Comments by "Thanos" (@Thanos-kp5jr) on "Is The Bible Hate Speech? | Chris At Speakers Corner SOCO Films" video.

@Alam22414 and yet she was released with no case against her. They had nothing on her to hold her and she was released without being charged. Im fully aware what she was supposedly charged with as she made a video about that.. Also speech is not violence you are equating speech with violence. Basically your feelings are hurt and people according to you must be prosecuted because yoyr sensitive feelings got hurt. Like i said if your feelings get hurt then do not go to the park or get yourself another religion where your feelings wont get hurt its really that simple.
7
@ghafoorrahman5599 "it still does not mean she is innocent" - of course she is innocent, she was wrongfully arrested kept for 15 hours in jail and was released without any charges against her. If she was quilty of an offense they would have charged her with something, but they didnt therefore she is innocent
2
Hatun was arrested based on purely nothing she was released without charges but it is most likely well known that she was arrested due to others who cant control their feelings. If you know your feelings are going to get hurt you have 1 of two options: 1: Get another religion or 2: do not go to SC at all Its really that simple
1
@ghafoorrahman5599 "ask the jewish sages for her age" - and what would that prove by asking jewish sages? "How old was the mother of God when she married joseph" - firstly Mary was not the Mother of God she was the mother of Jesus so i would just like to correct you kn that as it is very important "She was 12 he was 90" - unfortunately the bjble does not say anything of Mary's age in fact we know very little about Mary and Joseph. So what is your evidence that she was 12 what is your source?
1
@ghafoorrahman5599 "it was a feeler for trash to stop hate speech or allah willing face jail next time - calling someone trash is not an argument. I know that the qu'ran claim that Jews and christians are the worst of creatures so it is no wonder that you would call non muslims trash, i suspect that it is that superiority complex that compels you to call other human's trash. That means you are devalueing other humans basically your doing the same thing Hitler did. At least your open and honest about how you feel about non muslims Secondly there is no evidence of hate speech.
1
@ghafoorrahman5599 "if you believe Jesus was God then that would imply mother of God" - that is incorrect although i do believe that Jesus is God as the scriptures teaches, we also believe that Jesus was fully human. It is his human nature that was conceived in the womb of Mary not the divine nature. The divine nature is uncreated and eternal and has no beginning. "The early church fathers were catholic so all the bible sources comes from catholic" - and what is your best evidence for this claim? "Look at the catholic encyclopedia and you will see the pages" - since im not catholic what do you claim it says?
1
@Alam22414 "regarding ugly hatun arrest read my first post she was charged with article 4a" - yes i know and yet when she was released they did not charge her with anything. Also i mean the worlds most obvious false prophet momo was also the most whitest most obvious false prophet he himself was not an oil painting himself. I mean even in highgene he failed as he had sex with all of his wives in 1 night and then he would only take 1 bath, he also spitted and skeeted in his clothes right before going to prayer. Damn...
1
@Alam22414 "are you an eyewitness to all these events that you claim"? - its important to note that since this is a question it does not refute anything i said or claimed. Secondly if your question refers to my previous comment then my answer is no. However everything i said comes from the Muslims sources i.e Hadits "Stop barking" - this is also very important to note that Muslims view Jews and Christians are mere creatures or the lowest of creatures. Thus Muslims view non muslims as creatures therefore devalueing other human beings as sub human. Therefore there is an apartheid system in Islam between Muslims and Non Muslims. And lastly i would point out im not your dhimmi you cannot stop me from saying what i want.
1
@Alam22414 "lets see what bible says about non believers, Christ teaches you to love others, my foot" - in the New Testament Jesus gives us two commandments 1. To love God with our body, heart, mind and soul and the 2. Is to love our neighbours as ourselves. On these two commandments hang the commandments and the prophets. "Lord the Killer Christ teaches in the bible to kill non believers Deuteronomy 13:6" - this verse is from the Old Testament were God gives instructions to Israel in order to separate them from the surrounding nations. These instructions were given by God to a specific people in a specific time and place in history. Christians are not bound by the Old Testament but we fall under the New Tesrament. It is also important to note that that did not live in the flesh in the Old Testament and that God was the ruler of Israel in the Old Testament before he appointed Israel's first King.
1
@Alam22414 "Slaves Leviticus 25:44-45" - Israel were instructed to buy slaves from the surrounding nations that lived along the border this means that the buying of slaves were only limited to the nations that lived around Israel, not from nations that lived beyond the nations that lived around them. However slave trading was prohibited in both the Old and New Testament and the punishment was death
1
@Alam22414 "Non Believers Leviticus 24:16" - this does not apply to Non Believers this applied to the Nation of Israel if anyone in Israel blashemes the Name of the Lord God shall be put to death by stoning.
