Allah’s favoritism sets up his own followers to hate the Jews rather than including them in a redemptive plan. Instead of reconciliation, Allah fosters animosity. In Surah Al-A’raf (7:166), Allah curses the Jews for fishing on the Sabbath, declaring: “Be you apes, despised and rejected.” One moment, they’re his “chosen people”; the next, they’re apes and swine. This isn’t the behavior of a just, eternal God—it’s the temper tantrum of a deity who reflects human pettiness.
God’s Grace and Eternal Promises
Contrast this with the God of the Bible, whose promises are rooted in grace, not performance. In Deuteronomy 7:7-8, God says: “The Lord did not set His affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples. But it was because the Lord loved you and kept the oath He swore to your ancestors.” Even when Israel sinned, God didn’t abandon them. He disciplined them, but His promises remained. In Isaiah 49:16, God says: “See, I have engraved you on the palms of My hands; your walls are ever before Me.”
—and may God deal with you if you mock or waste my time more then you already have !
Look kid, you’ve fundamentally misunderstood the God of the Bible and His promises. Why? Because of your Islamic indoctrination. You’ve been fed a narrative where Allah’s behavior—changing his mind, favoring one group today and cursing them tomorrow—is passed off as divine. First, let’s clear this up: God doesn’t change. He’s not like Allah, who spins the roulette wheel of divine favoritism—saying one thing today, then abrogating it tomorrow.
Numbers 23:19 is crystal clear: “God is not human, that He should lie, not a human being, that He should change His mind.” From the very beginning, the God of the Bible had a plan—a promise—and that promise wasn’t about favoritism or tribal alliances. It was about grace—eternal, unchanging, and bigger than any political ambitions. Contrast that with Allah, who changes his stance whenever it suits him.
God’s Covenant Through Sarah, Not Hagar! Don't cry its not like am a Jew oe Hagar is you're mommy ! We all get invited through the same covenant that ran through gods promises to Abraham through his wife Sarai !
God’s covenant wasn’t through Hagar and Ishmael. It was through Sarah and Isaac. The Bible couldn’t be clearer. In Genesis 17:19, God says: “Your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish My covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.” Did you catch that, Murad? Everlasting. Not a temporary arrangement. And let’s not forget Genesis 21:12, where God says: “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”
Oh, and when Sarah told Abraham to send Hagar and Ishmael away, Abraham hesitated. But God Himself affirmed Sarah’s decision in Genesis 21:10-12: “Do not be distressed about the boy and your slave woman. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” This wasn’t favoritism—it was God’s sovereign plan. Even the Quran indirectly affirms this in Surah Al-Saffat (37:112-113): “And We gave him glad tidings of Isaac, a prophet, one of the righteous. And We blessed him and Isaac.” Yet Islamic theology conveniently flips this narrative to replace Isaac with Ishmael. Why? To justify their claim over Israel and the promises of God.
The toxic Favoritism of Allah
Allah’s inconsistent, tribal favoritism couldn’t be more different. In Surah Al-Baqarah (2:47), Allah says: “O Children of Israel! Remember My favor that I bestowed upon you and that I preferred you above all others.” Sounds nice, right? But then, in Surah Al-Imran (3:110), he switches allegiance, declaring Muslims as “the best nation.” What happened? Did Allah change his mind? Was he upset the Jews didn’t meet his expectations? This kind of divine favoritism on a whim doesn’t inspire trust—it creates division.
Allah’s favoritism sets up his own followers to hate the Jews rather than including them in a redemptive plan. Instead of reconciliation, Allah fosters animosity. In Surah Al-A’raf (7:166), Allah curses the Jews for fishing on the Sabbath, declaring: “Be you apes, despised and rejected.” One moment, they’re his “chosen people”; the next, they’re apes and swine. This isn’t the behavior of a just, eternal God—it’s the temper tantrum of a deity who reflects human pettiness.
God’s Grace and Eternal Promises
Contrast this with the God of the Bible, whose promises are rooted in grace, not performance. In Deuteronomy 7:7-8, God says: “The Lord did not set His affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples. But it was because the Lord loved you and kept the oath He swore to your ancestors.” Even when Israel sinned, God didn’t abandon them. He disciplined them, but His promises remained. In Isaiah 49:16, God says: “See, I have engraved you on the palms of My hands; your walls are ever before Me.”
Forwarded from Iranian~Biblical~Zionism! (Messianic)
Answering Islam
Abdullah :Its a valid question. If you are RELIGIOUSLY required to support jews having a country and its such an integral part of your religion how come your lamb-man-god didn’t utter a word or object when he was there and saw romans there ruling! He was…
Let’s not forget Genesis 12:3, where God promises: “I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.” This blessing, rooted in God’s covenant with Abraham, is eternal. Unlike Allah, who curses his people for petty reasons, God remains faithful.
