Back to main page

Debunking wbsurfer respond to Christianity article

-Introduction-
-Trinity-
-Early Christians-
-Subordinationism and a Fundamental Misunderstanding-
-Humiliation of God, Christainity VS Islam-
-God that rests-
-God that has nothing-
-God that loses-
-God that has something like his creation-
-God that wants man ignarent or fears him?-
-God that can't kill immortal creation-
-God that's unjust-
-God that is cursed-
-God who is an animal-
-The Alleged Corruption of Christianity-
-Was Constantine the 11th Horn?-
-The Trinity in Scripture-
-"Lost Bible"-
-Closing Words-
-Some Good News-

Introduction

I always seek feedback and criticism when it comes to my articles, that's a part of me being objective, and also to improve myself when it comes to argumentation and researching skills, for a long time, no one managed to respond to any statement I said, but now for the first time, someone did, so lets check him out.

Click here to read the article Rebuttal to loadingxml's "Christianity is a false faith" by wbsufer, this article will respond to his December of 2021 version, I did a web archive capture you can found here, so lets start:

Trinity

From his article I read:

I think this section contains mistakes endemic to a lot of Muslim attempts at explaining the Trinity that I see, so I don't hold it as a personal fault; nevertheless, it is still wrong.

That's false, in reality what I said is known even by kids, and it is a common problem in christianity, and a simple search shows that, lets continue:

The first problem that presents itself is his choice of analogies in substitute of actual arguments (for which he provides counter-arguments).

False, I claimed that Trinity is unlogical by definition and there is no counter argument for that, but lets see yours:

Generally it is held that the Trinity can't be explained by analogy since it is by its divine nature unique. An analogy might help explain the concept, such as St. Patrick's explanation of the shamrock, but can't be considered to be a one-to-one explanation or comparison. Such a comparison necessarily does not exist since what you would be trying to compare is some temporal physical object with the eternal divine nature.

That argument isn't new to me nor to any Muslim who searched this, and still doesn't fix trinity, its simply a way to run from the fact that Trinity is not hard to understand, but impossible, you may say it is OK to use faith/believe to explain such stuff, but that only work when its not trivial/obvious for the brain to state its impossibility and contradiction, and so if we go with that, the only one who will be effected by the uselessness of the analogies is the Christians Priests/Preachers themselves, who will mostly relay on it to explain it to non-Christians.

Personally, I think the best one is the example of man. A man has both an immaterial and material component, a soul and a body, if you want (for the analogy it's not relevant the names we give to them or if you think there's more than one immaterial part). Now your soul is you in this case, and your body also is you, and yet clearly taking away one would leave the other destitute of life as we recognise it. Without the soul the body would be a dead shell without consciousness and without the body the soul has no material presence, it cannot affect anything about it. So, the body and the soul are you (the man) but they clearly can't be the same thing.

This analogy is really bad for the simple reason that, we don't have that knowledge about the soul, saying "the soul is you" won't cut it, this stuff can not be said unless by a clear proof from God, if Christianity teachs anything about the soul knowledge, then know that Islam doesn't:

They question you about the spirit. Say: 'The spirit is from the command of my Lord. Except for a little knowledge you have been given nothing.' [Quran 17:85]

And this is simply why Trinity doesn't make sense, see that Islam didn't teach us about something we won't understand (With our current knowledge) like the soul knowledge, unlike Christianity that simply teachs something and says it can not be understood, see the problem now?

Another funny thing about that analogy, is that it only used Body and Soul, two component and not three like trinity does, I noticed this a lot, most of the talk is about Jesus and The Father, but little to no talk about the Holy Spirit, lets continue:

But yet, and this can't be overstressed, man is not God, and the analogue only serves to show that things can both be one thing without being one another; it isn't supposed to be a direct comparison to God.

And when we say they all failed, does this mean that statement is wrong? if that's the case Then there isn't any Trinity analogy that works, lets continue:

I will say I like the rebuttals to some of the "explanations" of the Trinity (the Sun rays, the multiplication examples) because I think those analogies are faulty already, so I don't have a problem with those specific arguments so much as his decision to assume these are cogent arguments in favour of the Trinity in the first place when they are not.

