Refuting Faiz on Surah 61:6

by

St. John the Baptist

Faiz responded to an article I wrote a while back saying that Muslims and can learn from Archbishop Vigano.  He said a few things so I will have a few posts to respond to him.  They probably won’t be consecutive but I will respond.  I will probably write three or four in total so here’s the first.

The article by Faiz can be found here:

What Allan Ruhl Can Learn From Muslims and Christine Ford

Faiz first points out that just because something isn’t recorded, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.  Faiz is correct on this part, but I will come back to this.

Faiz goes on to quote literature from the time of Jesus and before Him.  Faiz writes:

What all this demonstrates is that even though there is no written confirmation of Jesus (peace be upon him) prophesying the coming of Muhammad (peace be upon him), it is still plausible that such a prophecy was made, especially since the New Testament offers a confusing and contradictory explanation for who “the Prophet” actually was.   Christians like Ruhl simply don’t have a strong case either way.    

Faiz tries to quote literature before Jesus and John the Baptist’s conversation with Temple authorities to show that is was popular to have lots of ideas of prophets and messiahs at that time.  There were a lot of ideas floating around.

Was there one Messiah, or multiple Messiahs?  Was the Messiah to be a son of David, a son of Joseph, or a son of Aaron?  Was Elijah going to come back?  Was another prophet going to come back?  Was a brand new prophet going to come?

A lot of ideas were out there so the context for Surah 61:6 seems plausible, right?  However, Surah 61 doesn’t quote rumors floating around at the time of Christ.  It quotes Christ Himself and this is where the argument gets bad for Faiz.

While people around Jesus seemed to be talking about prophets and messiahs left, right, and centre, Jesus slammed the door on all of them.  He said that he was the only Messiah and no one else.  As for prophets, He didn’t even entertain the thought.  He certainly could have since he talked about Him dying for the sins of His people(Mark 10:45, Matthew 20:28, John 10:11), building a Church that the gates of Hades won’t overcome(Matthew 16:18), and sending the Holy Spirit to be with the Church forever(John 14:16).  Obviously Christ talked about key theological issues but no messenger named Ahmad who was going to contradict His message.  No ensemble of messiahs.  No future prophets to come.  If you want to say that He believed in another prophet, why not say He believed in additional messiahs?  We both know why.  It’s because seventh century Arabs don’t put these words or ideas in His mouth.

Let’s look at an analogy using Martin Luther King Jr.  At the time of MLK there were people all over America in favor of racist laws.  So maybe MLK supported these racist laws?  After all, they were popular at the time in America so it fits the context of King’s time.  However it doesn’t fit into the context of King himself as everything that we know from King shows that he opposed these racist laws.  It’s true we don’t have every word ever said or written by King but his words that we don’t have wouldn’t go against the words of his that we know.  Unless of course Faiz wants to try to prove that King supported racist laws in America.

I will be writing more about this article by Faiz in the near future.  I will be dealing with the Nazarene quote in the NT, the missing books of the OT and possibly one other topic that he touched on.

I would also like to ask any Muslim who looks at John 1 and the conversation between John the Baptist and the Temple authorities and ask: “Why don’t you accept everything in this chapter?”  John 1 is one of the most anti-Islamic chapters in the entire Bible.  Muslims don’t believe that Jesus is the incarnate Logos or the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.  Why believe this brief dialogue between the Temple authorities and John the Baptist who shoots them down with his one word answers?

Also Faiz, one more thing.  I would recommend reading the whole letter from Archbishop Vigano which can be found online.

Posted on
Categories: Apologetics, Catholicism, Islam

Please note: I reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive or off-topic.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

72 thoughts on “Refuting Faiz on Surah 61:6”

  1. Faiz apparently suffers from the Abdallah-Gulam syndrom- a very common disease among Muslim apologists. Its main symptom is one’s feeling that the articles/videos he produces are very truthful and compelling, when in reality they are illogical and inconsistent and serve only as an embarrassment for their author. Faiz’ article indicates that he is not in touch with Christian apologetics (even the basic levels). His “musings” on the Nazarene prophecy and on Christ allegedly not being called “Prophet” by His disciples (Acts 3:18-26, anyone?) are the typical waste of everybody’s time that we see over and over again in Muslim apologetics.

