The Biblical vs the Watchtower Jesus 2

The second conclusion was poorly worded. Jesus was already in the form of God and equal to Him, but He laid aside some privileges of Deity and took on man’s nature. He “made himself of no reputation and took upon him the form of a servant” (Phil. 2:9). Dr. A. T. Robertson, explains:

“Here is a clear statement by Paul of the deity of Christ. Of what did Christ empty Himself? Not of his divine nature. That was impossible. He continued to be the Son of God … Undoubtedly, Christ gave up his environment of glory.” (Word Pictures in the NT, 1932, 4:444-5)

Greek scholar, Marvin Vincent also stated:

“As the form of God was identified with the being of God, so Christ, being in the form of God was identified with the being, nature and personality of God… Christ, being, before His incarnation, in the form of God, did not regard His divine equality as a prize which was to be grasped at and retained at all hazards, but, on the contrary, laid aside the form of God, and took upon Himself the nature of man. The emphasis of this passage is upon Christ’s humiliation” (Word Studies in the New Testament, vol 3, 431-432)

At this point, the booklet dives into semantics concerning the verb “grasped” (Gr: harpagmos) used in Phil. 2:6, without informing the reader that in Greek language, this verb has both the active and passive form which in either use still conveys the same truth – that Jesus is equal with God – He only temporarily emptied Himself.

New Testament scholar, Ralph Martin, (who was deceitfully quoted on the same page) wrote:

“In his pre-existent state, Christ already had as his possession the unique dignity of his place within the Godhead. It was a vantage point from which he might have exploited his position and by an assertion of his right, have seized the glory and honour … [but] He considered the appropriation of divine honour in this way a temptation to be resisted and chose rather to be proclaimed as equal with God as the ‘Lord’ by the acceptance of his destiny as the incarnate and humiliated one” (The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians, pp. 416-423).

It’s in this context that vs. 5 says our “attitude should be the same as Christ”in humility.

Verse 10 also says “that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow.” This proves that Jesus is equal to God for in the Old Testament, God says: “Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth … That unto Me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear” (Isa. 45:22-23).

4. “I Am” (John 5:58)

In an attempt to distance this verse from Exodus 3:14, they wrote: “the phrase ‘I AM’ is used as a title for God to indicate that he really existed and would do what he promised” (p. 26).

This title means more than that, it conveys eternality. To claim the expression at John 8:58 is different from the one at Exodus 3:14 doesn’t even make any sense. It fails to answer the question why the Jews attempted to stone Jesus when He said this (v. 59).

A Jewish Christian, Alfred Edersheim noted that:

“He had spoken of Abraham seeing His day; they took if of His seeing Abraham’s day, and challenged its possibility. Whether or not they intended to elicit an avowel of His claim to eternal duration, and hence Divinity, it was not time any longer to forbear the full statement, and, with Divine emphasis, He spake the words which could not be mistaken: ‘Verily, Verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I AM.” (The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 2: 8)

The Greek word for “I Am” is ego eimi. A Greek scholar stated that “ego eimi as a self-designation of Jesus in Jn. 5:58 (cf. 8:24; 13:19) stands in contrast to the genesthai applied to Abraham. Jesus thus claimed eternity. As he is equal to the Father (5:18ff), what is ascribed to the Father is ascribed to him too (cf. Is. 43:10 LXX). The context and the ego formulation are both Jewish” (Gerhard Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 1971, 207)

The Commentary on the Whole Bible (Jamieson et al., 1961, p 1074) notes:

“The words rendered ‘was’ and ‘am’ are quite different. The one clause means, ‘Abraham was brought into being’; the other, ‘I exist.’ The statement therefore is not that Christ came into existence before Abraham did (as Arians affirm is the meaning), but that He never came into being at all, but existed before Abraham had a being; in other words, existed before creation, or eternally (as ch. 1:1).”

In Isaiah 48:12 God addresses Himself as “I AM He” just the same way Jesus said to the soldiers: “I Am He” [ego eimi] and they fell to the ground in adoration (Jn. 18:4-6).

Note: He didn’t say “I was.” In Revelation 1:17 Jesus also calls Himself “the first and the last” – the very title of Yahweh or Jehovah in that Isa. 48:12: “I am He; I am the first, I am also the last.”

Jesus also identifies Himself as the One “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty” (Rev. 1:8). His eternality and deity is well-spelled out and it destroys the blasphemous lie that Jesus was “God’s created firstborn.”