So you wasn't trying to show us these "cogent arguments"? the only thing you did was saying that Trinity can't be understood and analogies won't explain it one-to-one? anyway that marks the end of his Trinity section, to another one:

Early Christians

I quote:

In the quoted section of the dialogue, the author is trying to argue his point:
Then I replied, "Reverting to the Scriptures, I shall endeavour to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things,—numerically, I mean, not [distinct] in will. For I affirm that He has never at any time done anything which He who made the world—above whom there is no other God—has not wished Him both to do and to engage Himself with."
Which is rather the opposite of what loadingxml is trying to claim, that somehow Justin Martyr was trying to say that the Son was subject to the Father. In fact the claims mostly revolve around the difference between the Father and the Holy Spirit rather than the Son, and even in the original quotation xml supposes Christ is referred to by
...another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things... [my emphasis]

You are right in saying that the quote I used wasn't refering to the Son, but the Holy Spirit, the problem was with the order:

Now it is fixed, lets continue:

(That is, another God and Lord, not another prophet) Which would directly contradict what xml is going for (that the early Christians were not trinitarians and didn't think Christ was [in this case, a] God).

That's because, and as I explain in my article:

so you can be called "God" easily in Christianity, for example:
“I said, ‘You are “gods”; you are all sons of the Most High.’ [Psalm 82:6 New International Version]
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods” (Psalm 82:6)[New Testament John 10:34 New International Version]
So we now know that the words "God" and "The God" and "Gods" can be used normal, as if they don't mean the creator and the lord of the world.

So Justin using the word "God" or "Lord" doesn't mean the Trinity "God" or "Lord", and as yourself said:

...the word "god" doesn't always have to mean the monotheistic God...

So and as the verses I quoted above, we can all be called God/god/gods according to Chrisitanity, so its no difference to me if Justin used that word or the Bible itself used it, lets continue:

As quoted above, the author of the dialogue specifically states that this "other God" (the Holy Spirit) is:
distinct from Him who made all things,—numerically, I mean, not [distinct] in will.
So in other words, distinct in person or number, but not in essence or will. In twice different words, exactly what Christians teach.

This has nothing to do with what I said.

I may read the full dialogue and add to this section in time.

OK, next section:

Subordinationism and a Fundamental Misunderstanding

I quote:

What follows is some quoting of scripture that superficially seems to support subordinationism, it's pretty weak in general. Just for example, he doesn't seem to notice in one of his own quotations is a direct refutation of his claim that trinitariansim is a non-scriptural heresy:
My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one. [my emphasis]
"I and the Father are one" huh? I wonder what sort of doctrine that could lead to...

Well that's not a funny way of deceiving the reader to think that missed that part, I myself answer that same "I and the Father are one" in "Jesus and Trinity in the Bible?" Section, which you seem to either missed it or attentionally jumped over, anyway I quote from my article:

Another proof is this verse:
I and the Father are one.” [John 10:30 New International Version]
The answer is the verses after it:
Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” 33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” 34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’[d]? [John 10:31-34]
So Jews were mad at Jesus saying he is as God, but Jesus replied with "I have said you are "gods"", its more like "We guys are all gods, why are you going to stone me? its not a big deal", so using this verse is not an argument for, but argument against Christianity.

So next time answer my argument, lets continue:

The rest of this section is equally weak, first there is the fallacy of this pick-and-choose attitude in regards to evidence. Some ante-Nicene Church Fathers were subordinationists, some weren't. It's useless to treat the whole of Christianity before one specific council - that xml has chosen for reasons convenient to his polemic rather than rational - as a monolith because it leads to this.

There is no fallacy of "pick and choose attitude" when it comes to evidences, I brought proofs that Subordinationists existed during the early age of Christianity, and that's it, if you don't like my sources then Its not my problem, if you have arguments against them, then welcome.

Also my target was after all to prove that Christianity used to be Monotheistic religion, and me bringing Subordinationism simply prove that because it has traces of monothisim, as in monothism, there is no such thing as "God 1 is weaker then God 2", so is the question to you, how did a pegan place had traces of monotheistic religion after Jesus and not Trinity? (more on that later), lets continue:

His favourite heretic, Arius, was even expelled from his position in the Alexandrian church because of his teachings on the trinity, but this is ignored in favour of the argument that because they existed, the belief must have been widespread and even orthodox at the time.

OK, wait for it:

This sentence I think displays xml's fundamental misunderstanding of the doctrine:
Its like they are playing with toys, lets add 2 extra Gods, because why not...
Two extra Gods weren't just added because why not, they are there because it is evident from scripture and Church tradition that they exist.