    Reply

    • Hi Orangehunter,

      I think it says a lot that Faiz doesn’t see the beautiful connection and the interweaving between both the OT and NT.

      The problem with Muslim apologists is that they know there is no harmony between the Quran and previous scriptures, which is why the Muslims don’t accept them. This should immediately discredit the Quran but instead apologists like Faiz essentially adopt the attitude that if Muslims don’t have harmony, Christians can’t have it either. That’s why Faiz can’t see the beauty of the Nazarene prophecy and the branch and tries to create chaos where there is perfect harmony. We put the NT and OT side by side. We’re not afraid of anything. No Muslim in the history of the religion has handed out Quran-Bibles containing the OT, NT, then the Quran in one volume.

      I wrote a piece like this a while back that you might be interested in.

      http://allanruhl.com/the-christian-says-that-muhammad-is-not-in-the-bible-the-jew-says-jesus-is-not-in-the-ot-are-these-even-claims/

      God bless,

      Allan

      Reply

      • Allan,

        The reason people (not just Muslims, but pretty much everyone else who is not a Christian) don’t “see the beautiful (sic) connection and interweaving between the OT and NT” is because there is no such thing. It’s all in your mind. You have convinced yourself that there is a connection, when there isn’t. Don’t blame others for not being as gullible as you may be.

        Reply

      • Graphomania is strong with this one, it seems. Just as the aforementioned syndrome.
        1. “…Naturally, he simply assumes which ideas to reject and which to accept without evidence”- naturally, Christians use the Bible and Church tradition when they “assume” which ideas are to be accepted/rejected. Oh, snap!
        2. “John the Baptist did not correct the Jews for thinking that the “Prophet” and the “Messiah” were two different people, then it follows that they were really supposed to be two different people”- this is non sequitur. St. John the Baptist’s mission was to prepare the scene for Christ’s coming, not to clear up all misunderstandings of the Scripture. Why didn’t Muhammad say a word about what exactly happened with Jesus at the cross? Besides, if the Prophet was supposed to be an Arab, why did Jews even bother with St. John?
        3. ”the disciples are said to have referred to Jesus (peace be upon him) as the Messiah, but never as “the Prophet”, at least not until after Jesus was already gone!”- have you ever bothered to read the Bible? “Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found Him of whom Moses in the law, and also the prophets, wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”(John 1:45). And even if the disciples really started calling Christ “the Prophet” after His ascension, so what? Sounds like a very desperate argument.
        4. “In fact, Jesus (peace be upon him) never emphasized the “Prophet” prophecy as referring to himself, but always emphasized his role as the “Messiah”.- I really
        don’t know why I still waste my time with you. “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me.”(John 5:46); “Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures.”(Luke 24:44-45)
        5.”It seems Ruhl and his Christian brethren just want the benefit of the doubt, something they will not extend to Muslims”- nope, they just expect that you’ll at least try to do your homework right. It seems they were utterly wrong.
        To be continued…

        Reply

        • LOL, the bluster is strong with this one. Let me just respond to the the parts of your diatribe where you actually tried to make a point:

          “his is non sequitur. St. John the Baptist’s mission was to prepare the scene for Christ’s coming, not to clear up all misunderstandings of the Scripture. Why didn’t Muhammad say a word about what exactly happened with Jesus at the cross? Besides, if the Prophet was supposed to be an Arab, why did Jews even bother with St. John?”

          Typical, no answer, just a red herring. If Jesus was that “prophet” and John was supposed to point the way to him, then why didn’t he? Oh snap!

