Jay Scott -
Muhammad Rasheed - In addition to the fact that Paul of Tarsus often contradicted the singular Gospel message of Jesusﷺ, which never claimed that the Christ was divine anyway, we also have the biblical scholars admitting that Paul didn't even write the Epistle to the Colossians, even if l were inclined to take him seriously. Colossians was written by some anonymous randoms, and isn't even from God. So who cares what it says?
Why did the people get so angry when He told them
BEFORE ABRAHAM WAS, I AM?
Muhammad Rasheed - Jay wrote: "this is wild take! Just throw so throw the Pauline epistles out huh?"
How is it a wild take when it's the biblical scholarship position? The true believer position is that Paul of Tarsus wrote scripture in his letters. The scholarly position was that he contradicted Jesus, and the epistle you highlighted here wasn't even written by your guy.
So, my question to you is: Why would l believe you over your religion's actual scholars?
Jay wrote: "Why did the people get so angry when He told them BEFORE ABRAHAM WAS, I AM?"
What angry "people" are you talking about?
Jay Scott - You are questioning the authenticity of scripture. An entirely different argument than the one presented in the OP.
why would we go any further discussing this?
All that response and you haven’t said a word about the deity of Christ.
Muhammad Rasheed - Jay wrote: "You are questioning the authenticity of scripture"
How am l doing that when literal biblical scholar experts are admitting the Epistle to the Colossians was written by some anonymous randoms and clearly isn't from God? How are you pretending l made it up when l provided my sources?
Jay wrote: "An entirely different argument than the one presented in the OP."
Not true. Did you not hinge your entire belief point on one particular verse in Colossians? Then how is the proof that Paul didn't even write that epistle not relevant?
Jay wrote: "why would we go any further discussing this?"
We wouldn't if you are admitting you have no answer when confronted with the fact that the findings of your religion's own scholars do not support your blind beliefs.
Jay wrote: "All that response and you haven’t said a word about the deity of Christ."
Again, you hinged the false ideology of the Christ's divinity upon one particular scripture that l provided the proof was fake. That's a mic drop.
Jay Scott -
Jermaine Scott - @Muhammad... Yup.. secondary source!
Jay Scott - To those reading… have you noticed that Muhammad is quoting ME all day… but hasn’t mentioned a SINGLE scripture?
That’s intentional.
Muhammad Rasheed - Jay wrote: "To those reading… have you noticed that Muhammad is quoting ME all day… but hasn’t mentioned a SINGLE scripture? That’s intentional."
To those reading, it was definitely intentional. Notice that Jay hinged his belief in Jesus' divinity on one verse. All l was required to do is prove that verse was fake using his own biblical scholarship to win the match.
Jay Scott - Notice that how you STILL haven’t used actual scripture? If you read the discourse with Jermaine, I have quoted several other scriptures, while you still haven’t referenced one.
Better yet, what biblical books are acceptable to use, by your standard?
We can go from there.
Jay Scott - And winning the match?
Are we boxing now?
I’m hinging the claim of his divinity on one verse? Are you assuming that there aren’t many others?
To prevent further useless back and forth, what books do you consider acceptable for this debate… i mean MATCH?
Muhammad Rasheed - Jay wrote: "Notice that how you STILL haven’t used actual scripture?"
There was no need. You set up the match's challenge to those like myself who reject the divine Jesus ideology around a single verse. I won the match by proving that the verse you hinged everything upon according to your own rules as null and void. According to your own rules, l stuck to Colossians 2:9.
Elementary.
Jay wrote: "I’m hinging the claim of his divinity on one verse?"
That's literally what your original post challenged. Did you forget?
Muhammad Rasheed - You may admit that l won that match according to the rules you established, and we can move on to another challenge as you like.
Jay Scott -
Jay Scott - You are being disingenuous.
Your way of avoiding using ANY of the other 65 books to defend your point is noted.
Colossians is not by any means the only book mentioning his deity.
Would you like to discuss any of them or will you continue to sidestep?
“Winning a match” is what you are concerned about the most here.
As I have said at least 5 times now, use the scripture to prove that Christ is not God in the flesh. Quote that part and respond!
I will wait…
Muhammad Rasheed - Jay wrote: "You are being disingenuous."
Based on the quality of your discourse, I'm unconvinced you even know what that means. You would've been better off just posting another animated thumbs up gif and running again.