5. “The Word Was God” (John 1:1)

Pg. 27: “Even the King James Version says, ‘The Word was with God.’ Someone who is ‘with’ another person cannot be the same as that other person.”

This is a straw man argument. What is being attacked here is a heresy called Sabellianism (or Modalism) which teaches that God is the same person as Jesus and the Holy Spirit. That is not what the Trinity doctrine says, and no one who really understands the Trinity doctrine believes this.

In their New World translation, the last part of John. 1:1 has been distorted to say: “and the word was a god” making Jesus out as a god beside God. In the booklet, 8 obscure Bible translations which agree with their rendering of John 1:1 were quoted as support. But the Society didn’t inform their readers that:

(a) One of these versions, the New Testament in an Improved Version, was translated by Unitarians. The Watchtower (Sept 15, 1962, 554) wrote an article which attacked Unitarianism for their heresies, yet they appeal to their translation as legitimate.

(b) The Emphatic Diaglott (1864) was translated by Benjamin Wilson, a Christadelphian. An article in Awake! (Nov 8, 1944, 26) exposed the errors of Christadelphians, but they still appeal to their “bible” to reject the Deity of Christ.

(c) The New Testament (1958) was translated by Johannes Greber, an occult Spiritist, who admitted spirits helped him in his translation. An article in the Watchtower (Feb 15, 1965) exposed this spiritist’s occult practices, yet they cite his “bible” translation favourably. This tells a lot about the Watchtower publishers. They lack intellectual integrity.

Their quote from the Journal of Biblical Literature (1973, 92:85, ed. Joseph Fitzmyer) in the same page is another proof of their lack of scholarly dignity, as I’ve shown several times before. The booklet omitted the parts in bold, which opposes their thesis:

Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.’ This would be one way of representing John’s thought … The qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun [theos] cannot be regarded as definite.”

So John 1:1 highlights the quality of the Word, that he was ‘divine,’ ‘godlike,’ ‘a god,’ but not Almighty God…the Word was with God, he could not be God but was ‘a god,’ or ‘divine’.” (Ibid)

On the contrary, John 1:1 clearly teaches that the Word in its essential nature is God. John didn’t call the Word “a divine one” which would fall in line with Greek polytheism. The term “theos” used in the verse refers to God, not “a god.” It’s also used for God the Father in John 17:3 (“the only true God”) and for Jesus in John 1:18 and 20:28.

Apostle John didn’t use the adjective “theois” which would have meant a god-like one or a divine nature. There is no way a first century Jew would apply the word “theos” to a creature. Several Greek scholars agree.

B. B. Warfield wrote:

“From all eternity the Word has been with God as a fellow: He who in the beginning already ‘was,’ ‘was’ also in communion with God. Though He was thus in some sense a second along with God, He was nevertheless not a separate being from God” (The Person and Work of Christ: Philadelphia, 1950, 53).

Dr. A. T. Robertson:

“And the Word was God (kai theos en ho logos). By exact and careful language, John denied Sabellianism by not saying ho theos en ho logos. That would mean that all of God was expressed in ho logos and the terms would be interchangeable, each having an article.” (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934, 767)

Dana H. and Julius Mantey stated:

“John 1:1, kai theos en ho logos, and the Word was deity. The article points out the subject in these examples…As it stands, the other persons of the Trinity may be implied in theos” (A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, New York: 1950, 148-9).

Dr. Kenneth Wuest explained:

“The Word was God. Here the word ‘God’ is without the article in the original. When it is used in this way, it refers to the divine essence. Emphasis is upon the quality of character. Thus, John teaches here that our Lord is essentially Deity. He possesses the same essence as God the Father, is one with Him in nature and attributes.” (Studies in the Greek New Testament, 3:52)

Jesus was not a god beside God as the Watchtower Society teaches. That is henotheism or polytheism. God Himself has said: “I am He and there is no god with me” (Dt. 32:39).

JWs will have to choose: either to follow the inspired Word of God or their uninspired Watchtower organization.

What was the Council of Nicea About?


Perhaps no other council in church history has been as misrepresented as the Council of Nicea. Most people who have a problem with the Bible seem to love the party line: “Your Bible was made up at the Council of Nicea.”

New Ager, Shirley MacLaine, in her book, Out on a Limb says: “The theory of reincarnation is recorded in the Bible. But the proper interpretation were struck from it during … the Council of Nicaea.”