1
@Alam22414 "Proverbs 23:13" - this also applied only to the nation of Israel that disobedient children shall be punished by the rod. The rod was used to discipline their children
1
@Alam22414 "Deuteronomy 25:11-12" - there is no reason to think that this was to be taken as literal and here is why: There are two different Hebrew words that are used for hand in the above verse you quoted. The first is the Hebrew word "Yad" which means hand the second is the Hebrew word "kaph" which means palm. So does the verse say that the womans palm be "cut off"? I do not think so as it would be difficult to do so. The Hebrew word "kaph" can mean more than just the word palm it is also used for anything hallowed out, like the cupped palm of the hand. In Genesis 32:25 this word is used for the word groin, a hollowed out area of the body. Now lets look at the Hebrew word for "cut off". This is the Hebrew word qatsats" whicv means "to remove by cutting" but could also mean "to remove or by stripping or shaving". As we see this word being used in 2 Kings 18:16. So based on the interpretation of the Hebrew word "qatsats" Deuteronomy 25:12 could be read as "shave her groin" rather than "cut of her hand".
1
@Alam22414 "seriously revenge Judges 15:1" The above verse should be read in context from 15:1-8 as it follows some unspecified time after the scandelous events of the previous chapter. After Samson stormed out of his wedding feast, the bride's father gave her to someone else. Samson responds to this news by torching the philistine crops. The philistines then responds by burning his former bride and her father alive. Samson then violently retaliates and then hide. This leads to another altercation between Israel and the Philistines.
1
@Alam22414 "Jesus came for Israelite not for Gentiles. He answered "i was sent to the lost sheep of Israel" - that is only half true and here is why: 1. Jesus' Ministry According to the bible: A. Limited to Israel B. Is to the whole World 2. Jesus spoke positively of, healed and preached to some Samaritans (who were half Jew and half Gentile) 3. He sent his 12 disciples to a Samaritan village to prepare things for his visit there. He also sent the Gadarene demoniac to preach in the Decapolis. 4. He healed Gentiles and taught at least a few Greeks 5. Of the few compliments he gave three were to non Jews 6. He often accused the Jews of having less faith than the gentiles 7. He cleansed the temple at least partially for the sake of the gentiles 8. According to Jesus own words his mission is universal: A. His death is meant to accomplish the redemption of ALL MANKIND B. His gospel message was to be preached to ALL MANKIND C. His Kingdom includes people of ALL NATIONS 9. The geneology of Jesus includes two Gentile Woman; Rahab and Ruth. The Magi from the east playeda major part at the birth of the New Born King. So both Jesus lineage and the signs accompanying his birth intimate that his future ministry would impact ALL NATIONS. 10. According to the OLD TESTAMENT the mission of "the Christ" was to be universal. In Conclusion: Jesus ministry before his death, resurrection and ascension was primarily to the Jews, though far from being restricted to them. After the above mentioned events he sent out his disciples whom he had thoroughly prepared into ALL THE WORLD with his message of good news of salvation by grace. That is why Jesus knew when he heard that the Greeks are pressing to see him, that his hour of death was imminent. For Jesus must suffer, die and be glorified before his universal message of Salvation can be carried to the gentile world. "Why are you even following Jesus"? - well for starters Jesus claimed to be God and him being raised from the dead by God vindicated his claims he made about himself. And secondly he is the best moral example to follow compared to Jesus all other fails in comparison. He is the standard of how one should live one's life by in obedience to God. But the standard he set is almost impossible to follow which is why we need him as a Saviour as we cannot save ourselves.
1
@Alam22414 "Jesus never preached Gentiles, he sent his disciples which following strict message Matthew 10:5" - When read in context (see Matthew 1:1-5) Jesus began to give his 12 Apostles very specific instructions about what, where and why and how he is sending them out . His first direction is simple: they are not to take "this message" to gentiles or Samaritans. This restriction only applies to this particular mission; later Jesus will send out his Apostles out to the entire world. Also you completely ignored my previous points that i gave to show that the ministry of Jesus was both to the Jews and the Gentiles and you addressed none of the points i made.