Jay wrote: "Your way of avoiding using ANY of the other 65 books to defend your point is noted."
Why would I bother with any other part of the bible when the rules of the match that YOU initiated specifically said to use Colossians 2:9? If you would like to test the mettle of another of your favorite verses, then just admit I won this one and start a new challenge.
Jay wrote: "Colossians is not by any means the only book mentioning his deity."
So? Did you not specifically single out Colossians 2:9 as a challenge to all those who reject the Christian brand of pagan-polytheism? Then why would any other verse be relevant in this match?
Jay wrote: "Would you like to discuss any of them or will you continue to sidestep?"
All you have to do is:
• Admit that I won your Colossians 2:9 match.
• Start a new challenge using another verse.
Too easy. Waiting on you.
Jay wrote: "As I have said at least 5 times now, use the scripture to prove that Christ is not God in the flesh."
I did. I used Colossians 2:9 just like it said in the original challenge post (see screenshot below). Why are you pretending this isn't a thing?
Jay Scott - You continue to respond with ZERO intention of actually using scripture to prove your point.
In an actual debate, the rules are agreed on. You responding to a post and called it a match. And you blatantly refuse to use a single scripture to prove your point.
And said I’m running… from what exactly???
Muhammad Rasheed - Jay wrote: "You continue to respond with ZERO intention of actually using scripture to prove your point."
Acknowledge that I won your Colossians 2:9 match, and then initiate another challenge using another one of your favorite verses and try me. Too easy. Waiting on you.
Jay wrote: "In an actual debate, the rules are agreed on."
I clearly agreed to only focusing on Colossians 2:9 as your original post instructed.
Jay wrote: "And you blatantly refuse to use a single scripture to prove your point."
I addressed Colossians 2:9 per the original instructions.
Jay wrote: "And said I’m running… from what exactly???
"Failing to acknowledge what was true and proven.
Jay Scott - Is Philippians authentic?
Or Isaiah? I will let you pick which one we can discuss.
See how I am referring to more scriptures here?
If those two don’t suffice, I ask that YOU select a book relevant to the topic, that is deemed authentic.
Then we can continue. If you avoid actually providing such, any further discourse is a moot point.
Muhammad Rasheed - Jay wrote: "Is Philippians authentic? Or Isaiah? I will let you pick which one we can discuss."
You may pick the verse using the same format you used before and we can start Match #02.
Jay Scott - This is exactly why I said your intentions are disingenuous.
You will critique all day, you will not make any foundational claims. That’s insincere.
Muhammad Rasheed - Just shove your 2nd favorite verse into another original post with a pretty background so I can discredit your corrupt religion again, please.
Muhammad Rasheed - Stop stalling.
Jay Scott - Here is a question for you,
What does the Quran say of Isa?
Who is he?
Jay Scott - i realized why you wouldn’t provide a scripture.
Because Allah begets none.
Is that correct?
Jay Scott - MASHALLAH!!
Muhammad Rasheed - To those that deny the deity of Christ…
Care to explain [insert bible verse]?
Jay Scott - do you normally invest so much time and energy arguing with KAFIRS???
Muhammad Rasheed - You don't even understand your own religion and book, but you think you are ready for a discussion about Al-Islam?
That's weird.
It sounds like you changed your mind about letting me poke holes into your favorite bibles verses and you're trying to run.
Muhammad Rasheed - Jay wrote: "do you normally invest so much time and energy arguing with KAFIRS???"
Do you think this is an "argument?"
I just took you up on your Colossians 2:9 challenge in a friendly theological match. That's all.
Muhammad Rasheed - Jay wrote: "Here is a question for you, What does the Quran say of Isa?"
Isa is the Arabic name for Jesus. The Qur'an confirms that the Gospel was revealed to Jesus by the One God, confirms Jesus was the messiah of the children of Israel who rejected his message, and confirms that Jesus was never killed but was rescued and taken up to heaven bodily as prophesized is Psalm 91:9-12.
Jay wrote: "Who is he?"
The second-to-last prophet of God, and the final Hebrew prophet.
Jay wrote: "i realized why you wouldn’t provide a scripture."
You don't have to "realize" because I told you point blank. The nature of the challenge was to only address Colossians 2:9. If you want me to address another one, post it in another original post.