Good, so to you the source of Trinity are: 1-Scripture and 2-Church Tradition.

For the Scriptures, most of them came to exist AFTER Jesus and not at his time, So would you tell me that the first 50 years Christians will relaying on them to know Trinity?

As for the Church Tradition, this is false, because most of what today Christians follow came from the teachings of Jew Paul, the same guy that Muslims say he is the reason for the corrption of Christianity, and his teachings weren't followed and had its oppositions (More on that in PART 2), so unless you tell me that Christians were waiting for Paul to teach them what Jesus just left them, then you will be contradicting youself.

And the Final thing to keep in mind that the Jews who wanted to kill Jesus (And failed) won't leave his followers at rest, and after all, I never said Monotheist Christianity was widespread, infact Jesus followers were few, what I am saying is that they were there, and today Christianity isn't from them nor from Jesus, lets continue:

The mindset that all this dogma is arbitrary and something people just came up with instead of revealed truth about the world is the fundamental misunderstanding here.

I would say the same thing about you, what is your problem with my dogma? I made an article about yours, make one about mine and wait for my respond.

as well ask, why is Allah one and unitary, why is not a trinity, or a quaternity? Surely 1 is just as arbitrary a number as 3, or 4, or 63? We didn't logically derive everything we know about God, and we certainly didn't make it up ourselves. Otherwise neither of us would need our scripture because we'd have it all argued out in our heads according to pure rationality.

Sure we do, according to pure rationality, Monothesim is what any normal human would go for based on his pure rationality (Fitrah), as for Allah not being more then one, you want that for it to be impossible to understand? Allah (God) is one, and saying otherwise is Polytheism and a lie, and Trinity isn't him being three only, but him taking a Son, dying, having to get humalited, crying, screaming, sleeping on the woods, learning (which mean he didn't know before), are these the qualities of a God? all-powerful all-great? lets talk about it:

Humiliation of God, Christainity VS Islam

So lets see what both say about God from a quick read:

God that rests

Christianity:

It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed. [Exodus 31:17 New International Version]

Islam:

In six days We created the heavens and the earth and all that is between them - and no weariness touched Us! [Quran 50:38]

God that has nothing

In Christianity:

Jesus replied, “Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.” [Matthew 8:20]

In Islam:

To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and the earth, and all that lies between them, and underneath the soil. [Quran 20:6]

God that loses

In Christianity:

So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak. 25 When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob’s hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. 26 Then the man said, “Let me go, for it is daybreak.” But Jacob replied, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.” 27 The man asked him, “What is your name?” “Jacob,” he answered. 28 Then the man said, “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel,[f] because you have struggled with God and with humans and have overcome.” [Genesis 32:24-28]

In Islam:

They do not value Allah as He should be valued. For Allah is Powerful and Mighty. [Quran 22:74]

God that has something like his creation

In Christianity:

And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. ...[Gensis 3:22]

In Islam:

The Originator of the heavens and the earth, He has given you from yourselves, pairs, and also pairs of cattle, thereby multiplying you. There is nothing like Him. He is the Hearer, the Seer. [Quran 42:11]

God that wants man ignarent or fears him?

In Christainity, from the same previous verses, why would God not want Adam to eat from the tree of knowing good and evil in the first place? is he afraid that Adam will judge him or something?

In Islam:

He taught Adam (father of humans) the names - all of them - and then presented them to the angels, saying: 'Tell Me the names of these, if you are truthful.' [Quran 2:31]

Note: That was before Adam eat from the tree, in fact that tree is just a tree in Islam.

God that can't kill immortal creation

In Christianity:

And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” ... After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side[e] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life. [Genesis 3:22 24]

Like why create it in the first place?

In Islam:

But Satan whispered evil to him: he said, "O Adam! shall I lead thee to the Tree of Eternity and to a kingdom that never decays?" [Quran 20:120]

God that's unjust

In Christianity and in short:

So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. [Genesis 3:23]

So we are on earth because of an apple that Adam eat and we have nothing to do about it.

In Islam:

When your Lord said to the angels: 'I am placing on the earth a caliph,' they replied: 'Will You put there who corrupts and sheds blood, when we exalt Your praises and sanctify You?' He said: 'I know what you do not know.' [Quran 2:30]

From the verse we know that Allah willed to place on earth a caliph (Adam/humans) before he created Adam, so with or without the apple we would of ended up here.

