Cheat Engine :: View topic - I 100% whole heartedly miss Clifford

Cheat Engine
The Official Site of Cheat Engine

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

I 100% whole heartedly miss Clifford
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

Cheat Engine Forum Index -> Random spam

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

HackOtaku
I posted the 500000th topic

Reputation: 81

Joined: 31 May 2007
Posts: 228

Posted: Sun Oct 20, 2019 9:20 am Post subject:

greatsage wrote:

HackOtaku wrote:

greatsage wrote:

HackOtaku wrote:

I only dump links because you've already said you view anything I say as being too uninformed to be correct. If my words are too uninformed, what choice do I have but to use others? If you refuse to listen to mine and also refuse to regard the links I have to other's words, then it is clear you do not wish to listen at all.

i have asked you repeatedly to respond in your own way.
do you not speak english? what kind of cop-out is this?

Quote:

i have years of belief in this scripture behind me, years of practice, and you can not fairly compare my knowledge of your religion with your knowledge of mine. in the time you have went to Christianity, there is no way you could have assumed thorough knowledge of Islam or Christianity.

If that's your assessment, you give me no choice but to reference other people.

where exactly did i say "you've already said you view anything I say as being too uninformed to be correct"?

i only said you did not have thorough knowledge. you are apparently putting words in my mouth again. and here you are still arguing about this, instead of addressing what you have been asked, multiple times, to give your own address on the contention.

So you believe I do not have through knowledge, but refuse to allow me to reference people with better knowledge. The answers you seek are there in the links provided. They say it better than I can. It's up to you to accept the truth about Jesus.

finnegan waking up
How do I cheat?

Reputation: 13

Joined: 05 Aug 2014
Posts: 0

Posted: Sun Oct 20, 2019 9:27 am Post subject:

HackOtaku wrote:

greatsage wrote:

HackOtaku wrote:

greatsage wrote:

HackOtaku wrote:

i have asked you repeatedly to respond in your own way.
do you not speak english? what kind of cop-out is this?

Quote:

If that's your assessment, you give me no choice but to reference other people.

[Qur'an 17:81] "Truth has come, and falsehood has departed. Indeed is falsehood, [by nature], ever bound to depart."

God knows better on this matter than any man.

[Qur'an 5:116] And [beware the Day] when Allah will say,
"O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, 'Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah ?'"
He will say, "Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen.

the fallacy you are committing here is an appeal to authority. and you are using it to cop out of offering an actual rebuttal, which i have done, and which i clearly and repeatedly asked you to do. it is clear that you don't have one, otherwise you would offer it.

(1 Peter 3:15) Always be prepared to give a defense to everyone who asks you the reason for the hope you possess. But respond with gentleness and respect
clearly, you can not uphold this commandment.

then, when i asked you "where did you say what words you are attributing to me", you refuse even this challenge. every single challenge you have refused to meet. it is clear that i did not say those things, but rather i said you are learned in christianity. simply not thoroughly. to object when you are obviously not a scholar -- to be offended at the truth? this is pure arrogance

>the answers you seek are there in the links provided
as i said, if there were any answers you would have provided them on your own as requested. but there aren't. every single contention i have offered either a direct response or a scholarly rebuttal in my own link. which you have refused to address

moreover, the objections in the links i have provided are not addressed in your links, but your links' accusations are thoroughly addressed in the links i have provided. i have addressed them personally, as well.

call-to-monotheism.com/john_8_58__by_biblical_unitarian_and_wrested_scriptures

bismikaallahuma.org/bible/i-am-what-i-am-a-bible-commentary/

callingchristians.com/2014/02/27/the-problem-of-john-858-for-christianity/

facebook.com/callingchristians/videos/430336287543595/

HackOtaku
I posted the 500000th topic

Reputation: 81

Joined: 31 May 2007
Posts: 228

Posted: Sun Oct 20, 2019 9:38 am Post subject:

I have offered my defense. If you view it as insufficient, then that is your business. The difference in the "I am" was explained well in the reddit post. He was claiming divinity, and I believe that based on what I have read. I do not find your arguments against that statement to be sufficient either.

finnegan waking up
How do I cheat?

Reputation: 13

Joined: 05 Aug 2014
Posts: 0

Posted: Sun Oct 20, 2019 9:41 am Post subject:

HackOtaku wrote:

I have offered my defense. If you view it as insufficient, then that is your business. The difference in the "I am" was explained well in the reddit post. He was claiming divinity, and I believe that based on what I have read. I do not find your arguments against that statement to be sufficient either.

you haven't offered your defense, you have offered links that are thoroughly rebuked by what i have offered prior. links that even present arguments and problems that are not touched on by any of your material.

when you are repeatedly asked to demonstrate what your defense is, you refuse.

further, you fixate on this one issue, while actively avoiding addressing any of the other disagreements.

you have not provided a defense that has not been laid to rest, you simply have shut your eyes from the rebuttal i have given, and refused repeated requests to present your own defense, even making up lies to defend yourself.