Jehovah’s Witnesses claim this council “laid the groundwork for later Trinitarian theology.”

Dan Brown, in The Davinci Code lurched even higher in his fancies:

Jesus’ establishment as ‘the Son of God’ was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea … until that moment in history Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet … a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless. A mortal” (p. 233).

It’s often tragic to find otherwise smart people parroting Dan Brown’s remarks mindlessly. Personally, once a person makes such remarks about Nicea, it sets off a tripwire alarm in me to dismiss all their arguments as irrelevant.

Nothing damages one’s credibility more than trotting out a patently false and ignorant argument – especially in an age when knowledge is at one’s fingertips.

Thus, this piece intends to look at what really happened at the Council of Nicea and the significance it holds in church history.

The Arian Controversy

The Council of Nicea was held between May to July 325 AD, which was about 14 years after the persecution Galerius meted out on the church ended.

Many of the bishops had been exiled and tortured and still bore the scars when they attended the council. It was also the first time in church history that an emperor called a council.

The council was summoned because of a Christological heresy by an aged presbyter named Arius (250-336 AD). He taught that:

“The Father alone is without a beginning. The Son (or Logos) had a beginning; God created Logos in order that He might create the world” (Harry Bower, A Short History of the Early Church, 1976, p. 112).

Arius began teaching this heresy in Alexandria (Egypt), saying that Jesus was a created being and not eternal as the Bible says.

Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria held a Synod in 320 which denounced and excommunicated Arius. After this, he went to the East to popularise his teachings where he gained much support and followers. Alexander wrote letters to the Eastern churches warning them against the Arians.

This led to a controversy that almost divided the church. Constantine, the emperor, saw that this could threaten the unity of the empire so he called for the Council of Nicaea to deal with the problem.

According to tradition, 318 bishops were in attendance at the council, most of which were from the East. However, they were in three parties:

  1. The Arian party consisting of Arius, Theonas, Socundus (bishops from Egypt), and Eusebius of Nicomedia who led them. They held to the view that Jesus was a creature and of a different substance from the Father.
  2. The “orthodox” (or middle) party led by bishop Eusebius of Caesarea. They held to the view that Jesus was of a similar substance (Gr: homoiousios) to the Father. They used this term to avoid stating that Jesus and the Father were one person.
  3. The Alexandrian party which consisted of Athanasius, bishop Ossius and Alexander of Alexandria. They held to the view that Christ is not merely like the Father, but is of the same substance (Gr: homo-ousios) as God the Father. Thus, Jesus has the same essence as God.

The dispute with Arius concerns the use of these two words: homoousios (“of the same nature”) and homoiousios (“of a similar nature”).

As a scholar notes, “Arius was happy to say that Christ was a supernatural heavenly being and that he was created by God before the creation of the rest of the universe, and even that he was “similar” to God in his nature. Thus, Arius would agree to the word homoiosios” (Wayne Grudem, Bible Doctrine, Inter-Varsity Press, England, 1999, p. 114).

Athanasius however, indicated the desire of the bishops to express their faith Scripturally with the term – homoousios – which would be antithetical to the Arian heresy by emphasizing that Jesus is fully God and at the same time not drift into modalist heresy.

Though the council of Nicea condemned Arius and his followers as heretics, it was the council of Constantinople in 381 AD that finally put the “nature” debate to rest by decreeing that Jesus had the same nature (homoousios) as God the Father. The resulting Nicene creed says in part:

“We believe in God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible, and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one substance [homoousion] with the Father, through whom all things came to be, those things that are in heaven and those things that are on earth, who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh, and was made man…”

The Moody Handbook of Theology points out that the terms “God from God” and “true God from true God” further stressed the deity of Christ. At the same time “begotten, not made” and “came down” stressed His eternality (p. 448).

What Role did Constantine Play?

Many cults that reject the deity of Christ claim that Constantine somehow “enforced” his views on the council to accept that Jesus has the same nature as God. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In their booklet, Should You Believe in the Trinity? the Watchtower Society distorts a quote (on pg. 8) from a source to promote this theory:

“Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed (no doubt on Ossius’ prompting) the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, ‘of one substance with the Father’ (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1976, 6:386).

The part appearing in bold was omitted and the volume and page number of the source was not given (so that readers would not discover their slyness).

Ossius was the bishop of Cordoba and an ecclesiastical adviser to Constantine. He was the one who prompted him on which steps to take.

Constantine was a politician, not a theologian, and was ready to agree with whatever party for peace to reign in his empire.

“Constantine had basically no understanding whatsoever of the questions that were being asked in Greek theology” (Bernard Lohse, A Short History of Christian Doctrine, 1966, p. 51).

Unfortunately, Dan Brown relied on much personal imaginations in his novel:

Constantine commissioned and financed a new Bible, which omitted those gospels that spoke of Christ’s human traits and embellished those gospels that made Him godlike. The earlier [Gnostic] gospels were outlawed, gathered up, and burned” (The Davinci Code, p. 234).

There is no evidence that Constantine commissioned any Bible nor ordered the burning of any Gnostic gospels. What were burned were Arian papers found by the council to be heretical.

It must also be noted that the Nicene council did not address the issue of the Bible canon (only regional councils of Hippo in 393 and Carthage in 397 did).

The New Testament canon was already recognized by the church. Other matters discussed at the council “included the consideration of the Melitian schism, the settlement of the controversial date of Easter celebration and the promulgation of 26 disciplinary canons” (Samson Fatokun, History and Doctrine of the Early Church, Crownfit, 1999, p. 80).

The canon 6 issued at the council also reflects the pattern of church government at the time:

“Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges” (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 1983, II, XIV:15).

This, with other data of evidence, show us that at this time, the idea of a single universal head exercising jurisdiction over the whole church was unknown.

The bishop of Rome had no jurisdiction over the entire church. He was only regarded as the leader of the most influential church in the West.

Since the Nicene church did not look up to one individual or a church as their final authority, the idea that the Catholic Church (or Constantine) conspired in the 4th century to “force” the deity of Christ or the Trinity on Christians is a poorly concocted fiction.

Another proof that Constantine had little influence on the decisions taken at Nicaea can be seen in how he later succumbed to Arian and semi-Arian heresies:

“The Arian party grew, and years afterwards influenced Constantine, and especially his son the emperor Constantius. The emperors interfered more and more in the church, deposing and exiling whichever bishops did not affirm the doctrine of those who had the emperor’s ear” (John Hunt, Concise Church History, AMG Publishers, 2008, p. 128).

Arian heresies gained an upper hand after the Nicene council such that the Council of Jerusalem in 335 AD, cleared Arius of all the charges of heresies previously levied on him.

Regional councils met at Sirminum (351), Arelate (353) and Milan (355) and the resulting Arian and semi-Arian creeds from them were forced on the Western church.

Athanasius was condemned as a troublemaker and stripped of his bishopric. All the bishops who resisted them were banished. Even Liberius, the bishop of Rome and Ossius were forced to accept Arianism.

Athanasius however, persisted in standing for the homoousios clause because he believed in the sufficiency of the Scriptures – until it was affirmed by the Council of Constantinople.

It must also be noted that the term “homoousios” was not “the invention of the council of Nicea, still less of Constantine, but had previously arisen in theological language, and occurs even in Origen [185-254 AD] and among the Gnostics” (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 3:628).

The Evidence of Scripture and History

Christians today believe in the Deity of Christ, not because a Council or an emperor forced it on us, but because it’s a clear teaching of the inspired apostles of Jesus Christ (John 1:1-14; Rom. 9:6; Phil. 2:5-11; Col. 1:15-17; 2 Peter 1:1, Titus 2:13 etc).

The writings of the early church fathers (and early church documents) are also historical evidence that the Deity of Christ had been a well-established doctrine long before Nicea. For example:

I. Ignatius (died c. 108 AD): “There is only one physician, of flesh and of spirit, generate and ingenerate, God in man, true life in death, Son of Mary and Son of God, first passable and then impassible, Jesus Christ our Lord” (Ephesians 7, The Apostolic Fathers, J. B. Lightfoot, 1984, 139)

II. Aristides (140 AD): “[Christians] are they who, above every people of the Earth have found the truth, for they acknowledge God, the creator and maker of all things in the only begotten Son and in the Holy Spirit” (Apology, 16).

III. Justin Martyr (150 AD): “The Father of the universe has a Son, who along being the first begotten Word of God is even God” (First Apology, ch. 63).

IV. Tatian the Syrian (170 AD): “We are not playing the fool, you Greeks, nor do we talk nonsense, when we report that God was born in form of a man” (Address to the Greeks, 21).

V. Melito of Sardis (c. 170-180 AD): “But listen, as you tremble in the face of him on whose account the earth trembled. He who hung the earth in place is hanged. He who fixed the heaven in place is fixed in place. He who made all things fast is made fast on the tree. The Master is insulted. God is murdered. The king of Israel is destroyed by an Israelite hand” (A Homily on the Passover Sect, 96-96).

VI. Athenagoras (177 AD): “The Son of God is the Word of the Father in thought and actuality. By him and through him all things were made, the Father and the Son being one” (Plea for the Christians, 10:2-4).

VII. Theophilus of Antioch (180 AD): “In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity; of God, and His Word, and His Wisdom” (Of the Fourth Day, To Autolycus, 2:15).

VIII. Ireneaus (185 AD): “Christ Jesus is our Lord, and God and Saviour and King” (Against Heresies, bk. 1, ch. 10, sec. 1).

IX. Clement of Alexandria (190 AD): “[Jesus is] the Expiator, the Saviour, the Soother, the Divine Word, he that is quite evidently the true God, he that is put on a level with the Lord of the universe because he was his Son” (Exhortation to the Greeks, 10:110).

X. Tertullian (200 AD): “All Scriptures give clear proof of the Trinity. Thus the connotation of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produce three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another” (Against Praxeas, 24).

The Nicene creed prevailed eventually, not because of the authority of a pope or the council itself, but the authority of Scripture and the evidence of history.

Why then, did Arianism hold sway over the people later in spite of these?

“It was instrumental in the ‘conversion’ of many of the barbaric tribes” says a church historian. “It lowered the barriers between Christianity and the dominant Neoplatonist form of paganism, by emphasizing the oneness of God and representing the Son and the Spirit as high creatures. It brought Christianity closer to the normal polytheism that the barbarian tribes were accustomed to” (Concise Church History, 2008, AGM Publishers, p. 129).

The bold stand of theologians like Athanasius in the face of surging heresies is commendable. The church today still needs men and women who will stand up for the truths of Scripture – no matter how unpopular they may be.

A Glimpse into the Muslim Mind

One of Islam’s fatal flaws is its tu quoque (“you too”) logical fallacy. Islam is such a volatile religion that has no positive evidence for itself, neither can it stand by itself – it has to build itself by attacking Christianity (and other religions).

The following exchange with a Muslim named Haruna which took place in my box on April 12, 2016, brings this out perfectly well. His words will appear in green.

I could understand your pent-up feelings. preconception of islam. The ignorant sidetalks of some disgruntled elements calumnies on islam and the gonzo-media fabrications which has transfused innocent ignorance and hatred on muslims and islam.

But you should know errors cannot be truth even in the wilderness of falsehood, that’s why you could see apparently that islam is growing despite the global negative conspiracies. (Pls do your research).

I would not blame Christianity for the sins of pseudo-Christians and pastor-preneur who commodify the gospel of God as the most lucrative as you have wrongly stereotyped islam and muslims.

Generalisations are preconception are the errors of your perceptions, in spite of your obvious educational orientation. I assumed education to be the nourishment of intellectual clear-headedness. Learn and seek knowledge.

My information about Islam is based on its original sources – Quran, Hadiths and Sira. If you dismiss them as ignorant “calumnies” on Islam, that’s fine. There’s a lot of ignorance about Islam (on both sides) and it’s my intention to demolish them, but until you demonstrate my errors, don’t be in a haste to call Islam the “truth.”

There are many errors that appear to be truth – especially when they have been repeated for so long. This is the psychology of brainwashing.

There are no “global negative conspiracies” taking the wind out of the sail of the Islamic ship. What is actually happening is that we now live in an age when information cannot be suppressed like the past.

Everyone – even in Islamic regions – now has access to detailed information about Islam and its books and can easily draw their own conclusions (Thank God for the Internet!).

Furthermore, Muslim jihadists are stepping up their acts, thus confirming what many people are already discovering within the pages of the Muslim’s “holy” books – that Islam is a religion of violence.

You guys will perhaps need at least another century of disinformation to sell the myth of Islamic “peace” to people again.

Islam is also having a hard time these days due to the mass exodus of Muslims out of Islam. They are now attacking and exposing the cult they were once trapped in. Again, we have to thank the Internet for making their voices heard all over the world.

The growth of the Muslim population is basically due to migration and high birth rate, rather than mass conversion.

I have done my research, here it is for you to digest on – that is, if you want to be “confused with the facts”.

You said: “I would not blame Christianity for the sins of pseudo-christians

Thanks for your objectivity. But who decides who is a true or false Christian or Muslim? It’s the object of devotion and authority.

Since Christianity is based on Jesus Christ and what He taught in the Bible, a person who doesn’t live by them is a false Christian (even if he claims to be a pastor).

In the same vein, since Islam is based on the Quran and Hadiths, a Muslim who doesn’t live by them or emulates Muhammad is a false Muslim. So the issue boils down to what Jesus taught in contrast with what Muhammad taught.

You generalise which category you feel I must belong and then bring in the preconception that I must be wrong in some way for attacking Islam.

This has nothing to do with my educational background. This is not even about knowledge, but understanding. A person can have great knowledge but little understanding.

One doesn’t need to be a professor of religion (or an old man) to see the falsehood of Islam. I started to see the falsehoods of Islam from my teenage years. Even an unschooled boy of 12 who understands the truth can easily demolish the weak pillars of Islam.

What is sira, qur’an, hadith? dont push me on defending edge but here are clues to loose your ignorance little bit. The “siiratu nabiyy”, the categories of hadith, various aspect of application, the quran with its various paraphernalia would have bail you out from the bondage of gross folly.

It seems you are in the mire, in that “syllable of errors” Christianity and its many versions of interpolative mutilation (the bibles, old and new versions). I had thought you could have read the quran with bonehead misconception void of hermenuetic context, causes of revelations, historical incidence, scientific proves.

I thought you could enlist the various chains of hadiths and the historical incidence of quranic revelation.

You don’t need to defend your books. Your ignorance about them already speaks much volumes. Remove those original sources and your Islam becomes bid’a – an innovation.

In these 3 sources lie the ethics and ethos of Islam. Without them, your Islam is non-existent. You don’t seem to know much about your religion which you desperately seek to defend.

As for the categories of hadiths, I have addressed that here. We can at least school you a bit on your religion.

Your drivel about Bible translations has also been addressed in another debate I had with another Muslim. I obviously don’t need to repeat myself here.

read the quran… void of hermenuetic context, causes of revelations, historical incidence, scientific proves

This is where you shortchanged yourself. There is no way, one would understand the hermeneutic context of the whole Quran without consulting the hadiths and sira. Without them, many Quranic verses are utterly bland and clueless.

With the exception of the plagiarised parts, each verse of the Quran was recited by Muhammad in response to certain situations and events. Those events and situations are not recorded in the Quran. For example, a place says:

“He frowned and turned away because the blind man came unto him. What could inform thee but that he might grow (in grace). Or take heed and so the reminder might avail him?” (Sura 80:1-5)

Now, tell me – without the hadiths or sira – who frowned? Why did this person frown and why did he frown at a blind man? Who was the blind man?

This is just an example of how vague the Quran is without the hadiths.

Your appeal to the “scientific proofs” in the Quran is a big joke. You are wading into pretty deep waters that will sink you and your assertions pronto. That is where the Quran shot itself dead. Read this.

I read all your struggles in trying to prove the weak positions of the various versions of the bibles using English Version as springboard to prevaricate on that fabricated s***** [book] called “bible”.

Even worse is how you inverted various islamic narratives to hoodwinked your fellow gullibles in astration.

Islam has a uniform curriculum as springboard not as Christianity rooted in haphazade pattern. Islam has hadith, quran, sira, as earlier stated to guide their religious rite and worship while various Christians denomination have become lost in the murky water of its “error of syllables.”

Just last two months I heard one of my childhood friends is now a gay and a die-hard Anglican convert because of Anglican endorsement of homosexualism, I quickly notify him that even the pope of Catholic has approve gay in his former church, a satanic rubbish in an acclaimed religious domain.

Al Quran 2;18 says “they are deaf, dumb and blind, so they shall not follow the right path.” I will advice you to reflect and meditate on your choice of religion because its painful to see how you’ve murked in delusion.

I read through all your rants looking for a single piece of solitary counter-argument to all the issues addressed in the exchange, I found none.

One would either have to read that exchange with a closed eye or a veiled mind (or both) not to have been cured of misinformation and hoodwink. But as it’s often the case, you have no stones in your slingshot, just cotton balls.

It’s amusing to see you backtrack. Initially, you threw out all your original materials, then again, you affirm them as guidance to your rites and worship.

Evidently, Allah couldn’t compose a single book that would sufficiently be an authority in Islam. Muslim mortals had to compose all sorts of better writings 250 years after the Quran and join them to Allah’s composition to build the Islamic civilization.

And in the same way you initially said you “would not blame Christianity for the sins of pseudo-Christians and pastor-preneurs,” you suddenly throw that away to refer me to some vague, insignificant and nameless figures as authority of what Christians believe or practice. You couldn’t even convince yourself.

As for all your potshots at Christianity, I will call your bluff, for the simple fact that Christianity and the Bible have been around, saving souls and changing lives for at least 6 long centuries before Islam, Allah or the Quran emerged from the sewers of Arabian paganism.

The burden of proof is on Islam, not on Christianity. You think you can “prove” Islam or the Quran by default by attacking Christianity and the Bible? Anyone who thinks he can prove B by attacking C is already on a lost cause.

The other option left for you is to dive into the oh-so-cool fictional world of Muslim-Adam, Muslim-Abraham and Muslim-Jesus constructed for you by your lying prophet. In fact, our theme of discussion is on Islam and its books, not Christianity.

And as for your other remarks about your rumoured gay Anglican pal, this exchange should help you.

You don’t question Muhammad’s fictitious delusions and outlandish claims of travelling to the 7th heaven on a winged camel to meet some dead prophets or the claims of splitting the moon, visiting the land of the jinn or the many absurd claims prevalent in the Quran (e.g talking ants, sun sinking in the stream, meterors thrown at jinn etc.).

You don’t demand proofs when he claimed to be the greatest prophet of God or the “mercy of Allah sent to the worlds” yet was full of sexual depravity (rape, whoredom, pederasty, paedophilia etc.).

You never ask yourself why a prophet of God would lie, loot caravans, enslave others, and act as a medium of demons. All these tales in the Quran and hadiths are accepted blindly without question.

But you turn around to question the simple belief in Jesus Christ as the only Way, Truth and Life (John 14:6). You reject the reality of His death and resurrection for the salvation of man (1Cor. 15:1-3).

You attack the Bible which is endorsed by your own Quran as divinely inspired. You scrutinise anyone questioning the many discrepancies and falsehoods prevalent in Islam. Why the double standards?

Of course, we have many proofs that Muhammad and his Islam are false. We don’t hide them. Here is one 

But the problem is that we humans are naturally prejudiced beings. It’s easier for folks to see the flaws in other religions than to see the ones in theirs.

This is why it’s easy for Muslims to view their Quran through a rose-tinted glass and other books through a dark-field critical microscope.

Many Muslims have been mentally suppressed and incapacitated to explain away, minimise or dismiss every blunder in their religion, their books and its founder but are eager to point out perceived flaws in others, especially Christianity. That’s what I see you doing.

Q2;18 they are deaf, dumb and blind, so they shall not follow the right path

Yes, those were the answers Muhammad had whenever the wise people of his time asked him for proofs that he had the truth – cheap ad hominems! His Muslim followers are just like him.

When one even reflects on this, it’s clear that Muslims are the blind and deaf ones.

You refuse to see the crimes and evil teachings of Muhammad in the hadiths and Quran. You refuse to see the many historical, scientific and logical blunders in the Quran.

You refuse to consider that Allah is nothing but a false god manufactured by a manipulative man to fool the ignorant people of his time.

You simply refuse to question your religion, hear the other side or evaluate the fact that Islam is a false religion. This is deafness and blindness of the worst kind.

Scroll through this exchange so far. Not a single argument I raised has been addressed, let alone refuted. This is the greatest rhetorical trick in the book: ignoring the points raised by your opponents as if they don’t exist. It is like the typical Orwellian double-think.

You have to convince yourself that those contrary arguments are not there. That’s a mulish mentality.

All your prevaricative links are grossly misinterpretation of your own argument. it exposes how u’ve gone far in misconstruing the concepts and tenets of Islam totality.

You easily make blunders on all the hadiths, islamic narratives, qur’anic verses. but it’s safe for people like me. I’ve not picked an iota of cogent fact, your myopicism has fed you in bad light. Posterity is the best settler of argument.

I see you throwing around vague cliches because you have no answers. Show me just one example of my “blunders”.

You said: “I’ve not picked an iota of cogent fact

How would you, since your arrogance and ignorance wouldn’t let you see the forest for the trees.

It’s easier for you to hold to Muhammad’s concocted fiction than to live on fact.

The case is already settled. Islam is a false religion. Allah is a false god. Muhammad is a false prophet and the Quran is a false revelation.