That was to counter your sleazy tactics of also linking webpages.

If you want to make passing points, links are fine

No. Make the prophecy and show me the fulfillement. Don't post large walls of texts of a boring book and expect me to read it.

>You have been raised by muslims, so you defend Islam as a habit


That does not matter.

Dude, I don't care what you think your scriptures say. I gave two arguments above that he is.

And gave you an argument to reject christianity and your response is "ignore the obvious failures of christianity and just focus on this long boring passage that I don't have to show how it connects to my argument"

>cannot possibly seem anything of a sign"

Duh, it was not intended to be a sign.

And he brought forth miracles and prophecies listed above that you failed to engage with.

And he brought a rational theology orders above any trinity or god-man

And you still have not engaged with any failed prophecy. Your one actual argument is "the messiah will be born from a woman just like Jesus, look something Muslims already believe"

The sign is probably the immanuel

Yes, that's one thing he was supposed to fulfill and clearly failed

The whole world will worship the One God of Israel. Isaiah 2:11-17, Isaiah 40:5, Zephaniah 3:9

Currently large swaths humanity do not worship the One God of Israel.

Knowledge of God will fill the world. Isaiah 11:9, 45:23, 66:23, Jeremiah 31:33, Zechariah 3:9, 8:23, 14:9,16, Ezekiel 38:23, Psalm 86:9

Note that this is knowledge of God - not simply unsubstantiated faith in God. Even amongst the faithful, such knowledge is rare.

All Israelites will be returned to their homeland Isaiah 11:12, 27:12-13, Ezekiel 11:17, 36:24, Deuteronomy 30:3

Though there are more Jews today living in the Land of Israel than there have been since the exile began nearly 2,000 years ago - there is still a large diaspora consisting of millions of Jews.

See how boring and unintersting this is

No the ones above that Jesus clearly failed to fulfill.

See you have to shift back to Islam because you are incapable of defending Christainity

It's that weak.

I did not. I literally even defended the prophet above using two arguments; one from miracles and one from prophecies and went unaddressed.

I did not dismiss any prophecies aside from Isaiah 53. I believe Jesus is the messiah. Christians paint him as a failure by failing to fulfill some prophecies.

I don't have to address them. Muslims already think Jesus is the messiah.

“O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion, and do not say anything concerning Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers . . .” (Quran 4:171; see also 66:12)

The Bible is wrong correct, that does not mean Jesus is not the messiah

Yes, that does not take away from him being the messiah.

which you clearly thought he was not. paul is irrelevant correct.

Maybe in the NT which muslims don't care about

0

Yeah, Muslims don't believe in the Bible, not binding on us.

nor do I care what it has to say about Jesus

No, I don't. The only child rapist is your God who commands Moses to shank little children in Deutronomy 31:18 and allows Mary to be a child bride

None of this denies he did miracle

Where does the above deny the Prophet did a Miracle.

Warners can give miracles and he could have done miracles later after they asked him.

He did in surah al najm and surah al Israa.

Those two surahs recount at least two instances he did miracles

Yes, at the time he did not do miracles when he asked. he did them LATER.

It does not have to say it.

Numbers 31:18

Yes at the time of revelation of that verse, he was not given those miracles that Quraysh demanded. He was given them later as indicated in the above two passages I cited.

Also being a warner does not really exclude him from giving miracles.

Dude, none of those verses say what you want them to say

Being a warner does not exclude him from being a miracle-doer. Warners can do miracles as well. I gave examples of prophecies and miracles above. If you choose to stay blind about them and declare their non-existence, go ahead.

[Praise be to Allah Who enabled His slave, Muhammad, to make the journey at night from Masjid al-Haram in Makkah to Masjid al-Aqsa in Jerusalem, which is surrounded a blessed land.] (17:1)

@SUPER MALE VITALITY™ The only child rapist I see is the God of the OT but okay.

Yes, the prophet is a human so he does not have the intrisnsic capacity to do miracles neither does any prophet. God does them in their name

Consumatted doesnot mean intercourse. It means to enter his house

Can you not stay on point and answer the above points.