your argument doesn't even hold for "I am" against my disagreements; one such being that many of the Gospels as well as the most ancient manuscripts did not use “I AM” in John 8:58, and it has a long history of being translated and interpreted differently. (this means you are clearly wrong or uneducated to say that there is zero confusion on this)
your desperate reddit link even incorrectly says that Jesus says something similar in Revelations -- when the bible and scholars clearly show that it was not Jesus, but God making this statement (according to the anonymous authors who wrote it at least).

furthermore, as the trinity was developed hundreds of years after Jesus, and the disciples and earliest Christians were all ignorant of the trinity, there can be no doubt that the early Christians did not understand these verses this way, but that this interpretation came later.
this is supported further by the narration being absent from the other synoptic gospels, and is only in the youngest document, John, which came much later (around the beginning of the second century). clearly no early Christians accepted what you make necessary to know salvation.

you have not even addressed how this statement presents a problem of a logical dilemma for the trinity. that is because you have not attempted to address any of the objections (perhaps you do not understand them). you have only dishonestly attempted to avoid doing so.

Channel GannoK
pffrt

Reputation: 130

Joined: 12 Apr 2008
Posts: 608

Posted: Sun Oct 20, 2019 10:55 am Post subject:

To clarify, I dont hate ANY religion, to hate something is to not understand it. I understand it very well, that's why I make fun of religion, and people who are obsessed with it. How else would I get you to make giant walls of text defending your idol child fiddler? Dont get things mixed up, you're the one with the insane undeniable and unverifiable claims. At what point can you understand that no one in their right mind, would convert to a religion, any religion really. Conversion comes from fear. Fear that if you dont do specific things a formless entity in the sky will send you to hell, or jahanam or whatever BDSM themed sex party you religious people obsess over. _________________

br0l0ck
Cheater

Reputation: 63

Joined: 15 Aug 2007
Posts: 36

Posted: Sun Oct 20, 2019 11:03 am Post subject:

Channel GannoK wrote:

To clarify, I dont hate ANY religion, to hate something is to not understand it. I understand it very well, that's why I make fun of religion, and people who are obsessed with it. How else would I get you to make giant walls of text defending your idol child fiddler? Dont get things mixed up, you're the one with the insane undeniable and unverifiable claims.

At what point can you understand that no one in their right mind, would convert to a religion, any religion really. Conversion comes from fear. Fear that if you dont do specific things a formless entity in the sky will send you to hell, or jahanam or whatever BDSM themed sex party you religious people obsess over.

Fear of the unknown, which science has no explanation for, makes someone out of their right mind? You dont think it could be therapeutic or comforting to believe in a higher power while still being a sane and sensible person? I'm not religious either, but I think saying anyone that becomes religious is insane is farfetched. Some people want more order to their lives as well, or they want an easy moral framework, both of which religion provides and I dont think that wanting those things without adhering to some moral philosophy makes someone insane.

I think most people would be better off with a stoic world view and a Kantian moral framework, but unfortunately most societies don't allow for this because of poor education. This is why we end up with degenerate atheists that are doing immoral things, destroying family units and family values, and are generally living unhappy and end up turning to drugs or mass media escapism.

Channel GannoK
pffrt

Reputation: 130

Joined: 12 Apr 2008
Posts: 608

Posted: Sun Oct 20, 2019 5:27 pm Post subject:

Brolock wrote:

Channel GannoK wrote:

Quote:

Fear of the unknown, which science has no explanation for, makes someone out of their right mind?

Yes because the choices that individual makes, potentially even for the rest of their lifes(PTSD, Trauma, etc) can be influenced by that same exact fear or experience. Fear of the unknown can apply to any wild imagination, and create realities to those impressionable enough, despite of the lack of evidence and support of others telling you it's going to be okay. We live. We die.

Quote:

You don't think it could be therapeutic or comforting to believe in a higher power while still being a sane and sensible person?

Life isn't comforting. People that need therapy are victims, and if you live with a victim complex, you will never feel any sort of comfort in life EVER, whether that's mentally or physically, because they are connected and influence each other so much.

Quote:

they want an easy, moral framework

In most situations, You cant have an easy AND moral framework, because of the drastic nature and wide variety of choices people can make and how it impacts their immediate and distant future.

Quote:

most people would be better off with a stoic world view and a Kantian moral framework

most people would be, but there is no cure to the human condition. People obsess over death and what could be a POSSIBILITY more than they do their own life and CAN be done, right now.

Want a better fighting chance at education for the coming generation of lil Pump Stans in beating the south koreans? Vote for Bernie Sanders, Green Party, or a Libertarian. Democrats and Republicans want to change history books and social constructs, rather than improve them.
_________________

finnegan waking up
How do I cheat?

