CHRISTIAN DEBATER: MUSLIM DEBATER:

James Mark The-Apologist Abu Jaiyana

https://web.facebook.com/jamesmark.apologist?fref=ufi& https://web.facebook.com/AbuJai
pnref=story yana

Baptist family with a Baptist Local Church Sunni (Ahlul Sunnah) Muslim
Mindanao Glorious Church is the name of our local Church Inc. Taurong City, Sultan Kudarat,
Manila, Philippines Philippines

CHRISTIAN-MUSLIM DEBATE ON THE CHRISTIAN CONEPT OF GOD

February 1 at 11:53am ·
Friendly Christian-Muslim Debate
Resolve: THE GOD OF CHRISTIANITY IS THE TRUE GOD
Affirmative Side: James Mark The-Apologist (Christian Baptist - Manila)
Negative Side: Abu Jaiyana (Ahlul Sunnah - Tacurong City)
Format:
1. Introduction of the Affirmative side - 250 words maximum
2. Introduction of the negative side -250 words maximum
3. Presentation of Arguments by the Affirmative side - 2,000 words maximum
4. Presentation of Arguments by the negative side - 2,000 words maximum

Page 1 of 45
5. Cross Examinations
5.1 Five questions maximum by the negative side
5.2 Responses/Answers by the Affirmative side 500 words maximum per answer.
5.3 Five questions by the Affirmative side
5.4 Responses/Answers by the Negative side - 500 words maximum by the Affirmative side
6. Rebuttal by the Affirmative side - 2,000 words maximum
7. Rebuttal by the negative side - 2,000 words maximum
8. Conclusion by the Affirmative side - 1,000 words maximum
9. Conclusion by the Negative side 1,000 words maximum
#WordCount shall be checked with MSWord
#Audience are not allowed to make any comment while the debate is in progress. Comments
for notification purposes is allowed.
#No personal attack (ad hominem fallacy) is allowed
Time-limit for posting replies is as soon as passible but not later than 24 hours
#The debate will be opened for comments and questions for the audience rightafter the
conclusion of the negative side but the NO AD HOMINEM fallacy would still be applied.
The debate will commence as soon as the affirmative side has posted his inteoduction.
=========•=•••••••••• =======

Abu-Bakr Haroon I hope the debate will be conducted in English for the benefit of the english
only speaking people
Manage
Like
· Reply · 5d
Abu Jaiyana Thats what we had agreed upon and what everyone was expecting but our
Christian friend didnt stand on his words.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 5d
James Mark The-Apologist I may edit my comments
Manage
Like
· Reply · 5d
Abu Jaiyana Im afraid you cant brad because it's final unless it is about typo error or you wish
to make your posts in English
Manage
Like
· Reply · 5d
Page 2 of 45
James Mark The-Apologist Is it ok that I translate my words into English so that you stop
thinking blame?
Manage
Like
· Reply · 5d
James Mark The-Apologist Ok I will start to translate them now.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 5d
Abu Jaiyana James Mark The-Apologist you change your posts into English instead of
translating them because you will be having a huge problem in word count limit.

I will delete all your introductory posts and then you may post your introduction in English\
Manage
Like
· Reply · 5d

James Mark The-Apologist This is my first point:

The God of the Christians is the true God because he is called the true God.
We can read that in 1 John 5:20 in the King James Version of the Bible we read:
"And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may
know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the
true God and eternal life.

In tagalog we read the translation;

"At ating nalalaman na ang Anak ng Dios ay naparito, at binigyan tayu ng kaunawaan, upang
ating makilala siya na tunay, and tayu ay nasa kanya na tunay, maging sa kanyang Anak na si
Jesu Cristo. Ito ang tunay na Dios at buhay na walang hanggan".

Manage
Like
· Reply · 5d · Edited
James Mark The-Apologist This is the original Greek Textus Receptus Manuscript of 1John 5:20
Original Koine Greek:

oἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ ἥκει, καὶ δέδωκεν ἡμῖν διάνοιαν ἵνα γινώσκομεν τὸν ἀληθινόν·
καὶ ἐσμὲν ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ, ἐν τῷ Υἱῷ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ. οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς Θεὸς καὶ ζωὴ
αἰώνιος.

Page 3 of 45
This is the Greek transliteration of the text:

oidamen de hoti ho Huios tou Theou hēkei kai dedōken hēmin dianoian hina ginōskōmen ton
alēthinon kai esmen en tō alēthinō en tō Huiō autou Iēsou Christō houtos estin ho alēthinos
Theos kai zōē aiōnios

This is the grammatical word for word translation in English based from the word for word
Greek texts:

"we know moreover that the Son - of God is come, and has given us understanding, so that we
might know him who [is] TRUE; and we are in him who [is] TRUE, in the Son of him, Jesus Christ.
He is the TRUE God, and life eternal".
Manage
Like
· Reply · 5d · Edited
James Mark The-Apologist However, that is very clear in the Bible from the original Greek
manuscript of textus receptus text type that our Lord Jesus Christ is word for word called 'the
true God' in a single grammatical verse or text.
It is called in the technical term 'the claim of the text'.
The Bible is very clear that the God of Christianity is called 'the true God'.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 5d · Edited
Abu Jaiyana James Mark The-Apologist based on the word count of MSWord here, your two
posts consist of 344 words. You are supposed to post 250 words maximum based on our
format.

1. Introduction of the Affirmative side - 250 words maximum

Are you really sure that you can handle this?

Manage
Like
· Reply · 5d · Edited
James Mark The-Apologist Can you please delete all the non part of the thread?
Manage
Like
· Reply · 5d
James Mark The-Apologist Can you please delete all the non part of the thread?
Manage
Like

Page 4 of 45
 · Reply · 5d
James Mark The-Apologist Above is my first point. I have lot to say but may be it is enought so
that it will not take long to read.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 5d
Abu Jaiyana James Mark The-Apologist, what do you mean by "non part of the thread"?
Manage
Like
· Reply · 5d
James Mark The-Apologist That smiley one. All the emojis. Also the notifs.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 5d · Edited
Abu Jaiyana James Mark The-Apologist Smileys posted by the audience are simply another way
of saying "notif" dont be bothered about them. It is your duty to see to it that your posts dont
exceed the word count limit.

Manage
Like
· Reply · 5d
James Mark The-Apologist If you can't do ok. I will end up my point. It is enough.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 5d · Edited
James Mark The-Apologist So I have made my point there that our Lord Jesus Christ is word for
word called in the original manuscript 'alethinos theos' 'the true God'. The God of Christianity is
the true God.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 5d
Abu Jaiyana 2. Introduction of the negative side -250 words maximum

Bismillahir-Rahmanir-Rahim

I testify that there is no deity worthy of worship but Allah, the God of Adam, Noah, Abraham,
David, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad and all the Prophets and Messengers of God Almighty may
peace be upon them all.

I am a Sunni Muslim from Tacurong City, Sultan Kudarat, Philippines

Page 5 of 45
I welcome you all to this friendly debate with my Christian friend, James Mark The-Apologist on
this very important topic in comparative religion, the concept of God. If one believes in a false
God then he has gone astray regardless of his good deeds because it is God who will reward
him for his good deeds not the false god/s.

In this debate I will prove, God willing, that the concept of God in Christianity is false, without
any form of disrespect to my Christian friends, due to the following reasons:

1. The concept of God in Christianity is a mere by-product of the series of meetings and debates
of early Romans who converted to Christianity such as the Council of Nicene and others.

2. The concept of God in Christianity is illogical to the extent that even Christians themselves
have to accept it blindly because it is beyond logic; they call it a mystery.

3. The concept of God in Christianity is inferior to the Islamic concept of God.

Thank you.

Manage
Like
· Reply · 5d
Abu Jaiyana James Mark The-Apologist, its your turn:

3. Presentation of Arguments by the Affirmative side - 2,000 words maximum

Manage
Like
· Reply · 5d
James Mark The-Apologist So I have given my first point: Now I am going to give my second
point:

Abu Jaiyana James Mark The-Apologist, you are supposed to make a post based on format #3

3. Presentation of Arguments by the Affirmative side - 2,000 words maximum

Manage
Like

Page 6 of 45
· Reply · 5d

James Mark The-Apologist Second point of my proposition:

The God of Christianity is the true God because He did that which Allah couldn't do:

What is it that Allah couldn't do which the God of the Christians could do?

