Comments by "nyctom08" (@nyctom08) on "Chris At Speakers Corner"
channel.
-
233
-
156
-
96
-
91
-
89
-
46
-
26
-
24
-
22
-
18
-
14
-
12
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
@Burrburrcloud Heres Tafsir Al-Jalalayn affirming the contradiction in the Arabic.
Say: ‘If God had willed I would not have recited it to you, nor would He have made it known to you, [nor] would He have made you aware of it (the lā [of wa-lā adrākum] is for negation, and is a supplement to what preceded; a variant reading has the lām [sc. la-adrākum, ‘He would have made it known to you’] as the response to the [conditional] law, ‘if’, in other words, He would have made it known to you by the tongue of someone other than myself). For I have already dwelt among you a [whole] lifetime, of forty years, before this [Qur’ān], not relating to you anything [of the sort], so will you not understand?’, that this [Qur’ān] is not from myself?
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Burrburrcloud Quote from Tafseer Ibn Katheer (6/335)
It was narrated by ‘Abdullah the son of Imam Ahmad in Zawaa’id al-Musnad (21207), ‘Abd ar-Razzaaq in al-Musannaf (599), Ibn Hibbaan in his Saheeh (4428), al-Haakim in al-Mustadrak (8068), al-Bayhaqi in as-Sunan (16911), Ibn Hazm in al-Muhalla (12/175), via ‘Aasim ibn Bahdalah, from Zirr, who said: Ubayy ibn Ka‘b said to me: How long is Soorat al-Ahzaab when you read it? Or how many verses do you think it is? I said to him: Seventy-three verses. He said: Only? There was a time when it was a long as Soorat al-Baqarah, and we read in it: “The old man and the old woman, if they commit zina, then stone them both, a punishment from Allah, and Allah is Almighty, Most Wise.”
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@faeiger9215 CONCLUSION: For anyone reading this, why did he Dawah dash the challenge?
Because this is his argument:
“Jesus only affirms the parts of the oral law that agree with the Torah"
"Jesus generally affirms their teachings , their teachings, their teachings."
Here's reality:
The statement “Jesus only affirms the parts of the oral law that agree with the Torah” does not equate to a general affirmation of the Pharisees' teaching. Instead, it implies a selective agreement—that Jesus affirms Pharisaic (oral) teachings only when they align with the written Torah.
BONUS:
He's been accusing me the whole time of changing my position and contradicting myself but in reality he's been projecting lol
Question:
Do these two statements contradict each other? “Jesus only affirms the parts of the oral law that agree with the Torah" and "Jesus generally affirms their teachings , their teachings, their teachings."
Answer:
Yes, the two statements are in tension and contradictory.
Let’s look at both:
“Jesus only affirms the parts of the oral law that agree with the Torah”
-This is a qualified, selective affirmation.
- It implies that some of the Pharisaic oral teachings are affirmed, only when they align with the written Torah.
- Anything in the oral law that adds to, contradicts, or burdens the Torah is rejected.
“Jesus generally affirms their teachings, their teachings, their teachings.”
- "Generally affirms their teachings" is taken to mean that Jesus blanket endorses the Pharisaic oral law.
- This is a broad, repeated affirmation suggesting a general or overall approval of Pharisaic teachings.
- The repetition ("their teachings, their teachings, their teachings") strongly emphasizes that Jesus typically or regularly affirms their instruction—not just parts of it.
GAME...OVER
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1) The only thing that doesn't make any sense is your inability to process the meaning of the word "persons" and turning your brain off to your own beliefs. I know its hard for you, but try to turn your brain on for one second. You believe in an afterlife correct? Everything you do here on Earth is to get to a place called Jannah? Explain to us what happens to your flesh (body) when you die? Does it teleport to Jannah with "you" ? Or does your flesh (body) stay here and something like a soul which coexists side by side with you go to Jannah?
1 flesh +1 soul = 2 of "you" ?
2) Siffee's argument does not hold because it doesn't make any sense, he as well as you blatantly misinterpret what Christians believe and try to pass it off as what Christians believe.
Christians don't believe Jesus has a literal father. Christians believe Jesus is part of a Trinity that has always existed.