Reputation: 13

Joined: 05 Aug 2014
Posts: 0

Posted: Sun Oct 20, 2019 8:31 pm Post subject:

HackOtaku wrote:

i checked your reddit link too, and it's a veritable lie. it comes down to claiming "it's an indirect reference, because they can translate similarly" -- "the greek can be translated to have a similar meaning to the translation of Exodus 3:14"

and goes on to make an argument as such:

Quote:

I'll give definitions for each word in the Greek and the Hebrew:

אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה "I am"

אֲשֶׁ֣ר "That/Which"

אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה "I am"

biblehub.com/hebrew/ehyeh_1961.htm

Ehyeh means "I will be", so this desperate attempt is flat out incorrect. as far as i can tell, the book of ruth is the only place this is translated "I am", the original poster clearly doesn't understand what they're saying. this is simply a fallacy of false equivocation.

all of the other claims by God in the old testament are direct and indisputable, so there is no good foundation whatsoever for divinity in a claim with no convincing evidence or direct testimony.
worse, it is a statement that you can not authenticate or verify as coming from Jesus, but only as being attributed to Jesus through a manuscript from an anonymous author-- written decades later from hearsay, not eyewitnesses.
a claim to divinity should not have such a shaky foundation but rather should be indisputable and exact, not vague and indirect.
the claim does not hold up to scrutiny, and a statement of "I am"/"I have" can not be taken as evidence of being God (there is no reason to do so), especially as God is not known only through indirect inference or paraphrased references to prior claims. God has no problem saying in clear terms that He is God, and there is not a single statement where Jesus does such a thing.

>Not only that, but the entire account of His life points to this
funny to say this, when you don't have an entire account of Jesus' life, or even a record/testimony of his life contemporary with him.
but we do have such a thing for Muhammad ﷺ, and this is established. that is why historians have some doubt Jesus existed, but know that Muhammad ﷺ is the only Prophet in historical record, and who is attested to contemporary sources.
the only sources you claim for Jesus are in dispute with each other, and a house divided against itself can not stand.

Brolock wrote:

moral framework

here an interesting article you may like
themuslimtheist.com/the-atheists-are-more-moral-argument/

Channel Gannok wrote:

I understand it very well, that's why I make fun of religion,

actually, you don't understand religion or islam and that has been markedly and repeatedly demonstrated by you. you have simply closed your mind out of arrogance and hatred, and there is no use for such backwards ignorance.
>Fear that if you dont do specific things a formless entity in the sky will send you to hell, or jahanam or whatever

yeah, so, you clearly just again showed you don't understand what our religion teaches. not only is Allah not an entity in the sky, but you are not punished with Jahannam for "not doing specific things". in fact, there are many people who do not have belief in God that will be admitted into paradise; it is simply that paradise is guaranteed for the believers who do good.

>Dont get things mixed up, you're the one with the insane undeniable and unverifiable claims.
this is poisoning the well to avoid addressing claims of yours that have been denied by verifiable evidence, and rational rebuttal
in short, you are publicly humiliating yourself to anyone who can reasonably discern any amount of truth. clearly you don't think others are capable, due to projecting your incapability.

>At what point can you understand that no one in their right mind, would convert to a religion, any religion really.
people who are greater minds than both of us are theists. really, society mostly consists of theists. so you are saying you have no familiarity with your fellow man beyond your obsession to abuse and lament their differences

the humiliation is yours, both in this life and the next. way to completely disregard where you were proven wrong just to name call. clearly you have some strange obsession with religion and religious people, and no one thinks you are of a sound mind and rational disposition.
no wonder then you continue to make fun of yourself

HackOtaku
I posted the 500000th topic

Reputation: 81

Joined: 31 May 2007
Posts: 228

Posted: Sun Oct 20, 2019 9:15 pm Post subject:

https://exodus-314.com/exodus-314-in-christianity/exodus-314-in-the-gospels/ This is a work with plenty of references by a Jewish scholar who rejects Christ on the basis of his belief that Exodus 3:14 is sufficient evidence against the Trinity. This is someone who has a much better understanding than me on the languages, and I would suspect has a better understand than you do as well. He still points out that Jesus was claiming divinity with His words.

finnegan waking up
How do I cheat?

Reputation: 13

Joined: 05 Aug 2014
Posts: 0

Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 12:14 am Post subject:

greatsage wrote:

HackOtaku wrote:

greatsage wrote:

HackOtaku wrote:

Quote:

I'll give definitions for each word in the Greek and the Hebrew:

אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה "I am"

אֲשֶׁ֣ר "That/Which"

אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה "I am"

still not addressing any of the points, i guess because you are not capable. still, your link doesn't address the disputes or refutations or offer anything new.

Br. Erik bin Kisam wrote:

bloggingtheology.net/2016/11/17/ehyeh-aser-ehyeh-al-azaly-alladzi-la-yazulu-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%a3%d8%b2%d9%84%d9%8a-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%b0%d9%8a-%d9%84%d8%a7-%d9%8a%d8%b2%d9%88%d9%84-rabbi-saadiah-ben-yosef-gaon/
In Exodus/Shemot 3:14prophet Moses asked God what is His name, then God said to him Ehyeh ašer ehyeh אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה. The common English translation of this enigmatic phrase is: “I am what I am“, often contracted in English as “I AM” and often thought as one of God’s name. I probably think that the most literal translation of its meaning phrase from hebrew is “I Shall Be What I Shall Be“.