          “have you ever bothered to read the Bible? “Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found Him of whom Moses in the law, and also the prophets, wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”(John 1:45). And even if the disciples really started calling Christ “the Prophet” after His ascension, so what? Sounds like a very desperate argument.”

          Have you had your head examined lately? Where does it say he was the prophet? It seems to be me that they are referring to the prophecies about the Messiah, you dolt! So you are back to the drawing board. Try again. The desperation is strong with you.

          “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me.”(John 5:46); “Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures.”(Luke 24:44-45)”

          Again, this is referring to his status as the Messiah, silly orange guy. Try again.

          “nope, they just expect that you’ll at least try to do your homework right. It seems they were utterly wrong.
          To be continued…”

          You mean there is more to your trainwreck? You have barely managed to scratch the surface with your red herrings and non-sequiturs.

          Reply

          • Ad hominem is not a good way of doing apologetics. I understand why you lost your temper, but aren’t you supposed to follow Muhammad’s example, “the best example for all humans”? Thus far you’re not particularly good Muhammadan. You hurled a whole bag of nonsense, hoping that last word=winning the debate. Well, no, not really.

          • Hahahaha! Says the hypocrite who has done nothing but insult and blabber away. So I see that your bark is worse than your bite. That’s typical of most loud-mouth Christian apologists.

            So should I assume that, like Allan, you have no evidence to refute me? Why didn’t your savior clearly identify himself as the prophet, just like he did as the Messiah?

          • I’m not sure for how long Allan will tolerate your verbal pollutions of his blog. Your posts keep getting worse and worse. You have a strong tendency to impute your own issues, insecurities and shortcomings to people who expose you and your profit.Remember your comments on Keith Thompson’s video that exposed Ijaz Ahmad as an incompetent fraud? You said something about foam on the mouths of Christian apologists, but it was only because you struggled to stop your own mouth foaming.At least this is what the tone of your post was indicating. Moreover, your language (“the bluster is strong with this one,a red herring,Have you had your head examined lately,dolt, The desperation is strong with you,silly orange guy,trainwreck,the hypocrite who has done nothing but insult and blabber away, loud-mouth) is giving away a very childish and neurotic persona. Either this or you’re just a troll who uses apologetics as a tool to satisfy his graphomania. It was incredibly easy to make you lose your temper and start scribbling poorly written responses. I am sorry if you had troublesome childhood, but personal issues must not be imported in the field of apologetics. I’m not a hypocrite and I did not insult you. I called you graphomaniac, but it’s a fact, not an insult. You need to respond to every critique of your bad stuff, because otherwise you won’t be able to sleep
            during the night. You have some type of anxiety and I bet your hands were trembling while typing your “responses” to me. I implicitly called you a time-waster, which is also a fact.You write fake rebuttals that expose your lack of comprehension- you just don’t understand the texts you read. Or you do, but prefer to pretend they mean what you want them to mean. Shame on you. I’ll keep exposing you not because I take you seriously, but because you’ll always reply and thus your time will be consumed only by me. I guess your fragile nerves will get wrecked again and again, but to each his own. Try not to break your keyboard while scribbling another reply to my post.
            May God help us all.

          • WOW!! What a long rant…and still no substantive rebuttal! I guess you are regretting opening your big mouth, huh?

            So, just to be sure, your savior did not directly claim to be the prophet, right?

          • “WOW!! What a long rant…”- my reaction every time I encounter your scrbblings.
            “and still no substantive rebuttal! I guess you are regretting opening your big mouth, huh?”
            The purpose of the post was to expose you and your issues, nothing more. And you don’t object. I’’ll take it as a taciturn admission I’m right. Are you gonna let me get away just like that? Come on, I’m pretty sure you can come up with something a bit longer. As for your rebuttal, everything in its time, you’ll get your rebuttal. Unlike you, I have other things to do with my life. I’ve already promised you I’ll keep you quite busy, so calm down and chill. I’ll not miss the opportunity to have fun on behalf of the Jar Jar Binks of Islamic apologetics.