1
@Alam22414 "Matthew 15:24 and Matthew 10:5 is clearly translated by Christian Scholars" - the original text was Koine Greek and translated into english. Now what is your evidence that these two text was clearly translated by Christian Scholars as per your claim? What is your evidence? "Jesus came for Israelite and he sent his disciples to Jews with clear instruction not to preach Gentiles" - firstly as you would have noticed in my 10 point layout i gave earlier (which you have not addressed) i mentioned that before his cruxifiction and resurrection he came for the children of Israel and after his resurrection his message went oyt to ALL NATIONS as Jesus instructed. Secondly in the above passage i also mentioned that Jesus clearly gave instructions for only that particular mission not to go to the gentile town mentioned in the passage you quoted. You are merely restating your claims but your not engaging with what i said. "Your opinion wont count" - my opinion is based upon what the text itself said and how it is understood for 2,000 years of church history. Whether you like or dislike the answer it up to you and there is nothing i can do for you on that. However what you cannot say is that i did not answer your objection. "Quote bible verses like i always quote if Matthew 15:24 and Matthew 10:5 are abrogated by Jesus show me verse" - Muslims like yourself believe in the concept of abragation we as Christians do not believe in that concept. Neither Matthew 15:24 and Matthew 10:5 are not abrogated by Jesus you would not find that in the New Testament. Im asking you to deal with what i said in answer to both Matthew 15:24 and 10:5 deal with the answers i gave you.
1
@Alam22414 "my evidence to bible translation is correct"? - you need to clarify your question better but if you are asking which translation is correct then my answer would be that all the translations are correct as the message is the same and translations does not affect any doctrines we believe as Christians. The only bible christians reject is that of Jehovas Witnesses as they have their own translation that is only for them. "Ask the author of the KJV of bible" - the translator of the KJV is most likely dead so it would be impossible to ask him anything "If cannot translate, they should contact you"? - why should translators contact me, for what purpose. Please clarify? "When you say Jesus came for all nations. Quote bible verses" - sure (see Matthew 15:28, Mark 7:29-30, Matthew 10:18, Mark 7:24, and 31 Luke 9:52, John 4:4-5) more can be said on this. "Text of Koine Greek"? - the New Testament was written in Koine Greek you are correct "Where are the originals manuscripts" - we do not have them because they would not have survived the test of time and so the manuscripts were faithfully copied throughout the centuries until today. "Greek manuscripts are without authors and are copies of copies" - the claim is that we dint know who the authors are but remember that cannot be concluded with 100% certainty because we do not have the original manuscripts, however based on internal and external evidence we do know who the authors are. And yes we have a wealth of thousands of manuscript evidence "In fact NT has more variations than words" - correct you are that is public knowledge "As per Christianity the bible is word of Christ, clear message for mankind with commands, like how to live your life" - Jesus Christ is literally the word of God made flesh and yes the bible is the word of God, with a clear message for all mankind and we as Christians are to emulate to live the life that Christ did. "If an order has been abrogated should be their" - Christians do not believe in the doctrine of abrogation. But Muslims do according to your qu'ran. "Or its just a book of history found in cave author caveman" - we as Christians believe that God has personally acted in history both in the Old and New Testament so yes we do see it as a book of recorded history
1
@Alam22414 "since you accepted that bible is more of a history book" - firstly i never said in my previous comment that i accept that the bible is only a history book, you have misrepresented what i said previously so therefore i would suggest that you go back and see what i actually said. Right now you are misrepresenting what i said 100%. "Rather than a word of God" - again i would refer you once again to what i said previously as i stated that Jesus is the literal word of God. Once again you have misrepresented what i said. Go back and see what i actually said. "Due to non existent original manuscripts it cannot be verified that what your reading in NT was actually the correct teachings of Jesus" - not true since we have a wealth of manuscript riches where we can compare the thousands of manuscripts we have and compare them with one another to see what the original documents actually said. So therefore we are confident that the words and teachings of Jesus was faithfully transmitted through the centuries up until today in the 21st century. "So the entire Christianity went under the bus" - not at all since we have a thing called textual critisism that Scholars apply to the text in order to see what the original documents said in the 1st century. "Christianity is similar to Hinduism" - i see so can you provide me an accurate list of the similarities between Christianity and Hinduism? "They dont have original scriptures" - well i cannot speak for Hinduism but it is public knowledge that in the Christian faith we do not have the original manuscripts, however we do have thousands of copies of the New Testament in different languages and when we compare them with one another we can reconstruct the original documents. But i would also like to point out that you as well do not possess the Uthmanic qu'rans that were complied by Uthman than he standardized and sent out to all the Muslim community after the death of History's most obvious false prophet. "The entire religion is based on myths and beliefs only" - here i have to strongly disagree and here is why: before a single letter of the New Testament was ever written down there were many christians even before the New Testament was even written down and that is because of the resurrection. You see the New Testament did not give us the Resurrection, the Resurrection gave us the New Testament. If there was no resurrection that took place we would not have had a New Testament. "No Evidence" - here i have to disagree as well strongly. You see History testifies to the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was born, had a 3 year ministry and died on a cross. the Majority of New Testament scholarship will not disagree with me on this fact even Atheist New Testament Scholarship like Dr. Bart Erhman who is an Agnostic/Atheist will agree with me that Jesus most certainly lived and died on the cross. Christians call themselves educators of the world" - well there are some very smart Christians in the world that are certainly very educated in certain fields of study but we are called to be salt and light to the world. "when comes to faith their beliefs is on the bible, author caveman" - well the Christian faith is in the person of Jesus Christ himself, and Jesus vindicates scripture by his resurrection. the christian faith is based upon evidence and is the only faith that can be verified or falsified. Islam on the other hand has blind faith and merely takes the claims of history's most obvious false prophet by faith and also he was in fact in a cave all alone when he was slapped around by a demon and he himself though that he was possessed by a demon and his wife who was not even present in the cave with history's most obvious false prophet and convinced him that it was an angel.