They asked why he had no sign at an earlier stage

The signs came later. I don't know why refuted points are being recycled

Today, that's what the word means, sure.

See Sahih Bukhari 234

@Mozalbete ⳩ Stay on point. Where does the Qu'ran say Muhammad can't do miracles. The above verses don't say what you want them to say.

And there are two instances where the Prophet does do miracles

It does not have to. Does not mentioning an event implicitly denying it?

Yes there is dude, You are so ignorant about Islam, it's not funny.

https://questionsonislam.com/subject-categories/principles-belief/prophet-muhammad-pbuh/miracles-prophet-muhammad (here is a list)

Go educate yourself and come back

You asked for a list.

So I obviously had to quote a list, wtf

Just go educate yourself ffs and then you can come back and talk about Islam. There are clearly miracles and prophecies (https://yaqeeninstitute.org/series/proofs-of-prophethood/), there are clearly instances in the Qu'ran where the prophet does miracles (17:1, 53:1) and Christianity paints Jesus as a loser who can't fulfill some prophecies. In Islam, He is a messiah so I don't have a problem with those fulfilled prophecies.

yeah this is an echo chamber. not worth my time

The NT is 4 authors copying one another Lol, yeah, there is nothing here of value.

The first one does not refer to the hour of resurrection see ibn Kathir's tafsir on this. The other are literally just hand-waved away as being "poor attempts" without explaining why. Rememeber that your book says that False prophets can do miracles (deutronomy 13) so christ's resurrection means nothing; not the same in Islam. The notes on prophecies are still unaddressed 30 minutes later.

You keep repeating that lie that the Qu'ran says Muhammad did not do miracles but those verses have been refuted and I have provided two counter-instances. At this point, I could not care less if you believe a lie since you are clearly not sincere.

The unfulfilled prophecies have nothing to do with worldly/spiritual conquest. They have to do with certain explicit expectations that Jesus did not fulfill. The reason I call this place an echo chamber is that it clearly does not allow a 1 on 1 dialogue but just a childish collective of immature children yelling "goat fucker" or "your prophet is X", not really a healthy community and no different from atheists tbh. I don't care at this point if any of you are wrong.

Again Christ's predictions won't prove Christianity true since Muslims already accept that Jesus is the messiah.

The only thing this attitude shows really is that "Christians" don't take Christianity nor Jesus seriously.

>You say it doesn't refer to the hour of resurrection, but the chapter starts by saying

Well the verse starts by talking about "the hour" but even if it was the resurrection. Just mentioning the resurrection is not sufficient to prove the verse is referring to it in every other instance. Also the Mufassiroon are clear this is a miracle given to the prophet (https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=65&tAyahNo=4&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2)

>If the moon had split, there wouldn't be just some vague, fast mention with no given importance, and definitely there would have been many extensive reports of it, and overall it would have had much more importance.

Well yeah, we do have many reports in the hadith as well. I would clearly expect every person who saw a miracle of the prophet to become a Muslim.

>This is what we can see for exmaple in Christ's miracles, recorded by several witnesses, researched, their significance is commented.

Well not really. What we have is Mark attributing somethings to Jesus and 2 later authors copying him so we really only have one anonymous source that was copied later. And Muslims have no problem with Jesus doing miracles.

>Muhammed says he didnt do miracles.

That was addressed above. Nowhere do the verses say "Muhammad can't do miracles"; it's pagans asking the prophet for a miracle early on and he refused to give one in order to show that God is not a butler who will pander to your wishes. You have failed to show the Qu'ran saying anywhere "Muhammad can not do miracles" and there are two other references where the prophet clearly does miracles (https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=17&tAyahNo=1&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2) Here another tafsir which is part of the Sunnah, one of the two main authorities in Islam. By this faulty logic, Mark 6:5 means Jesus could not do any miracles *ever* because he did not provide signs to a specific group at a specific time.