However one may wonder what this God’s Name really is? I would like draw the reader attention to the works of the great Rabbi Saadia Gaon ben Yosef (882-942) or Saʻīd bin Yūsuf al-Fayyūmi also known by the acronym “Rasag” who is the most famous Gaonic sage, a great Talmudic scholar, philosopher and hebrew grammarian.

In his Arabic translation of the Torah in Exodus 3 :14 he translated Ehyeh ašer ehyeh as “Al Azāly alladzī lā yazūlu” الأزلي الذي لا يزول which means

“The eternal which never perishes“

It is evident that Rashag and Rashbam rendering of the verse do away with any possibility that God is one being in Three Persons. The entirety of the existence of God is that He shall always be eternal. The trinitarian truth claims that Jesus was begotten was then invalidated. God is always ONE unseparated exclusive PERSON the ONE who never ceases to exist therefore who absolutely do not die. If there is existence that ‘eternity’ belongs to, then there is ONE who exists and will aways exist, never begotten . If there is ONE who never perishes , then there is only ONE who does. No other “personages” can be introduced.

Thus He Shall Be What He Shall Be: “The Eternal”.

here is a jewish revert to islam who clarifies that Exodus 3:14 has no relation to John 8:58.

again you can not authenticate what was actually said by Jesus, if it was even actually said. nor do you have the author to explain the meaning, so you are distorting the words of the author and of Jesus.
the clearest meaning is therefore the most straightforward, upon the clearest evidence, and without contradiction -- which is simply that Jesus was not claiming divinity, but stating that he had seen Abraham (thus the entire sentence and discussion matter., and the numerous Christian translations that render the conversation as such)

Quote:

web.archive.org/web/20170326220036/https://unveiling-christianity.net/2016/03/27/examination-john-85659-exodus-31314/
According to Driver’s view, the future verb ‘eheye’ in both Exodus 3:12 and 3:14 does not convey an ontological conception or description of God and this is in line with Rashi’s view.
No doubt Onkelos, another notable Rabbinical exegete, interprets Exodus 3:14 as revealing God’s ‘shem’ (name), but we feel that Rashi and Driver are more justified in their interpretation.
If ‘eheye’ is truly the name of God, then Exodus 4:15, which says, “You shall speak to him and put the words in his mouth, and I will be with your mouth and with his mouth and will teach you both what to do.” wouldn’t make much sense. The context is the appointment of Aaron as Moses’ spokesperson by God and so God says that “I will be with your mouth…I will teach you what you are to do.”
It has nothing to do with God’s identity. It has everything to do with putting someone in charge by God’s decree and His instructions as to how things will be. And if it was really God’s name, then a human being has no business using it for himself, but the verb is used numerous times for and by human beings throughout the Old Testament (cf. Judges 11:9; Ruth 2:13; 2 Samuel 7:14).

In the foregoing discussion and careful examination of John 8:56-59 and Exodus 3:12-14, we have seen that the Trinitarian interpretation in hopes of deifying Jesus is founded upon translated texts that are reeked with inconsistencies.
We have also meticulously examined the contexts of those texts and have come to the conclusion that they do not in any way propel a Trinitarian view.
And finally, upon careful consideration of the John and Exodus texts, we do not feel that the Trinitarian has a leg to stand on when they attempt to connect the two.
There is no basis or even an allusion in John 8 to support that Trinitarian connection. And the final nail in the coffin of the Trinitarian interpretation of Exodus 3:14 is hammered down by Christian translations themselves as they translate ‘eheye’ correctly in the future tense as “I will be” in Exodus 3:12.

and here is yet another refutation you will simply refuse to address. there is no good evidence to claim that Jesus was claiming divinity, and you actively avoid doing so.
you do not even seem to profess whether or not you support the trinity, especially if your whole basis for the trinity relies on an explanation and justification that negates it

accordingly, though -- you think The Eternal, the Everliving, the One Who Does Not Perish, the Self-Subsisting -- is limited, subjugated, humiliated, and died. there is nothing holy about such a lie against God or His servant whom never claimed such a thing. the Jews understand that Exodus 3:14 is completely incompatible with what you are asserting with Jesus -- and by making the assertion, you are demonstrating that you do not understand what God was claiming in Exodus.