Case and point, who was God in Genesis speaking to when he said "Let US make man in OUR image"?
John 17:5 "And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began"
3) Once again, try turning your brain on. The fallacy here isn't Christian logic, its your own logic and lack of education. Christians call priests "Father" as a sign of respect, does that mean priests are biological fathers to all Christians? That is exactly what Jesus was doing, he humbled himself as a servant and chose to live as a man. When he prayed to the Father, he wasn't praying to his biological Father, he was depicting FOR US how even in sinless humanity it is necessary to have respect for the Father and a vital prayer life.
4) You believe Allah is restricted to single form with what resembles two right hands a shin and a womb and would lose divine attributes if he took any other form...What's the definition of a limited being? Pretty good argument here.
5) Gabriel isn't Allah's companion yet according to you he breathes his word and creates in his name? Do you know what the definition of a companion is? Clearly you don't.
6) You don't understand the definition of partner either, not surprising. Once again, someone who speaks Allah's word (prophet) and Allah works through to perform miracles is NOT Allah's partner? You know what's truly absurd? Thinking you sound intelligent using words you clearly don't understand. What's equally absurd is believing in a God that can't do fractional math. How do you calculate Awl? 1+1= 3?
7) See 4 and take your own advice on not making cringe with stupid ignorant arguments next time please.
Its siffee, go cry with him about it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@zenithofaldebaran8535
You were asked
"Is the substitute 5 sucklings in your book YES or NO?"
You FINALLY replied
"Surah Nisa verse 23."
And here's the verse in its entirety
"Also˺ forbidden to you for marriage are your mothers, your daughters, your sisters, your paternal and maternal aunts, your brother’s daughters, your sister’s daughters, your foster-mothers, your foster-sisters, your mothers-in-law, your stepdaughters under your guardianship if you have consummated marriage with their mothers—but if you have not, then you can marry them—nor the wives of your own sons, nor two sisters together at the same time—except what was done previously. Surely Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
BUSTED LIAR
1
-
@zenithofaldebaran8535 Unlike you I'm a man of my word, don't run and don't lie.
The Bible is a book, not a collection of cherry picked verses taken out of context. The script you're parroting will NEVER work on someone who knows what their book says.
Case and point
1. "When Jesus says to follow all that the Pharisees teach, is it a general statement or an absolute statement?"
This is called an informal fallacy, you phrased your question by intellectually dishonestly omitting context distorting the intended meaning of the verse you quoted. Jesus had specifically warned his disciples to avoid the teachings of the Pharisees (Matthew 16:6-12). Furthermore, when we read The Bible, its clear in (Matthew 23:1-3) that Jesus was referring to (Deuteronomy 17:8-11). Jesus was in effect saying, if you take your case to law, and it is appealed to the highest court in the land, then you must follow the law in Deuteronomy 17:8-11, and follow the judgment of the Sanhedrin in that case. This is called context which we get when we read a book in its entirety.
2. "In Matthew 19 26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible. Does Jesus say this in a general sense or in an absolute sense. If you say absolute, is it possible for God to lie. Is it possible for God to be Satan? ”
Another informal fallacy, you phrased your questions by intellectually dishonestly omitting context distorting the intended meaning of the verse you quoted. "With men this is impossible" simply means there’s no place in God’s kingdom for boasting about our own righteousness (Romans 3:27–30; 1 Corinthians 1:28–31). Paul expounded, “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!” (Galatians 2:20–21). Paul continued, “As for me, may I never boast about anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. Because of that cross, my interest in this world has been crucified, and the world’s interest in me has also died” (Galatians 6:14, NLT). This is called context which we get when we read a book in its entirety.
Conclusion: You proved one thing to me with your questions. Without lies Islam dies.
Yeshua Akbar
1
-
@zenithofaldebaran8535 You were asked
"Is the substitute 5 sucklings in your book YES or NO?"
You FINALLY replied
"Surah Nisa verse 23."
Here's the verse in its entirety. THERE IS ZERO MENTION of what you were asked.