Obviously you don't want to because you understand that my intention is to destroy your religion using your own scholars' findings in front of you and your family & friends, right here on your own Facebook wall. I don't blame you. I would be frightened of that, too, if I also blindly adhered to a corrupt religion.
Jay wrote: "Because Allah begets none."
The Qur'an is the final revelation that closes the canon on sacred scripture. But you think Allah doesn't have a scripture. lol
I told you you aren't prepared for a discussion about Islam. You don't even know the basics.
Jay Scott - I wrote: "do you normally invest so much time and energy arguing with KAFIRS???"
M. Rasheed said: "Do you think this is an 'argument?' I just took you up on your Colossians 2:9 challenge in a friendly theological match. That's all."
You have asked me repeatedly to concede this “match” while avoiding discussing any other scripture.
You honed in on the OP, by discrediting the entire book.
While failing to assert that the book that you believe in is never mentioned by the one we are discussing. You know, the one that claims to be Muhaimin. 🥴
Muhammad Rasheed - Jay wrote: "You have asked me repeatedly to concede this 'match' while avoiding discussing any other scripture."
That's a pathetic & cowardly lie. I told you to feel free to post another of your favorite verses in an original verse as you like and I would address it.
Jay Scott - Now let’s prove the validity of the Holy Book that YOU believe.
The one that acknowledges the Torah and the Gospel, then distorts them. Revelation 22 speaks about this!! Would you like to discuss that one?
Muhammad Rasheed - Jay wrote: "Now let’s prove the validity of the Holy Book that YOU believe."
lol You're not even smart enough to defend your own pagan beliefs from the findings of your own religion's scholars. How do you expect to have an intelligent discussion about an alien religion you have never studied at ALL?
Jay Scott - Ad hominem attack noted.
You don’t know WHAT I actually know. 🙏🏿
Muhammad Rasheed - Jay wrote: "You don’t know WHAT I actually know"
Sure, I do. The fool always gives himself away just by opening his mouth. The more anyone talks, the more they reveal the depths of their study. This principle is common knowledge.
Muhammad Rasheed - Jay wrote: "What prophesy is there of Muhammad? I’ll wait. Make sure you quote this one!"
Muhammadﷺ is mentioned in:
• Deuteronomy 18:18 (as the long-awaited "that prophet" who was like Mosesﷺ)
• Deuteronomy 33:2 (as a messenger that the Lord's light shined through from the Mt. Paran cave)
• Song of Solomon 5:16 (by name in the Hebrew)
• Isaiah 29:12 (prophesizing the initial encounter between Gabriel and the illiterate Muhammadﷺ in the Mt. Paran cave)
• John 14:26; John 16:12-14 (as the comforting spirit of truth prophesized by Jesusﷺ as the bringer of the fuller version of the message that the messiah couldn't bring)
Jay wrote: "And why are you stating Isa’s name without reverence?? Haven’t heard a PBUH yet!!!"
I did it a few times. You didn't notice because I used the Arabic emoji like I did above.
Jay Scott - M. Rasheed said: "Obviously you don't want to because you understand that my intention is to destroy your religion using your own scholars' findings in front of you and your family & friends, right here on your own Facebook wall."
Yet… you deny being disingenuous.
If the Quran is the final revelation… why isn’t it not spoken of AT ALL in the Torah or Injil?
I’ll wait…
Muhammad Rasheed - Jay wrote: "Yet… you deny being disingenuous."
What have I done or not done that proves I'm disingenuous? Because I didn't play your ignorant game the way you wanted me to? Who the f*ck is you? lol
Jay wrote: "If the Quran is the final revelation… why isn’t it not spoken of AT ALL in the Torah or Injil? I’ll wait…"
Again, the coming of the Qur'an is prophesized by Jesusﷺ himself in John 16:12-14.
Jay Scott -
Muhammad Rasheed - 1.) When the Qur'an mentions the Torah and the Gospel, it is always referring to the revelation that God sent to Mosesﷺ and Jesusﷺ, that the two prophets preached during their earthly lifetimes. Biblical scholars admit in the Judao-Christian literature library that the modern books in the bible are not those same works that the prophets preached.
2.) The coming of the Qur'an is prophesized in John 16:12-14 by Jesusﷺ himself.
