Concept of God in Islam and Christianity - Andalusi vs. Wood - 02 - Rebuttals

[shabirmansour]

this guy of andulasi he's a complete fraud he has no augumants at all

just some childreen playing in the park auguments

[Thuva44]

David won this but noooo waayy a muslim will agree with that!! lol

[JabrilAbdullah]

Brother Andalusi was triumphant.

But he naturally had logic on his side.

I mean, saying GOD is a man is pure contradiction.

Peace.

[ADAJ3]

David wins easily but some of the below comments are immature

[Unbeatablefilistemo]

abdullah got his ass woooped!

[halakukhan]

man! David got his ass kick lol

[redman4853]

VERY GOOD DAVID! Man U hit this one out of the PARK! The muslim is just spinning his own WEB! He has no answers & I have used this to MANY of time & Muslims run from it, WHY? These Q's are IMPORTANT David is asking! He is not trying to be funny, plus it is COMING FROM THE QURAN! Why would muslims not want an answer to these Qs? If this is your guide to your SALVATION IT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED! I have a Q to the muslims=Does the HEBREW scriptures say God is in heaven & on earth at same time?

[ryukenb2k]

Peace to you and family. David white didnt hit the ball out of the park he got struck out on all three rounds. He spoke blasphemey by saying that beloved Jesus(pbuh) is yahweh and I welcome a debate about that false staement in two days time. I am going away and will happy to have a peaceful debate with you when I come back. You should be able to prove to me that Jesus is God and then when u have satisfied me I will convert

[redman4853]

@ryukenb2k I will be waiting on your return brotha! SHALOM

[ryukenb2k]

My brother we have conversed and I answered everything you sent me clearly. But you never could refute me at all. I ask you again can you deny islamic TAWHEED. And that the bible has verses added into the new king james and duay catholic bibles. Until you can prove these CLEAR additions I cant take christianity seriously. Can you admit Allah is LORD of all creation

[redman4853]

@ryukenb2k U say U answered everything, WHERE? I told U that Tawheed does not even IN THE QURAN=IT IS A BELIEF & ALLAH Never said any of this! If So WHERE is the SURA? I have NOTHING to do with NEW KJV or Catholic Bible so I don't no where U EVER read this from me at! How can I admit Allah EVER said he created creation! Where does ALLAH say I AM even a GOD? Now fro Jesus claiming to be God- Please explain what Jesus meant in JOHN 8:56-59. We will began here!

[ryukenb2k]

I refuted you and now you contradict yourself by saying this''I have NOTHING to do with NEW KJV or Catholic Bible'', Then you quote from JOHN which is in both mentioned books. I seriously am baffled by you. I think maybe satan is trying to confuse me with mytalks withyou. You are terribly misguided,You still didnt answer my points I sent by private mail.You make yourself look big to everyone here but I exposed you privately.

[ryukenb2k]

Salaam to you and family. Lets debate is yeshua(pbuh) him is the creator. To me this thinking of christians makes them infidels. But maybe you can be the first to convince me?

[redman4853]

@ryukenb2k let me say this-This guy came in our room on Paltalk & GOT SHAMED! He will never show his face around there again-IT IS ALL OVER YT! I mean the guy knew no arabic & even here we see this guy presenting nothing but ASSERTIONS that has nothing to do with scripture! Please watch the video again my friend & U will see how many ASSERTIONS he drops in! David kept him in the QUran & he could not give direct answers from Allahs book! WHY IS THAT WITH EVER MUSLIM?

[ryukenb2k]

So far no verse has been given.where did yeshua(pbuh) say he created everything?I'm waiting. STOP LYING ABOUT THE TAWHEED, I sent you the meaning and many verses where Allah confirmed TAWHEED,please stay on topic where did yeshua(pbuh) say he created everything

[redman4853]

@ryukenb2k First of all, Jesus made a CLEAR STATEMENT THAT HE WAS GOD in OT! So If Jesus is claiming to be this God of the OT (John 8:56) than U are REFUTED! Secondly, Tawheed is not even presented as this being from ALLAH! SHow me where the word ALLAH is even in those suras? Could it be MUHD? U are to Obey both Allah & MUHD or U go to Hell, RIGHT? ALLAH NEVER CONFIRMED TAWHEED! Infact only thing Allah say is in Sura 28:30 Allah says (FROM A TREE) I AM ALLAH Lord of Universe!