Jacob’s Wrestling: A Testament of Faith
Now let’s clarify Jacob’s wrestling with God, which Islamic da’wah apologists love to mock. “Oh, look, Jacob was wrestling with God? Who does that?” Here’s the truth: Jacob wasn’t picking a fight with God. In Genesis 32:24-28, Jacob clung to God, physically holding onto His leg and arm, refusing to let go until he was blessed. Jacob says in verse 26: “I will not let you go unless you bless me.” This was persistence, not defiance.
Prominent Jewish rabbis explain that this moment represents Jacob’s struggle to hold onto God’s promises in the face of uncertainty. God renames him “Israel,” meaning “one who struggles with God,” signifying his role in God’s eternal plan. Far from being a caricature, this moment is a profound testament to Jacob’s faith.
Jesus: The Eternal Zionist
To address your claim that Jesus isn’t a Zionist. As Christians, we believe Jesus is God. He came to fulfill God’s promises to Israel. In Matthew 5:17, He says: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” Even when interacting with Gentiles, Jesus maintains the covenantal order. In Matthew 15:24, He says: “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” And to the Gentile woman, He says in Matthew 15:26: “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
And when Jesus returns, it won’t be to Mecca, Rome, or Al-Quds. Zechariah 14:4 makes it clear: “On that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem.” Jerusalem is mentioned over 800 times in the Bible. Compare that to the Quran, which doesn’t mention Jerusalem once.
So to be clear,: the God of the Bible isn’t some petty, moody deity like Allah. He doesn’t hand out favors one day, curse His people the next, and then replace them. His promises are eternal, rooted in grace. Jesus, as God, was the one who made those promises in the first place. He was there with Abraham, with Jacob, with Moses, and with David. And He will return to Jerusalem—not to fulfill political fantasies, but to fulfill God’s eternal plan.
If you still can’t grasp this, it’s time to stop twisting scripture and go to you're toxic Allah and his fun house “monkeys and swine” routine— but stop wasting My precious time with you're so called understanding of The God of Israel Not Palestine !
Don't forget through Israël the whole world unlike the allah fool who is dialectical and sets nations up against each other !
1. Exodus 5:1
"Afterward Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and said, 'This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: "Let my people go, so that they may hold a festival to me in the wilderness."'
2. 1 Kings 8:23
"LORD, the God of Israel, there is no God like you in heaven above or on earth below—you who keep your covenant of love with your servants who continue wholeheartedly in your way."
3. Isaiah 45:3
"I will give you hidden treasures, riches stored in secret places, so that you may know that I am the LORD, the God of Israel, who summons you by name."
4. Psalm 68:35
"You, God, are awesome in your sanctuary; the God of Israel gives power and strength to his people. Praise be to God!"
Jacob’s Wrestling: A Testament of Faith
Now let’s clarify Jacob’s wrestling with God, which Islamic da’wah apologists love to mock. “Oh, look, Jacob was wrestling with God? Who does that?” Here’s the truth: Jacob wasn’t picking a fight with God. In Genesis 32:24-28, Jacob clung to God, physically holding onto His leg and arm, refusing to let go until he was blessed. Jacob says in verse 26: “I will not let you go unless you bless me.” This was persistence, not defiance.
Prominent Jewish rabbis explain that this moment represents Jacob’s struggle to hold onto God’s promises in the face of uncertainty. God renames him “Israel,” meaning “one who struggles with God,” signifying his role in God’s eternal plan. Far from being a caricature, this moment is a profound testament to Jacob’s faith.
Jesus: The Eternal Zionist
To address your claim that Jesus isn’t a Zionist. As Christians, we believe Jesus is God. He came to fulfill God’s promises to Israel. In Matthew 5:17, He says: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” Even when interacting with Gentiles, Jesus maintains the covenantal order. In Matthew 15:24, He says: “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” And to the Gentile woman, He says in Matthew 15:26: “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
And when Jesus returns, it won’t be to Mecca, Rome, or Al-Quds. Zechariah 14:4 makes it clear: “On that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem.” Jerusalem is mentioned over 800 times in the Bible. Compare that to the Quran, which doesn’t mention Jerusalem once.
So to be clear,: the God of the Bible isn’t some petty, moody deity like Allah. He doesn’t hand out favors one day, curse His people the next, and then replace them. His promises are eternal, rooted in grace. Jesus, as God, was the one who made those promises in the first place. He was there with Abraham, with Jacob, with Moses, and with David. And He will return to Jerusalem—not to fulfill political fantasies, but to fulfill God’s eternal plan.