This is it; The Bible said that there is no impossible with God.
Let us read that in Luke 1:37 in King James Version
"For with God nothing is impossible".

Since there is no impossible with the God of the Christians.

The God of the Christians was manifested in the flesh.

Let us read it in 1 Timothy 3:16 in KJV it says; "And without controversy great is the mystery of
godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto
the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory".

That manifested God is the creator Word in John 1:1-3.

Let us read in John 1:1-3 in KJV it says

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Verse 2 "The same was in the beginning with God".
Verse 3 "All things were made by him; and without him was not made any thing made that was
made."

But in John 1:14 says in KJV

"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelleth among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as
of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

See? That is what the God of the Muslims could not do.

However, the original nature of Jesus Christ as divine was not removed despite of being
manifested in the flesh and he could use both his divine nature and human nature.

Let us read that in Colossians 2:9 in KJV it says, "For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the
Godhead bodily".

See that? When Jesus was in the flesh, the Godhead is full in him.
Therefore, the God of the Christians could manifest in the flesh without having removed his
deity.

Page 7 of 45
This is what we called in the Christian theological term "the hypostatic union of Jesus Christ".

Meaning 100% God and 100 human.

The original nature is God and the manifested nature was human.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 5d · Edited
James Mark The-Apologist The Quran said that Allah is able to do all things.

Let us read in Surah Al Imran chapter 3:29 in the Noble Quran it says
"Say (O Muhammad): "Whether you hide what is in your breasts or reveal it, Allah knows it, and
He knows what is in the heavens and what is in the earth. And Allah is Able to do all things"

It says again that Allah is able to do all things. But this is a lie because Allah could not do what
the God of the Christians could do.

Allah cannot manifest in the flesh.

He have no power to do it.

Therefore, Surah 3:29 is a lie and the God of the Muslims is a liar and a false god.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 5d · Edited
James Mark The-Apologist I will give yet my third point. It is my turn yet.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 5d · Edited
James Mark The-Apologist My third point: This is it:

The God of Christianity is the true God because Jesus is the wisdom and the power of God.

Let us read that in 1 Corinthians 1:24 in KJV it says

"but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the
wisdom of God".

See that? Jesus is the power of God and the wisdom of God.
Jesus have a power so that's why he had uncountable miracles which claimed by the Bible.

Let us read in John 21:25 which says in KJV "And there are also many other things which Jesus
did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could
not contain the books that should be written. Amen".

Page 8 of 45
See that again? Jesus had uncontainable miracles which the world could not contain the books.
No books in this world that could contain the miracles of Jesus.

Now the problem is that in the Quran Muhammad was questioned by the disbelievers why his
Lord could not send down a sign.

Allah's excuse was that, the prophet Muhammad was only a warner.

Let us read that in Surah Ar-Rad chapter 13:7 it says in the Noble Quran
"And the disbelievers say: "Why is not a sign sent down to him from his Lord?" You are only a
warner, and to every people there is a guide".

According to the verse Muhammad was only a warner although he had the true god but yet
could not bring down a sign.

Allah is not able to do all things because he had no sign when Muhammad was questioned.

Again Muhammad was questioned why is not a sign sent down to him from his lord.

Allah's excuse to Muhammad was to say, "Allah is able to send down a sign, but most of them
know not."

Let us read that in Surah 6:37 it says in Surah 6:37 Al-Anam from the Noble Quran translation
"And they said: "Why is not a sign sent down to him from his lord?" Say: "Allah is certainly able
to sent down a sign, but most of them know not."

See that? Instead Allah should accept the challenge of being the true God in giving a sign, he
rather made mere words of excuses.

Manage
Like
· Reply · 5d · Edited
Raguiolon Sabieron Peace be upon with you to all, pakingan natin ang debate nila para
malaman ng lahat ng tao ,

Manage
Like
· Reply · 5d

Page 9 of 45
James Mark The-Apologist The Christian God was challenge of bringing a sign in the time of
Elijah.

The God of the Christians challenged the false gods and proved Himself as the true God and
proved that apart from him were false gods.

That is in 1 Kings 18:20-40 and I summarize the long story:

Elijah challenged the prophets of Baal to prove that their god was the true God by setting up
wood and sacrifices to be burnt without a fire by invoking only the name of their god and the
God of Elijah.

The God of Elijah answered the sacrifice and consumed it by fire though it was filled with
water.

The prophets of Baal saw that the God of Elijah was the true God in response to the sign.

Therefore, the Christian God is the true God.

Allah was failed in doing the like challenge and made an excuse for his prophet.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 5d · Edited
Like
· Reply · 5d
James Mark The-Apologist So I have done to give my first three points.
And I have also done in editing the wrong spellings of my comments.
I have checked it all and all is well.
So it is your turn Abu Jaiyana sir for your cross-examination.
Thanks.

Manage
Like
· Reply · 5d · Edited
Abu Jaiyana I have to post my presentation first before the cross exam
Manage
Like
· Reply · 4d
James Mark The-Apologist Ok.
Manage
Like

Page 10 of 45
· Reply · 4d

Abu Jaiyana 4. Presentation of Arguments by the negative side - 2,000 words maximum

Bismillahir-Rahmanir-Rahim

To our dear readers, in behalf of my counterpart in this debate, our friendJames Mark The-
Apologist, I apologize for his little knowledge in English language, grammar, spelling, et cetera. I
thought that he can speak English well and somebody told me that he can so we decided that
this debate would be in English so that it can be understood not only by Filipinos but also all the
English-speaking people throughout the world.

Anyway, this is not an English examination, so we should only focus on the arguments which he
presented for the case of the Christian God.
I was very disappointed that our friend merely uses a common fallacy in argumentation that is
“CIRCULAR ARGUMENT FALLACY” – that is, “The Christian God is the true God simply because
the Bible says so”

Ladies and Gents, the Bible is not proof for me or to any non-Christian person, so how in the
world that the argument and evidences presented by our friend James Mark The-Apologist be
acceptable in this debate? He needs to prove first that the Bible is truly an inerrant word of God
before he can make such claims or arguments here which I don’t think that he will be able to do
it here because it is totally a different topic altogether.

Therefore, even if I would not present any case against the Christian God, nobody would be
convinced logically that the Christian God is the true God.

However, for the purpose of da’wah, I will present to you facts in history that would prove that
the Christian God doesn’t exist in reality, but it is a mere product of series of meetings and
debates of early Romans who converted to Christianity.

Manage
Like
· Reply · 4d
Abu Jaiyana Our friend James Mark The-Apologist alluded to their concept of incarnation
wherein God manifested in human form which is a belief that sprout from the concept of Trinity
in which God has multiple personalities; father, son, and holy spirit.

The term “Trinity” was first used by a man named Tertulian. Born about 145 CE to a Roman
centurion in Carthage, Quintis Septimus Florens Tertullianus was trained in Greek and Latin and

Page 11 of 45
became a lawyer in Rome, where he was converted to Christianity about 185 CE.

Tertullian was ordained a presbyter in the church at Carthage, North Africa, and began writing
books addressing the issues facing the church of his day. In response to a heresy about the
Godhead, Tertullian wrote Against Praxus, which FOR THE FIRST TIME used the word TRINITY to
describe the Godhead.

Tertulian did not believe that the son is co-equal with the father, but later on he was pressed by
catholic Christians who objected to late second century logos Christology on which the pre-
human Jesus (the “Word”, Greek: logos of John 1) was God's instrument of creation. They
considered this scheme of two creators and a divine Jesus to be inconsistent with monotheism.

Later on, the Trinity concept of God developed further by the Romans. In year 325 CE, under
the leadership of Emperor Constantine in Constantinople which is now Turkey, they decided in
the Council of Nicene that Jesus must be considered as God equal to the father, and all those
who opposed this decision were either killed or severely persecuted such as the priests and
bishops who supported the debate loser, Arius, against Athanacius. Later on, in 381 CE, the
same group of people added the holy spirit as God co-equal with the father and the son, hence
they have now the trinity.

All these efforts are of the Roman Christians many hundreds of years after Jesus’ departure.
This is to accommodate the pagan concept of God of the Romans as indicated in their
mythology while maintaining the original monotheistic belief of the Jewish people.