>Your expectation of prophecies are just a copy paste of a couple of jews, which are precisely the ones that are prophecised to not to recognize Jesus.

That's a strawman. nowhere did I post any "expectations or interpretations". Nobody had to interpret the prophecies because they are explicit. Like this one: The whole world will worship the One God of Israel. Isaiah 2:11-17, Isaiah 40:5, Zephaniah 3:9.

And Jesus clearly did not fulfill that one.

>By the way, the parts of Deuteronomy you mention obvisouly will not include the Resurreciton, since that requires complete dominion over life, which is something a demon doesn't have, but God.

The parts in deutronomy don't say except the resurrection though. It clearly says signs and wonders and the resurrection would fit that so you just committed a special pleading fallacy there. Matthew 24:24 also says that false prophets can do miracles.

Yes, Islam does deny the crucifixion and the presence of historical works does not really contradict it since the text says "it *appeared* to them that way" so obviously some people will report what appeared to them.

>And this, of course, is while ignoring things like the theological blunders I have mentioned, or the things taken straight out of gnostic gospels like Jesus giving life to clay birds while in the cradle

If you want to say the Qu'ran plagiarized, go ahead and make a case instead of saying "well they both have a common story so they must have copied". Macdonald says the same thing wrt to the NT, that it is taken from Greek mythology. Notice, how you still did not address the prophet's prophecies.

By the way wrt, to the unfulfilled prophecies. None of them say "this will be fulfilled in heaven or later" so that's just special pleading. Also, some are to be fulfilled during the messianic age. See Isaiah 11:12 about returning the Jews from the tribes of Judah to Israel.

Wrt to the theological blunder, I have no clue what you are referring to and seem to be bringing this up for the first time, you never cite any of those in example. I would argue that it is christianity that has such blunder and issues like the Trinity, Incarnation and its deficient salvation. For example, your religion teaches that an innocent man took the punishment for guilty people. Punishing an innocent for the crimes of the guilty goes pretty much against the definition of justice and the Trinity likewise does not make much sense. We can even formulate an argument against the trinity. By the law of excluded middle, The persons of the trinity are either the same in every respect or it is not the case that the divine persons are the same in every respect. If the former, then the divine persons are identical (Modalism). If the latter is true, then they have different property/properties and so by the law of non-contradiction are different property-bearers or substances (polytheism).

I gtg to uni now but feel free to ping later when you give a response. But to recap, prophecies are Still unaddressed a few days later. The prophet is recorded to do miracles in the Qur'an and hadith and only denies sending a sign to a group of people at a specific time from there you make the silly inferernce that he can't do miracles, period. Applying the same logic to Jesus (Mark 6), would also mean Jesus can't do signs. For the unfulfilled prophecies, your excuse is that those are to be fulfilled in his kingdom in heaven not on Earth yet no verse says that (that's interpreted later) and like half of them can't be fulfilled in heaven and are to be fulfilled on Earth (like the in-gathering and the spiritual guidance prophecy). Wrt, to crucifixion, Islam does not deny that it appeared that way to some and hence the reports.

@Mozalbete ⳩

***Miracles in Islam***

You begin by conceeding that the Islamic Sunnah affirms that the prophet did Miracles in the Qu’ran and since the Sunnah is one of the two authorities on Islam, you conceed that Islam believes the prophet does miracles in the Qu’ran. You say that the basis behind these miracles eyewitness reports is them being recorded centuries and decades later but that just shows that you are not well-acquinated with islamic apologetics. Hadiths were often recorded by companions, scribes of eyewitnesses and hostile testimony. Without a doubt, the most exhaustive work on the subject of early hadith literature is Shaykh Mustafa al-Azami‘s Studies in Early Hadith Literature, in which he compiled a list of pre-classical individuals who either personally wrote hadith or allowed hadith to be transmitted from them in written form. The list includes over 50 Companions, 49 first-generation Successors, 87 scholars of the late first century and 251 scholars of the early second century. We also have Sahifa Hammmam bin Munabih, written by the disciple of an eyewitness and Musnaf Abdul Razzaq both of which have many miracles such as the night journey, turning snakes into swords and raising people from the dead. So we clearly have such attestation in the Islamic Sunnah. All you did say about the 2 miracles in the Qu’ran is that it is unlikely given historical issues like lack of a second mention. Yet these are not good reasons to doubt the testimony of the Qu’ran. Firstly, the prophet does keep mentioning this event again and again (Bukhari, Sahih, V. 4, p. 1 86; Muslim , Sahih, V. 4, p. 2159; Tirmidhi, Sunan, V. 5, p. 397).