Jay Scott - M. Rasheed said: "1) When the Qur'an mentions the Torah and the Gospel, it is always referring to the revelation that God sent to Mosesﷺ and Jesusﷺ, that the two prophets preached during their earthly lifetimes. Biblical scholars admit in the Judao-Christian literature library that the modern books in the bible are not those same works that the prophets preached."
1) I noticed that PBUH appeared.😉 once I called you out. And it is a blanket statement that the biblical literature library are not the same works that the prophets preached. Many of the books are the same as the Ge’ez Bible, which precedes the Quran by several centuries. We can focus on the books of the major and minor prophets.
M. Rasheed said: "2.) The coming of the Qur'an is prophesized in John 16:12-14 by Jesusﷺ himself."
Is it implied that he was referring to the prophet Muhammad? Christ said it was the SPIRIT OF TRUTH, not a man.
Also, Notice the lack of ad hominem attacks here.
Muhammad Rasheed - Jay wrote: "I noticed that PBUH appeared.😉 once I called you out."
As I mentioned before, I added it a few times in the beginning of our discussion. Sometimes I forget to copy the emoji in the middle of a post.
Jay wrote: "Many of the books are the same as the Ge’ez Bible, which precedes the Quran by several centuries."
The Qur'an is the final revelation that closes the canon of sacred scripture, so of course the previous scriptures are older. The important part is that the "Ge'ez Bible" also doesn't contain the original works preached by the prophets during their lifetimes.
Jay wrote: "Is it implied that he was referring to the prophet Muhammad?"
More precisely to your original question, the messiah is specifically saying that he had more to teach but it would have to be brought AFTER him, and the message to come would glorify him as the Qur'an does.
Jay wrote: "Also, Notice the lack of ad hominem attacks here."
There were no issues in the other thread until you started trippin'.
Jay Scott - 😮
Jonathan Crum - @Muhammad... Which biblical scholars? There is compelling information that would suggest that the books we have now were circulated very early.
Muhammad Rasheed - Jonathan wrote: "Which biblical scholars?"
There's an army of them, and each of them reference even more.
Jonathan wrote: "There is compelling information that would suggest that the books we have now were circulated very early."
"Very early" meaning what? A huge problem in Christianity is the fact that there are no original manuscripts of the New Testament from the critical first century. The very earliest version of any bible you have is just a fragment of a COPY.
Jonathan Crum - Just so I can know for conversation sake, are you stating that the Quran is more historically accurate than biblical texts?
Muhammad Rasheed - The Qur'an is the only sacred scripture on earth preserved from the time of the prophet who preached it—an objective miracle after 1,400 years.
Muhammad Rasheed - Any revelation preached by a prophet of the One God is by its nature more historically accurate than any claims conjured from the minds of mere men. Bible scholars admit that the bible is full of "grave errors" requiring continuous [questionable] revisions over the centuries. That is the literal opposite of "an inerrant Word of God."
Jay Scott - M. Rasheed wrote: "Any revelation preached by a prophet of the One God is by its nature more historically accurate than any claims conjured from the minds of mere men. Bible scholars admit that the bible is full of "grave errors" requiring continuous [questionable] revisions over the centuries. That is the literal opposite of "an inerrant Word of God."
So remaining within the Torah or The Injil was not an option? Your intentions were not to actually debate, but to debase.
Muhammad Rasheed - Jay wrote: "So remaining within the Torah or The Injil was not an option?"
The Old and New Testaments are writings that are based on the olde tales of the prophets that sometimes reference the original Torah and Gospel. The bible is by no means the actual Torah and Gospel, even though you vainly label them as such. Why would l ever limit myself in a religious discussion to pretending a clearly corrupt book was actually true? To coddle sensitive ass feelings? F*ck that.
Jay wrote: "Your intentions were not to actually debate, but to debase."
Your religion and book were corrupted long before the Muslims found it. If you dislike uncomfortable answers that you aren't strong enough in spirit to handle, then stop publicly asking scary questions about your severely compromised religion.
Jay Scott -
Jay Scott - there is that nervous giggle again.
You seem to have an inflated sense of importance. You are hell bent on winning this “match”
Because that really means something to you!🥴
Muhammad Rasheed - Jay wrote: "there is that nervous giggle again."
And right on cue. You enjoy playing yourself.