Quote:

jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11305-names-of-god
Of the names of God in the Old Testament, that which occurs most frequently (6,823 times) is the so-called Tetragrammaton, Yhwh , the distinctive personal name of the God of Israel.
This name is commonly represented in modern translations by the form "Jehovah," which, however, is a philological impossibility (see Jehovah). This form has arisen through attempting to pronounce the consonants of the name with the vowels of Adonai ( = "Lord"), which the Masorites have inserted in the text, indicating thereby that Adonai was to be read (as a "ḳeri perpetuum") instead of Yhwh. When the name Adonai itself precedes, to avoid repetition of this name, Yhwh is written by the Masorites with the vowels of Elohim, in which case Elohim is read instead of Yhwh.
In consequence of this Masoretic reading the authorized and revised English versions (though not the American edition of the revised version) render Yhwh by the word "Lord" in the great majority of cases.

This name, according to the narrative in Exodus 3 (E), was made known to Moses in a vision at Horeb. In another, parallel narrative (Ex. vi. 2, 3, P) it is stated that the name was not known to the Patriarchs. It is used by one of the documentary sources of Genesis (J), but scarcely if at all by the others. Its use is avoided by some later writers also. It does not occur in Ecclesiastes, and in Daniel is found only in ch. ix. The writer of Chronicles shows a preference for the form Elohim, and in Ps. xlii.-lxxxiii. Elohim occurs much more frequently than Yhwh, probably having been substituted in some places for the latter name, as in Ps. liii. (comp. Ps. xiv.).

In appearance, Yhwh is the third person singular imperfect "ḳal" of the verb ("to be"), meaning, therefore, "He is," or "He will be," or, perhaps, "He lives," the root idea of the word being,probably, "to blow," "to breathe," and hence, "to live." With this explanation agrees the meaning of the name given in Ex. iii. 14, where God is represented as speaking, and hence as using the first person—"I am" (, from , the later equivalent of the archaic stem).
The meaning would, therefore, be "He who is self-existing, self-sufficient," or, more concretely, "He who lives," the abstract conception of pure existence being foreign to Hebrew thought.
There is no doubt that the idea of life was intimately connected with the name Yhwh from early times. He is the living God, as contrasted with the lifeless gods of the heathen, and He is the source and author of life (comp. I Kings xviii.; Isa. xli. 26-29, xliv. 6-20; Jer. x. 10, 14; Gen. ii. 7; etc.). So familiar is this conception of God to the Hebrew mind that it appears in the common formula of an oath, "ḥai Yhwh" (= "as Yhwh lives"; Ruth iii. 13; I Sam. xiv. 45; etc.).

at least we do not say that Jesus died, but you can not say that "He who lives eternally" has died, that the Source and Sustainer of all creation and life has died, and that the Self-Existing is begotten of creation (a woman) and even dependent on it.
God protect us from such lies, and we seek refuge in Him in His eternal perfection.

(Acts 3:13)

His servant Jesus

(Acts 2:22)

Jesus of Nazareth was a man

which God did among you through him

clearly Jesus saw himself as separate and sent from God, and that His God was Our God, and that his relationship with God as a "Father" was not literal, but the same for him as for us.
and, clearly, the earliest Christians understood this -- if they thought Jesus was God, like you claim Jesus made apparent in John 8:58, they would say Jesus as God did these miracles himself.
they knew him as another creation of God

(Acts 2:36)

God has made this Jesus,

(John 20:17)

I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

this is made plain in the old testament, which the Jews are familiar that the phrasing is a colloquialism, not a literal statement

(Deuteronomy 14:1)

and no wonder, because Jesus makes it clear in direct words of his own, that he was a man.

(John 8:40)

to kill me, a man

I heard from God.”

God does not call himself a man, rather, the opposite. and Jesus says that he heard this from God -- that God delivered it to him, a man.

(Numbers 23:19)

God is not a man

(1 Samuel 15:29)

He is not a man, that He should change His mind.

(Hosea 11:9)

For I am God and not man— the Holy One among you—

(Job 9:32-33)

For He[God] is not a man like me,

Nor is there a mediator between us, to lay his hand upon us both.

tellmeaboutislam.com/90-verses-jesus-is-not-god.html

and here are 90 verses from the Bible, in them are certain statements where Jesus contradicts the very idea that he is God.

HackOtaku
I posted the 500000th topic

Reputation: 81

Joined: 31 May 2007
Posts: 228

Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 6:04 am Post subject:

Your points have been addressed, you just keep saying they haven't. If you want to say "you can't prove what Jesus said", then why do you follow the new testament at all? The most straightforward, upon the clearest evidence, and without contradiction explanation is Jesus's claim to divinity. I have given you plenty of refutations by people more knowledgeable than myself. Islam's entire belief system is based around bringing Jesus down to elevate Muhammad, so of course they deny His divinity, just like they deny He was crucified, and just like they claim Muhammad was perfect like Jesus. The bottom line though, is that the context of what was happening, other statements He said "You are from below, I am from above. You are of this world; I am not ot this world" as well as His lack of a predicate nomiative when He said it all points to the same thing. Your objections regarding "ehyeh" are flimsy at best. The rest of your objections come from ignorance about the hypostatic union. Things like "God doesn't sleep ". Jesus was both man and God. Is God not capable of becoming flesh?

finnegan waking up
How do I cheat?