1
@Alam22414 "Christianity based on Myths like Hinduism" - this is the second time you asserted this claim. Provide a short list of the supposed Myths between Christianity and Hinduism "Saint Clement admits that Marks Gospel is Mythology" - you are confusing the secret gospel of Mark with the actual Gospel of Mark and here is why: - virtually everything about the secret gospel of Mark is disputed by New Testament Scholarship. The words cited by Smith are found only in the text that Smith transcribed from a copy that was found written in the back of a separate work from the 17th century. Unlike the actual scripture which has outstanding tracability, these words have literally zero support. If real these fragments would be the only copies of clements letters known to exist. What is even more condemning is that the secret gospel of Mark is never mentioned anywhere else in any other source in all of ancient literature. Also other disputed works such as the Apocryphal Acts as well as the infancy gospels were mentioned by many early church fathers in order to refute heresies. Also New Testament scholars have questioned Smith's claims on the basis of anachronisms within the text, contradictions with Clements other writings and even the handwriting found in the images produced by Smith. So in conclusion: Scholarly consensus is all but certain that the secret gospel of Mark is a fictional work, which most likely never existed at all. The only debate that does continue is whether Morton Smith fabricated the entire text in order to claim a discovery. However not all of scholarship do think this is the case but the full picture of smith's claims do lead to some lingering suspicion that the text was forged in order to support his professional, ethical and personal goals.
1
@Alam22414 "Jesus died on the Cross" - that is correct that is what the bible teaches and affirmed in all four gospels "You dont have any eyewitness testimony recorded ever says "i saw Jesus died on the cross" - furstly i have to disagree with your standard by applying the exact words criteria to the bible because if i apply the exact words criteria to the qu'ran it will fail the very same standard that you apply to the bible. Secondly the gospel accounts were written as eyewitness accounts and here is why: 1. Eyewitness authority is inherent to the gospels - the gospel accounts are written as historical narratives. The life of Jesus is intertwined with historical events locating it in geographically and historically. The gospels repeatedly affirm their own historical, eyewitness nature, mentioning key figures who served to validate the history of Jesus as eyewitnesses: (see John 1:6-7) 2. Eyewitness authority was commisioned by Jesus - Jesus himself understood the eyewitness status of the apostles. He himself commisioned them to grow the Kingdom on the basis of their eyewitness observation: (see Luke 24:44-49, Acts 1:6-8) 3. Eyewitness authority was affirmed by the gospel authors - the authors of the Gospels oroclaimed their authority as eyewitnesses. The earliest believers embraced the traditional authorship of the eyewitnesses. The gospel authors and their sources repeatedly identified themselves as eyewitnesses: (see 1 Peter 5:1, 2 Peter 1:16-17, 1 John 1:1-3, John 21:24-25, Luke 1:1-4 4. Eyewitness authority was confirmed by the first believers - the earliest believers and church fathers accepted the gospel accounts as eyewitness documents. Many of the church fathers wrote about the gospels. Papias when he described the authorship of the gospel of Mark said "Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately but not in order, whatever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ". In addition to this Papias, Ireneaus, Origen and Jerome affirmed the authorship of Matthews gospel by the Tax collector described in the account, written for the Hebrews in his native dialect and translated as he was able 5. Eyewitness authority was foundational to the growth of the Church - it should nit come as a suprise to us that the authority of the gospels was grounded in their status as eyewitnesses. The eyewitness authority of the Apostles were unified in the manner in which they proclaimed Jesus Christ. They repeatedly identified themselves first and foremost as eyewitnesses: (see Acts 2:23-24,32, Acts 3:15, Acts 4:20, Acts 4:33, Acts 10:39-42, 6. Eyewitness authority was used to validate New Testament writings - even Paul understood the impirtance of eyewitness authority. Paul continually referred to his own encounter with Jesus to establish the authenticity of his office and writings. Paul also directed his readers to other eyewitnesses who could corroborate his claims: (see 1 Corinthians 15:3-8) In Conclusion The gospels were written as eyewitness accounts within the rich evidential tradition of the early Christian community. The early Church placed high value on the evidence thaf were provided by Jesus and the authority of the apostles as eyewitnesses. The gospels were accepted and also affirmed largely to their status as eyewitness accounts. This authority was: - inherent to the gospels - commisioned by Jesus - affirmed by the gospel authors - confirmed by the first believers - foundational to the growth of the church - used to validate the New Testament canon