Jay wrote: "You seem to have an inflated sense of importance."
Believers in the One God of Abraham are inherently more important in God's Sight than those who are pagan-influenced. Sorry.
Jay wrote: "You are hell bent on winning this 'match'”
I already won. Notice that you couldn't respond with anything other than calling it a "wild take."
Jay wrote: "Because that really means something to you!🥴"
Being on the side of Truth is better than being a proponent of falsehood, bud.
Jay Scott - M. Rasheed wrote: "Being on the side of Truth is better than being a proponent of falsehood, bud."
Did you forget you quoted THE SAME BOOK you are discrediting? The jokes are writing themselves.
Here let me remind you.
M. Rasheed wrote: "The coming of the Qur'an is prophesized in John 16:12-14 by Jesusﷺ himself."
So the first chapter is corrupted, but the 16th chapter is credible? And the fact that you think that points to your prophet is simply unfounded.
Christ was referring to the Holy Spirit, the Comforter.
Muhammad Rasheed - If I remove or add a single page to a 1,500 page book, it counts as "corruption."
No one ever claimed that the Muslims believed the ENTIRE bible was corrupted. Only stupid Christians make that false strawman effigy fallacy. The Qur'an pointedly confirms the parts of the previous scriptures that are miraculously still true, it fulfills prophecy (see: John 16:12-14 by Jesusﷺ) and it corrects your errors.
That's the obvious and logical point of a revelation coming after the Gospel.
Muhammad Rasheed - Jay wrote: "Christ was referring to the Holy Spirit"
Meanwhile, the concept of "The Holy Spirit"—3rd distinct person in a triune idol—was invented & canonized centuries after Jesusﷺ during the European councils. Your entire religion is a lie.
Jay Scott - I wrote: "do you normally invest so much time and energy arguing with KAFIRS???"
M. Rasheed said: "Do you think this is an 'argument?' I just took you up on your Colossians 2:9 challenge in a friendly theological match. That's all."
You have asked me repeatedly to concede this “match” while avoiding discussing any other scripture.
You honed in on the OP, by discrediting the entire book.
While failing to assert that the book that you believe in is never mentioned by the one we are discussing. You know, the one that claims to be Muhaimin. 🥴
Muhammad Rasheed - Jay wrote: "You have asked me repeatedly to concede this 'match' while avoiding discussing any other scripture."
That's a pathetic & cowardly lie. I told you to feel free to post another of your favorite verses in an original verse as you like and I would address it.
Jay Scott -
Muhammad Rasheed - I see your nervous giggle.
Instead of posting another bible verse in an original post for Match #02, you posted a question about Islam instead. At this point, it is clear that you are GENUINELY FRIGHTENED of what l'm going to post using your own biblical scholarship to expose the nature of bible preservation (or the lack thereof) and flimsy modern Christian theology. And if you claim to not be afraid...
Jay Scott - M. Rasheed said: "That's a pathetic & cowardly lie. I told you to feel free to post another of your favorite verses in an original verse as you like and I would address it."
You continually attempted to frame the debate in a way that made it seem like you are making me appear ignorant. Nice try. I bet you thought I was going to get angry too. Nope.
We are not ignorant of Satan’s devices.
Muhammad Rasheed - Jay wrote: "You continually attempted to frame the debate in a way that made it seem like you are making me appear ignorant."
1.) You had NO IDEA what the findings of your own biblical scholarship said about Paul of Taurus and New Testament authorship. You literally called it a "wild take" as if l invented it.2.) You didn't know that the Qur'an is the scripture that Allah sent for His prophet to preach to the people. You said Allah didn't beget any scripture and presented it as a mic drop.
I don't have to frame anything to demonstrate your commitment to ignorance. You're doing it to yourself. All a fool has to do is open his mouth and everything about what he knows is revealed for all and sundry.
Jay Scott - so you are admitting that you are investing time going back and forth with a fool?
John 1:1 contradicts your foundation. The Word of God became flesh.
Jay Scott - This is me being afraid:
Muhammad Rasheed - Jay wrote: "so you are admitting that you are investing time going back and forth with a fool?"
Sure. Heated dialogs with ideological foes and rivals are where l get the inspiration to make my mocking editorial cartoons. Smile for the camera, by the way. 😬😉
Jay wrote: "John 1:1 contradicts your foundation."
lol Some people NEVER learn... smdh
Tell me why do you believe that this John 1:1 is actually authentic scripture from God? Why do you believe that? Based on WHAT?