Reputation: 13

Joined: 05 Aug 2014
Posts: 0

Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 9:32 am Post subject:

HackOtaku wrote:

Your points have been addressed, you just keep saying they haven't.

If you want to say "you can't prove what Jesus said", then why do you follow the new testament at all? The most straightforward, upon the clearest evidence, and without contradiction explanation is Jesus's claim to divinity. I have given you plenty of refutations by people more knowledgeable than myself. Islam's entire belief system is based around bringing Jesus down to elevate Muhammad, so of course they deny His divinity, just like they deny He was crucified, and just like they claim Muhammad was perfect like Jesus.

The bottom line though, is that the context of what was happening, other statements He said "You are from below, I am from above. You are of this world; I am not ot this world" as well as His lack of a predicate nomiative when He said it all points to the same thing. Your objections regarding "ehyeh" are flimsy at best.

The rest of your objections come from ignorance about the hypostatic union. Things like "God doesn't sleep ". Jesus was both man and God.

Is God not capable of becoming flesh?

>Your points have been addressed, you just keep saying they haven't.
this is literally a lie. i have asked you to do so and you have refused. i have contrasted your links with mine-- your links do not answer any of mine, but mine approach your claims.
if you want to actually give a response showing how they are refuted, then by all means, finally do so.
in reality, you have not addressed any of the points, and avoid doing so -- you just keep saying that you have

>If you want to say "you can't prove what Jesus said", then why do you follow the new testament at all?
lol ? who said Muslims follow the new testament ? i have actually told you numerous times that the new testament is not something we hinge any of our religion on, because the Qur'an is evidence enough to confirm the existence of God, and to know Him and His religion, and to confirm the prior prophets. we do not need the new testament or the bible, it is that the bible is confirmed and safeguarded from further corruption by our religion.

>The most straightforward, upon the clearest evidence, and without contradiction explanation is Jesus's claim to divinity.
that is not straightforward, as i have ATTEMPTED TO GET YOU TO DISCUSS, or present SOME EVIDENCE FOR, but you literally just paste a link and pretend "it is apparent and obvious", then say it is a "truth", while regarding literally none of the objections i have personally presented.
this is not how a truth is established.

moreover, there are clear contradictions that have not been addressed, but rather handwaved by axioms necessary for your conjecture to begin to function. there are even contradictions all over your new testament and even more made by the assertion that Jesus is divine. that is because your new testament is the work of men, full of fabrications and interpolations, and the work of people removed from ever witnessing the events purported.

take for example:

(Ephesians 1:4)

so here you see we all were known to God before the world -- clearly if this can be said, then it can be said that before Jesus or Abraham was born, as they were both chosen by God, they may have had some relationship or knowledge of each other. this is also in line with Jeremiah 1:5, and so the idea that Jesus is claiming to have some existence of which to know Abraham prior, i.e., before birth being set apart, is not a new idea, but rather one that the Jews were familiar with.

i think in all fairness, you should admit there are enough clear objections here to reasonably have to intuit the difference some other way as to what Jesus said -- as it is not a concrete enough statement to hinge salvation or definite knowledge upon (otherwise, God failed in communicating His salvation by allowing it to be translated and interpreted in a way as to say Jesus is not divine, but rather he has seen Abraham).
if it were not possible to interpret it as being anything else but a claim to divinity, then it would be similar to every statement prior God made Himself known by.
however, i have shown you that Christians have always translated this verse to mean many different things, with the most reasonable and removed from scriptural contradiction, and removed from contradiction of Jesus' own words, that Jesus is clearly stating in context to the conversation that he has seen Abraham before.

all while you are disregarding every single contrary assertion.

if it was straight forward, clear evidence, there would not be any disagreement in translations, or numerous different opinions on this, especially by Christians.

> I have given you plenty of refutations by people more knowledgeable than myself.
K. LOL.
no, you haven't. you have given DOCTRINES AND CLAIMS, and these claims are what i have presented rebuttals to. you have not addressed any of these rebuttals in any form.

what you are really saying AND demonstrating is that you believe blindly what you have insufficient knowledge of to understand or even intelligently present/defend to rational analysis.

>Islam's entire belief system is based
you are acting in pure ignorance and arrogance to tell me what our belief system is based around with absolutely no comprehensive study, and after saying a statement that clearly dismisses you from ever being an authority who could reasonably define what our belief system is.
you demonstrated your ignorance by saying we follow the new testament -- there was no such thing in the life of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ as a new testament that the muslims followed, as there was no translation for hundreds of years after.

