Who was Jesus? ( 1st Rebuttal - 3 of 5 )

[Oneforthe99]

nabeel is ignorant a fool and a big liar and christian missionaries 10 times his knowledge get humiliated so he is nothing! lol

[mustafagtgt]

Farhan made a awesome point about the distinction made between Spirit and flesh. Son of God therefore HAS to be interpreted as metapohoric representation and "Worshipping" therefore HAS to be interpreted as metaphoric representation.

They did not value the Flesh but they valued the Spiritual representation of the "Father" and NOT Jesus.

[Oneforthe99]

muslims are also followers of jesus (peace be upon him) so when jesus returns the muslims who will follow him will be uppermost, Doesnt nabeel realise quran says followers of jesus not the disciples of jesus (hawaiyoon) there is big and clear distinction between followers of jesus and disciples of jesus which dumb ignorant fool nabeel doesnt wish to consider!!

[mustafagtgt]

Those multiple sayings are only in John which is the LAST of the four Gospels.

[mustafagtgt]

Unity means a fusion of parts....whereas God was never divided to begin with. To say God was a unity is admitting that God is divisible.

God is solely ONE and the Jews have always believed this

[SUSTAIN22]

this debate hasn't been good so far, maybe because these guys are friends.

[romanali1]

I thought the Muslim brother performed excellently and raised some great arguments.

He was calm. He was raising intellectual points. He was trying to reach some common ground.

[SUSTAIN22]

Granted he made good points, but his rebuttal of Nabeel statements of the weakness of the Quran was very weak. Then again I have watched a few debates, only thing Christians can really debate is the historical factor which we all know is way off a lot of the time.

[romanali1]

You are right, he didn't mention anything about, for example, when the prophet pbuh was shocked by the first revelation experience, but I think that was because he wanted to stay on topic.

Nabeel was basically diverting the discussion away from the topic when he realised he couldn't refute the points of the logical contradictions.

I notice Nabeel did what David Wood does, ie just harp on about "historical evidence". Farhan was making the point that historicity doesn't guarantee accuracy. =)

[romanali1]

Anyway, I was impressed at how Farhan tried very hard tor each common ground. I think his goal was not to convert people on the spot, but rather to plant the seed in their mind that perhaps their version of events is not to be 100% trusted

... and of course it isn't to be.

Good debate all round. :-)

Both sides performed with character, even if Nabeel did the whole end-with-an-emotional-crescend­o thing.

[xiaahmad]

Knowing all knowing

Mortal Immortal

God yet Man

man yet God

All wise not all wise

Dependent and yet not dependent

that 100% God contradiction with 100% Man

[xiaahmad]

plus we have to remember bible is not one boook these are different books forced together

[xiaahmad]

The word used for worship can be used fot:

Angels, High Preist, God, Demons etc

so it more like in sense of honour

[xiaahmad]

if God become 100% Man then he have to let go the 100% GOD thing.

you cannot have 100% God and 100% Man stuff

[xiaahmad]

he start with I AM thing again but why only John recorded it why not other three gospels dont record them tat much