          • LOL, I think all you did was expose yourself as a big-mouth who can’t handle being on the receiving end. You embarrassed yourself and now you are taking it out on me. Blame thyself, sir orange!

            So your savior was not the prophet, right? 🙂

          • “I think all you did was expose yourself as a big-mouth who can’t handle being on the receiving end”
            – Was this meant in the homosexual sense? Where are your manners!?

          • “Was this meant in the homosexual sense? Where are your manners!?”

            LOL!! Get your mind out of the gutter, orange guy! How old are you?

            I meant that you are someone who mouths off against other people and then runs away when other people respond in kind (i.e. being on the receiving end). It’s an euphemism in the English language, silly.

    • LOL, nice “rebuttal” there Orange guy! You totally “embarrassed” me! Hahahaha! Typical arrogant Christian apologist, when will you guys learn?

      Now let’s see if you guys can actually back up your claims with evidence for once. Maybe you can help Allan out. He seems to be struggling with the Nazarene prophecy.

      Reply

        • No, because I don’t really care. Science is not my forte, and don’t forget it changes literally every hour. What you percieve as “errors” are either your usual misunderstandings of the Bible or science being wrong. But since you love science, here’s a little challenge- explain scientifically how Jesus evaded being crucified and instead was lifted up to heaven. Don’t try any “It was a miracle” explanations, they don’t work here. Remember, you were the one who brought science first, appeals to miracles are not tolerated in science.

          Reply

          • Oh okay, so you’re scared and running away like a dog with its tail between its legs. Got it. So maybe I can concentrate on the discussion I was having with Ruhl before you opened your mouth. Moral of the story: don’t open your mouth if you can’t handle a response. 😉

            So you won’t answer the question but then want to side-step and then ask me a question? Sorry orange guy, but pathetic red herring don’t work here.

            Science only deals with natural phenomena. Miracles are not natural, you dolt. They are supernatural. Science does not deal with the supernatural, because it cannot be tested. Now back to the question that you are so scared to discuss: scientific errors in the Bible. Are rabbits ruminants, orange guy? 🙂

          • “so you’re scared and running away like a dog with its tail between its legs.”- I’ve never heard this version before. You sure you didn’t mean “like a donkey with its wings around its hands”?
            “o maybe I can concentrate on the discussion I was having with Ruhl before you opened your mouth.” – it wasn’t my mouth, it was my fingers. Did you think I was typing with my tongue?
            “Moral of the story: don’t open your mouth if you can’t handle a response.”- you sure you not comedian?
            “Science only deals with natural phenomena. Miracles are not natural, you dolt. They are supernatural. Science does not deal with the supernatural, because it cannot be tested. “- this is fake response, if it cannot be tested, why do you accept it? It seems you love science only when it suits your purposes.
            “Are rabbits ruminants, orange guy?”- racism again, huh? Just
            when I was starting to think you’re maybe not so bad after all. As for the rabbits, check this:
            https://answering-islam.org/Responses/Shabir-Ally/favorites.htm#lev11_6

          • LOL!! More third party sources? Why can’t you just give a response, you lazy apologist?

            In short, your Bible says rabbits chew the cud (i.e. they are ruminants). This is inaccurate, because rabbits are not ruminants, but rather are monogastric herbivores. If they were ruminants, they would have a three- or four-chambered stomach, but they don’t. Hence, your Bible is wrong. It should not have referred to rabbits as ruminants. Try again with your Google searches. 😉

          • Read the article first and then comment. It was not really a Google search, I’ve been following that website for years.

          • So I read the article, and I am happy to say that you have killed two birds with one stone by appealing to this website. It proves yet again that AI is a piece of garbage and the pseudoscholars there are just as clueless as you are! Case in point:

            “Rabbits go through a process called refection wherein they take their dung and chew on it in order to get at the remaining partially digested food.”