>bringing down Jesus
that is what you are doing by saying he said things he never said, and even saying that he was cursed to die a humiliating punishment, and died naked and tortured.
you say he prayed so hard to be saved by God, that he bled blood. and you say that God can not be just without an innocent and brutal sacrifice of Jesus.
and still, you pray to Jesus, but you believe that the righteous Jesus' prayers are not answered by God Almighty.

we say that Jesus came to teach us better than this, and promised us better than this, and was higher than this so much so that God heard him and saved him, and raised him alive to Himself.
God can forgive by His own grace and almighty mercy. He does not require Jesus to do it; as God is without partner. God is above being limited to incapability to forgive, and God is above being limited to imperfection and injustice.

it is rather that this, and more, you are bringing down Jesus with your conjecture,
and you do it further by rejecting the one whom he prophecised would guide into all truth, whom would reprove you for not believing in Jesus.
to obey Jesus is to obey the one he said would come after and guide you, which is Muhammad ﷺ. otherwise, you are rejecting Jesus' guidance and the guidance of the One who sent him.

>to elevate
you are making a lie against God to elevate Jesus!
and you do this to elevate yourself by your creeds, to say it is done by God to make you become God!
[Qur'an 5:17] They have certainly disbelieved who say that God is Christ, the son of Mary. Say, "Then who could prevent God at all if He had intended to destroy Christ, the son of Mary, or his mother or everyone on the earth?"
And to God belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and whatever is between them. He creates what He wills, and God is over all things competent.
[Qur'an 19:93] There is no one in the heavens and earth but that he comes to the Most Merciful as a servant.

>The bottom line though, is that the context of what was happening,
what was happening? where the Jews were asking whether he had seen Abraham before, and Jesus said "truly I have seen Abraham"? did you even read the context?
how about you are saying the Jews are claiming he is claiming divinity -- something that can not clearly be reasoned from scripture -- and saying the Jews are telling the truth that Jesus said he was God -- when Jesus just denounced them as liars.
so your statement relies on a claim from liars while denying context of the conversation, context from scripture, etc.

>other statements He said
oh you mean like the ones clearly contrary to the trinity that have been presented which you won't touch on?

>He said "You are from below, I am from above. You are of this world; I am not ot this world"
God isn't from, God is. this statement is not contrary to any bit of Islam, and it holds true for the prophets.
you are limiting to God to space and time while God is unlimited.
in Islam, we accept that Jesus is a spirit and a word sent from God that became flesh, and this statement is in agreement with it.

what exactly is your claim here, anyways?

(John 8:23)

this Jesus says about those who follow him, too.

(John 17:14-16)

they are not of the world any more than I am of the world

They are not of the world, just as I am not of this world(ego ouk eimi ek tou kosmou).

Jesus is defining other people in the same way he defined himself as "not of this world"; it is not a claim to divinity, otherwise you are saying Jesus is claiming his followers are God too.

>as well as His lack of a predicate nomiative when He said it all points to the same thing.
explain what you mean? are you saying a predicate nominative is something absent from God or required of Him? there are many predicate nominatives attributed to Jesus, none are claims to divinity. there are many attributed to God in the old testament as well.

perhaps you are saying because there is not a predicate nominative in "Truly I tell you, I have" in John 8:58, it must be a claim to divinity?
there is not a predicate nominative necessary to arrive at Jesus claiming to have seen Abraham with this statement, so if an absence of predicate nominative is all you need to validate a claim to divinity, the same absence will validate the simpler interpretation of
"You are saying you have seen Abraham" being answered with "I have [seen Abraham]" / "I am [saying I have seen Abraham]."

and the simplest explanation is the best explanation, as there is no contradiction here.

>Your objections regarding "ehyeh" are flimsy at best.
it was YOUR objection that necessitated ehyeh -- and proves that your objection relies on a flawed translation and false equivocation. what you are doing is not actually responding to the argument, again.
moreover, there are numerous objections, that you still refuse to even touch on.

>The rest of your objections come from ignorance about the hypostatic union. Things like "God doesn't sleep ". Jesus was both man and God.
false, and false. are you saying you understand the hypostatic union when it is regarded as a mystery? it is something that is a mystery because of its confusing and contradictory nature, and can only be confirmed by faith alone. that is to say, a christian relies on salvation through following Jesus' command, while their concept of God is illogical and "mysterious".

too bad that mystery was never obviously taught by Jesus, and because of it you miss out on Jesus' plain teachings of loving the One Lord, the One God, with total submission of the heart, mind, soul, etc.
he never asked you to believe in hypostatic union, but to act on and believe in what he did plainly teach, your religion necessitates your concept of God rest on a mystery, ignorance, and confusion.

really though, such beliefs were developed much later than Jesus' ascension to God, and are simply polytheism.

that is why you say that God suffered and died, or that God has a mother.

but you also are saying more with your hypostatic union -- a doctrine that was not taught in the old testament or even by Jesus , but rather came around 400 years after Jesus, is necessary to attain salvation with God.

the hypostatic union however, is not taught by God in the old testament whatsoever. so did God hide His true nature and deceive us of it? did He lie about Himself and deceive us from His true nature?
you either accept that God does not have this nature, or have to say that the God in the old testament is a different God than the one who is supposed to be in a hypostatic union or trinity.
you can not operate upon monotheism with the trinity or hypostatic union, so either you reject monotheism or you reject the trinity and hypostatic union.
tell me though, since your belief necessitates that God somehow deceived with how He revealed and made Himself known prior to Jesus, why is that preferable to God only deceiving the evil ones among the Jews into believing they had successfully crucified the Messiah?