1
@Alam22414 "entire religion is based on Salvation but cannot prove it actually happened" - actually salvation comes by grace through faith from God through his Son Jesus Christ what he has done for us on the cross and it is completed by the Holy Spirit
1
@Alam22414 "seriously your criteria of verification is comparing copies to copies from unknown authors" - this process is called textual critism this process compares the many thousands of manuscripts that we do have in order to identify what the original documents said and by this process the original documents can be restored. Secondly we do not have rhe original documents so one cannot say with 100% certainty that the authors of the gospels are unknown. Howevef based upon the internal and external evidence from the gospels we are certain that the authors are Matthew, Mark, Luke and John "If Muslims claim the same criteria about the qu'ran christians will destroy the entire religion" - as far as i know tectual critism has not yet been applied to the qu'ran but i suspect that it will fail the test as compared the the bible "Hinduism also present the same logic to prove their books and gods are true in absence of original" - what is your evidence for this claim?
1
@Alam22414 "basically Christianity is based on the NT Jesus words, instructions, and incident happened" - from the Old Testament to the end of the New Testament everything is about Jesus. But the NT focuses on his life death and resurrection as well as his teaching of his ministry "If you dont the Jesus 100% accurate message it becomes doubtful and chance of corruption" - we have good reasons to believe that both the Old and New Testament is reliable and accurate. Doubt comes from ones own heart not from scripture. And lastly we have good reasons to believe that what was said about Jesus in the New Testament has not changed over time "Worst is your criteria of verification from copies to copies" - again this is called textual critism applied by New Testament scholarship. It is because we have a wealth of thousands upon thousands of textual manuscripts from many different languages that we can compare with one another in order to recreate what the original documents said. If this method was applied the qu'ran would fail the test. "Even hearsay which is not acceptable by law letter" - i agree thst in a court of law hearsay is not acceptable evidence, but you would have to provide an example of hearsay if you are applying it to the bible
1
@Alam22414 "you do understand what textual critism is how it works" - yes textual critism is a tool that is used by Scholars by looking at all the manuscript evidence and then by comparing the manuscript evidence with one another in order to determine what the original documents said. This tool is applied to the New Testament in order to see what the documents said in the past. "In no shape or form you can verify a document through this process and produce it as evidence in a court of law" - firstly why would you want to use this tool known as textual critism and apply it to a court of law? Secondly textual critism is applied to ancient documents of the past where the original documents is no longer in existence and where only copies exist and then by comparing those documents with one another in order to see or discover what the original said. "You need original to verify or endorse or authenticate" - many ancient literature from the past is no longer in existence and if there are only copies availvable then textual critism can be applied in order to discover what the original document said in the ancient past. And by using this tool one can verify or authenticate what the original document said in the past. "Just admit that Christians dont have originals just copies of copies" - of course i do admit it as a Christian it is public knowledge, but we also have thousands upon thousands of manuscript evidence which can be compared to one another in order to discover what the original documents said and scholars use textual critism in order to do just that. "Which again have no authors" - that is the claim but once again we do not have the original documents so one can not say that the authors of the New Testament were not Matthew Mark Luke and John. However based upon the internal as well as the external evidence from the New Testament gospel we have good reasons to believe that the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were ccorrectly attributed to the gospel accounts of the New Testament. "Your entire religion is based on belief without evidence" - i strongly disagree it is belief that us supported by the evidence. The more evidence there is the stronger the belief there is for the truth of Christianity. "End of story Christianity Debunked" - what a silly statement to make you debunked nothing all you have is rhetoric thats all and it cant be taken seriously.
1
@Alam22414 "Just say i believe in the bible found in cave that cannot be verified" - you are most likely referring to the dead sea scrolls. They were discovered in 1947 in Qumran 20 miles east of Jerusalem on the north shore of the dead sea. The dead sea scrolls that were discovered contains tens of thousands of scroll fragments dating from the 3rd century BC to AD 68 and represents an estimated 800 seperate works. The dead sea scrolls is comprised of a vast collection of Jewish documents written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek containing many subjects and literary styles. They include manuscript and fragments of every book in the Hebrew bible execpt for the book of Esther, all of them created nearly 1000 years earlier than any previous known biblical manuscripts. These scrolls also contain the earliest existing biblical commentary on the book of Habbakuk as well as many other writings and among them religious works pertaining to Jewish sects of that time. There were no lost books of the bible or other literature that there was not already other copies of. The vast majority of the dead sea scrolls were copies of books of the Old Testament from 2500-150 BC. A copy of every Old Testament book was found in Qumran. There were also exstra-biblical as well as apocryphal books found, but the vast majority of the scrolls were copies of the Hebrew Old Testament The Dead Sea scrolls were such an amazing discovery that the scrolls were in execellent condition and remain hidden for for over 2,000 years. The Dead Sea scrolls also gives us confidence in the reliability of the Old Testament manuscripts since there were minimal differences between the manuscripts that has been previously discovered than those that were discovered in Qumran. This is a testament to the way that God has preserved his word through the centuries protecting it from destruction and gaurding it against significant error. "I believe because i want to believe" - we believe because there is good evidence to believe. Your statement should rather be more accurately applied to your very own religion.
1
@Alam22414 "lets end this conversation here" - sure i dont mind it at all. It does seem that you have run out of any meaningfull objections anyway without any responses to my answers. "Dont be an ignorant believer and believe in stories" - respectfully i would say between you and me your the one being ignorant and believing in stories. "Be a smart follower" - i would say to you to follow the evidence where it leads. However i do have a question to ask and my question is this: If Christianity were true would you become a Christian?
1
@Alam22414 "if you bring me true words (as) original with authentic chain of narration, having no doubt on them. I will accept Jesus (as) message" - i see so its a no then to my answer. I thank you for being honest that even if it were true that Christianity were true you would not become a Christian. "Islam is the only Non Christian faith with makes an article of faith to believe believe in Jesus (as)" - actually what you said here is incorrect. Firstly there are many non christian faiths that believes in Jesus but they believe different things about Jesus. Secondly even the demons believe in Jesus but they do not trust in him. And lastly Muslims only believe in Jesus what Muhammad said about Jesus but Muslims dont follow Jesus and instead trust, believe and follow the most obvious false prophet in history. "If Christianity mean follow Jesus than Muslims follow more than Christians" - this is also incorrect. Chrisrianity is the religion and christians are the followers of Jesus that believes in Jesus that is described in the bible who is a historical figure of history. Muslims believe in the counterfit Jesus (Isa) of the qu'ran who is not the historical Jesus of history. So Muslims do not believe or even follow the Historical Jesus of the bible and are therefor not Christians or followers of him. "Jesus got circumcision" - that is true as was the custom for all Jews who were born under the Mosaic law of Moses "Muslims follow circumcision" - yes but Muslims were not born under the Mosaic law of Moses and do not follow the Mosaic law of Moses. And also Muslims are not Jews but Arabs. "Jesus prohibits alcohol" - not true Jesus turned water into wine when he first started his ministry and did not prohibit the drinking of alcohol. "Muslims follow that" - well thats highly debateable "Jesus prohibits pork" - incorrect pork was prohibit under the law of Moses which was under the Old Covenent. The person of Jesus did not live under the old covenent. The person of Jesus established the New Covenent and Nowhere in the New Testament is pork prohibited "Muslims follow that" - this i will concede as Muslims do not eat pork but eating pork does not prove that Islam is true or that Muslims follow Jesus. Vegetarian (atheists) dont eat any meat including pork but that is not prove that atheism is true. So if that is indeed your argument then it is a silly arghment to make for the truth of Islam
1
@Alam22414 "Luke 2:20" - since you quoted the verse may i ask what is your objection to this verse if there is an objection?
1