If you still can’t grasp this, it’s time to stop twisting scripture and go to you're toxic Allah and his fun house “monkeys and swine” routine— but stop wasting My precious time with you're so called understanding of The God of Israel Not Palestine !
Don't forget through Israël the whole world unlike the allah fool who is dialectical and sets nations up against each other !
1. Exodus 5:1
"Afterward Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and said, 'This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: "Let my people go, so that they may hold a festival to me in the wilderness."'
2. 1 Kings 8:23
"LORD, the God of Israel, there is no God like you in heaven above or on earth below—you who keep your covenant of love with your servants who continue wholeheartedly in your way."
3. Isaiah 45:3
"I will give you hidden treasures, riches stored in secret places, so that you may know that I am the LORD, the God of Israel, who summons you by name."
4. Psalm 68:35
"You, God, are awesome in your sanctuary; the God of Israel gives power and strength to his people. Praise be to God!"
Forwarded from Iranian~Biblical~Zionism! (Messianic)
Answering Islam
Let’s not forget Genesis 12:3, where God promises: “I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.” This blessing, rooted in God’s covenant with Abraham, is eternal. Unlike Allah…
Abdullah : Thank you for your dedication and the effort you put in taking me back to the story of ishmael and hagar in the bible and telling me that Allah is inconsistent
even tho the first verse “(2:47), Allah says: “O Children of Israel! Remember My favor that I bestowed upon you and that I preferred you above all others.” was in *past tense.*
*FavorED*. Spoke of a past
and yet they didn’t appreciate that and have done horrible sins like killing prophets (even in the bible it’s mentioned. And much more is said about them like snakes)
While muslims being the best nation is a modern fact.
Now I can go to each and every accusation you threw at the quran and flip it but this will make the response much larger and that was not the question I asked.
I didn’t ask how your god is different than mine
or about Isaac and Sarah or Ishmael
or where will Jesus return
I do know the land is considered “holy” and “children of israel” are mentioned a lot in the bible (the covenant and history etc)
Perhaps you didn’t understand my question so I will rephrase it.
The *question* is as follows:
if it is the duty of a christian (your obligation) is to defend and assist children of israel being in that land as rulers with authority and that notion is such an central integral part of your faith that is ought to be deeply embedded in the heart of every christian like it is with you.
then why is it the case that when Jesus was there IN THAT LAND and witnessed the JEWS being there under the authority of ROMAN PAGANS. Why didn’t he utter even ONE word about starting a revolt and kicking them out or saying they are filth and don’t belong there?
In fact when asked about their authority “Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not?”
he said “Why are you trying to trap me? Bring me a coin and let me look at it.”
and when he saw it he said: “give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar”
so it seems like he was a law abiding citizen to the pagan authority that he approved of it and didn’t care about who rules the land.
He was there in that land and did not utter ONE WORD against that situation
even tho the first verse “(2:47), Allah says: “O Children of Israel! Remember My favor that I bestowed upon you and that I preferred you above all others.” was in *past tense.*
*FavorED*. Spoke of a past
and yet they didn’t appreciate that and have done horrible sins like killing prophets (even in the bible it’s mentioned. And much more is said about them like snakes)
While muslims being the best nation is a modern fact.
Now I can go to each and every accusation you threw at the quran and flip it but this will make the response much larger and that was not the question I asked.
I didn’t ask how your god is different than mine
or about Isaac and Sarah or Ishmael
or where will Jesus return
I do know the land is considered “holy” and “children of israel” are mentioned a lot in the bible (the covenant and history etc)
Perhaps you didn’t understand my question so I will rephrase it.
The *question* is as follows:
if it is the duty of a christian (your obligation) is to defend and assist children of israel being in that land as rulers with authority and that notion is such an central integral part of your faith that is ought to be deeply embedded in the heart of every christian like it is with you.
then why is it the case that when Jesus was there IN THAT LAND and witnessed the JEWS being there under the authority of ROMAN PAGANS. Why didn’t he utter even ONE word about starting a revolt and kicking them out or saying they are filth and don’t belong there?
In fact when asked about their authority “Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not?”
he said “Why are you trying to trap me? Bring me a coin and let me look at it.”
and when he saw it he said: “give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar”
so it seems like he was a law abiding citizen to the pagan authority that he approved of it and didn’t care about who rules the land.