>Is God not capable of becoming flesh?
this is an erroneous question that shows you have no concept of the Abrahamic God. you might as well ask, can God remove Himself, or destroy Himself, or make Himself no longer God? these are erroneous questions that are not sensible to the understanding of God that He made known to the Jews through scriptures and many prophets, which you claim Jesus to be the fulfillment of. how would the fulfillment be something that is contrary and undermining?

moreover, if He did, He would be violating His statements that He does not change, and that He is not a man.

similarly, you could ask: "Is God not capable of becoming stupid?"; for God to become man is to lessen Himself, make Himself dependent, remove His omniscience and omnipotence and any unique qualities, while also assuming the qualities of others. truly, God is the singular Being who alone possesses all of the qualities of being God, He does not share them with others, and He is not like others, nor are others like Him.

(Psalms 102:27)

God is unique, and not limited as or similar to creation.

(Job 25:4-6)

the Biblical God has made it clear that He does not do such a thing.

the entire Christian faith relies on Jesus being virgin born, ministering to the Jews, being betrayed, crucified, and conquering death.

Jesus is not required for Islam to exist. it is therefore absurd to say we need Jesus to lower him.

Jesus was a great prophet and brought a beautiful message of love and hope and brotherhood, but Islam would still exist without Jesus.

Islam requires no man to exist, but is God's perfect faith.
Islam requires only God.

the Prophets (upon them be peace) came to deliver messages to the people, but even the prophets mean nothing when compared to God.

God guides whom He wills and leads astray whom He wills.

we have the choice whether or not to listen to the prophets-- and Jesus, peace be upon him, was no more than a prophet and, like all prophets, unworthy of worship.

God does not need to display His power to us.
we are commanded to believe whether or not He is in our sight.

for God to display Himself as a man is pointless.

Last edited by finnegan waking up on Mon Oct 21, 2019 1:23 pm; edited 3 times in total

Channel GannoK
pffrt

Reputation: 130

Joined: 12 Apr 2008
Posts: 608

Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 11:51 am Post subject:

IS this considered a muslim hate crime, with how much we are getting him to type _________________

finnegan waking up
How do I cheat?

Reputation: 13

Joined: 05 Aug 2014
Posts: 0

Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 12:08 pm Post subject:

Channel GannoK wrote:

IS this considered a muslim hate crime, with how much we are getting him to type

[Qur'an 18:30] Indeed, those who have believed and done righteous deeds - indeed, We will not allow to be lost the reward of any who did well in deeds.

rather, it is a crime that you have been rendered so incapable as to offer little or no substance. perhaps it is best to stop wronging your self.

let me guarantee you that HackOtaku will have as he intends, and pursuing knowledge and God in sincerity has put him high above you in rank, good action, and piety.
so it is not just for you to equate yourself with him. he has approached truth, while you will not begin to reason.
deeds are only by intention, as long as one intends good, they will be good.

[Qur'an 41:34] And not equal are the good deed and the bad. Repel [evil] by that [deed] which is better; ...

may God guide, reward, and bless HackOtaku, and make things easy for him; sharpening his mind and softening his heart.
although God has bound Himself to the exercise of Mercy, the punishment of God upon the evil-doers is guaranteed and the Day of Resurrection is coming.
may we be counted among those deserving of His Favour and Mercy, safeguarded in His Eternal Refuge, and not of those who are astray.

Kyle, may you be admonished, as justice is your ultimate destination, and there is no doubt you will return to God and be held accountable for all that you do.
this is beyond doubt; but those who have counted their own ruin are not going to believe.

Fudayl ibn ‘Iyad, may Allah have mercy on him, wrote:

“Admiration is part of faith and envy is part of hypocrisy.
The believer admires others and does not envy others. The hypocrite envies others and does not admire others.
The believer overlooks the faults of others, admonishes others, and gives good advice. The hypocrite disgraces others, insults others, and betrays others.”

[Qur'an 2:62] Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians-- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

[Qur'an 87:9] So remind and instruct (them in the truth) in case reminder and instruction may be of use.
[Qur'an 51:55] And remind, for indeed, the reminder benefits the believers.

Last edited by finnegan waking up on Mon Oct 21, 2019 12:52 pm; edited 1 time in total

Channel GannoK
pffrt

Reputation: 130

Joined: 12 Apr 2008
Posts: 608

Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 12:52 pm Post subject:

So because I choose not to engage with you asinine and futile ego driven attempts to convert everyone, that makes me a criminal in the eyes of Islam? Religion of peace and acceptance. _________________

Display posts from previous:

	Cheat Engine Forum Index -> Random spam	All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next
Page 4 of 8

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum