English
Authenticity First
833 posts
@Afirst05 @CaptainNoticer @muslimorthodoxy Are you retarded? Why did he contradict the tanakh when it depicted David as lying and he gave a completely different account.
English
You must be a retard to think I’ll come to Speakers Corner after what you thugs and hooligans did last night.
You are not normal buddy, you have mental issues. Stop your alcoholism, it almost got you knocked out last night
Chris At Speaker's Corner@SCApologia
@muslimorthodoxy told me he would debate me at speakers corner today. He said it multiple times on camera. I was there. He never showed up. Coward.
English
@tawus300 @CaptainNoticer @muslimorthodoxy Lol. trying to run away to strawmanning the Trinity. Pathetic. Address the point at hand. We can discuss how you believe in 99 gods later. Address why Allah actively led the apostles to preach a lie and didn’t have himself or Isa clarify. Deceptive false God.
English
@Afirst05 @CaptainNoticer @muslimorthodoxy Yeah it doesn't matter if they knew or not, neither would force them to worship three gods.
English
@tawus300 @CaptainNoticer @muslimorthodoxy Proving you didn’t read my response. The mishnah account is NOT considered😭😭😭 all you Jews and Muslims do is lie it’s crazy.
English
@Afirst05 @CaptainNoticer @muslimorthodoxy The Testimonium Flavinum isn't taken as historical and the Mishnah account is considered.
English
English
@tawus300 @CaptainNoticer @muslimorthodoxy Just wrong. Both were ambiguous in that they don’t have to be talking about MASS corruption, as the Quran itself says not all ahlul kitab are the same. ‘Baked’ you’re a dawah bot. Again, 2:79 can’t even feasibly be used to prove your position
‘Consensus’ isn’t one person, idiot.
English
@Afirst05 @CaptainNoticer @muslimorthodoxy No. Mass textual corruption was already a position. Neither were ambiguous you're just lying cuause you got baked. One is commentating on 2:79 and understood it to be a textual corruption. And the letter is accepted as authentic by the latest scholarship consensus by Sean anthony
English
@tawus300 @CaptainNoticer @muslimorthodoxy Again. 2:79 is referencing a group of Jews. So this cannot be used to reliably prove that it was the majority view that both Jews and Christians all mass corrupted every text to the point that no texts we have are reliable.
English
English
@tawus300 @CaptainNoticer @muslimorthodoxy You didn’t send me Ibn Abbas, liar. His commentary of 3:78 says that one can’t alter a book of Allah, he can just distort it’s apparent meaning (with their tongue qua 3:78). You retard. I already addressed why it being ai doesn’t matter in this case. Appeal to Sean Anthony, lol.
English
@Afirst05 @CaptainNoticer @muslimorthodoxy Retard I just showed you many scholars that affirmed corruption including Ibn Abbas and you conceded on cope. Don't show me AI when Sean Anthony already affirmed it's authenticity.
English
@Ttdgthreg28561 @InspiringPhilos You’re not even paying attention to my argument. In the 7th century during the Quran’s recitation, Christians couldn’t externally verify that Daniel 2 or 7 for example was supposedly about Muhammad lol. They’re told to verify him via their books. Explain how without ⭕️ reasoning.
English
@Afirst05 @InspiringPhilos Since a prophecy is divine in nature,if it maps out in reality then that means it goes back to a divine source
We can externally verify prophecies and observe their fulfillment in reality,that means we can beleive in the one it points too without assuming any beleif
English
@Ttdgthreg28561 @InspiringPhilos This is cope projection. Isaiah is within the context of coal getting placed on his lips by a seraphim, not any old stone that isn’t even coal. Isaiah didn’t go up and kiss it either.
‘U see how stupid u sound’ - guy defending kissing a black pagan stone. Idc what u believe.
English
@Afirst05 @InspiringPhilos So let me get this straight🤣🤣
Muslims kissing a stone is bad but isaiah kissing a coal which caused his sins to be forgiven is okay
U see how stupid u sound
Its literally the same thing dumbass
"But the coal is from altar by a seraphim"
And we also beleive its from heaven🤣🤣
English
@tawus300 @CaptainNoticer @muslimorthodoxy This is not addressing my point. You’re arguing from a Muslim position, where you believe the apostles of Jesus were Muslims and loyal to Him. So explain to me why Allah actively made it appear as if Jesus was crucified and never clarified to Jesus’ loyal apostles.
English
@tawus300 @CaptainNoticer @muslimorthodoxy I see. You’re still not getting it. The historical consensus is that the creed cited in Corinthians was received from Peter and James. That’s taken by even atheist scholars as external corroboration. The apostles believed and preached the resurrection.
English
@Afirst05 @CaptainNoticer @muslimorthodoxy Naturally we know every gospel came after the Pauline claim. I’m asking in Paul’s claim of the 500 witnesses if there’s any external corroboration
English
@tawus300 @CaptainNoticer @muslimorthodoxy You should look further into the Josephus case. Read the book by Thomas Schmidt. I’ll link a pdf if you’d like. No historian takes the Talmud account as historical lmao.
Pretty much all historians agree that Jesus was crucified. Stop coping.
English
@Afirst05 @CaptainNoticer @muslimorthodoxy I just showed you hard proof why there’s no consensus of the historicity of the crucifixion
English
English
English
@tawus300 @CaptainNoticer @muslimorthodoxy I said the first one to categorically argue mass textual corruption. Of the examples you cited, two are ambiguous and simply could be referring to the specific people and addressed not every manuscript, one is commentating on 2:79 and also could be specific and one is a forgery.
English
@Afirst05 @CaptainNoticer @muslimorthodoxy I think you’re just being braindead on purpose now after being rebutted on these claims that Ibn Hazm was the only first one to hold to textual corruption, then when I showed the receipts of it being a massly transmitted early view you reject it like a nonce.
English
English
@tawus300 @CaptainNoticer @muslimorthodoxy Yeah, ibn Qutaybah. But I can cite people who would argue 2:79 is referencing things like the Talmud. Especially considering 2:80.
English
@Afirst05 @CaptainNoticer @muslimorthodoxy Okay so it’s about textual corruption. And it isn’t about the Talmud. Ibn Qutaybah understood the verse to mean textual corruption
English
@tawus300 @CaptainNoticer @muslimorthodoxy Before you cry about it being ai, the ai is just telling you the scholars who believe it’s a later forgery written by Christian polemicists.
I can send you 8 early Muslims (9 if you include ibn Abbas) that believed the text of the Jews and Christians was preserved.
English
@Afirst05 @CaptainNoticer @muslimorthodoxy Nobody else disagrees what’re you on about name one person that believes this letter isn’t historical
And no lol I just showed you 4 others who affirmed textual corruption. Stop trolling
English
@tawus300 @CaptainNoticer @muslimorthodoxy I don’t care about Muslim scholars. I’m talking about scholarly consensus overall. Of course there’s a historical consensus on the crucifixion😭😭😭 flat out lies
English
@Afirst05 @CaptainNoticer @muslimorthodoxy I’m not talking about scholars, I’m talking about the Muslim Scholars. Even then, there’s not a consensus about the crucifixition. The dubious reports in Josephus and the vagueness of Tacitus alongside the Mishnah all convey a different story of the crucifixion
English
@tawus300 @CaptainNoticer @muslimorthodoxy That is the pre Pauline creed. That’s external to the Gospel though it is quoted/paraphrased in it.
English
English