[redman4853]

@ryukenb2k How am I contradicting myself if I say I have nothing to do with New KJV or catholic Bible? If I have nothing to do with it than I have nothing to do with it PERIOD! Now, PROV 30:4 WHO IS HIS SON? Isiah 40:3 IS THIS NOT YAHSHUA AS GOD TO COME BY WAY of JHON? If U believe in OT than U have to REFUTE Jesus claming to be on Right Hand of Father & him being the SAVIOUR when the fact is-YHWH of OT said there is NONE BESIDE ME & I AM THE ONLY SAVIOR! WHat does Isiah 9:6 mean?-JESUS IS GOD

[ryukenb2k]

So far you havent refuted me why you go silent about the blasphemey that some christian madmen say that jesus(pbuh) is Yehwah. Please be sensible and give the verse where jesus said he made everything if you dont then rest assured you are 100% infidel who is decieved by satan.Muslims believe that yehwah sent the messiah o guide many of the lost sheep of israel back to the straight way.

[shafsha711]

it is so much weird to se muslims claiming that they won a debate, without providing any good reasoning at all !!

doing so, is just a subjective judgment based on their faith,without having any scientific basis , which they clearly lack..

GBU all

[TruthbHeard]

this utter defeat of this fool Wood is hillarious he gets dropped in every debate i wonder how many christians quit watching debates becuz of this embarassing guy

He is clearly a bafoon payed to confuse christians even more the same ones that dont understand trinity... he definitly has intent to decieve people, he debates in a very detestable manner if you watch all his debates

[shafsha711]

talk tak talk ... no evdience = Typical muslim !

[Tchado1000]

bla bla bla...Jesus "loves" you = bigot christian

How much evidence do you need to see how David was utterly defeated ?? Look at the arguments , the flow of responses ,even atheists can see how David lost with his typical refuted arguments .

Look at Abdullah , he crushed David using David's own game....PHILOSOPHY !

The only point I give David credit for is the scientific reference he got for the trinity , that's a good tactic , but Abdullah made enough evidence against it to disprove it

[shafsha711]

God cocept in Islam is

Allah Has 99 names islam.

Now after 1400, they changed many of these names accoriding to a recent study.

so in islam , God changes with time and enviromental factors, and human being sets the concept of God.

[TruthbHeard]

LOL! The 99 names are located in the quran, quran unchanged 1400 years, meaning your an idiot fabricating information to suit your false reality plz dont embarass yourself anymore

[shafsha711]

your limited knowledge is so embarassing, is it because of ignoarance having the perfect exmaple being illiterate ignorant ?! or because u dont understande arabic the core of quran ?!

well about the change of names of allah, review this with Sheikh Khaled el gendy and Dr Mahmoud Abd El razek, who made the staudy to change 29 of Allah names, and it was accepted by islamic authorities.

Good luck with your new Allah :-) beta version

[Keanu212]

Conclusion: You can not prove to anyone that Solomon built the temple, the only proof u have exists within ur own scripture which is a bias and religious text which seeks to develope its own personal theological goals. So therefore its NOT an historically objective reference and is therefore dismissed as any sort of evidence from an objective non religiously bound point of view. Its bias information. So please, lets move on.

[YHWHisElohim]

"the only proof u have exists within ur own scripture which is a bias and religious text which seeks to develope its own personal theological goals."

That is hyperskeptical atheist argumentation. To assume that the historical accounts in the Bible must be rejected simply because it is written by authors who also communicated information about G-d, is not argumentation that a theist can use.

[Keanu212]

Sure it is, not every theist is a believer in the bible sir. Im not a believer in the bible, i dont consider the bible to be credible for the same reason i dont consider the Ghita to be credible. Im being very consistent sir, im telling u to stay the same. U cant use the bible to disprove the Quran based upon the inconsistences u showed previously in regards to pleading to what u claim is a "religious text" which in itself is bias and not objective. So lets deal with "what is"

[Keanu212]

And u will even see in ur own OT that people were accused of corrupting the Torah short after the time of Moses (pbuh) Now as i said, our starting point should be of what is and not "what if" lets start dealing with scripture. Im moving on to sending u pms, this wont allow me space enough to write.

[Keanu212]

U base ur faith on a religious scripture,  there is no way around this. Wether its allegorical or not. If i find evidence that the temple was not built by Solomon but by Herxus, and nontheless not any objective historical proof to a person named Solomon to ever even exist, then that ruins ur bible. So lets not deal with "if´s" lets deal with what "is" ie scripture. I sent u a PM.