The reason he does not do this in the Qu’ran is that the Qu’ran is not the prophet’s diary. It would be weird for Gabriel to start revealing the prophet’s personal life events that he already knows about. The prophet is not pressed for miracles later. That’s a very bad misunderstanding about the Qu’ran. The Qu’ran was not revealed in the chronological order it is written in today. Surah 96 was the first surah to be revealed despite being 96th in order. This misunderstanding betrays that you don’t know the basics of Islam. The only thing that came close to evidence here was claiming that the in some instances in the Qur’an (all of which were during the earlier meccan period), the prophet does not provide a miracle as the audience ask him. That could be explained by saying that it was during an earlier period and he did the miracles later, that the audience was new and so did not see his previous miracles and the prophet was telling them the truth by saying only God can do miracles and miracles do reside with him, among hundreds of other ways, that are consistent with the clear-cut testimony of his miracles in the Qu’ran and the Sunnah.

***Notice that the argument from the prophecies of the Prophet is still unaddressed a full day later.***

***Miracles in Christianity and the New Testament***

You argue here that the New testament is very reliable since it has 4 gospels each being independent testimony. To put it mildly, not even most conservative scholars or apologists would agree with this. The Synoptic problem is well-established and the most common position is called the two-source hypothesis proposing that Luke and Matthew copied most of their material from the gospel of Mark and another source called Q. So the gospels copy one another and are clearly not independent. You are free to look up any gospel parallels or find the synoptic problem in any introductory textbook to the New Testament. Since the gospel authors copy one another on most events, they are clearly not independent testimony. Moreover, the writers are anonymous, we have no clue who they are. The attribution given today is by Irenaeus going off a mistake by Papias, that came over a century after the gospels were written. So your only proof is that a guy disconnected from the events living 100 years later claimed so and you still would only have a claim rather than proof. Even if Jesus did miracles, remember that in Islam, he is a prophet and so prophets can do miracles.

Secondly, Here is the passage from Deutronomy 13

“If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, “Let us follow other gods”(gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. “

The passage is saying that if a prophet does a sign or a wonder and he turns out to be a false prophet, then kill him. The resurrection is clearly a sign or a wonder (the same word translated as sign or wonder here means miracle). So clearly doing a sign or a wonder like the resurrection is compatible with being a false prophet. The verse says nothing about demons or nothing to exclude a resurrection.

You try to argue that Jesus says so but after reading the passage you posted, nowhere does Jesus say that demons can’t resurrect people or any of what you are trying to force the text to say.

If anything, the bible contradicts you. “For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.” - Matthew 24: 24, Mark 13: 22

***Mary in the Qu’ran***

You argue here that Mary is the sister of Aaron and an object of worship in the Qu’ran; yet both claims are laughable. The Qu’ran does call Mary the sister of Aaron as a title not trying to claim a literal relationship but rather a symbolic metaphorical one.

“When I came to Najran, they (the Christians of Najran) asked me: You read" O sister of Harun" (i. e. Hadrat Maryam) in the Qur'an, whereas Moses was born much before Jesus. ***When I came back to Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) I asked him about that, whereupon he said: The (people of the old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the names of Apostles and pious persons who had gone before them.***” - Sahih Muslim 2135

As for the object of worship, the Qu’ran never says that Christians worship Mary. What the verse actually says is that “Jesus did not teach his disciples to worship Mary”. The verse is saying the exact opposite of what you are claiming it says.