God that is cursed

In Christianity:

you must not leave the body hanging on the pole overnight. Be sure to bury it that same day, because anyone who is hung on a pole is under God’s curse. You must not desecrate the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance. [Deuteronomy 21:23]
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.” [Galatians 3:13]

And Jesus has nothing to do with what Adam did, add this to the unjust of God in Christainity.

In Islam:

Those who disbelieved of the Children of Israel were cursed by the tongue of (Prophets) David and Jesus, the son of Mary, because they disobeyed and transgressed. [Quran 5:78]

God who is an animal

In Christianity:

They will wage war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will triumph over them because he is Lord of lords and King of kings—and with him will be his called, chosen and faithful followers.”[Revelation 17:14]
So I will be like a lion to them, like a leopard I will lurk by the path. Like a bear robbed of her cubs, I will attack them and rip them open; like a lion I will devour them—a wild animal will tear them apart. [Hosea 13:7-8]
As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. [Matthew 3:16]
I am like a moth to Ephraim, like rot to the people of Judah. [Hosea 5:12]
This is the passage of Scripture the eunuch was reading: “He was led like a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before its shearer is silent, so he did not open his mouth. [Acts 8:32]
Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing at the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. The Lamb had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits[a] of God sent out into all the earth.[Revelation 5:6]

In Islam:

High Exalted be Allah, the King, the Truth. There is no god except He, the Lord of the Noble Throne. [Quran 23:116]

I could extend that list way longer then, so before you say my dogma is wrong, know the above, lets continue:

To use an analogy - which I hope will be understood as not being a one-to-one comparison now - why does a proton have the mass it does? Why is the ratio between a proton's mass and a neutron or electron's mass the value it is? Maybe that looks totally arbitrary to us, we can't logically derive why one of those numbers is 1836:1837 instead of any other pair of integers (or if you think you can, pick some other natural constants for which you can't, it doesn't matter) but that doesn't make it not true and it's the height of arrogance to think you can outwit God, just because you don't like the number 3.

As if Trinity isn't a fundamental thing in Christainity, I never asked why Trinity, I simply asked to make sense of it, and since you said its impossible to understand, then what else do you expect me to say? believe in an impossible to understand thing? lets move to another topic:

The Alleged Corruption of Christianity

The thrust of xml's argument here is that Roman emperor Constantine I is the eleventh horn referred to in Daniel's prophecy (Chapter 7 of the book of Daniel) and has a poor enough character to be deemed the ruiner of Christianity due to his influence in the council of Nicea. The "eleventh horn" idea will be dealt with later.
One problem with this claim is that many of the evidences brought in support of this could easily be taken to mean the opposite. Take the first quotation as an example:
[Quoting me...]
So, Constantine was different from the other emperors, we are told. How, exactly? Well he was not a Christian for most of his life, just like the previous emperors

So you follow the influence of someone who wasn't a Christian until his death bed? lets continue:

he murdered members of his family to keep hold on power, just like previous emperors and he was brutally cruel to his subjects, just like previous emperors. You'd be forgiven for wondering how all this supports the idea that Constantine was "different from the earlier ones". It's not explained.

Different from the earlier ones when it comes to Christainity? isn't he the first emperior to not attack Christians (both Monotheist and Trinity) like the pervious 10? isn't he the first emperior to simply sit and conduct council for Christians? and the other two parts "speak against the Most High and oppress his holy people" and "try to change the set times and the laws" simply add to this differences, something that the other 10 didn't do, so I don't know what level of bais needed to ignore that, lets continue:

Now blaspheming Christ by putting him on the same footing as the Sun god would be a fulfilment of this prophecy, were it not for the fact that every emperor before Constantine could also be said to blaspheme Christ by persecuting his followers. Trying to stick the council of Nicea to this line is also weak since it relies on a preconception that Arianism is the truth and trinitarianism is a Nicean heresy (or whatever he'd call it).

Here you are just red herring, first all the pervious emperor didn't make the difference between Monotheists and Trinity followers, and ofcourse they are not the people of the Most High when they are mixed, it was only when constantine came and oppressed the Monotheists only.