Jesus Christ and the Old Testament Prophets has got nothing to do with it.

Our friend James Mark The-Apologist belongs to the Methodist religion which is an American
made religion simply accepted this pagan Romans concept of God, and they tried very hard to
find some passages in the Bible that could somehow support their newly invented concept of
God.

Manage
Like
· Reply · 4d
Abu Jaiyana The concept of God in Christianity is illogical to the extent that even Christians
themselves have to accept it blindly because it is beyond logic; they call it a mystery.

It is a fact that not all Christians since the very beginning until today blindly accept that Trinity
because it simply doesn’t make any sense. Attributing multiple personalities to God is
blasphemous. Anyone having multiple personalities is actually having a big mental disorder.

In psychology, it is a mental disorder in which two or more personalities with distinct memories

Page 12 of 45
and behaviour patterns apparently exist in one person. For the Christians, God is not a personal
being, it is a mere essence, but his personalities are.

They say that the father is God, the son is God, and the holy spirit is also God, they are separate
and distinct from each other but they are not three Gods but one God. – how is that make
sense?

They say it is a miracle, a mystery, nobody can understand it. If you think you understand the
Trinity, you surely misunderstood it, you just have to accept it blindly!

How someone who is infinite could is also finite at the same time???

How could someone who is unlimited be limited at the same time – this concept doesn’t exist
and can not exist in reality because they are simply self-contradictory.

We will give chance to our friend James Mark The-Apologist if he has the intelligence to explain
this concept to us although I don’t think that he can because even their great scholars have
given up giving logical explanation for the trinity – it is a clear illogical farce!

Please do remember that our friend boasted that the Christian God can do what the Islamic
God cant, that is by manifesting Himself into a human being (flesh).

Surely, our friend did not understand what he is saying. God, being all-powerful doesn’t mean
that God will do ungodly things; things that makes Him no longer God.

Consider this question for example:

Can God create a rock that He can not lift or destroy???

• If no, He can’t, then He is not God because He can’t do anything, He is not all powerful.

• If yes, He can, then He is not God also because He lacks power in lifting or destroying a mere
rock which He created.

In the same way, God would not become a human being because it is an ungodly thing. God is
powerful, unlimited, infinite, while human beings are weak, limited and finite and all these
attributes can never exist together simultaneously because they are self-contradictory. If
someone is all powerful it means that he is not weak, if he is unlimited then it means that he is
not limited, and et cetera.

Therefore, this concept of God presented to us by our Christian friend is not only false, but it
can also not exist in reality.

I invite our friend James Mark The-Apologist to abandon the Christian god, and accept the true

Page 13 of 45
God teached by Islam.

The concept of God in Christianity is inferior to the Islamic concept of God.

In Islam, God is infinite, the Only and Absolutely One. He has no beginning and no end. He does
not depend on anything or anyone but everything depends on Him, and there is none like unto
Him. Refer to Surah 112:1-4

Allah, the Ever-Living, the Self-Subsisting by Whom all subsist, there is no god but He. Neither
slumber seizes Him, nor sleep; to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the
earth. Who is there who might intercede with Him save with His leave? He knows what lies
before them and what is hidden from them, whereas they cannot attain to anything of His
knowledge save what He wills them to attain. His Dominion overspreads the heavens and the
earth, and their upholding wearies Him not. He is All-High, All-Glorious. Refer to Surah 2:255

– That’s God, the true God which no sane person could dispute Muslim or otherwise.

Thank you.

Manage
Like
· Reply · 4d
Abu Jaiyana 5. Cross Examinations
5.1 Five questions maximum by the negative side

Questions for James Mark The-Apologist:

1. In your concept of God, can God run away from his domain and never come back - If yes,
then explain WHERE will He run away. If No, then would you accept that your God is not true
God because He cant do anything?

2. Explain how Jesus being a man and God at the same time all-knowing and ignorant at the
same time?

3. Do you agree with me that God being all powerful means that He only does what is Godly
and not the ungodly actions? If no, explain why.

4.When a human being does miracles, does that prove that he is God almighty?

5. Explain why in your concept of God, God has a son but no daughter or brother, or twin.

Thank you.

Page 14 of 45
7

Manage
Like
· Reply · 4d
James Mark The-Apologist Thank you sir.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 4d · Edited
Abu Jaiyana You have 24 hours to answer all five questions my friend. 500 words maximum per
answer.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 4d
James Mark The-Apologist Just wait sir.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 4d
James Mark The-Apologist So may I start to answer your questions before I rebut all your
points?
Manage
Like
· Reply · 4d · Edited
James Mark The-Apologist So I will not answer the 5 questions that you cross examined to me:
Listen and please be silent. Ok here it goes:
Manage
Like
· Reply · 4d
James Mark The-Apologist 1. Your first question is wrong:
That God run away from his domain and never come back.

Your question should be; Can God lose his domian?

Ok, my answer is this:

God cannot run away from His domain or lose his dominion.
Let us read that in Daniel 4:34 in King James Version of the Bible.
It says "And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and my
understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the Most High, and I praised and honored him
that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from
generation to generation:"

See that? The domain of God is everlasting.

Page 15 of 45
It was not become absent at anytime.

He cannot run away from his domain because he dominates eternally according to the
scriptures.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 4d · Edited
James Mark The-Apologist 2. Jesus did not become God.
But his divine nature is originally and eternally God.

This is what we call in the Christian theological technical term "the hypostatic union".
What does it mean?
It means Jesus was God manifested in the flesh and used both the divine and the human
nature. 100% God and 100% human.
We can read that in Colossians 2:9.
Let us try to read it in KJV it says
"For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily".

See that? The divinity of Jesus is full and at the same time he was a pure human being.

Concerning his divinity he is omniscient but concerning his humanity he was seen to be limited.

Although Jesus is God but because he also became a human, he had done to submit to Mary
and Joseph (Luke 2:51) and to the Roman government (Mark 12:17).
Manage
Like
· Reply · 4d · Edited
James Mark The-Apologist 3. I agree that God cannot do ungodly things.

When I say ungodly in the Bible it means 'evil' an act of evil.

Let us read that in Proverbs 16:27 in KJV.

It says "An ungodly man diggeth up evil: and in his lips there is as a burning fire."

See that? Ungodliness is an act of evil or a form of evil.

In fact, God is without sin (Deuteronomy 32:4) and Jesus Christ is without sin (1 John 3:5)
proving that God and Jesus will not at all do ungodly things as you also are in accord.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 4d · Edited

Page 16 of 45
James Mark The-Apologist 4. When a human being from Adam does miracles it doesn't mean
that this person is the Almighty God.

But if God make himself a human being and does miracles it means he is the Almighty God.

Jesus is not from Adam but he is called the last Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45) who is the second
man, the Lord from heaven (1 Corinthians 15:47).

Jesus was not from the earthly Adam but the second Adam, a man who is the Lord from
heaven.

See that? Jesus is a man but the Lord from heaven.

He is not from Adam's seed like the natural indirect created human beings, which if do miracles
cannot qualify of divinity.

Manage
Like
· Reply · 4d · Edited
James Mark The-Apologist 5. God has a son Spiritually revealed not literally revealed.

The Bible said that you compare spiritual things with spiritual (1 Corinthians 2:13).

So you should not compare the Spirituality of God's revelation into a literal human origin
perspective.

God has a Son to show he is like a Father that loves a Son.

He is like a Father in leadership and in foundation (Isaiah 63:16; 64:8).

He is like a father who originate and governs as the head.

God has no daughter because God is Spirit (John 4:24) and no wife.

God has no brother because God has no mother or a girl god.

God has no twin because God again has no mother and father that knew each other
romantically.

Your fifth question is insensible.

Page 17 of 45
Manage
Like
· Reply · 4d · Edited
James Mark The-Apologist These are my questions to Brother Abu Jaiyana: Please listen
carefully all of you and Bro. Abu Jaiyana to these:
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d
James Mark The-Apologist 1. Is it impossible for Allah to manifest himself in the human form?

Because according to your Surah if it is not a lie, it says in Surah 3:29 in the Noble Quran:
"Say (O Muhammad): "Whether you hide what is in your breasts or reveal it, Allah knows it, and
he knows what is in the heavens and what is in the earth. And Allah is able to do all things."

