this is how a PROPER scholarly debate should be. THis is the type of debate that is grounded in intellectual reason and not point scoring. This is why Shabir i believe was million times better than deedat.
Jesus is the Messiah either. Point in fact would be me using anti-Muslim commentaries to debate faith Mulsims and consider their answers as relvent and factual.
Also, Shamir presents questional answers never factual evidence. Such as in the beginning he stated that the Torah wasnt finished by Moses and to suggest that it was finished by Joshua is presupposing that and then where did he start and finish, again no facts and it doesnt change anything w/o evidence. Loved the debate though. Peace.
Erm no, Shabir did not heavily relied upon anti-Christian commentaries..Scholars like Father Raymond Brown and others are well accepted in mainstream Christian circles..Maybe to strictly fundamentalist Christians, they would not be an accepted lot, then again, many fundamentalists still oppose modern bible translations and accept the KJV wholly without mistakes..
Thank you for your reply. I have done a quick study on Father Raymond Brown. What I have found is that one his opinion is based on a Catholic view which brings many problems into the veiw of a Protestant. 1. In Biblical interpretation and mainly the inerrancy of scripture. 2. His view on traditions in the church. 3. And mainly the fact that he questions scripture without stern facts to back his views. I would still refer to him as questionable. His statements prove that and other scolars do 2.
I could not watch all the video, but sounds like a good debate. Shabir Ally is an excellent presenter of the Muslim faith. I a a Christian and would ahve liked to see the presenting for the Christians know more of the Muslim faith. Dont get me wrong he nanswered well of the Christian asked questions and rebutals that Shamir presented. It seems that Shamir reads alot of liberal Christian commentaries. You really cant use these as relavent authors due to the fact they dont believe...
Just wanted to correct you there..Shabir's citations are mostly from contemporary Christian biblical schloars..They are in no way liberal..Maybe some of them are, but scholars like Father Raymond Brown, Dr James DG Dunn, Dr Bruce Metzger and others are accepted as mainstream scholars, and their views are held by many other scholars as well..Commentaries like The Living Bible, the New Jerusalem Bible and so on also shows mainstream and not liberal thoughts..
I have read up on Dr. James DG Dunn and did not like what I found. Seem he is part of a New Perspective of Paul. Or a Pauline Perpective. Basically, he views Pauls letters need to be changed, not focused on challenging the legalist Jews on salvation but challenging them about being elected or chosen. Again another person question scripture, if Pauls letters are to reinterpreted then where does it stop. Again not creatible. All your examples dont believe the Bible in w/out error.
this is how a PROPER scholarly debate should be. THis is the type of debate that is grounded in intellectual reason and not point scoring. This is why Shabir i believe was million times better than deedat.
shamvara 1 year ago
so according to John gilchrist Father is higher GOD than Jesus?
wasnt they suppose to be same God according to christian
xiaahmad 2 years ago
when authors are not known how can we know they were inspired
xiaahmad 2 years ago
shabir ally rocks
xiaahmad 2 years ago 2
Jesus is the Messiah either. Point in fact would be me using anti-Muslim commentaries to debate faith Mulsims and consider their answers as relvent and factual.
Also, Shamir presents questional answers never factual evidence. Such as in the beginning he stated that the Torah wasnt finished by Moses and to suggest that it was finished by Joshua is presupposing that and then where did he start and finish, again no facts and it doesnt change anything w/o evidence. Loved the debate though. Peace.
mkc1mdw 2 years ago
Erm no, Shabir did not heavily relied upon anti-Christian commentaries..Scholars like Father Raymond Brown and others are well accepted in mainstream Christian circles..Maybe to strictly fundamentalist Christians, they would not be an accepted lot, then again, many fundamentalists still oppose modern bible translations and accept the KJV wholly without mistakes..
peace
Acxxman 2 years ago
Thank you for your reply. I have done a quick study on Father Raymond Brown. What I have found is that one his opinion is based on a Catholic view which brings many problems into the veiw of a Protestant. 1. In Biblical interpretation and mainly the inerrancy of scripture. 2. His view on traditions in the church. 3. And mainly the fact that he questions scripture without stern facts to back his views. I would still refer to him as questionable. His statements prove that and other scolars do 2.
mkc1mdw 2 years ago
I could not watch all the video, but sounds like a good debate. Shabir Ally is an excellent presenter of the Muslim faith. I a a Christian and would ahve liked to see the presenting for the Christians know more of the Muslim faith. Dont get me wrong he nanswered well of the Christian asked questions and rebutals that Shamir presented. It seems that Shamir reads alot of liberal Christian commentaries. You really cant use these as relavent authors due to the fact they dont believe...
mkc1mdw 2 years ago
Just wanted to correct you there..Shabir's citations are mostly from contemporary Christian biblical schloars..They are in no way liberal..Maybe some of them are, but scholars like Father Raymond Brown, Dr James DG Dunn, Dr Bruce Metzger and others are accepted as mainstream scholars, and their views are held by many other scholars as well..Commentaries like The Living Bible, the New Jerusalem Bible and so on also shows mainstream and not liberal thoughts..
peace
Acxxman 2 years ago
I have read up on Dr. James DG Dunn and did not like what I found. Seem he is part of a New Perspective of Paul. Or a Pauline Perpective. Basically, he views Pauls letters need to be changed, not focused on challenging the legalist Jews on salvation but challenging them about being elected or chosen. Again another person question scripture, if Pauls letters are to reinterpreted then where does it stop. Again not creatible. All your examples dont believe the Bible in w/out error.
mkc1mdw 2 years ago