He was there in that land and did not utter ONE WORD against that situation
Forwarded from ╰⊱Âriyana🪽 Lady Iran
Answering Islam
Abdullah : Thank you for your dedication and the effort you put in taking me back to the story of ishmael and hagar in the bible and telling me that Allah is inconsistent even tho the first verse “(2:47), Allah says: “O Children of Israel! Remember My favor…
Abdullah,
It’s frankly disrespectful and dismissive how you’ve completely failed to engage with any of the points I raised in my initial response. You posed a question, and I gave you a comprehensive answer. Instead of addressing those points, you’ve chosen to sidestep them entirely, repeating your question in a slightly different way while conveniently ignoring the arguments that dismantled your premise.
Let me first list the key points from my initial answer that you didn’t even bother to address, despite their relevance to your question:
1. Jesus is God and the Promiser of the Covenant: I clearly explained how Jesus, as God, reaffirmed the eternal covenant with Israel through His life and teachings.
2. The Role of Isaac and the Covenant Through Him: The covenant was never through Hagar and Ishmael but through Sarah and Isaac, as explicitly stated in Genesis 17:19 and affirmed by God Himself.
3. Allah’s Inconsistent Favoritism: I highlighted how Allah’s behavior, swinging between favoring Israel and condemning them as “apes and swine,” reflects a pattern of inconsistency and moral confusion, unlike the eternal faithfulness of the God of the Bible.
4. Jacob’s Wrestling as a Testament of Faith: I clarified how Jacob’s encounter with God was an act of persistence and trust, not rebellion, and how Allah repeatedly validates Jacob’s legacy through his references to “Bani Israel” in the Quran.
5. Jesus’ Mission as Foundational, Not Fleeting: I elaborated on how Jesus’ purpose was to address the spiritual, moral, and political foundations of humanity, laying the groundwork for eternal change rather than leading a temporary rebellion.
These points were critical to answering your original question, and you ignored every single one of them. Now you’re reframing your question by invoking Jesus’ interaction with Roman authority and the “Render to Caesar” passage, as if it somehow negates the answers I’ve already given. Let me respond once again—but this time, I’ll focus on your new claims while reminding you of the broader context you continue to miss.
Why Didn’t Jesus Lead a Revolt?
Your question implies that Jesus’ mission was somehow incomplete or insufficient because He didn’t command an uprising against the Romans. This assumption reveals a shallow understanding of His purpose. Let me explain, once again:
1. Jesus Confronted various Corrupted Jewish Leaders Working with Rome:
The Pharisees and Sadducees weren’t just religious figures—they were the political elite of Jewish society, collaborating with Roman authorities to maintain their own power. When Jesus called them “whitewashed tombs” and “a brood of vipers” (Matthew 23), He was directly confronting the systemic corruption that intertwined religious and political power. His rebuke wasn’t spiritual in isolation—it was also a condemnation of their political complicity.
Similarly, when Jesus overturned the tables of the money changers in the Temple (Matthew 21:12-13), He was addressing the exploitation and corruption at the heart of Jewish society. These acts were profoundly political and exposed the injustices of His time.
2. “Render to Caesar” Wasn’t Submission:
You misinterpret Jesus’ statement, “Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” (Mark 12:17). This wasn’t an endorsement of Roman rule or indifference to justice—it was a masterful response to a trap. His opponents wanted to force Him into rebellion or compliance. Instead, Jesus exposed their hypocrisy and affirmed a deeper truth: while earthly governments may demand taxes, ultimate allegiance belongs to God.
3. The Timing of His Kingdom:
Jesus’ first coming wasn’t about overthrowing earthly kingdoms—it was about establishing the foundation for salvation. His political reign is yet to come, as prophesied in Revelation 11:15: “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever.” When Jesus returns, He will rule from Jerusalem, fulfilling God’s promises to Israel and bringing justice to all nations.
It’s frankly disrespectful and dismissive how you’ve completely failed to engage with any of the points I raised in my initial response. You posed a question, and I gave you a comprehensive answer. Instead of addressing those points, you’ve chosen to sidestep them entirely, repeating your question in a slightly different way while conveniently ignoring the arguments that dismantled your premise.
Let me first list the key points from my initial answer that you didn’t even bother to address, despite their relevance to your question:
1. Jesus is God and the Promiser of the Covenant: I clearly explained how Jesus, as God, reaffirmed the eternal covenant with Israel through His life and teachings.
2. The Role of Isaac and the Covenant Through Him: The covenant was never through Hagar and Ishmael but through Sarah and Isaac, as explicitly stated in Genesis 17:19 and affirmed by God Himself.
3. Allah’s Inconsistent Favoritism: I highlighted how Allah’s behavior, swinging between favoring Israel and condemning them as “apes and swine,” reflects a pattern of inconsistency and moral confusion, unlike the eternal faithfulness of the God of the Bible.