See that? It is very clear that Allah is able to do all things.

So that's why I am asking you.

Is it '"impossible" for Allah to manifest in the human form like the God of the Christians did?

Is it impossible for him, yes or no?

If impossible, then Surah 3:29 is a lie.
But if possible, then Jesus is the first one who proved himself as God in manifesting in the
human form before Allah have power to do it.

2. If Allah's manifestation in a human form would be a kind of ungodliness and blasphemy, why
Jibril appeared to Maryam in the form of a man?

Let us read that in Surah Maryam chapter 19:17 from the Noble Quran says,
"She placed a screen (to screen herself) from them; then We sent to her Our Ruh [angel Jibril
(Gabriel)], and he appeared before her in the form of a man in all aspects".

See that? Jibril appeared before Maryam in the form of a man.

So Allah allowed Jibril in doing blesphemy and ungodliness by manifesting himself in the human
form.

You know what? According to the verse, Allah sent Jibril in the human form.
So therefore, Allah is the one doing this blasphemy and ungodliness by sending Jibril in the
human form.

So going back to my question.

Why Jibril could manifest in the human form and Allah could not?

Does it mean that Jibril is more powerful than Allah, because Jibril did what Allah could not do?

Page 18 of 45
Please follow to answer that question and analyze first. Thanks.

3. When Jibril was manifested in the human form (Surah 19:17), was it ungodliness and
blasphemy that Jibril manifested in the human form, yes or no?
If no, then there is a reason for Allah to make manifest himself to a human form because if his
angel did so, he should also be the first one to have a power to do it, because if not, he is not
God and Jibril is the true God.
If yes that it is ungodliness and blasphemy, then Allah is the one who is ungodly and
blasphemous because he was the one who sent Jibril in the human form.

Follow to answer that question.

4. If Allah is the God by rendering prostration unto him (Surah 3:43), and the original Arabic
word used for the word prostrate is the Arabic 'osjudoo' ‫ ۡاوُ ل َاق‬And osjudoo means: lowly,
humble, submissive, worship, adore, prostrate, make obeisance, lower/bend oneself down
towards the ground, lower the head, to salute/honour/magnify, to pay respect, to stand up, to
look continuedly and tranquily.

Now, if Allah is the God because of the render of osjudoo which means 'worship', why Allah did
let the angels to ‫' ۡاقُج ْل اَو‬waosjudee' or 'prostrate' themselves to Adam (Surah 2:34) who was a
mere human being?

Waosjudee means adore or worship.

So the question goes like this:

Is Allah a false god because he did let Adam to receive adoration and worship which only
rendered to him alone?

If not a false god, then Adam is God because he was worthy of waosjudee or prostration.

5. Where in the Quran word for word in a single text from the original Arabic text that Allah
claimed to be the true God? Where?

You know what? The reason why we strongly believed that the Christian God is the only true
God because He claimed to be the true God.
And His claim is word for word from the original Hebrew text in a single text:

I'll show you:

In Jeremiah 10:10 is the original Hebrew text:

Let us read that original derivation;

Page 19 of 45
Jeremiah 10:10 Original Hebrew Masoretic Text: ‫ֹל ָ֤יוו ַֽיו‬ ‫םווֹל ֙ מֱ א ֙םוִ ו ֱא‬
‫םָ֑י ַֽ ֹ ֹל ִ֥ מ ֶ֣ מּו םָ֤ ִִּ֖יוֹל וִ֥֙ה֙ ִ ּו‬
‫ ס ׃ָ֤םְ ָ֑יז םָ֑י ִיוֹל י ְם֙הו ִ ּוַֽא י וַֽ ֱַֽ֙ מ ה ִׁש ְ ָ֤ ֶ֣םת ִ וִ פְצ ֱָ֑אי‬The Hebrew

The transliteration of the text:

Yah-weh ’ĕ-lō-hîm ’ĕ-meṯ, hū- ’ĕ-lō-hîm ḥay-yîm ū-me-leḵ ‘ō-w-lām; miq-qiṣ-pōw tir-‘aš hā-’ā-
reṣ, wə-lō- yā-ḵi-lū ḡō-w-yim za‘-mōw. s

The English word by word:

But the LORD God [is] the true he the God [is] living and king an everlasting At His wrath shall
tremble the earth and not do be able to abide the nations his indignation -

In the King James Version (Jeremiah 10:10):

But the LORD [is] the TRUE God, he [is] the living God, and an everlasting king: at his wrath the
earth shall tremble, and the nations shall not be able to abide his indignation.

‫( ֙םוִ ו ֱא‬Elohim) and ‫( ֙ מֱ א‬Emeth) or

See that? The Christian God is claiming to be the true God ‫ֹל‬
True God.

The God of the Christians claimed that title "true God".

Let us read that in Jeremiah 10:2 in KJV says "thus saith the Lord".

He was the one saying in Jeremiah 10:10 through the prophet Jeremiah.

So now, where in the Quran that Allah claimed to be the true God?
Can you show me word by word originally?
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d · Edited
James Mark The-Apologist Bro. Abu Jaiyana please follow that questions to answer it properly
without deviation, because if not, I am not going to rebut your points above.

Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d · Edited
Abu Jaiyana Dont be so funny JameMark, you have no right to dictate what answer should I
give because I didnt dictate you what answer you should give. Let the readers judge which of
our answer is logical. If have to evaluate your answers to my question, you would surely stop
calling me friend anymore. So if you think that my answers to your questions are inappropriate

Page 20 of 45
or irrelevant, you have the full chance to criticize them in your rebuttal. Dont be so silly, my
friend.

Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d
Abu Jaiyana Answers to cross exam questions will follow shortly.
Manage
Abu Jaiyana #1. My answer is no because it is an ungodly thing, and you said in your answer to
my question that you agree that God doesnt do ungodly things. Ungodly things mean not only
doing evil actions but also includes actions that make God Almighty NO LONGER GOD, such as
manifesting Himself in flesh. God is absolute and complete in His being and Essence; He is what
He was since eternity past until eternity in the future. Manifesting Himself in flesh means
addition to His being and Essence which means that He was not an infinite, not absolute God
before He manifested Himself in flesh. Moreover, it also means that God is both all knowing
and ignorant at the same time. To attribute ignorance to God means that that God is a false god
because God is always all knowing. Being in a flesh means God is dependent and needy because
he needs to eat in order to have energy therefore he is weak, but God has no weakness. You
can not have a God who is all powerful and weak both at the same time. It is a self-
contradictory concept. That is actually my argument against your concept of God. Therefore, is
not a lie; it is true that God can do all things except ungodly things.

Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d
Abu Jaiyana #2. It is true that Jibril a.s appeared to Mary and even to many Messengers of God
in human form, however, didnt you realize that you are comparing apples witj oranges here my
friend? God is absolute while Jibril is not, he is a mere temporal being. Anything besides God is
temporal, limited, not all knowing, et cetera. So there is no problem if Jibril could manifest
himself in a flesh, it would not make him no longer an angel an angel is not all knowing and
being in a flesh is still not all knowing, he is still not all knowing. It can not apply to God because
God is all knowing while being in flesh is not all knowing - you can not have an all knowing and
not all knowing God both at the same time.

Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d

Page 21 of 45
Abu Jaiyana #3. When Jibril a.s manifested appeared in a human form, it was not an ungodly
thing simply because Jibril is NOT GOD, he is a mere CREATION OF GOD. Perhaps you didnt
understand what we mean by ungodly things my friend.

Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d
Abu Jaiyana #4. Nope. Sujud simply means to prostrate. Sujud is of two kinds: sujud as a sign of
giving respect, and sujud as a sign of full submission to God. The sujud made by the angels to
Adam was a sujud of giving respect to him because of the knowledge given to him by God (he
was taught by God the names of all things) and he was appointed as khalifa or vicegerent of
God on earth. Dont try ro confuse the people about the lexical meaning of the word sujud. Here
is the context: " and remember when your Lord declared to the angels "I will make a khalifa on
earth. They (angels) said,"would you create people that would make transgressions and shed
blood while we glorify You always?" He (God) said " I know what you know not". And He (God)
taught Adam the names of everything, and the He (God) called the angels and ask them " Tell
me the names of those around you". They (angels) said "glory be to You, we have no knowledge
except what you have taught us, You are the All knowing, all wise". God said "Didnt I tell you
that I know what you know not?". Thats the context of the event. It was a sujud of respect,
giving honor to Adam due to the knowledge given by God to him which was not given to the
angels yet, and also his appointment as vicegerent of God on earth. Thats the context, it was
not a sujud of worship. Refer to surah 2:30-34.

Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d
Abu Jaiyana #5. Well, there are so many verses in the Quran. I am wondering why you ask this
question because you said that you read all my points but in my presentation I cited one whole
surah in the Quran talking about Allah being one and absolute God (surah 112:1-4) and a
lengthy verse called ayatul kursi (2:255). Its either you are lying or you missed those points. I
can add more. Surah al Hashr verse 1, Shura verses 3-4. Guess what, the Quran mentions the
name of Allah more than 3000 times. One more thing, please refer to the whole chapter of
Surah Ar-Rahman, it is all about Allah proving that there could be no other God except Allah.
Thank you.

Manage
Like

Page 22 of 45
 · Reply · 3d
Abu Jaiyana #JamesMark, you may now proceed to your affirmative rebuttal: 2,000 words
maximum. If wish to surrender, please feel free to do so, but dont put forward any alibi my
friend, no body would buy it and it wont work here. Thank you.

Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d
James Mark The-Apologist Listen to these concrete points of rebuttal in addressong all your big
mistakes:
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d · Edited
James Mark The-Apologist 1. You said that "the term 'Trinity' was first used by a man named
Tertulian".

You said that.

Let us read from the history:

Wikipedia

Trinity

Scripture does not contain the word Trinity, yet, an indication of three distinct persons can be
found in 1 John 5:7 for the validity of which exist a controversy known as Johannine Comma.

Etymology

The corresponding word in Greek is tριάς, meaning "a set of three" or "the number three".The
first recorded use of this Greek word in Christian theology was by Theophilus of Antioch in
about the year of 170. He wrote:
In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity
[Τριάδος], of God, and His Word, and His wisdom. And the fourth is the type of man, who needs
light, that so there may be God, the Word, wisdom, man.
History Ignatius of Antioch provides early support for the Trinity around exhorting obedience to
"Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit".
Justin Martyr (AD 100–c. 165) also writes, "in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the
universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit".
The first of the early church fathers to be recorded using the word "Trinity" was Theophilus of
Antioch writing in the late 2nd century.

Page 23 of 45
He defines the Trinity as God, His Word (Logos) and His Wisdom (Sophia)[34] in the context of a
discussion of the first three days of creation.

You are wrong!

Tertullian was not the one who first affirmed the word trinity but Theophilus of Antioch.
And he was not the one who used the English term 'trinity' because he was a Latin speaking
man.

How can a Latin man speak an English word 'trinity'?

Theophilus was first existed than Tertullian.

He was the first man to affirm doctrine of the trinity in the Greek word tριάς 'trias' a set of
three but one God.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d · Edited
James Mark The-Apologist 2. You said that "later on, the Trinity concept of God developed
further by the Romans".

It is wrong!

Let is read from the history Wikipedia:

Trinity

History

The Ante-NiceneFathers asserted Christ's deity and spoke of "Father, Son and Holy Spirit", even
though their language is not that of the traditional doctrine as formalised in the fourth century.

See that?
It was not developed by the Romans but by the Council of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers.

Who were they?

Let us read from the history Wikipedia:

Ante-Nicene Period

Developments

The ante-Nicene period was without such authority.

Page 24 of 45
Papacy

Irenaeus of Lyons believed in the 2nd century that Peter and Paul had been the founders of the
Church in Rome and had appointed Linus as succeeding bishop.

See that?
Ante-Nicene declaration has no authority from the apostolic fathers and that this council was a
Catholic council.

Iranaeus of Lynos was one of the memebers of the Ante-Nicene confession.

But before this fourth century confession, Theophilus from the first century held already the
doctrine and the Greek word of the English term 'trinity'.
And even Jesus in the early AD 30s spoke already the three persons of the trinity (Matthew
28:19).
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d · Edited
James Mark The-Apologist 3. You said that "all these efforts are of the Roman Christians many
hundreds of years after Jesus’ departure".

It's wrong!

Theophilus was not a Roman speaking man but a Greek speaking man.
Some of his works were in Greek.

Let us read in Wikipedia:

Theophilus of Antioch

Trinity

It is possible that the word may have been used before this time as many Greek Christian works
before Theophilus were lost.

Wikipedia

Theophilus of Antioch

The Apology to Autolycus

His arguments, drawn almost entirely from the Old Testament, with but very scanty references
to the New Testament, are largely chronological.

See that?

Page 25 of 45
Theophilus was not developing the trinity but he derived his doctrine from the Old and New
Testaments.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d · Edited
James Mark The-Apologist 4. You said that "Tertullian wrote Against Praxus, which FOR THE
FIRST TIME used the word TRINITY to describe the Godhead".

Wrong!

It was not Tertullian who first used the English term 'trinity'.

According to Meriam-Webster Dictionary says:

Origin: Middle English trinite, from Anglo-French trinité, from Late Latin trinitat-, trinitas state
of being threefold, from Latin trinus threefold. First use: 13th century

See that?

The English term 'trinity' was used only in the late 13th century.
And it was originally from the Middle English and Anglo-French.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d · Edited
James Mark The-Apologist 5. You said "How could someone who is unlimited be limited at the
same time – this concept doesn’t exist and can not exist in reality because they are simply self-
contradictory".

They are not contridictory but 'natural unity' that functions both naturally.
Contradict means Jesus as a man should do what the Father could do.

But he claimed that what the Father could do he could do likewise.

Let us read that in John 5:19 in KJV says,

"for what things soever he doeth, these doeth the Son likewise".

See that?

Whatever the Father could do, Jesus also could do.

Therefore, it is not a contradictory entity as you falsely alleged.

Page 26 of 45
1

Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d · Edited

James Mark The-Apologist 6. You said "In the same way, God would not become a human
being because it is an ungodly thing".

It is wrong again!

Jesus manifested in the flesh (John 1:1, 14) and yet there was no ungodliness in Him (1 John
3:5).

There is no verse in the whole Quran that manifesting in the flesh is an act of ungodliness. In
fact, Jibril manifested in the flesh (Surah 19:17).
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d · Edited
James Mark The-Apologist 7. You said that "It is a fact that not all Christians since the very
beginning until today blindly accept that Trinity because it simply doesn’t make any sense.
Attributing multiple personalities to God is blasphemous."

Wrong!

Trinity is not a blasphemy but it is the divine nature which the God of the Bible did reveal.

Let us read that in Ephesians 3:4-5 in KJV.

It says; "whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ,)".
"which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his
holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;".

See that?

It was an unrevealed mystery that God revealed unto his prophets and apostles.
It is a nature of God being revealed.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d · Edited
James Mark The-Apologist 8. You said "For the Christians, God is not a personal being, it is a
mere essence, but his personalities are".

Page 27 of 45
Wrong!

God is a personal being.

In fact, God loves (1 John 4:8).

How can a non personal being love?

Jesus was a person. He spoke as a man.

The Holy Spirit grieves. Ephesians 4:30
The Father loves. John 3:16

They are persons but one in glory and nature.

Are you not a person?

Do you love? If yes, you are a person just like God.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d
James Mark The-Apologist 9. You said this "Our friend James Mark The-Apologist belongs to
the Methodist religion which is an American made religion simply accepted this pagan Romans
concept of God, and they tried very hard to find some passages in the Bible that could
somehow support their newly invented concept of God."

Wrong information and accusation!

I am a man grew up from a Baptist family with a Baptist Local Church.

Mindanao Glorious Church is the name of our local Church Inc.

It is not a Methodist after all.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d
James Mark The-Apologist 10. You said "Can God create a rock that He can not lift or
destroy???"

That question is called "presumptive question" means assuming something to be true but
cannot be true.

I will give you an example:

If you are the president, will you take the state of a garbage collector just to prove that you can
be a garbage man?
No need.

Page 28 of 45
You can take garbage at home even though you are a president.

If you are a king will you transfer to the sit of a poor man whose sit is made of wood just to
show you can use a sit that is made of wood?
No need.

You can sit on a wood but not necessarily you sit to the sit of the poor man.