So what's xml saying here? Holidays we generally associate with Christianity were codified by Constantine rather than, who, Christ? Of course they were, Constantine was the emperor and in Rome the emperors decided the calendar. Before Constantine there were no emperors sympathetic to Christianity so naturally there were no officially observed Christian holidays.

This could be the worst thing said in that responds, not only he ignored my quotes, but he openly stated that "Yah emperors decide the calendar", as if that's how assigning of time happen, we wait for emperors to tell us what day is what, Christians could simply calculate their calendar without the need of an emperor.

Another disaster is that he admits that Christianity doesn't have observed holidays unless emperors are sympathetic to Christainity, now could you imagine people of Israel not do Sabbath/Saturday, simply because there is no Jew emperor? speaking of Sabbath, which is a Christians holyday that was later switch to sunday because of who? Constantine? now lets see my contradiction:

This is not to mention the contradiction in his own quote (once again):
It seems likely that Constantine, trying to unite the worship of the Sun with that of Christ, pushed, if he did not concoct, the observance of Christmas. [my emphasis]
So Constantine is the big-bad, who has corrupted the Word and ruined Christianity, but he didn't even come up with the idea to put Christmas on the date of the Sun god festival! Unless Consantine was playing some 4D chess here with the Roman public this just seems like a political convenience for him rather than a premeditated pagan assault on monotheism.

Huh, in reality that's not wrong, there is who said that Consantine may of have joined Christianity and was still pegan only to unite his empire, with a political motive, but to say, does it really matter? his crimes are endless and the Roman public didn't even notice it, so why would they bother not listening to their emperor ordering them to selebrate a holyday of the Sun god because Christ was born on that day, even tho the birth date of Christ is unknown And even tho Christainity prohibites that Watch This Video, to quote the Bible:

Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the Lord your God.’” [Leviticus 18:30]

So I don't know how constantine isn't the Big-Bad to you...

And again, xml takes this arbitrarian view of history where these things just happened, and acts as if there weren't legions of bishops and presbyters (as in, the people who actually attended the council of Nicea) who were perfectly capable of pointing out paganism if they felt it was infecting the Truth. After all, they had already been persecuted for centuries over refusing to succumb to pagan sacrifices or rituals so why would they stop now? It just doesn't make sense unless you approach the whole situation with a preconceived mindset that Christianity was corrupted at this time and place.

Constantine chose Trinity over Monotheism simply because its already close to Paganism for him, and saying that legions of bishops could stand against his Paganism is simply false, for the simply fact that they didn't nor couldn't and It is known from the quotes that I showed (and others I didn't), that he didn't become a Christian until his death bed, would you say legions of bishops would simply point out he is still pegan until he does baptism? and what about arius followers? they all were attacked and arius books were burned, if that's how "strong" those bishops then really no one could of stopped him from doing anything to Christianity, lets continue:

Was Constantine the 11th Horn?

Loadingxml states as evidence for Constantine being the eleventh horn that the first ten horns represent ten emperors who persecuted Christians. In listing the ten persecutions, he fails to realise that one of the persecutions took place under two separate emperors! The Antonine emperors, father and (adopted) son, persecuted the Christians. Under his logic, this would make Diolectian the 11th horn and Constantine the 12th!

Not really, the link I provided was the best looking, but since you didn't like it, here are more: Link 1, Link 2, Link 3, and so we count Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, as Antoninus Pius didn't do much during his rule, lets continue:

The rest are not worth their own sections, so I shall list them

You know those stuff required a large amount of time and effort to make.

He arbitrarily chooses 100 years to represent a "time"

I wish you made a section showing how other christians defined the value of time, then my value won't seem arbitrarily at all, but I will give it and say that the value of time is unknown, the time value will be defined when we know when the kingdom will be brought back to the people of the Most High, and as I stated that was in 650AC when Muslims entered Jerusalem and spread Islam to the world, and that makes sense and the value therefore will be 100 years, or around it.

He acknowledges that the prophecy states that the other beasts (countries) will survive under the fourth beast (Rome, according to him), and then will be destroyed. But Rome never toppled Babylon, and it was utterly gone as a state by the time of Constantine certainly.