"Also˺ forbidden to you for marriage are your mothers, your daughters, your sisters, your paternal and maternal aunts, your brother’s daughters, your sister’s daughters, your foster-mothers, your foster-sisters, your mothers-in-law, your stepdaughters under your guardianship if you have consummated marriage with their mothers—but if you have not, then you can marry them—nor the wives of your own sons, nor two sisters together at the same time—except what was done previously. Surely Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@warsolos "u have never studied basic historical linguistics or basic history"
Says the guy that can't comprehend what he's reading.
"The region was under Roman occupation, but Aramaic remained the everyday language of the Jewish population, while Hebrew was mostly liturgical, and Greek was used for administration and trade."
This is technically correct but your conclusion is fallacious because you're using it to assert Jesus spoke Aramaic. How does this constitute Jesus spoke Aramaic? This only establishes three languages were spoken under the Roman occupation.
"Josephus (1st-century Jewish historian)
In his works, particularly Antiquities of the Jews and The Jewish War, Josephus mentions how Aramaic was the language commonly spoken by the Jewish people,
He also notes that when addressing Jewish audiences, he would use "the language of our fathers" (Aramaic), distinguishing it from Greek"
Again repeating the same fallacy. How does this constitute Jesus spoke Aramaic? This only serves as proof its more likely he spoke Aramaic instead of Greek and doesn't rule out he could of spoken both.
There is also the Roman and Jewish Historical Context::
Aramaic had become the lingua franca of the Near East since the time of the Persian Empire (Achaemenid period), and it remained dominant even under Roman rule
Same fallacy repeated a THIRD time. How does this constitute Jesus spoke Aramaic? This simply states Aramaic had become the lingua franca of the Near East since the time of the Persian Empire.
"The Peshitta, the Syriac version of the Bible, written in a dialect of Aramaic, also points to the language's strong presence among Semitic speaking Christians."
FOURTH time repeating the same fallacy and you broke the rules proving ONCE AGAIN you can't comprehend what you're reading. The challenge to you was to name one source that DOESN'T CITE THE BIBLE as a source for Jesus speaking Aramaic.
"I have quoted direct evidence specifically mentioning Jesus speaking Aramaic outside the Christian Gospels is scarce, the historical, linguistic, and cultural context overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that Aramaic was his primary spoken language"
Only in your head you did lol. The evidence you provided only establishes Jesus COULD OF possibly spoken any or all THREE languages Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic.
EASY WORK
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KingJDPskate Just incase you want to lie again and claim you don't have variant readings with contradictions in your recitations.
Tafsir Al-Jalalayn
Say: ‘If God had willed I would not have recited it to you, nor would He have made it known to you, [nor] would He have made you aware of it (the lā [of wa-lā adrākum] is for negation, and is a supplement to what preceded; a variant reading has the lām [sc. la-adrākum, ‘He would have made it known to you’] as the response to the [conditional] law, ‘if’, in other words, He would have made it known to you by the tongue of someone other than myself). For I have already dwelt among you a [whole] lifetime, of forty years, before this [Qur’ān], not relating to you anything [of the sort], so will you not understand?’, that this [Qur’ān] is not from myself?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alibabi7648 "however the content of a song(message) does not change if you sing it differently, same with the quran."
But the message of these Qira'at recitations (the supposed words reveled by Allah and recited) is clearly are not the same, they contradict each other. So how do you solve this problem without manuscripts that date back to Muhammad which you don't have because Uthman burned them all?
Example A
Quran 11:81 (Hafs)
Lot was commanded to bring his family, excluding his wife , and don't let anyone look back
Quran 11:81 (Al Bazzi also Ibn Katheer and Abu Amr)
Lot was commanded to bring his family, including his wife , but she will look back
Here we have textual variance and a clear contradiction. Not only do we not have perfect preservation, we don't even know what the true message of the verse is. Both readings cannot logically be the word of God because they contradict each other. Which verse is the word of God and which one is man's mistake? Are they both man made mistakes? The only way this can be answered is if you had manuscripts that date to Muhammad which don't have because Uthman burned them all.
Ok that's one example, surely there is NO WAY we'll find another contradiction between Qira'at readings...
Example B
Quran 10:16 (Hafs)
Say, “Had Allah willed, I would not have recited it to you, nor would He have made it known to you
Quran 10:16 (Qunbul)
Say, “Had Allah willed, I would not have recited it to you, he would have made it known to you
So not only is your "perfect preservation through recitation method" a complete lie, you don't even know what the definitive message of these verses is.