Why God should do that thing likewise?

God does not have a mental disorder to do it without a reasonable cause as you think about.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d
James Mark The-Apologist 11. You said "The concept of God in Christianity is illogical to the
extent that even Christians themselves have to accept it blindly because it is beyond logic; they
call it a mystery".

It is wrong!

Trinity is logical.
I'll show you clear logic.

a. God is light (1 John 1:5). Scientifically speaking light have three entity that made it up.

First is the actinic which is the visible radiant energy part of the light.
Then the calorific which is the relation of the heat of the light being produced.
And the luminiferous which produces the yielding light.

So there is one but three.

Another is the triangle.

The triangle is one shape but it has three sides.
Without these sides, a triangle cannot be a traingle.

So there is one but three.

Again, the egg.

The egg have three parts.
The egg shell, the egg white, and the egg yolk.

So there are three but one.

Trinity concept is not impossible.

Page 29 of 45
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d
James Mark The-Apologist 12. You said "Tertulian did not believe that the son is co-equal with
the father, but later on he was pressed by catholic Christians who objected to late second
century logos Christology on which the pre-human Jesus (the “Word”, Greek: logos of John
1) was God's instrument of creation. They considered this scheme of two creators and a divine
Jesus to be inconsistent with monotheism".

Wrong!

Tertullian's theology believed that the Son is God.

Wikipedia

Tertullian

Theology

Specific teachings

Tertullian's Christianity was not monotheistic by noting that even though there was one God
(Yahweh, who became the Father when the Son became his agent of creation), the Son could
also be referred to as God, when referred to apart from the Father, because the Son, though
subordinate to God, is entitled to be called God "from the unity of the Father" in regards to
being formed from a portion of His substance.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d
James Mark The-Apologist I have rebutted all your points and your mistakes from your points.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 3d
Abu Mishal Nice source bro Wikipedia � � �

Manage
Like
· Reply · 2d

Shamsodden Bin-Daud Sanggacala Macatanong � -busy pa yata si guro Abu Jaiyana?

Page 30 of 45
Manage
Like
· Reply · 1d
James Mark The-Apologist It's ok if he is yet bussy. That's life we have different bussiness. We
consider the man.

Manage
Like
· Reply · 1d
Abu Jaiyana Super busy here folks; i had an unexpected travel yesterday related to the Martial
Instruction No.1 from the Department of National Defense. I'll post my rebuttal tonight or
tomorrow morning InshaAllah

Manage
Like
· Reply · 1d
James Mark The-Apologist OK.

Manage
Like
· Reply · 1d
Ben Langcuyan Huwag mo pahirapan si James Mark sa rebuttal ha. Baka ma-trauma naman.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 1d · Edited
Abu Jaiyana Rebuttal

Salam to all.

First of all, I would like to respond first to the rebuttal of my friend James Mark The-
Apologist since he did not touch deeply many of my arguments in my presentation.

1. I am very disappointed that the source of information of my friendJames Mark The-

Apologist is WIKIpedia – This fact alone would tell us that our friend is no more than a Google
student (with all due respect to my friend).

In a debate like this, we are expecting evidences given by the authorities in the field, i.e. Bible

Page 31 of 45
scholars, not Wikipedia.

2. He also did not understand the point that it was Tertullian who first used the word trinity as
it is believed by the Trinitarian Christians today. He explained that the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit are "one in essence—not one in Person"

Reference: Readings in the History of Christian Theology page 53 by William Placher.

The trinity of Theophilus of Antioch is not the Trinity Doctrine of the Trinitarian Christians of
today. His trinity is God, His Word (Logos) and His Wisdom (Sophia).

This is not the Christian God Mr. James Mark The-Apologist. The Trinity of the Christians today
is the one described by Tertulian.

I hope that this will serve as a lesson for you next time. Don not ever attempt to engage in a
formal debate if your source is Wikipedia. Even Christian Scholars would laugh on you if you are
asked to provide your source and you would cite Wikipedia. You can use Wikipedia for some
information but you cannot use it for evidence in a formal debate.

James Mark The-Apologist also had a joke.

He said that how Tertullian could use the English word “Trinity” when he was a Latin man. It
really sounds a joke, but the joke is on James, not on me because what is meant there is not the
terminology itself but the concept it represents.

Here is a Joke for James – The Trinity was NEVER KNOWN to Jesus because Jesus spoke Aramaic
not English – do you agree??? Heheheh

Manage
Like
· Reply · 21h
James Mark The-Apologist Are you finish? That's all?
Manage
Like
· Reply · 21h
James Mark The-Apologist So is now my conclusion?
Manage
Like
· Reply · 21h
Abu Jaiyana 3. Another joke from my friend James Mark The-Apologist. He said:

Page 32 of 45
Meriam-Webster Dictionary says:

Origin: Middle English trinite, from Anglo-French trinité, from Late Latin trinitat-, trinitas state
of being threefold, from Latin trinus threefold. First use: 13th century.

Well, again, going to the wrong source. The English Dictionary only tells us the etymology of an
English word, not it’s concept.

Would you agree that Jesus never know the trinity simply because he did not speak English?

If you say YES then your trinity god is FALSE, and if you say NO then you are mocking your own
self because your argument is self-refuting.

4. Mr. James Mark The-Apologist also completely misunderstood what I mean by being both
limited and unlimited at the same time. He is talking about the roles and functions of the
persons in the trinity. That was not the problem.

The problem is the status or state of being of the persons in the Trinity. God almighty who is
unlimited and being a man who is limited, both this status co-exist in one person, Jesus.

If Jesus is God then he must be all-knowing because God is inherently All-knowing. But Jesus is
ignorant of many things, therefore he can never be God because God is not ignorant of
anything.

If you say that the ignorance of Jesus is due to his humanity, then that is really the problem
because you will be stuck with a god who is all-knowing and ignorant at the same time. That’s
the contradiction there my friend James.

5. James Mark The-Apologist also did not understand the meaning of the word “ungodly” which
I used in my presentation and in the cross-exam.

What we mean by ungodly acts of God are those actions of God that would make Him no longer
God which are only possible in theory.

I gave an example about God who can make or create a rock which He can not lift or destroy.

#If God can not create that rock, then God is not God because He can not do all things, right?

And, #if God can create that rock, then God is still not God because He is not all-powerful
because there is something, that rock, which He can not lift or destroy.

So that is pretty clear stupidity.

In the same way, God CAN NOT manifest Himself as a man, flesh, because a man is by definition

Page 33 of 45
weak, ignorant, limited, temporal, etc, but God is all-powerful, all-knowing, unlimited, absolute,
etc.

This negation does not mean that God is not all-powerful, it simply means that this concept of
attributing humanity to God is stupidity and it can only exist in theory – it is 100% illogical.

Manage
Like
· Reply · 21h
James Mark The-Apologist You are offended to the Wikipedia? It is your shortcoming not mine.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 21h
Abu Jaiyana 6. James Mark The-Apologist said that they do not accept the trinity blindly, and he
quoted Ephesians 3:4-5. Unfortunately, he did not understand what he Quoted -

In that verse, Paul was not talking about the trinity. He was talking about his knowledge in the
mystery of Christ. This is what he quoted:

"whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ”

You see, my friend James Mark The-Apologist quoted his bible without even understanding
what is quoting. This is very sad for him.

There only One God: the father is God, Jesus is God, Holy Spirit is God – How does those three
different persons who are all Gods, but they are One God???

If the father, Jesus, and the Holy spirit are all full Gods, then they are not One God but three
Gods.

If the father, Jesus, and the Holy spirit are 1/3 God each, then they are One whole God, but
where on earth do we have 1/3 God???

Examine for example the analogy given to us by James Mark The-Apologist

He said that the trinity is like an egg. The egg has a shell, the white, and the yolk. You will hear
this silly analogy not only by ignorant Christians but even learned Christian scholars like Anish
Shorrosh.

The egg shell, is NOT the WHOLE egg, and the same is true with the white and the yolk – each
of them are mere parts of the whole egg, so this analogy is false because in the Trinity Doctrine:

Page 34 of 45
You can not say that the father is a mere part of God, He should be a full God.