[YHWHisElohim]

"If i find evidence that the temple was not built by Solomon but by Herxus, and nontheless not any objective historical proof to a person named Solomon to ever even exist, then that ruins ur bible."

If you prove Solomon never existed, then you just disproved Islam, since Suleiman is a prophet according to Islam. You can't be atheist when looking at the Bible, and Muslim when looking at the Quran. Now that IS a consistency issue. Don't contradict your Quran and stay Muslim.

[Keanu212]

No sir. When im discussing Solomon, pleading to Islam will not prove ur point. You are supposed to prove ur book by your book only. I brought Solomon as merely an example, unless u are dependant on the Quran to assert ur faith as correct. Dont prove the bible based upon the Quran, because u do not believe it to be truth.

[YHWHisElohim]

"No sir. When im discussing Solomon, pleading to Islam will not prove ur point."

Actually, it proves the point that you cannot even suggest Solomon never existed until you first stop being a Muslim.

"Dont prove the bible based upon the Quran, because u do not believe it to be truth."

I'm not proving the Bible based on quran. I'm expecting you to wear only one hat. You can't take off your Muslim hat and put on an atheist hat when you look at the Bible, and put your Muslim hat back on for quran

[Keanu212]

This is exactly what im saying. I use my scripture as proof for my faith, for the same reason u use the bible as proof for ur faith. See this is where u are comitting yet another fallacy. U pleaded that the Quran was wrong based upon the bible, now those sources are bias within themselves from an objective point of view and therefore dismissed any sort of solid proof whatsoever. U base ur proof on a certain religious text and not objectively historical references and evidence. Very simple.

[YHWHisElohim]

"U pleaded that the Quran was wrong based upon the bible"

I demonstrated my CONSISTENT use of early sources in preference to late sources. This is part of the historical method...which oddly enough is how historians investigate history.

Your response to my claim was that theological books are not trustworthy for historical information. Oops! You just threw out your Quran as a source for anything historical.

[YHWHisElohim]

"U base ur proof on a certain religious text and not objectively historical references"

You obviously have not read ANY historical works from the ancient world. Go read some Greek, Roman, Persian or any other historical records from antiquity and you will find that they ALL mention deities, religious rites, various theological beliefs.....yet they are frequently accepted as historical. Why do you assume historical information in the Bible can't be trusted? (cont)

[YHWHisElohim]

....you are using naturalistic hyperskepticism that is inconsistent with your worldview as a Muslim, and you are Begging the Question by assuming historical accounts in the Bible are automatically false. What's your reason for saying they're false? Because the authors had a certain theology they believed in. Once again, you must then also reject your Quran as historical. There goes your only 'proof' Abraham built the Kaba.

[Keanu212]

"I demonstrated my CONSISTENT use of early sources in preference to late sources. This is part of the historical method...which oddly enough is how historians investigate history."

This does not work. Because ur own "early sources" seek to achieve its own religious and theological purposes. The references u are using are subjective. Objectively it does not hold. So lets deal with "what is" and not "what if" sir.

[YHWHisElohim]

"Because ur own "early sources" seek to achieve its own religious and theological purposes."

OK, well you LATE SOURCE (the Quran) suffers from this same problem. Be consistent.

"The references u are using are subjective. Objectively it does not hold."

What are you even talking about? I wish I knew. This is an issue of sources and historicity. Every historical account in history is "subjective" because the author records facts from their own limited information. Let's not be silly.

[Keanu212]

Again wrong. I never said such a thing, Im telling u that ur so called "evidence" is subjective and not objective invalid (in any court of law for that matter). The location from where u gain ur information is a bias source with its own theological ideas and goals. So again, u base ur faith on the bible and not anything else, thats my point. For the same reason i base my faith on the Quran. So again lets deal with "what is" and not "what if".

[YHWHisElohim]

"I never said such a thing, Im telling u that ur so called "evidence" is subjective and not objective invalid (in any court of law for that matter)."

Well thankfully we aren't putting anyone on trial here :-). You can't take the burden of proof of historicity and just transport it into the burden of proof in a legal proceeding. Don't be silly. And you are telling ME not to deal with "what if"?

[YHWHisElohim]

"The location from where u gain ur information is a bias source with its own theological ideas and goals."

And your Quran is a source with "theological goals" so you now have to throw out your Quran as a source.

You are missing the point. My method allows me to accept writings that contain theological information as historical sources. My method is also the historical method which prefers early attestation over late attestation. The Biblical account on these issues is early. The Quran is late.