Muhammad Rasheed - Jay wrote: "We are not ignorant of Satan’s devices."
Then why do you worship a human being as a divine "2nd distinct person in a triune idol" in direct violation of the first and greatest Commandment? 🤔
Muhammad Rasheed - Jay wrote: "This is me being afraid."
Then why didn't you just post another bible verse in an original post to challenge me with, instead of asking the Qur'an question? It looks like you ran like a coward from your own challenge. Did you somehow lose your confidence during the course of this discussion? awww...
Jay Scott - M. Rasheed wrote: "Sure. Heated dialogs with ideological foes and rivals are where l get the inspiration to make my mocking editorial cartoons. Smile for the camera, by the way. 😬😉"
Do you think that making an editorial cartoon was supposed to upset me or something?
Didn’t Je suis Charlie prove how tender this issue was for yall? Your efforts are laughable. But have fun with that. Make sure you share it with me so I can laugh too.
M. Rasheed wrote: "lol Some people NEVER learn... smdh Tell me why do you believe that this John 1:1 is actually authentic scripture from God? Why do you believe that? Based on WHAT?"
And there it is again, discrediting Scripture. That’s your go to method. The only verses you agree with are the ones that coincide with the Quran. How… convenient. 🫠
What makes the Quran the muhaimin? I challenge you to prove the validity of any of it.
Muhammad Rasheed -
Jay Scott -
Muhammad Rasheed - Jay wrote: "What makes the Quran the muhaimin?"
Al-Muhaymin means The Protector, and it is one of God's divine attributes. Is that the word you meant to use?
Muhammad Rasheed - Jay wrote: "Do you think that making an editorial cartoon was supposed to upset me or something?"
It's my response to you continuously pointing out that I seem to enjoy arguing with fools like you all day. There's actually a practical application to it, directly connected to my art.
Jay wrote: "Didn’t Je suis Charlie prove how tender this issue was for yall?"
No.
Jay wrote: "Your efforts are laughable."
Thanks. That's the literal point of a mocking cartoon.
Jay wrote: "But have fun with that."
I always do. 😇
Jay wrote: "Make sure you share it with me so I can laugh too."
Maybe. I suck at self-promotion.
Jay wrote: "And there it is again, discrediting Scripture. That’s your go to method."
What about it?
Jay wrote: "The only verses you agree with are the ones that coincide with the Quran. How… convenient. 🫠"
That's literally why the Qur'an is here—to confirm (and abrogate), fulfill & correct. Why wouldn't a believer in God care about what's in the final revelation from "The Father?" Your lack of spiritual curiosity is retarded.
Jay Scott - In relation to the authority of Scripture as The guardian.
Surah 5:48We have revealed to you ˹O Prophet˺ this Book with the truth, as a confirmation of previous Scriptures and a supreme authority on them…
On what basis is this claim even made? Not a single verse of the Torah or Injil even mention it.
Muhammad Rasheed - Jay wrote: "On what basis is this claim even made?"
New scripture revealed to a new prophet obviously has authority over what came before it.
Jay wrote: "Not a single verse of the Torah or Injil even mention it."
See: Deuteronomy 18:18 and John 16:12-14.
Jay Scott - M. Rasheed wrote: "See: Deuteronomy 18:18 and John 16:12-14."
This was in reference to a prophet among Israel. Was it not?
There you go again referencing John. Is the book valid or not?
Just the parts you agree with?
Muhammad Rasheed - Jay wrote: "This was in reference to a prophet among Israel. Was it not?"
If that was true, then please point out the Israelite prophet who came after Deuteronomy who was "like unto thee [Mosesﷺ]." As you will recall(?), there were MANY prophets anointed after the mission of Mosesﷺ. Which one of them was uniquely singled out to be "like Moses?"
Jay wrote: "There you go again referencing John. Is the book valid or not? Just the parts you agree with?"
I think you have a learning disability and can't process new information well. No Muslim has ever claimed that the ENTIRE bible was corrupt—that's only something stupid Christians say on Facebook & Twitter. The Qur'an is the ultimate scriptural authority that confirms which parts of the previous scriptures you all managed not to mess up.