I wonder if my friend James Mark The-Apologist would not argue with the egg vendor in case he
buys an egg and the vendor would only give him an egg shell and tells him,

“Don’t worry James Mark The-Apologist, that egg shell is still the whole egg” hehehe

The same is true with his “triangle” analogy. The triangle has 3 sides, but ladies and gents, each
side of the triangle is not the whole triangle, right? So again, this is a false analogy of the
trinity.

Dr. James White who is a devout Trinitarian Christian, director of the Alpha and Omega
Ministry, is against these kinds of analogy because they don’t correctly describe the trinity.

Manage
Like
· Reply · 21h
Fahad Usmani Excellent
Abu Jaiyana 7. James Mark The-Apologist also denied that the early belief of Tertullian was that
the son was not co-equal to the father. What is very funny is that he quoted Wikipedia again,
but he failed to realize that the quotation he cited is against his argument:

Here is the quote:

“Tertullian's Christianity was not monotheistic by noting that even though there was one God
(Yahweh, who became the Father when the Son became his agent of creation), the Son could
also be referred to as God, when referred to apart from the Father, because the Son, though
subordinate to God, is entitled to be called God "from the unity of the Father" in regards to
being formed from a portion of His substance.”

Didn’t he notice this, “Tertullian's Christianity was NOT MONOTHEISTIC...”and especially this
one, “because the Son, though SUBORDINATE to God…´

James Mark The-Apologist must be very tired when he was searching the wikipedia hehehe

8. In my cross exam question #1 for James Mark The-Apologist I asked him:

1. In your concept of God, can God run away from his domain and never come back - If yes,
then explain WHERE will He run away. If No, then would you accept that your God is not true
God because He cant do anything?

His answer was:

Page 35 of 45
“God cannot run away from His domain”

WHY NOT? Isnt your argument in this debate that Allah is not true God because He can not
manifest Himself in flesh???

This means thats James Mark The-Apologist God is not all powerful because He CAN NOT do
anything such as running away from His domain – that is if we follow James own logic when he
criticized that Allah was not so powerful because He cannot manifest Himself in flesh.

God running away from His domain is stupidity because all domains belong to God, so where
could He possibly run away??

In the same manner, Allah doesn’t manifest Himself in flesh because it is also a stupidity. God is
unlimited, all-knowing, and all-powerful becomes limited, ignorant, and weak.

Can you imagine, the unlimited, all-knowing, and all-powerful God who created the heavens the
the earth is being chastised, humiliated, and killed by Roman MAGGOTS???

This is clear stupidity. Therefore, the criticism of my friend James Mark The-Apologist to Allah
who doesn’t manifest Himself in flesh is, in reality, against his concept of God.

9. In my question #3, James Mark The-Apologist again refuted his own argument:

"3. Do you agree with me that God being all powerful means that He only does what is Godly
and not the ungodly actions? If no, explain why."

His answer was:

“I agree that God cannot do ungodly things.”

Therefore, God becoming a man is a FALSE concept of God, hence the Christian God is FALSE.

He said that Jesus did not become God in his answer to my question #2.

But this is again false according to Christians. Trinitarian Christians believe that Jesus is God. In
John it is written that “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God.” And in the following verses, it says that the Word BECAME FLESH and DWELT
among Us.

Who was that ‘WORD” – they say that it was none other than Jesus, therefore, Jesus is God.

But our friend here James Mark The-Apologist denied that Jesus is God; he said that Jesus did

Page 36 of 45
not become God – may be due to the difficulty that he is experiencing in explaining how trinity
would agree with logic hehhee.

Manage
Like
· Reply · 20h
James Mark The-Apologist So shall I conclude now to finish the debate?
Manage
Like
· Reply · 21h
Abu Jaiyana im not yet done with my rebuttal\
Manage
Like
· Reply · 21h
James Mark The-Apologist Finish it. I thought you base historical evidence.
James Mark The-Apologist You are not giving a proper rebuttal. Your rebutal is not fair to my
evidence from the history and Dictionary. You are unfair in this debate:
Manage
Like
· Reply · 21h
Abu Jaiyana it is not for you to judge, let the audience decide

Manage
Like
· Reply · 21h

Abu Jaiyana 7. James Mark The-Apologist also denied that the early belief of Tertullian was that
the son was not co-equal to the father. What is very funny is that he quoted Wikipedia again,
but he failed to realize that the quotation he cited is against his argument:

Here is the quote:

“Tertullian's Christianity was not monotheistic by noting that even though there was one God
(Yahweh, who became the Father when the Son became his agent of creation), the Son could
also be referred to as God, when referred to apart from the Father, because the Son, though
subordinate to God, is entitled to be called God "from the unity of the Father" in regards to
being formed from a portion of His substance.”

Page 37 of 45
Didn’t he notice this, “Tertullian's Christianity was NOT MONOTHEISTIC...”and especially this
one, “because the Son, though SUBORDINATE to God…´

My friend James Mark The-Apologist should do a little effort of reading properly everything he
would use as evidence for his arguments because careless using of evidence would make you
look very funny.

Manage
Like
· Reply · 21h
James Mark The-Apologist Just tell me if you are finished. Because I will conclude the kind of
argumentation you are presenting.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 21h
Abu Jaiyana Yes I always will.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 21h
Ben Langcuyan Ihing-ihi ka yata rito, James Mark
Manage
Like
· Reply · 17h

Abu Jaiyana 10. Lastly, James Mark The-Apologist said that men performing miracles is not a
proof that they were Gods, which is true!

However, how is the miracle done by Jesus a proof that he is God if miracles are not proof of
divinity?

Our friend James Mark The-Apologist is totally confused in this debate. He criticized Prophet
Muhammad for having done no miracle unlike Jesus, but Prophet Muhammad did not claim
divinity and no Muslim believes that Prophet Muhammad is God – it is clear that James is
BARKING ON A WRONG TREE!

Moreover, even if Prophet Muhammad did perform miracles, still it would not make him God,
the same way that Jesus’ miracles doesn’t make him God because miracles are not proof of
divinity.

Furthermore, James Mark The-Apologist misunderstood the ayah he quoted ; he taught that

Page 38 of 45
Prophet Muhammad did not perform any miracle. Prophet Muhammad did perform many
miracles, more than the number of miracles done by Jesus in the Bible. I have a book here
about the many miracles of Prophet Muhammad, but that would be a separate topic
altogether.

Im just informing the readers that James Mark The-Apologistmisunderstood the ayah by
thinking that Prophet Muhammad did not perform miracles.

Finally, I have given a whole chapter of the Quran about the concept of God in Islam i.e. Surah
112:1-4, and a lengthy verse in Surah 2:255 – This Islamic concept of God is still untouched by
my friend James, and I don’t think that he can make any sound objection to any of them, which
to me proves that the Islamic God is the true God.

May God Almighty Guide us all. Ameen!

Manage
Like
· Reply · 20h
Abu Jaiyana My friend James Mark The-Apologist - you may now proceed to format #8

8. Conclusion by the Affirmative side - 1,000 words maximum...See More

Manage
Like
· Reply · 20h · Edited
James Mark The-Apologist These are his failures that render me the winner of this debate.
....Here:
Manage
Like
· Reply · 20h
Abu Jaiyana My Friend James Mark The-Apologist, I dont need your personal opinions okay?
Please start posting your conclusion because that is the format of our debate.

Control your emotions, let the readers decide which of our arguments make sense okay?

If you continue making irrelevant comments here, I will be forced to block you. Remember that
based on the rules, you are already defeated because you violated many of our rules, but I am
very lenient towards you because I consider this a friendly debate.

Page 39 of 45
Post your conclusion so that I could post mine as well.

8. Conclusion by the Affirmative side - 1,000 words maximum

Please be guided accordingly.

Thank you.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 19h
‫ دون ي غا دن س ع بدال عزي ز‬Nag jojoke lng si #james eh hhhhh

Manage
Like
· Reply · 19h
James Mark The-Apologist Major failures of Mr. Abu Jaiyana that gives me points why he
should be the loser of this debate:

See his major failures:

1. My second point is untouchable:

The failure of Mr.Abu Jaiyna is that

he could not refute my second point in my proposition that Luke 1:27 "there is no impossible
with God"

This word for word claim is not found any in the Quran, that there is no impossible to Allah.