Did I? lets see:

So what happened to those kingdoms?
“Then I continued to watch because of the boastful words the horn was speaking. I kept looking until the beast was slain and its body destroyed and thrown into the blazing fire. (The other beasts had been stripped of their authority, but were allowed to live for a period of time.) [Daniel 7:11-12]
Meaning they aren't ruling the earth anymore, and turned into small countires, they will remain for period of time until the final kingdom come and crush all of those countires.
Daniel continues:
In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.[Daniel 7:13]

Well that's funny

So it was in front of you and you missed it? ok I guess its my fault, I meant by the final kingdom, the kingdom of people of the Most High, The Muslims.

He makes the assumption the three ribs represent three continents, without any justification

I quote:

... it must mean that at the time when by the conquest of Babylon it came into the apocalyptic succession, the bear-empire had laid waste three territories ... Jephet-ibn-Ali maintains the "three fibs" to refer to the three quarters of the world over which the Persian Empire ruled; and this is the view of Keil. It seems better, with Von Lengerke, to regard the number three as not important ... [Source]

But even if we toke any other famous interpertation of the ribs like:

The three ribs have been understood from the time of St. Hippolytus to mean three nations: the Babylonians, the Lydians, and the Egyptians.

It will still fit, the point being that the Second beast is the Persian Empire.

Personally I favour the theory that the events of the prophecy have not taken place yet, but I have read a convincing account that Antiochus IV of the Seleucids was the eleventh horn in the prophecy, so I don't have a particularly strong view on either of those. You can read more about that anywhere online if you want, it's outside the scope of this article.

Just make more articles, I am having fun already.

The Trinity in Scripture

This section will unfortunately consist mostly of adding context or rebuttals to certain passages of the original article, it won't be as coherent as previous passages.
“About Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. [Luke 24:19 New International Version]
The man speaking in this verse is not God, Christ, or Luke, he is just explaining to what he believes to be a random stranger what he and his partner were talking about on the road; there's no reason to take this as any statement on the nature of Christ.

So, this random stranger talked with Jesus (or walked along with them), who came to guide him (Matthew 15:24), and left him unguided and believing he was a prophet? if this means something, it simply adds to my Monotheist Christians arguments, not to mention there are verses that show no so random people calling him a normal man, say:

“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

So that doesn't add up, and also, Jesus being a prophet has more proofs then what I just mentioned, example, lets continue:

So the first "God" word was defined, which mean that the "Word" was with "The God" and the word was "God", which will end up meaning "a God was with The God" giving the fact that the other "God" word wasn't defined, in simple term, this mean there is two Gods, not one, and so this contradict with one God rule we said above.
This isn't right, he's just added in an "a God" out of nowhere. The second appearance of "God" doesn't have an article prefixed to it, because in that case in the sentence "God" wouldn't necessarily need one, it's a proper noun.

OK, that doesn't explain anything, why the first God is defined then, if its proper noun? also that's wrong, because if God was proper known it wouldn't of been translated, God name is Yahwah, and it is spelled Yahwah in every language, unlike God, spelled Allah (If you have read Arabic translated Bible), that's not the say that Allah is translated to God, or The God as many misthink due to applying the defining rule wrongly in Arabic, and as an extra proof, you skipped this verse that has defined God:

The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. [2 Corinthians 4:4]

and again, The God = The god, so don't be folled.

Now that "like God" isn't right, this Source and other translations translated it as "as God to Pharaoh", so you can be called "God" easily in Christianity
A simile is using the words "like" or "as" to compare two things, so swapping out the two words doesn't change the meaning, it's still clearly not literally calling Moses God. A lot of these points are seemingly just from a lack of understanding that the word "god" doesn't always have to mean the monotheistic God, in the west our cultures were historically pagan for a long time so there is an understanding that lowercase god can be used to describe something with lots of power in its domain, rather than the uppercase cosmic God. (Note I'm just using that lowercase/uppercase distinction for my own sake, I'm not claiming it was present in scripture). Arguing against this is arguing against literary convention more than anything else.

Maybe its me not understanding how soft Christianity is when it comes to God, as I showed in pervious sections, anyone can be called God noramlly, or like God, or as God, as if God can be used to compare stuff, also your "west cultures" arguement doesn't work with the Old Testement, for the simple fact that Jews aren't from the west, so God for Jews and the Old Testement is the Monotheist God or "Cosmic God", and saying "you are like God" is more like blasphemy (See God like his creation section).

Next he claims that there is no difference in the use of "Holy" between Luke 1:35 and Mark 6:20, but his own evidence of Greek translation he provides, we can see there is. In Luke holy is modifying the noun (holy-thing), whereas in Mark it is just describing the man (just and holy). I wouldn't even regard this as a "proof" of Jesus being God (note no indefinite article in front of God there) but it just shows how even this is incorrect in his article.