[Keanu212]

Remember before u pleaded to the bible (as an early source) to prove the Quran "wrong" I was not allowed to use the Quran as proof of the bible being wrong (because it was a "later" source accordin to u), so u in order for you to be consistent with ur own line of reasoning, U can NOT use the bible to prove the Quran wrong neither can u use the Quran to prove the bible right. Now that is inconsistency sir. And that is not what we are supposed to deal with here.

[Keanu212]

correction, Jonah* not Noah.

[Keanu212]

Muhammad (sws) never claimed to bring something new. So ur argument is beyond weak. He came back to restore what already had been existing for thousands of years but had gotten corrupted by the years. Now in reference to your OT and NT, there are TOO many theological problems with them. I would love to start a debate about the Quran and bible with you through PM´s because there i get unlimited space to write unlike here, are you up for it? Ive been trying to find someone for weeks to debate:=)

[aliash719]

The Christianity practiced today, stems out entirely from Pauline Christianity. It has been corrupted and its tenets contaminated in the most deviant and irrevocably sad of ways.

If you believe otherwise, you're no better than monkey-worshiping Hindus, Aphrodite glorifying ancient Greeks and other such ancient cultures throughout human history where God has been depicted, preached and revered as becoming a part of the 'creation' either directly or indirectly.

I rest my case.

Cheers.

[YHWHisElohim]

"The Christianity practiced today, stems out entirely from Pauline Christianity."

This is such a tired, absurd conspiracy theory. Thankfully, our faith, and our holy book is based on more than just the testimony of one man, unlike Islam which rests 100% on the testimony of Muhammad.

We have multiple streams of attestation, and a faith that was spread by more than one person. It would have been impossible for Paul to "corrupt" our beliefs even if he wanted to.

[aliash719]

Some chump named Paul the so called 'apostle' falls on his ass from a horse on the road to Damascus one day ( He's a no good brutal bounty hunter known for persecuting Christians by the way ), sees a vision ( that only he sees by the way ) and...

Lo and Behold: Jesus becomes a man-god, son of god and all that jazz!

[YHWHisElohim]

aliash, unfortunately for you and your conspiracy theory, Paul worked closely with, and was excepted into fellowship by, ALL the Disciples of Yeshua (you know, Peter, Matthew, John, etc.). Paul was even accepted by James, Ya'aqov in Hebrew. A man who was respected as a most pious Jew, and called "James the Just" or "Ya'aqov HaTzadiq" by his Jewish contemporaries.

You expect us to believe the Disciples (who your Quran calls good Muslims) were wimps who let someone corrupt the message? Nonsense.

[aliash719]

Bottom line is this: The concept of Trinity, cruxificatoin and atonement as taught by the bible - is a grotesque deviance from the actual message that the Prophet Jesus (Peace be upon him) preached to the early followers of his message.

[aliash719]

3. Jesus died to atone for the sins of the world, else we'd all go to hell ( How fair is it to kill an innocent man, just to rid other people of their sins? )

So, going by this logic: Would it be fair for the Government to put an innocent civilian in prison and sentence him to death - merely because his great great great grandfather commited murder a 100 years ago?

Does that make sense? NO

Is that rational? NO

Would an All-Just God do such a thing? NO

Nobody needs to die for ANYONE.

[shafsha711]

thats so stupid funny .. u r asking the question , and answering it !!! so wy u r asking ?!

[shabirmansour]

@aliash719 are you wrinting to yourself?

or it's just the panic

[aliash719]

2. Jesus (god) died on the cross ( So god can die? God not only 'limits' His eternalness by entering creation / becoming a mere mortal man but oh no he goes one step further and decides to commit suicide to forgive the world of its sins? )

How logical is that anyway? That an All-Powerful God 'needs' to die / kill his son in order to forgive the sins of the world. Does God really 'need' to do such a thing, when he is above all needs to begin with? If he wants to forgive, he can just forgive!

[aliash719]

Christianity is logically flawed merely because of the rationalistic essence it lacks in all its dogmatic viewpoints and theological infrastructure.

1. Jesus is God ( So, God limits himself by containing His All-Eternal existence in the constraints of flesh and blood? How is that different than the pagan Roman / Greek mythological concepts, The Mithraic concepts, The Ancient Egyptian concepts and the Hinduism notions of a man-god, monkey-god or elephant-god? How tell me please? )

[aliash719]

However, the very fact that all these prophets preached the oneness of God Almighty, prayed to God the same way as Muslims do, emphasized on the need to refrain from associating partners in worship to God etc etc - attests the 'truth' that God expects human beings to 'fulfill' the purpose to their life by living life on His terms through the legislative ruling of His revelations.