2. He could not refute 1 Timothy 3:16 that God is able to manifest in the flesh.

3. He could not refute John 1:1-3, 14 that the Creator Word in the beginning did manifest in the
flesh.

4. He could not refute Colossians 2:9 that Jesus' deity was still full and was not removed.

5. He could not refute that Surah 3:29 is a lie that Allah is able to do all things.

6. He could not refute 1 Corinthians 1:24 that Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God
which I argued to support that Jesus has the power to manifest in the flesh which Allah hasn't.

7. He could not refute John 21:25 that Jesus had uncountable miracles as the true God and was

Page 40 of 45
not done by Allah to Muhammad such uncountable miracles.

8. He could not refute Surah 13:7 and Surah 6:37 that Muhammad when being questioned
about miracles to do as a sign, made an excuse of saying he was just only a messenger.

9. He could not refute 1 Kings 18:20-40 that God through Elijah had done a miracle which
challenge the Baal worshippers. This was not done by Allah when Muhammad was challenged
of miracles.

10. He failed to show me a Dictionary that defines ungodliness as "an act of God manifesting in
the flesh". He could not show me that definition in any based textbook.

11. He failed to show me a historical figure or a Dictionary that sujud means an act of respect
and not worship to Allah.

12. He failed to show me a historical reference that Theophilus rejected the trinity concept as
trias. He had no proof do defend that Theophilus did not affirm the doctrine of the trinity.

13. He failed to show me where Jesus reject and did not mention the three persons of the
trinity. He did not sight any basis at all.

14. He failed to refute the word "mystery" in Ephesians 3:4-5. He concluded that it is not trinity
without refuting it properly. He failed to do.

15. He failed to show a historical figurr that Tertullian disbelieved that Jesus is God, while I gave
a historical figure from WIKIpedia that Tertullian's theology believed that the Son is God.
His figure is a lie and no basis at all. Not even link to me where did he picked it up or what
source.

16. He failed to refute the WIKIpedia source I used to him, instead he was offended that I used
the source, he complained instead of refuting.
Meaning he do not know how to counter an argument here

17. His last failure is that, he failed to show me in my number five question that Allah is called
the true God word for word claimed in the original Aeabic Quran in a single text.
He failed while I have him the word for word claim in the Hebrew original tect that the Christian
God is the true God.

See his major mistakes?

That numerous mistakes should render to me the winner of this debate because all his points
and questions I answered all of them while he have not answered all my points and questions
that"s why these remains of his failures are still standing unrefuted.

Page 41 of 45
But the unfortunate thing for him, he have no longer time to address them all.

So I have still arguments which he failed to meet and left them untouched.

So I should be the winner of this debate since he could not able to refute my points and pass
my questions at all.

Mr.Abu Jaiyana let the audience be the one to look at your failures to me and serves also as
your failures to them.
Manage
Like
· Reply · 14h
Abu Jaiyana Conclusion of the Negative Side

First and foremost, I would like to thank all the readers of this debate; I hope that you learn
something from this debate. May God increase our knowledge, ameen!

I also would like to thank my Christian opponent, my friend James for devoting his time hoping
to win in this debate.

Allah spoke the truth when He said that the Truth stands clear from Error.

In my presentation, I clearly said that James mark made a FALLACY called CIRCULAR
ARGUMENT, that is, “IT IS TRUE SIMPLY BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAYS SO.” I clearly said that the
Bible is not a proof for me. Anything that is proven to be wrong is wrong even if the Bible says it
is right. It only means that the Bible is wrong as well.

For example, the Bible says that God manifested in flesh, but in our cross exam as well in in the
rebuttals, it was proven logically that God cannot manifest in flesh because it is an ungodly
action of God; an action which makes God no longer God because it is logically impossible to
have someone who is all-powerful yet weak at the same time, all-knowing yet ignorant at the
same time, et cetera. – These are self-contradictory terms.

If someone is all-powerful, it means that he is not weak, and if someone is weak, it means that
he is not all-powerful – you can never have someone who is BOTH ALL-POWERFUL and WEAK
AT THE SAME TIME. That is also true with all-knowing and ignorant at the same time.

Therefore, even if the whole Christian Bible says a million times that God manifested in flesh, it
simply means that the Bible is mistaken a million times.

My friend James insisted that I did not refute his argument that there is no impossible with
God, however, everyone can read back my rebuttal that I did refute that and James agreed with
me on that because he said that God CANNOT run outside of His domain.

Page 42 of 45
Yes, I do agree that there is no impossible with God but THAT DOESN’T MEAN that God would
do things that would make Him no longer God.
Can God create a stone which He cannot lift or destroy?

Of course NOT because if God can not destroy something, it means He is no longer God because
God is all-powerful so must be able to destroy anything from His creation.

But if you say NO, then it also means that God is not the real God because He lacks the power
to create something.

James insisted that I also did not refute the verse in Colossians that Jesus’ divinity was still full
and was not removed. However, I clearly emphasized many times that Jesus can never be God
in flesh because God is all-knowing while Jesus was ignorant – he didn’t know when the Hour
would take place, only the father knows it – so James is stuck with the dilemma of having an all-
knowing yet ignorant God at the same time.

He also said something about Prophet Muhammad and Allah, no miracles et cetera – OMG!!!
This is not the topic of this debate – what a red-herring fallacy!!! The topic in this debate is
whether or not the Christian god is the true God, not the God of Islam or Muhammad et cetera.

Even if we agree for the same of argumentation that Allah and or Muhammad cannot perform
miracles, or they both don’t exist, HOW does that prove that the Christian God is true??? It
proves nothing in this debate here ladies and gents.

The point and the truth is that Prophet Muhammad did perform many miracles, more miracles
than Jesus but I don’t need to elaborate them here because it is not the topic of this debate.

Lastly, the Wikipedia and the dictionary sources as evidence in a religious debate. James didn’t
know that Wikipedia is not a reliable source because all articles therein are revised, or changed,
or edited anytime by their respective authors. Moreover, the writers of Wikipedia are not
specialized people in the field – they are not Bible scholars, they are not authorities in the field
that we can rely on everything they wrote.

What is shocking is that in this debate, I GRANTED AND EXAMINED THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES
relied upon by James, and we found out that they DON’T SUPPORT what James is saying.
For example in the case of Ignatius of Antioch versus Tertullian on trinity: Ignatius’ trinity is NOT
THE SAME with the trinity of Tertullian.

Moreover, Tertullian’s trinity is NOT THE SAME as the Christian trinity of today because
Tertullian said that the SON IS SUBORDINATE TO THE FATHER but Today’s Christians say that
Jesus is not subordinate to the father but they are co-equal. This is why I cited the historical fact
in the Council of Nicene in 325 CE, and later in 381 CE the Holy Spirit was included by the
Roman priests as part of the trinity – The Holy Trinity of the Christian today is a made up
doctrine of the Roman priests during Emperor Constantine’s time – not a teaching of Jesus

Page 43 of 45
Christ.

It is interesting that in that Wikipedia source used by James also mentions this historical facts
about the council of Nicene but JAMES SIMPLY PRETENDED THAT THEY ARE NOT THERE. He is
cherry-picking from his own source.

Therefore, Ladies and Gents, it is clear that in this debate, I have successfully proven that the
concept of God in Christianity is a false one, a made up one by the Romans. It is a concept of
God that CANNOT exist due to self-contradiction.

My friend James has already declared himself to be the winner in this debate despite the fact
that all his arguments don’t make any sense and all refuted logically.

The psychologists say that the first stage of dying is DENIAL; ACCEPTANCE follows later.

Jazakallaho Khair.

Manage
Like
· Reply · 22m
Abu Mishal Boom � � �
Manage
Like
· Reply · 9m
Abu Mishal A mind blowing closing statement brother � � �
Manage
Like
· Reply · 9m

Abdul Hakeem Omalay Nice bro Abu Jaiyana

Manage
Like
· Reply · 10m
James Mark The-Apologist By the way thank you so much to Abu Jaiyana for you time also:

It's ok if you have not addressed the points. The most impotant is we learn a lot.

God bless.
Manage
Like

Page 44 of 45
 · Reply · 10m
Abu Jaiyana I will not boast myself my friend. I'll leave our arguments to the readers and it is up
to them to judge which side stands better.

May God increase our knowledge and guide us to the truth.

Manage
Like
· Reply · 1m

Page 45 of 45