You not knowing that this was used as a proof for Jesus being God doesn't change the fact that it was used and I saw it.

Either way it certainly doesn't give any evidence against it and being called a Holy Child who is the Son of God seems to pretty nicely fit in with Jesus being the Song of God and all

That's what the argument was against, why not show a conter-argument if you were right?

and I should remind you that he should really be trying to show Jesus was just a prophet, but is settling here for him simply not literally being God, but rather subordinate to him; which he has to settle for because the scripture contradicts Jesus-as-a-prophet. So which is it? either you can use scripture to argue against Jesus' divinity or you disregard scripture entirely (because it calls him the Son of God); I don't think it's fair you do both.

So I shouldn't use the scripture because it calls Jesus "Son of God" just like it does with all christians? I explain in my article how you can be called God easily (and everyone is god according to Jesus in the Bible) and christians are the Son of God, and Satan is called "The God" and Pharaoh is like God, so really, this mess doesn't define a rule to who is what, and also doesn't define a rule that I can't use it to prove Jesus was a prophet in the Bible, after all its The Jew Paul who simply changed "Son of Man" which was used by Jesus followers (The Monotheist Christians/Muslims) into "Son of God", he moved Jesus up to be a God, and moved himself up to be a prophet, and such, I will talk about the Jew Paul in PART 2 Insha A Allah.

Another misunderstanding of the Trinity. There is no God but God, that is true because the Trinity contains only one God. You can only interpret these as being against the Trinity if you come in to it already believing trinitarianism is polytheism. You have to start at the conclusion for these verses to actually mean anything in support of his argument, so it's circular reasoning.

OK, what will you conclude from those verses if you weren't already trinitarianist? that its Monotheisim right? and so say you are a Monotheist, if someone came to you saying "Did you know God has a son?" you won't accept that idea from the start, and no matter how he trys to explain the impossible to understand Trinity, you will also disagree, for the simply fact that Its impoosible to understand.

I don't know how you want to guide a poor misguided Muslim who already knows what Christianity is about and disbelieve it, and you won't be able to force them, not like your a Christians kid when he go "But trinity makes no sense", maybe you punish ("bad boy"), but trying to convert a Muslim, let alone a Muslim who studied Christianity will need a bit more work.

"Lost Bible"

For one, this supposed lack of evidence for the Bible's authenticity is absurd. We have more evidence for John, Luke or Mark etc. than we do for Plato, Aristotle or Homer. If loadingxml believes Aristotle was a real person and not invented by scholars of antiquity then how can he justify this belief that the gospels were?

Are you really comparing the sources of your Holy Book, The Word Of GOD!! to evidences that Plato or anything else existed?

Anyone who studied the sources of Scriptures know the disaster it has, problem is simply Christians don't bother checking that, so if the Bible is completely corrept that don't bother, they already ready corrept translations and believe it with blind faith, and to my surpise in my article I mentioned this verse:

Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.[c]” And they divided up his clothes by casting lots. [Luke 23:34 New International Version]

The footnote C reads:

Some early manuscripts do not have this sentence. [Source]

So let me clear this thing first, you aren't going to convince me that Luke, John and others wrote the gospel based on revelation from God while I am not already a Christian, nor you can convince me that it is the Word of God while it has nothing more then the story of Jesus and a dream of John, and even if you did and give it that those are the Word of God, you can't possibly convince me that it had no alteration, giving the disaster of the scripture sources that we have.

And the funny part is, Christians try to use that same argument against Quran, and never managed to found anything and the Quran openly stated:

We have, without doubt, sent down the Message [Quran]; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption). [Quran 15:9]

I found this Short Video to explain my point, lets continue:

Next he unwittingly comes out in support of sola scriptura (GNU/Calvinism/Islam when?) without seeming to realise this is a matter of intense interdenominational debate in Christianity. Catholics absolutely do believe that scripture is not necessarily the highest authority on the gospels and I think the majority of Protestant denominations disagree (I say "I think" because you can never be too sure given the sheer number of them) with that.

