Christian Fanatic Cerbie Refuted on Numbers 31:18 – Part II

After running away from his embarrassing failure regarding Numbers 31:18, Cerbie disappeared from BloggingTheology for a few days, only to resurface on a different topic to rant about Islam.  Naturally, I confronted the my canine friend with the problem of Numbers 31:18.  Here is the discussion:

Paul, you are the fascist for trying silence opposition to Islam. It’s not a phobia to dislike an ideology that is fundamentally about domination and dhimmitude.

You should be ashamed of yourself and self loathing of your country


  • Cerbie, reasonable people would have a phobia to your Bible. How old were those girls whom your god divided up among his hordes? Still waiting. You can keep running, but I’ll be hot on your trail. 😉


  • youre like a lost little puppy looking for attention. I humiliated you on that thread. You back for more little muhammadan?

    You can run but you can’t hide!!


  • LOL, is that why you keep running like a frightened little dog? How exactly did you embarrass me? Because one translation of your Bible used the word “women”? Bwahahaha, you are a lot stupider than I first assumed!


  • One translation? You mean the one you cited to begin with 😂😂. You mean like ignoring the fact that the Hebrew text says women. You mean like your insistence of emphasising the clarifying noun to indicate they were young and virgins and not already married. But that they were still women.

    And all this to try and defend mo’s rape of a nine year old?

    And even then Christians aren’t under the old covenant of national Israel.

    Yeah, you were humiliated. You should be ashamed of your prophet. You’re just too brainwashed to admit it publically. Deep down it terrifies you.


  • Hahahaha, how dumb are you? The Hebrew in verse 18 uses the word for children, you dingbat! And every translation describes the girls as children! How embarrassing that the best you can do is run away from the evidence and pretend like you refuted anything! What a loyal brain dead zombie you are to your pagan god!


  • “The Hebrew in verse 18 uses the word for children, you dingbat“

    That’s dumb, even for you. You would be correct if the qualifier “women” wasn’t also there. In this instance it means “young” or “virgin”, to distinguish them from the married women.

    But hey, you love being humiliated so why would we expect any honesty from you?


  • Hahahaha, is that what you found out in your frantic Google searches in the last couple of days?

    Every translation describes them as young girls. Stop lying for Jesus for once in your pathetic life. Face it. Your perverted book upholds the enslavement of little girls by your god’s marauding hordes!


  • Run away? You’ve been refuted numerous times now. You just repeat the same nonsense. Not surprising really, your example is the Koran!!


  • Lol says the brain dead zombie who doesn’t provide any references and who has yet to explain why every translation refers to them as children. No wonder you’re a Christian! Lies come naturally to you.


  • Look, I understand your confusion. The qualifier “who has never slept with a man” is meaningless in Islam because your men like to marry and rape female children. So you naturally think of kids. But for the rest of us, those not conditioned to imitate a child molester, we read the text, the text that qualifies the condition as “women” to mean shockingly, women.

    Our insistence on this topic only proves how depraved muhammadans really are


  • You lying again Faiz? Look, I’ll help you out if you like. Look at numbers 31:35. This verse is directly related to verse 8. What is the Hebrew? Spoiler alert, “women”. What is the qualifier, “who has not slept with a man”.

    So your little rant and attempts to islamise verse 18 to defend your pal mo doesn’t work. The term is used to distinguish the virgin women from the married women. Get that? WOMEN. Same in both verses.

    Just face it. You failed. You lose. You’re humiliated.


  • Still stuck on verse 35? Verse 18 clearly describes them as children. Here is Matthew Henry’s commentary:

    “The sword of war should spare women and children; but the sword of justice should know no distinction, but that of guilty or not guilty. This war was the execution of a righteous sentence upon a guilty nation, in which the women were the worst criminals. The female children were spared, who, being brought up among the Israelites, would not tempt them to idolatry.”

    Face it loser. Your god allowed the taking of little girls as slaves.


  • Verse 18 not 8


  • Since you’re horny cus of the pornverses I quoted to you earlier I would like to ask you again: where in the Islamic sources does it say that Aisha was raped?
    I’m waiting. And while you’re at it, don’t fantasize about donkey chipolatas to much as your filthy pornbook likes to talk about them or you’ll make a mess.
    And I would also loooove to have a SINGLE sources anywhere from before the 20th century criticizing Muhammad (saw) for marrying Aisha at a young age. I’ll be waiting for that one too.

    But since it doesn’t exist (cus no one cared or thought it was wrong) that means all crosstians must have been pedos. And here I thought the holy potato would prevent something like that. I guess he was on a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG holiday.
    The xtian god has got to rest obviously.
    Genesis 2:2
    And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.


  • Only a filthy muhammadan pagan would think raping a nine year old is consensual.


  • sounds like you had one or two XXXX too many


  • I am no lover of organised religion full stop – but there’s a difference between challenging dogma and racism. Robinson doesn’t understand that difference.


  • Paulus,

    Which law of the Bible did Muhammad(saw) violated when marrying Aisha(ra) ?


  • any religion thats not organized?


  • Darttimon

    Only if one accepts the absurd premise that Islam is a race. You don’t hear critics of capitalism or socialism being branded as racists.

    Muslims love the victim card. It fuels their ideological motivation as evidenced in the Friday sermons to mobilise the deen. Pathetic really.


  • Paulus read up on racism. You love to play the stupid card.

    Liked by you

  • “Muslims love the victim card”
    Except that Western countries have bombed Muslim countries to oblivion you fucking whore.
    So we have every right to play that ‘card’. You can shove your love card up your ass cus no one is buying that. Religion of love my ass.

    I think it’s time to ban this filth from the forum. He can only come up with insults lately. Put the trash where it belongs guys and ban this pornbook lover back to his dungeon a la Emmanuel.


  • As usual the trash can’t come up with any evidence that Aisha was ‘raped’. NOTHING. Nothing but insults.
    Pathetic. According to this pagan all crosstians were pedos and rapists for at least 13 centuries cus no one ever criticized Muhammad (saw) for marrying Aisha at a young age. The only reason this pile of crap says what it says is because it’s living at this time, kissing secularist ass.
    Talks about slavery while its pornbook has the worst treatment for slaves you can imagine. Talks about violence while its pornbook has the most horrific violence you can possibly imagine.
    But it’s all okey. Cus allegedly some pagan mangod was humiliated and hung naked on a giant cross and that magically takes away your sins and the responsibility of ALL your crimes as long as you believe in that.
    Thank God christianity is dead and buried and doesn’t exist anymore and what we have today is just a cult kissing secularist’s ass. That’s about the only good thing the secularist movement has done.

    Liked by you

  • Cerbie still can’t explain why his god allowed the rape of young virgin girls. He still can’t explain why Isaac married Rebekkah when she was a 10 year old girl.

    Here is a run down of Cerbie’s pathetic attempts to whitewash Numbers 31:18:

    1. He tried to distance himself from the taking of virgins as slaves, saying that he does not regard Moses as a role model to follow. He didn’t argue that these girls were actually women and therefore it was not the same thing. Thus, he obviously realized that it makes his Bible look bad when little girls are taken as slaves.

    2. But then he was the shown that God actually put a stamp of approval on the whole thing.

    3. This is where he switched gears and made the pathetic argument that the girls were actually women. And this is where he is stuck at the present moment. Despite seeing the evidence and multiple translations, he is still trying to peddle the lie that Numbers 31 is referring to young women and not little girls.


  • You still telling lies, little muhammadan.

    Here’s a recap.

    1. Little muhammadan can only appeal to one noun in isolation from the context. He ignores the fact that the word women is used in verse 18 and 35. He ignores the fact that the very verse distinguishes between married women and virgins. Basically, he ignores everything and relies on semantic fallacies.

    2. Little muhammadan does all this to try and defend muhammad raping a nine year old girl.

    3. Little muhammadan defends muhammad by appealing to what God commands. This is shirk. Just another demonstration of the fact that Muslims actually worship muhammad.

    4. Little muhammadan is outraged that Christians livenunder the new covenant. This takes away any perceived “leverage” this muhammadan perceives he has.

    All in all, it’s just another fail in this little muhammadans attempted apologetics career. Then when he looses, he will just repeat his mantra, “you ran away”. 🤣😂


  • Bwahahaha, the little pagan doggie is trying his best to avoid discussing his backtracking on this embarrassing issue. Why haven’t you provided any references for your claims, you lying trinitarian? Hmmm, I wonder why?

    It seems little Cerbie thinks he knows better than his own scholars, who have all translated verse 18 as “children”. But even if that were not true, one would hope that whatever is left of Cerbie’s brain would be able to logically determine who these girls were. Let’s try shall we? Who was killed during the battle? The men, so we can cross them out. Who was left? The women and children. OK, but then the women who had slept with a man were killed as well. So were the little boys. So who is left then? Come on Cerbie, say it with me. I know you can do it. The…little…girls…Yay, you got it!

    Liked by 1 person

  • Cerbie’s humiliation continues…Here we go again!

    The book “Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy” (p. 260), quotes the church father Augustine as stating that “…in the proper usage of the Hebrew language all females are habitually called women”.

    So there goes Cerbie’s pathetic defense against his Bible’s depravity. The “women” described in verse 35 were in fact young children, but the Bible still refers to them as “women”. It doesn’t change the fact that they were young, virgin girls.

    And here is an admission from another Christian source:

    “Ancient women had one career path: being wives and mothers… and they began these careers early in life by our standards — often as young teens. But this was how the economy worked back then… and it worked that way for most of human history. So, we should not judge those ancient societies by today’s more egalitarian standards” (

    Oops, so they were young girls after all. Poor Cerbie seems to be alone in his deliberate twisting of the Biblical text.



The Two Readings at John 1:3-4

An excellent rebuttal to the Christian use of John 1:3-4 for defending the “eternal” existence of Jesus (pbuh) as the “Word”. This is an excerpt of a current discussion on BloggingTheology between the Christian apologist Ken Temple and a Unitarian gentleman by the name of Georg Kaplan. Readers of this blog may remember my rebuttal to Temple on the issue of “substitutionary atonement” in Islam. See here for that article:

Ask an Apologist

[In response to posts from Ken Temple,  to my post, here]


You assert that Jesus is claiming to be Yahweh at John 8:58 and give John 5 as support. But at John 5,   Jesus said he could only do what the Father showed him and that the Father would show him more in the future.

But Jesus said he was given life at John 5:26 and to allow this to fit into your theology you say he was given it eternally.   And for this you cite John 1:1-5.   But to make this work, you fight against the latest scholarly edition of the Greek text as found in Nestle Aland.

I presented evidence from the Nestle Aland that Athanasius quoted the reading that refutes you. To this you say, you are not convinced.   That is why I remind you how we got to this point.  You bear the burden…

View original post 162 more words

Christian Fanatic Cerbie Refuted on Numbers 31:18

The unfortunate dog of hell and Islamophobe Cerbie/Paulus got embarrassed on the issue of female Midianite prisoners taken as slaves in Number 31:18.  He tried to maintain that the prisoners were all fully grown women and not children.  But the Hebrew text shows that they were young girls.

“He avoided discussing this issue like the plague with me and ran away“

Ha! I’m a prophet!

More lies again? On that topic you were humiliated. The text specifically calls them women. The Hebrew word is women. Yet you insist to guess their age to save face from your pedophile child raping prophet


  • More idiocy from Cerbie? I humiliated you and exposed you as a liar by showing the evidence from the Hebrew text. The girls are described in verse 18 as “hat-tap” which means “children”. Here it is again:

    Don’t be like the false apostle Paul. Don’t lie for Jesus, Cerbie. You will get exposed and humiliated!

    Liked by 1 person

  • To further humiliate our canine friend Cerbie, here are multiple English translations of verse 18:

    American Standard Version

    Numbers 31:18 (ASV) But all the women-children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

    The Bible in Basic English

    Numbers 31:18 (BBE) But all the female children who have had no sex relations with men, you may keep for yourselves.

    Common English Bible

    Numbers 31:18 (CEB) But all the young girls who have not known a man intimately by sleeping with him, spare for yourselves.

    Common English Bible w/ Apocrypha

    Numbers 31:18 (CEBA) But all the young girls who have not known a man intimately by sleeping with him, spare for yourselves.

    The Complete Jewish Bible

    Numbers 31:18 (CJB) But the young girls who have never slept with a man, keep alive for yourselves.

    Holman Christian Standard Bible

    Numbers 31:18 (CSB) but keep alive for yourselves all the young females who have not had sexual relations.

    The Darby Translation

    Numbers 31:18 (DBY) but all the children among the women that have not known lying with a man, keep alive for yourselves.

    English Standard Version

    Numbers 31:18 (ESV) But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.

    Good News Translation

    Numbers 31:18 (GNT) but keep alive for yourselves all the girls and all the women who are virgins.
    Good News Translation w/ Apocrypha

    Numbers 31:18 (GNTA) but keep alive for yourselves all the girls and all the women who are virgins.
    GOD’S WORD Translation

    Numbers 31:18 (GW) But save for yourselves every girl who has never gone to bed with a man.


Multicultural Version of Tala Al Badru Alayna – Alhamdulillah!

A beautiful rendition of the famous nasheed “Tala Al Badru Alayna” recited in different languages.  This is a shining example for Muslim unity.  May we be united in our common faith.  Ameen.


Where is the Gospel of Jesus the Christ – Wael Ibrahim

An excellent discussion by brother Wael Ibrahim in a recent debate in Hong Kong!

Blogging Theology

Br. Wael Ibrahim recently had a debate in China with a Christian scholar. In this amazing clip he asks, “Where is the Gospel of Jesus the Christ” and gives a spectacular answer!

Click here to watch the video on Facebook.

Full debate:

and Allah knows best.

View original post

Christian Fanatic “Cerbie” (Paulus) Takes a Double Beating!

Cerbie/Cerberus is at it again.  The dog of hell is still desperately trying to attack Islam, only to get humiliated in the process.  Two concurrent debates with the rabid Christian fanatic are underway at BloggingTheology:


  • The Jews have Jerusalem and rightly so. Islam can keep Arabia where it belongs.


  • Paulus has the right to be a slave for white christian dudes even if they contradict his scriptures.


  • Better than being a slave to a white Arabian prophet who traded in black slaves and married little girls.


  • “The Jews have Jerusalem and rightly so. Islam can keep Arabia where it belongs.”

    Which disproves Christianity, per Ezekiel! Thanks Cerbie, you falsified your own religion!


  • “Better than being a slave to a white Arabian prophet who traded in black slaves and married little girls.”

    Hahaha, only Cerbie, you silly Christian zombie mutt. Muhammad (pbuh) wasn’t white, and slavery was a face of life in ancient times, and your god’s ancestor Isaac married his wife when she was around 10 years old. Your Canaanite god even allowed coercive sex with concubines.


  • …Muhammad (peace be upon him) was an Arab, so being called “white” would not mean he was literally a white man (like Europeans or Americans). As for the ahadith that Chick referred to prove that Muhammad (peace be upon him) was a white man, he is simply misinterpreting the meaning. This tends to happen when Christian apologists blindly parrot each other in repeating nonsensical polemics without bothering to do the research. In the hadith, the phrase translated as “this white man” uses the word “الأبْيَضُ” (“abyad”).[38] According to Lane’s “Arabic-English Lexicon”, “abyad” can mean “white” or “having whiteness”.[39] However, it also states:

    “[a]pplied to a man…it was sometimes used to signify white in complexion…”

    Further, it could also be used to refer to a man as “…pure; free from faults”. But further still, it was used in lexicons and “other post-classical works” as meaning “white; or fair in complexion”.

    So when applied to an Arab man like Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), it was actually signifying his white complexion. This is demonstrated in other ahadith which described him as having a “white complexion”:

    “Abu Juhaifa reported: I saw Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) that he had white complexion and had some white hair, and Hasan b. ‘Ali resembled him.”[40]

    Not only did he have a “white complexion”, but the complexion was also described as “slightly reddish”.[41] He was described as “neither absolutely white nor deep brown”.[42] So, the conclusion is that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was not literally a white man, and no serious scholar has ever described him as such. For example, Watt described him simply as having a “fair” complexion.[43]

    As for the claim that he owned black slaves, this was obviously an attempt to characterize him as a racist slave owner like American or European white slave owners. But the reality was that he did not exclusively own black slaves. He also had Arab slaves. Slavery was a fact of life in the ancient world, but it was not as if only blacks were made into slaves and not Arabs, or vice versa. Moreover, Muhammad (peace be upon him) was clearly against racism, as he made clear in his famous “Farewell Sermon”:

    “[a]ll mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety (taqwa) and good action. Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood.”[44]

    Furthermore, in another famous hadith, Muhammad (peace be upon him) reprimanded the companion Abu Dharr (may Allah be pleased with him), who was an Arab, for reproaching Bilal (may Allah be pleased with him), who was an Abyssinian and the first muezzin of Islam, by saying “oh son of a black woman” while they were having an argument. In other words, Abu Dharr got angry at Bilal and denigrated his ethnicity in the heat of the moment. When he heard what Abu Dharr had said, Muhammad (peace be upon him) said:

    “[h]ave you reproached Bilal about his mother? By the one who revealed the Book to Muhammad, none is better than another except by righteous deeds. You have none but an insignificant amount.””[45]


  • Incidentally, it seems that beloved Biblical figures such as Isaac (peace be upon him) also had wives much younger than themselves. Though there is disagreement, the age of Rebecca at the time of her marriage to the forty-year old Isaac is thought to be between 10 and 14 years, and even as young as three! According to the Jewish Encyclopedia:

    “[t]he Rabbis disagree as to the age of Rebekah at the time of her marriage to Isaac. The statement of the Seder ‘Olam Rabbah (i.) and Gen. R. (lvii. 1) that Abraham was informed of Rebekah’s birth when he ascended Mount Moriah for the ‘Aḳedah, is interpreted by some as meaning that Rebekah was born at that time, and that consequently she was only three years old at the time of her marriage. Other rabbis, however, conclude from calculations that she was fourteen years old, and that therefore she was born eleven years before the ‘Aḳedah, both numbers being found in different manuscripts of the Seder ‘Olam Rabbah (comp. Tos. to Yeb. 61b). The “Sefer ha-Yashar” (section “Ḥayye Sarah,” p. 38a, Leghorn, 1870) gives Rebekah’s age at her marriage as ten years” (

    Liked by 1 person

  • Rabbinical Judaism and Raymond brown? Talk about desperate. Notice you can never actually refer to a biblical text. And there lies the difference. You appeal to “opinions” while I appeal to your own Hadith.

    Hey im glad we agree that your prophet was a white black slave trading man who marries children!


  • “Rabbinical Judaism and Raymond brown? Talk about desperate. Notice you can never actually refer to a biblical text. And there lies the difference. You appeal to “opinions” while I appeal to your own Hadith.

    Hey im glad we agree that your prophet was a white black slave trading man who marries children!”

    Hahahahaha, yes talk about desperation! No real answer, as usual from our zombie dog Cerbie.

    There was no reason for the rabbis to make up Rebekkah’s age. The fact is that it was very common in antiquity. Get over it already.

    Brown’s scholarly view is the mainstream and majority view among NT scholars. Again, get over it.

    Hey, I’m glad to see you have no real response to any of the issues I humiliated you on!

    While we’re at it, how old were the little girls whom Moses allowed the Israelite soldiers to take for themselves?

    And since you are denying “rabbinical Judaism”, perhaps you can tell us what was Rebekkah’s age when she married Isaac? Hmm, let’s see what Cerbie can conjure up here…


  • Fail.

    Is it racist for a person to say they hate Islam and want to stop muslim immigration?


  • So, no answer. Should I assume that you know nothing and are just here to make a fool of yourself? What was Rebekkah’s age when she married Isaac? I will even take a range, if you are not sure.

    It is xenophobic and racist to hate Muslims. Indeed, it is the same if you hate any particular group of people, even brainwashed Christian zombies like yourselves. By the way Cerbie, were your ancestors Aborigines? 😉


  • Oh and how old were the little girls whom Moses divided up among his soldiers? Don’t keep me waiting Cerbie! I’m still waiting for you to conjure up a 1st century manuscript of your NT!


  • Ok. So it’s racist to hate Muslims.

    1. Therefore Islam is a race according to you.

    2 muhammad taught that Muslims are the best of people.

    3. Therefore the race of Islam is the best.

    4. But muhammad also taught that one race is not better than another.

    5. Therefore, you’ve just contradicted your prophet by appeal to racism.



  • “Ok. So it’s racist to hate Muslims.

    1. Therefore Islam is a race according to you.

    2 muhammad taught that Muslims are the best of people.

    3. Therefore the race of Islam is the best.

    4. But muhammad also taught that one race is not better than another.

    5. Therefore, you’ve just contradicted your prophet by appeal to racism.


    LOL, #Cerbiegetsdesperateyetagain and #Cerbiannonsequiturs.

    Muhammad (pbuh) taught that Muslims are the best of people because they enjoin right and forbid wrong. Similarly, he taught that no person is better than another person except by piety. So no, I didn’t contradict my beloved prophet. I just exposed you for the nut that you are! Thanks for making it so easy!

    Now be a dear and answer my question, will you? Were your ancestors Aborigines?


  • Your beloved prophet? You mean you love a man that raped a 9 year old? You love a man that kept and traded black slaves? You love a man that killed critics? You love a man that robbed innocent traders?

    You need help little sweet cheeks…


  • “Your beloved prophet? You mean you love a man that raped a 9 year old? You love a man that kept and traded black slaves? You love a man that killed critics? You love a man that robbed innocent traders?

    You need help little sweet cheeks…”

    Still deflecting and not answering my questions? I think you’re the one who needs help, Cerbie. The humiliation just keeps getting worse and worse.

    So, how old were the little girls whom Moses divided up among his soldiers? What was Rebekka’s age? Still waiting. Each time you avoid the questions makes the hole you are in deeper. Come now, dear boy. Be a man and try to answer.


  • Still waiting for an answer: were your ancestors Aborigines?

    I’ll be hear when you come back and hopefully by then, you will have grown a spine and will answer my question. Don’t run away!


  • The only deep hole is probably the one old mo dug to hide the 800 Jews he mercilessly murdered. Remember them? Nah, probably not given how much you detest God’s chosen people.

    Look at you trying to defend mo by appeal to others. Sorry sweet cheeks, that’s a deflection. Nor do we emulate any wrong doings Moses or others may have done, despite your attempted beating to “guess” about thing real scripture remains silent on. You, however, seeem to be in love with a murderous child rapist. Remember, he was “sinless” in your eyes. Killing those people? No problem in your eyes. Raping kids? No worries! Trading slaves? Hey, no big deal. It’s just my beloved prophet!

    Let’s see you marry of your six year old daughter to Williams when you have one….oh wait, he like boys. My bad.


  • Hahahaha, back so soon? You enjoy being humiliated, don’t you? You must be a masochist!

    Silly boy, where does your Bible say that what Moses did was wrong? Your Canaanite god never rebuked him, so who are you to say he was wrong? Poor cerbie, trying so hard to deny the evil of your Bible by appealing to secular ideals.

    Still waiting for Rebekkah’s age, you twit. Be a man and answer.

    Liked by 1 person

  • Hey Cerbie, your Canaanite god upheld Moses’ ruling and commanded that every soldier receive his share of the “spoils”:

    “The Lord said to Moses, 26 “You and Eleazar the priest and the family heads of the community are to count all the people and animals that were captured. 27 Divide the spoils equally between the soldiers who took part in the battle and the rest of the community. 28 From the soldiers who fought in the battle, set apart as tribute for the Lord one out of every five hundred, whether people, cattle, donkeys or sheep. 29 Take this tribute from their half share and give it to Eleazar the priest as the Lord’s part. 30 From the Israelites’ half, select one out of every fifty, whether people, cattle, donkeys, sheep or other animals.”

    “The plunder remaining from the spoils that the soldiers took was 675,000 sheep, 72,000 cattle, 61,000 donkeys and 32,000 women who had never slept with a man.”

    There is not one peep of condemnation from your god for dividing up the little girls. In fact, your god commanded it. So, now that we have exposed your lies, answer the question. How old were these little girls? There is no need to “guess”. The information is there. Historical precedent is there. You have all the help you need to answer the question. And while you are at it, tell me how old Rebekkah was. There’s a good boy…


  • “Peter and John (whom you cannot argue against because they are 2 of the 12 disciples eyewitnesses during Jesus lifetime) quoted Psalm 16:10; Psalm 110:1, in Acts 2:24-35 as proof…”

    Oooow boy!!! Here we go again!!!

    What proof??? Your NT is unreliable to the core. Acts, really? Who wrote it? How do we know the writer is reliable? You don’t even know his name for God’s sake. And don’t say Luke (the companion of paul)!
    Not in the mood for games!


  • Atlas.

    We don’t even know your name. Why should we trust you as reliable? By your own criteria you disqualify your comment.



  • “We don’t even know your name. Why should we trust you as reliable? By your own criteria you disqualify your comment.


    BWHAHAHAH, classic Cerbian-logic and a desperate attempt to move the goalpost. Atlas is not anonymously writing a book. Moreover, if need be, he can easily provide you his name if he wants to. On the other hand, your nameless Gospels were written by unknown people who died 2000 years ago and who clearly went out of their way to remain anonymous. There is no way to verify who they were anymore.



  • “Allan Ruhl completely demolished Muslim’s attempts to find Muhammad in the Bible. Poor little Faiz got really frustrated and could not handle the truth. (latter in the comboxes)”

    Actually Ken, if you pay attention, you will notice that Allan got very defensive and would not answer my questions. This is typical of Christian apologists.


  • “who clearly went out of their way to remain anonymous“

    “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.”

    Yes, sounds like Luke was definitely trying to remain anonymous, haha. As I keep telling you. When you rely upon lies and hyperbole you will always get caught out.

    Back to your masjid course little muhammadan and learn a bit more about how to practice your taqiyyah a little more effectively.


  • Hahaha, awww is poor Cerbie so embarrassed he can’t think straight? The last time I checked, there are FOUR gospels in your NT, right? So, which authors identify themselves in those gospels? And did Jedi Master “Luke” identify himself in Acts?

    Back to your empty church to contemplate another way to save yourself from more humiliation.


  • Things go from bad to worse for poor Cerbie:

    “…neither the Gospel of Matthew nor the Gospel of John was actually written by the apostle whose name it bears – a position held by almost all the major Catholic commentary writers today” (Raymond Brown, The Critical Meaning of the Bible: How a Modern Reading of the Bible Challenges Christians, the Church, and the Churches (New York: Paulist Press, 1981), p. 70).


  • Yawn… back to appealing to liberal scholarship I see. Ironic given your fundamentalism on the other thread re secularism. I’ve seeb pigs act more consistent than you


  • Yaaawn, oh sorry. Your usual insipid and pathetic response is making me sleepy. A sheepish appeal to the “liberal” scholarship card as usual.

    Irony abounds in Cerbie’s responses! Rejecting “liberal” scholarship, then accusing me of being “inconsistent”, and yet appealing to secularist ideals in the other post! Oh Cerbie, when will you learn? I am sure there are a lot of pigs and dogs who are more consistent and less self-contradictory than you! ROTFL!!


  • Tell me Cerbie, what is so special about “conservative” NT scholarship that we should blindly trust like you do? If anything, “conservative” NT scholars are more biased and the least trustworthy. So why should we trust them?


  • You’ll probably find conservative scholars share many of the same presupposition that you do. But because you are taught to hate Jews and Christians from infancy, you’ll do everything in your power to attack those two faiths, even if it means cosying up with liberals.


  • LOL, so no answer again. Just a deflection.

    It’s obvious that you hate Muslims. It’s no wonder your comments showcase such pathetic rhetoric and no answers.

    I don’t hate Jews and Christians, idiot. I don’t even hate you! How could I when you make me laugh so much? Don’t get me wrong. I think you’re a brainwashed idiot with an agenda. You are incapable of having an honest and civilized discussion. Your hate blinds you and keeps you from having a substantive discussion. I respond to you mainly for kicks. It relieves the stress from a hard day’s work.

    Now be a dear and do try and answer my questions.


  • You asked why we should trust conservative scholarship and I answered you.

    Then you moan that I didn’t answer?

    Now it’s obvious why muslim women have no rights with Muslim men like you.


  • Cheerio back to your pagan prayers now…


  • “”You asked why we should trust conservative scholarship and I answered you.

    Then you moan that I didn’t answer?

    Now it’s obvious why muslim women have no rights with Muslim men like you.”

    LOL, you didn’t answer anything. You’ve been running back and forth like a rabid dog. I asked why we should trust conservative scholars. You seem to be very high on them. Why?


  • “Cheerio back to your pagan prayers now…”

    Come back soon, ya hear? We can talk more about pagan Canaanite god! 😉


  • “Now it’s obvious why muslim women have no rights with Muslim men like you.”

    “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.” – Paul the false apostle



Examining the Newest Historical Research on Earliest Quranic Manuscripts I Jay Smith & Ejaz Ahmed

Notorious Islamophobe Jay Smith gets taken to school by Ijaz Ahmed on the Quranic manuscripts.

Blogging Theology

Br. Ejaz Ahmed had a brief dialogue with Jay Smith today (I personally would call it a car crash. RIP Jay).

Jay believes all major codices from the Qur’an date to the 8th and 9th centuries CE. Ejaz proved to him this is not the case.

“the second half of the first century A.H. and the first half of the second Century A.H. [due to] “vowelling and dotting.” (i.e. early – mid 8th century) (Altıkulaç, ‘Al­Mushaf al­Sharif’ 2007:81)

622 CE is when the Hijri calendar begins, 622 + 50 is 672. He lies and says it’s only from the 8th century onwards. When caught he initially says it dates to the mid 8th century which is 750 CE, then he changes his mind and says 719. So why can’t he get his story straight?

Jay’s claims Topkapi has “thousands of differences”, I point out it’s mainly with the letter alif…

View original post 66 more words