Shabir Ally admits that 'word for word' preservation of the Quran has always been known to be untruehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqESGCBsO2w
>>18405041All hail The Great Satan mate.
>>18405041It's a real moment when you show a Muslim for the first time that the Koran isn't perfectly preserved. Twice now I have done it in verbal discussions and they just...went quiet. I mean dead silent, didn't speak again. You could tell some chain on their mind had truly just broken, and they were processing it. I have never seen anything like it. Muslim apologists made a huge trap for themselves when they told lay Muslims that there's one single perfectly preserved unchanged Koran.
Note that the existence of textual variation in and of itself does not imply the quran has not been preserved. What implies that the original form of the quran has been lost is the Uthmanic revision and the suppression of all but a single form of the text.
>>18405362A regular Muslim is 100% convinced that there is one single text of the Koran unchanged in even a single letter from Muhammad's time. That is what they mean by "preserved" if you're talking to an average one.
>>18405263Sorry Achmed, still not going to convert
>>18405371I know, but this is because they hold the same absurd theological presupposition as KJVonlyists and Bart Ehrman, “if God inspired it, there would be no textual variants”. It is good to clarify that this presupposition is false since textual variants also exist in the bible, but the bible has been preserved.
>>18405041I think this is a stupid argument as a christian. As you can say there is 1 bible but not really. 1 god but not really (the trinity)
>>18405382Christians generally have no issue admitting that the Bible is a collection of several pieces of scripture written across the centuries, with no canonical compilations before 300 AD or so, with denominational disagreements regarding the canon. That's because there's no miraculous quality attributed to the Bible (besides "all the canon writings were divinely inspired", whatever that means)
>>18405382If you think the Trinity is “1 god but not really” you don’t know anything about the doctrine and should do more reading before thinking yourself competent to comment on religion.
>>18405385It means men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
>>18405388How is he wrong?
>>18405388There is a contradiction. Christianity believes in 1 god in 3 parts.
>>18405403https://threeforms.org/the-athanasian-creed/
>>18405407The persons are not “parts” and there is no contradiction.
>>18405391Yeah, so what does that mean?When Paul(?) writes in his Epistle to Titus1:12 One of Crete’s own prophets has said it: “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.” 13 This saying is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith 14 and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the merely human commands of those who reject the truth. Was that the voice of God?
>>18405410Where is the personhood of the Holy Spirit established?
>>18405382Christians dont have as a central tenet of their faith that their holy book has been perfectly preserved and is the literal word of God
>>18405412It was as much the voice of God as Moses heard upon the mountain.
>>18405413Many places, but one example is John 16:5-15
>>18405408Yes and? If a Hindu claims he worships one God when in reality he has thousands of gods that doesn't make his claim true. Even if he swears all day that he's a monotheist. As the video shows if you're counting the same way you count the persons in the godhead then you are left with no choice but to say they are 3 deities. Why do you think Christians need to appeal to non-classical variant forms of logic and identity that reject Leibniz's law?
>>18405425>If a Hindu claims he worships one God when in reality he has thousands of gods that doesn't make his claim trueHinduism has nothing to do with the Trinity.>As the video shows I honestly couldn’t care less about e-BS and I do not accept Jay Dyer as my representative, but fundamentally the muslim’s line of questioning involves a category error conflating being and person. If you count the number of Gods the same way you count the number of persons it is a category error because there is one being of God shared equally between the divine persons, the “identity” of God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit and there is no other way to “count God by identity” besides that.
>>18405425>If a Hindu claims he worships one God when in reality he has thousands of gods that doesn't make his claim trueHe thinks god is limited in form due to human arguments. Or is it that your god is not as powerful and cannot be many and still be one? All these strictures are limitations you put on the idea of god and thus fundamentally a human construct, thus your entire argument and religion is a lie that you and others like you tell yourselves.Simples.
>>18405041So they accept the trinity.
>>18405407Why dont you just use the language that they use? It's three persons, one divine essence/nature. Why are you trying to redefine it?
>>18405844Because it is an apparent contradiction to be a monotheist worshipping three persons? Regardless of their divine essence
>>18405427>Hinduism has nothing to do with the Trinity.The idea of Trimurti is not that far off if we are being honest>If you count the number of Gods the same way you count the number of persons it is a category errorGreat so you can't count Zeus and Hermes as two gods. Polytheism is impossible with this logic of yours. Saying this only applies to your pantheon of deities and no other would be special pleading.
>>184050411 yhwh1 jesus1 holy spirit1 godAll you kike worshippers are the same.