Anything beyond that - automatically becomes 'deviance', which is what Paul the apostle preached! Simple!

[YHWHisElohim]

"However, the very fact that all these prophets preached the oneness of God Almighty, prayed to God the same way as Muslims do..."

No none of the prophets of the Bible prayed just like Muslims do. No 5 times a day prayers, no complex progression of prostrations, etc etc...Oh, wait. You know who did pray very much like Muslim pray today? The Sabians in Arabia. You know who circumambulated the Kaba, threw rocks at the satan, and kissed the black stone? The polytheists of Arabia. Stolen 'religion'

[aliash719]

If Jesus Christ was God-Incarnate, I'm pretty sure all the Prophets before him would have preached to their respective people that a Man-God is coming in the future and hence their very teachings would be moulded towards the same notion too. But was it?

No!

All prophets - from a Christian and Islamic point of view - preached the same message to their people right from Noah, David down to Moses, Jesus and Muhammad ( Peace be upon them) i.e God is one. Worship him ALONE without partners.

[Keanu212]

Again pointing out the flaws in Davids argument. In order for his argument to be consistent, his god is therefore responsible for every deviant, blasphemous sect that springs out of his understanding of Christianity, because his god ALLOWED corruption to flow from the basis of his bible, for example, mormonism, unitarianism etc etc. Therefore his god is deceiving people, since they all have the bible as the foundation and use it to prove their case. Silly christians :=)

[Keanu212]

Whenever the christians bring up the argument of the "black stone" and kissing it, one should ask them if they worship the cross? Because surely they do right ? I mean we see christians kissing the cross around their neck all the time, we see them doing the symbol of the cross and kissing their hand all the time, surely this is blasphemy as well? even kissing their own mothers, blasphemy? lol!

[YHWHisElohim]

Keanu212- I don't see anywhere in the Bible were Yeshua, or anyone else tells us to kiss crosses, or make the symbol of the cross with our hands. Hence, if someone chooses to do it, that's between them and G-d, but it's not directly approved in our Scriptures. Islam on the other hand, has explicit approval for kissing and venerating the black stone based on the Sunnah of Muhammad.

Also, the Bible forbids bowing down to and kissing meteorites, and the black stone is a meteorite.

[Keanu212]

"Explicit approval and venerating" Go get the proof:=) It doesnt exist. The sabians were monotheists and they are even mentioned in the Quran, you dont think they would be mentioned if he "stole" from them now do you? The "stolen" idea have already been refuted by many orientalists. You do know that the Kaba was built by Abraham (as) and not Muhammad (sws). Muhammad (sws) was chosen by God restore the purity of the path of Abraham (as) ie Islam.

[YHWHisElohim]

"You do know that the Kaba was built by Abraham (as) and not Muhammad (sws)."

Yeah, I'm well aware that Muhammad didn't build it, but there is not one bit of evidence that Abraham built the Kaba, nor is there any evidence that he ever set foot in Mecca.....except of course the claims of one man who never met Abraham (Muhammad).

[Keanu212]

What proof do you have outside the bible that Noah was swallowed by a giant fish for example? lets be consistent here. I sent you a PM, feel free to respond there.

[YHWHisElohim]

Jonah being swallowed by a sea animal has no bearing on being a falsification of my beliefs. For example, it could be allegorical and my beliefs still remain true. However, if the Kaba was not built by Abraham, I don't see how Islam remains true. This is not an issue of 'consistency', as the 2 issues are not comparable.

[Keanu212]

If u claim that Jonah being swallowed by a whale was allegorical then i advise u to re read ur sources. Secondly can u prove outside religious texts that Solomon did infact build the temple? Im looking for historical credited non bias sources. U dont seem to understand the point, it doesnt matter what example i bring up because ur claim holds no watter wether its allegorical or not. If Jonah never even existed then the bible is false, was Jonah a fictional character too?

[Keanu212]

It does not matter if it is the earliest accounts, historically thats not proof. For example there were theories going around what Einstein proclaimed short after his time, which we now have known to be ideas he personally never uttered nor had. The OT came long after Abrahams time for,so for u to say that its the most reliable account is flawed. I can find early sources that rejects the holocaust and calls it a conspiracy, does that make em true?

[Keanu212]

I sent you a PM, check ur inbox.

[Islam666AntiChrist]

andalusi should get up much earlier to debate this champ david wood and i also think andalusi should try to be a little less arrogant next time