4. Jacob’s Wrestling as a Testament of Faith: I clarified how Jacob’s encounter with God was an act of persistence and trust, not rebellion, and how Allah repeatedly validates Jacob’s legacy through his references to “Bani Israel” in the Quran.
5. Jesus’ Mission as Foundational, Not Fleeting: I elaborated on how Jesus’ purpose was to address the spiritual, moral, and political foundations of humanity, laying the groundwork for eternal change rather than leading a temporary rebellion.
These points were critical to answering your original question, and you ignored every single one of them. Now you’re reframing your question by invoking Jesus’ interaction with Roman authority and the “Render to Caesar” passage, as if it somehow negates the answers I’ve already given. Let me respond once again—but this time, I’ll focus on your new claims while reminding you of the broader context you continue to miss.
Why Didn’t Jesus Lead a Revolt?
Your question implies that Jesus’ mission was somehow incomplete or insufficient because He didn’t command an uprising against the Romans. This assumption reveals a shallow understanding of His purpose. Let me explain, once again:
1. Jesus Confronted various Corrupted Jewish Leaders Working with Rome:
The Pharisees and Sadducees weren’t just religious figures—they were the political elite of Jewish society, collaborating with Roman authorities to maintain their own power. When Jesus called them “whitewashed tombs” and “a brood of vipers” (Matthew 23), He was directly confronting the systemic corruption that intertwined religious and political power. His rebuke wasn’t spiritual in isolation—it was also a condemnation of their political complicity.
Similarly, when Jesus overturned the tables of the money changers in the Temple (Matthew 21:12-13), He was addressing the exploitation and corruption at the heart of Jewish society. These acts were profoundly political and exposed the injustices of His time.
2. “Render to Caesar” Wasn’t Submission:
You misinterpret Jesus’ statement, “Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” (Mark 12:17). This wasn’t an endorsement of Roman rule or indifference to justice—it was a masterful response to a trap. His opponents wanted to force Him into rebellion or compliance. Instead, Jesus exposed their hypocrisy and affirmed a deeper truth: while earthly governments may demand taxes, ultimate allegiance belongs to God.
3. The Timing of His Kingdom:
Jesus’ first coming wasn’t about overthrowing earthly kingdoms—it was about establishing the foundation for salvation. His political reign is yet to come, as prophesied in Revelation 11:15: “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever.” When Jesus returns, He will rule from Jerusalem, fulfilling God’s promises to Israel and bringing justice to all nations.
1. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) – Sunni Salafi-jihadist, linked to al-Qaeda.
2. Free Syrian Army (FSA) & Turkish-backed factions (SNA) – Sunni, backed by Türkiye.
3. ISIS (Islamic State in Syria) – Sunni Salafi-jihadist, globally unapologetic.
4. Ahrar al-Sham – Sunni Salafi-jihadist, former ally of HTS.
5. Jaish al-Islam – Sunni Islamist, Salafi-influenced.
6. Failaq al-Sham – Sunni Islamist, Türkiye-aligned.
--------------------------------------------------------------
1. Syrian Government Forces (SAA) – Alawite-dominated (a sect of Shia Islam).
2. Hezbollah (Lebanon) – Shia, backed by the Islamic regime.
3. IRGC-backed militias – Shia fighters from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Russia Allies:
Syrian Government Forces (SAA)
Hezbollah (indirectly, as part of the pro-Assad coalition)
IRGC-backed militias (also part of the pro-Assad coalition)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Opposes:
Sunni Islamist groups, including HTS, ISIS, and Turkish-backed factions.
Occasionally clashes diplomatically with Türkiye, though they coordinate on certain areas like northern Syria.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shia Alliances:
Syrian Government Forces, Hezbollah, IRGC-backed militias, and Russia are allied under a pro-Assad, anti-opposition coalition.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sunni Alliances:
FSA, Turkish-backed factions, and Failaq al-Sham are allied under Türkiye’s leadership.
HTS and Ahrar al-Sham have cooperated but often clash.
ISIS is isolated, fighting both Sunni and Shia groups.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Russia and Türkiye:
Uneasy coordination but conflicting interests (e.g., Türkiye opposes Assad, whom Russia supports).
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Iran's daughter, a Lawyer in diaspora speaks About The Jewish Mirjam and Her Son Yashua Later renamed Jesus In Greek by his non Jewish fallowers
Forwarded from Subpar Mario 🍔
Jack worships a donkey as his god , he worships nobody else , is he a monotheist?
Anonymous Quiz
63%
Yes
37%
No