averagedude

[averagedude @swishbas4688]

@VLMattis @PokemonMasterX2 @_sabasaurus How lmao

[averagedude @swishbas4688]

@ViteazulD @Kaleerrr1 @muslimorthodoxy lims. Why are their conclusions excluded from your analysis?

[averagedude @swishbas4688]

@ViteazulD @Kaleerrr1 @muslimorthodoxy Did you account for the People of the Book who studied their scriptures and concluded Muhammad was genuine? Because your interpretation assumes consulting the People of the Book yields a Christian conclusion, but historically some of the very people you're appealing to became Mus

[averagedude @swishbas4688]

@ViteazulD @Kaleerrr1 @muslimorthodoxy Holy assumption of doom 😂You're reading more into 10:94 than the verse says. It says to ask the People of the Book, not that every doctrine found in later Christian texts becomes the final authority over the Quran

[averagedude @swishbas4688]

@ViteazulD @Kaleerrr1 @muslimorthodoxy You're still begging the question lmao. The issue isn't whether the New Testament contains doctrines the Quran rejects. We already know it does.

The issue is whether the Quran is appealing to those doctrines as the source of verification. That's what you haven't demonstrated

[averagedude @swishbas4688]

@ViteazulD @Kaleerrr1 @muslimorthodoxy You can't avoid going case by case because your argument depends on the contents of the passage. If passage A is being used for verification and passage B contradicts the Quran, it doesn't follow that B is the passage being appealed to. That's precisely what needs to be demonstr

[averagedude @swishbas4688]

@Kaleerrr1 @ViteazulD @muslimorthodoxy Stfu

[averagedude @swishbas4688]

@ViteazulD @Kaleerrr1 @muslimorthodoxy tablish that point. Otherwise you're jumping from "the Qur'an appeals to previous scripture" to "therefore every New Testament doctrine is affirmed," and that doesn't follow.

[averagedude @swishbas4688]

@ViteazulD @Kaleerrr1 @muslimorthodoxy You're assuming the conclusion. I agree that if the Qur'an appeals to a specific piece of information in previous scripture, that information must be true. But where does the Qur'an say the crucifixion narrative is the specific passage being appealed to for verification? First es

[averagedude @swishbas4688]

@TowardsJesusorg W jizya

[averagedude @swishbas4688]

@ViteazulD @Kaleerrr1 @muslimorthodoxy icts the Qur'an is one of the passages being appealed to as a source of verification.

[averagedude @swishbas4688]

@ViteazulD @Kaleerrr1 @muslimorthodoxy No. It only means that the specific information being used as verification must be true. It doesn't mean every statement in the Bible automatically takes precedence over the Qur'an.

To make that argument, you'd first have to show that the particular Biblical passage that contrad

[averagedude @swishbas4688]

@ViteazulD @Kaleerrr1 @muslimorthodoxy the Bible automatically wins.

[averagedude @swishbas4688]

@ViteazulD @Kaleerrr1 @muslimorthodoxy Yes. If a source is being used to verify a particular claim, then it must be trustworthy regarding that particular claim. Otherwise the verification would be meaningless.

[averagedude @swishbas4688]

@ViteazulD @Kaleerrr1 @muslimorthodoxy Even if I grant that the disciples believed Jesus was crucified and later saw him alive, that only tells us what they reported. The Quran's claim is that the event was MADE TO APPEAR that way to people (Qur'an 4:157). So the disagreement is over what actually happened

[averagedude @swishbas4688]

@ApoloGeniuss @muslimorthodoxy Oh my God. "Not identical" does not automatically mean "a separate person" dude. You're assuming there are only two options: either identical to Allah or a distinct person. Allah's speech is an attribute, not a person

[averagedude @swishbas4688]

@ApoloGeniuss @muslimorthodoxy The Quran is not identical to Allah's essence, but neither is it something separate and independent from him. It is Allah's speech, which is one of his eternal attributes

[averagedude @swishbas4688]

@DeenRatio Wait a minute, show me your reports that Abdullah detailed these alterations