Now I found this the best part about why Christianity is just doesn't make sense, lets say that the Catholics found out about Bible being corrept, since they are not "Sola Scriptura" they won't be effected, and they will follow the teaching of the church anyway, meaning it is just like Buddhism, so what are we trying to do now? arguing is useless because they have nothing to stand on, best of I even dealt with some who are afraid of using their brain because "it can misguide them"...

Also the first quotation used here (Romans 10:17) refers to "the message", "the word" or "the saying", rather than specifically a written wod (scripture) so I don't think it's a good argument in support of the doctrine of sola scriptura even if I happen to agree with it.

OK, so what's the "the word" for you? why leave us misguided? anyway lets see the interpertations:

By the word of God.—We should read here, without doubt, “by the word of Christ”—i.e., by the gospel first delivered by Christ and propagated by His ministers. [Source]
The gospel is given, not only to be known and believed, but to be obeyed. It is not a system of notions, but a rule of practice. The beginning, progress, and strength of faith is by hearing. But it is only hearing the word, as the word of God that will strengthen faith.
And hearing - And the report, or the message (η ̔ἀκοὴ hē akoē), is by the Word of God; that is, the message is sent by the command of God. It is his word, sent by his direction, and therefore if withheld by him, those who did not believe could not be blamed. The argument of the objector is, that God could not justly condemn people for not believing the gospel.
By the word of God; by the command of God: q.d. The gospel could not be lawfully preached to them, for them to hear it, but by God’s command; and therefore the apostles and others, in preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, had good authority for what they did.

So with those and more, we know that the word is the Gospel, so what do you say? either the Gospel isn't the scripture, or the verse is useless and leaved us without knowing what word it is.

I read this last bit after writing the previous paragraphs so the argument I just made comparing the gospels to ancient authors is even quoted in his own article but not addressed. Hmm.

That was the point of me quoting that section anyway, and the quote I am refering to is this:

But I shall only remark here that the argument of skeptic would, if logically applied, discredit not only the Bible but many other books which they themselves accept and believe without hesitation. There is far more evidence for the Bible than there is for certain books of classical antiquity that no one dreams of disputing. There are, for example, only fifteen manuscripts of the works of Herodotus, and none earlier than the tenth century; yet he lived four hundred years before Christ. The oldest manuscript of the works of Thucydides is of the eleventh century;

That Respond is horrible, I could use it to debunk Catholic Christianity as a whole, I am impressed that you noticed it, good job.

I don't much care for the rest of the article so I shan't bother debunking any of it.

So you "debunked" like 40% of my article, I don't know, aren't you motivated to defened your religion and faith? if someone wrote an article against Islam and sent that to me, I would of debunke it letter by letter.

Thanks to my fellow Christians who helped in the chat, and especially thanks to the man loadingxml himself for providing such stimulating debate in the first place, and I mean that with complete sincerity. Maybe parts of this come off as rather hostile but I don't mean that way and I'll gladly revise any section he thinks is excessively offensive or unkind.

I thank you as well for writing that respond, it will help clear the idea for people even more.

Lastly I suppose this is technically a work in progress, there are many sections I might come back and actually finish, or just edit for clarity. If I fix any mistakes then I'll put a note where there used to be one, if not in the text then definitely in the HTML comments.

And so this respond is also going to update based on the changes he does.

Closing Words

Christianity, even according to Islam, isn't going anywhere until Jesus return, however that sad fact doesn't stop us Muslims from doing our best to guide Christians to the light of Islam, and for our Christian readers, know that our target isn't to simply attack you for the sake of attacking, we really want the best for you and that what makes us spend so much time and money to guide you, and always remember, you are not a sheep, you are a human with dChristianity, even according to Islam, isn't going anywhere until Jesus return, however that sad fact doesn't stop us Muslims from doing our best to guide Christians to the light of Islam, and for our Christian readers, know that our target isn't to simply attack you for the sake of attacking, we really want the best for you and that what makes us spend so much time and money to guide you, and always remember, you are not a sheep, you are a human with dignity.

Some Good News

In my Evidences for Islam PART 2, I meantioned a Video of a Jewish Rabbi who showed many of Prophet Muhmmad Peace be upon him Prophecies in the Torah/Bible that I used in PART 1, that Rabbi converted to Islam after quite sometime from his video (around 1.5 years if I am not wrong), Video of him doing Shahadah here, lets not forget what this remind us:

Yet among the people of Moses there was a nation who preached the truth and acted justly. [Quran 7:159]