***Salvation***

You argue here that Jesus was not punished but rather voluntarily sacrificed and took the suffering we deserved. But that’s exactly my problem. It is not just for the innocent to take the suffering or penalty for the crime they did not do and let the guilty get away unpunished for their sins. That’s the definition of injustice.

***Trinity***

You have not answered the puzzle laid forth on the table. You argue that they have one divine nature and clearly that does not answer the dilemma. I already know that there is one ousia in three hypostases and that a hypostasis is to an ousia what a particular is to the universal. But that does not answer my question: “is it the case that the persons of the trinity are the same in every respect or is it not the case that they are the same in every respect?” By the law of excluded middle, these are the only two options. If you choose the former, then the persons are identical without any difference (modalism). If you choose the latter, then they have at least one different properties making them different substances or property-bearers (beings) making you a polytheist.

To answer, oh but they have one ousia does nothing to answer if there are differences among the hypostases.

***Violence in the Old Testament***

This response is really subpar. You seem to be okay with what is by your standards, warmongering, as long as you don’t levy taxes on the opponent. Firstly, many scholars do agree that Numbers 31:28 is asking the fighters to bring back the war booty. Secondly, this response is ridiculous, I don’t see how this excuses murdering women and children who were clearly vulnerable (1 Samuel 15:3) or bashing the head of infants against rocks (Psalms 137:9) or marrying rape victims to their predators (Genesis 34), selling daughters into slavery (Exodus 21), or commanding you to burn your own daughters (Judges 11), Mauling children by bears (2 Kings 2). The Old Testament is clearly morally repugnant. You have no moral high ground over Islam really and that’s about 90% of your arguments against Islam right there. You really need to step up your game and stop strawmanning. On at least four out of seven of the points being discussed, you had a strawman of some way.

I am a Muslim.

Ex Nihilo and God sustains everything in being from moment to moment

Well good thing no scripture says that.

By the will of the omnipotence of God.

Why does God need a medium to create?

Oh, no I don't believe in Genesis neither did the early church interpret Genesis literally

No such account really. What we are told is that Adam was the first human created and in heaven and that God created the universe. (Mubda'a so creation from nothing).

Notice this does not contradict evolution since he is not created on Earth.

Well no, we don't know where eden is, nothing about six days, or women created from ribs.

Oh, that's just a tangential point. I did not say you argued it.

Messengers are sent to all nations and we are told of at least 4 prophets.

There is no actual story of how God creates in the Qu'ran if that's what you are looking for.

No detailed in-depth creation narrative. Well there are tribes of israel and kings and God did speak to Abraham and there is a flood of Noah but I would not include those in the narrative of God's creation of the universe. Those seem to be interventions in creation rather than the act of creation.

It does disagree with Genesis on several points

Well that's a long history, not all of which is revealed to us by God. I hesitate to answer this question since we are not given such an account. There could be more that we don't know about.

Why should I think that having stories in common means the Qu'ran plagiarized? There are many stories not in the bible that are in the Qu'ran, Iram of the pillars, thamud, Salah's Camel.

Another explanation is that they all share the same source (God) but the bible was partially corrupted later. That's one possible explanation.

Very clever insight.

Thanks for contributing

@OrthoBro If you want to claim that the Qu'ran plagiarized earlier works, go ahead and prove it. I can also cite passages in the gospels that are clear rip-offs of earlier mythology (Randel Helms has a whole book on this called Gospel fictions).

You clearly got embarrassed on the "Paul corrupter of faith" point yesterday so I tend to take you less seriously.

@Ironclad If Muslims are not allowed here, you can ban me, I won't lose anything of value.

I did not make that argument no.

I even said that such a title is given nowhere.

@OrthoBro No it's not a common title. If you want to make that claim, go ahead and back it up. Also, the gospel of barnabas sharing a story with the Qu'ran does not mean one copied the other. That's a non-sequitur.