1
-
@alibabi7648 "however the content of a song(message) does not change if you sing it differently, same with the quran."
But the message of these Qira'at recitations (the supposed words reveled by Allah and recited) is clearly are not the same, they contradict each other. So how do you solve this problem without manuscripts that date back to Muhammad ?
Example A
Quran 11:81 (Hafs)
Lot was commanded to bring his family, excluding his wife , and don't let anyone look back
Quran 11:81 (Al Bazzi also Ibn Katheer and Abu Amr)
Lot was commanded to bring his family, including his wife , but she will look back
Here we have textual variance and a clear contradiction. Not only do we not have perfect preservation, we don't even know what the true message of the verse is. Both readings cannot logically be the word of God because they contradict each other. Which verse is the word of God and which one is man's mistake? Are they both man made mistakes? The only way this can be answered is if you had manuscripts that date to Muhammad?.
Ok that's one example, surely there is NO WAY we'll find another contradiction between Qira'at readings...
Example B
Quran 10:16 (Hafs)
Say, “Had Allah willed, I would not have recited it to you, nor would He have made it known to you
Quran 10:16 (Qunbul)
Say, “Had Allah willed, I would not have recited it to you, he would have made it known to you
So not only is your "perfect preservation through recitation method" a complete lie, you don't even know what the definitive message of these verses is.
1
-
1
-
@alibabi7648 "however the content of a song(message) does not change if you sing it differently, same with the quran."
But the message of these Qira'at recitations (the supposed words reveled by Allah and recited) is clearly are not the same, they contradict each other. So how do you solve this problem without manuscripts that date back to Muhammad ?
Example A
Quran 11:81 (Hafs)
Lot was commanded to bring his family, excluding his wife , and don't let anyone look back
Quran 11:81 (Al Bazzi also Ibn Katheer and Abu Amr)
Lot was commanded to bring his family, including his wife , but she will look back
Clear textual variance and a clear contradiction.
Ok that's one example, surely there is NO WAY we'll find another clear contradiction between Qira'at readings...
Example B
Quran 10:16 (Hafs)
Say, “Had Allah willed, I would not have recited it to you, nor would He have made it known to you
Quran 10:16 (Qunbul)
Say, “Had Allah willed, I would not have recited it to you, he would have made it known to you
So not only is your "perfect preservation through recitation method" a complete lie, you don't even know what the definitive message of these verses is.
1
-
@alibabi7648 "however the content of a song(message) does not change if you sing it differently, same with the quran."
But the message of these Qira'at recitations (the supposed words reveled by Allah and recited) is clearly are not the same, they contradict each other. So how do you solve this problem without manuscripts that date back to Muhammad ?
Example A
Quran 11:81 (Hafs)
Lot was commanded to bring his family, excluding his wife , and don't let anyone look back
Quran 11:81 (Al Bazzi also Ibn Katheer and Abu Amr)
Lot was commanded to bring his family, including his wife , but she will look back
Example B
Quran 10:16 (Hafs)
Say, “Had Allah willed, I would not have recited it to you, nor would He have made it known to you
Quran 10:16 (Qunbul)
Say, “Had Allah willed, I would not have recited it to you, he would have made it known to you
So not only is your "perfect preservation through recitation method" a complete lie, you don't even know what the definitive message of these verses is.
1
-
@alibabi7648 "however the content of a song(message) does not change if you sing it differently, same with the quran."
But the message of these Qira'at recitations (the supposed words reveled by Allah and recited) is clearly are not the same, they contradict each other. So how do you solve this problem without manuscripts that date back to Muhammad ?
Example A
Quran 11:81 (Hafs)
Lot was commanded to bring his family, excluding his wife , and don't let anyone look back
Quran 11:81 (Al Bazzi also Ibn Katheer and Abu Amr)
Lot was commanded to bring his family, including his wife , but she will look back
Example B
Quran 10:16 (Hafs)
Say, “Had Allah willed, I would not have recited it to you, nor would He have made it known to you
Quran 10:16 (Qunbul)
Say, “Had Allah willed, I would not have recited it to you, he would have made it known to you
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1