            Eh…WRONG! Rabbits don’t “chew” the “dung”. Rather, the swallow it WHOLE! See T. Gidenne, F. Lebas and L. Fortun-Lamothe, “Feeding Behaviour of Rabbits”, in Nutrition of the Rabbit, 2nd Edition, Edited by Carlos Blas and Julia Wiseman (Oxfordshire: CABI, 2010), p. 233.

            So there you have it. The Bible is wrong. Rabbits do not “chew the cud”, even if that was referring to refection. Thank you orange guy!

          • Here is the relevant quote from the book I cited:

            “Hard pellets are voided, but soft pellets are recovered by the rabbit directly upon being expelled from the anus. To do this the rabbit twists itself around, sucks in the soft faeces as they emerge from the anus and then swallows with chewing them.“

          • Here are several Christian commentaries which show once again how the Bible made an error on rabbits and rumination:

            https://biblehub.com/commentaries/leviticus/11-6.htm

            Barnes’ Notes on the Bible (Note they say the whale is also wrongly classified as a “fish”)
            …He cheweth the cud – The Hyrax has the same habit as the hare, the rabbit, the guinea-pig, and some other rodents, of moving its jaws when it is at rest as if it were masticating. The rodents were familiarly spoken of as ruminating animals, just as the bat was reckoned among birds because it flies (see Leviticus 11:19), and as whales and their congeners are spoken of as fish, when there is no occasion for scientific accuracy.

            Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
            Neither the hare nor the coney are really ruminating. They only appear to be so from working the jaws on the grasses they live on.

            Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers
            … the hare has not the peculiar stomach of the true ruminant; but, like the rabbit, the hare, when sitting at rest, so moves its jaws that it appears to masticate. As the object of the legislator was to furnish the people with marks by which they were to distinguish the clean from the unclean animals, he necessarily adopted those which were in common vogue, and which alone were intelligible in those days.

            Pulpit Commentary
            …There is little doubt that the same animal as our hare is meant. Neither the hare, however, nor the hyrax chews the cud in the strict sense of the words. But they have the appearance of doing so.

            When even Christian scholars admit there is a mistake, that’s got to hurt! Where will you run to orange guy?

          • “It proves yet again that AI is a piece of garbage and the pseudoscholars there are just as clueless as you are!”- AI is not garbage. According to Wikipedia, it is “intelligence demonstrated by machines, in contrast to the natural intelligence displayed by humans and other animals.”

            “So I read the article, and I am happy to say that you have killed two birds with one stone by appealing to this website.”- reading without comprehension is meaningless. Read again, this time with understanding. By the way, if you’re so keen in biology, how would you explain evolution. The vast majority of Muslims reject it, but the vast majority of biologists embrace it. Something’s reaaaally fishy here, isn’t it?

          • “AI is not garbage. According to Wikipedia, it is “intelligence demonstrated by machines, in contrast to the natural intelligence displayed by humans and other animals.”

            LOL!! Oh Allan, you really need to help your cheerleader! He is very confused! Apparently, he is too dense to realize that I used AI as an acronym for “Answering-Islam”.

            “reading without comprehension is meaningless. Read again, this time with understanding. By the way, if you’re so keen in biology, how would you explain evolution. The vast majority of Muslims reject it, but the vast majority of biologists embrace it. Something’s reaaaally fishy here, isn’t it?”

            So no response? I showed why that article is garbage. It claims that rabbits “chew” the caecotrophe, when in reality, they swallow it whole. You are a brainwashed loser, orange guy! You really should stop engaging in polemics, because you are embarrassing yourself and your religion!

            Evolution means change over time. There is no doubt that all organisms change. The controversy is over whether evolution can create new organisms. I actually subscribe to intelligent design, which is a scientific theory. I don’t subscribe to Biblical creation, which is a ridiculous story created by ignorant people. This is clearly way above your pay grade. Maybe you should learn about it first before opening your mouth.

          • “He is very confused!”- chill, I was just mildly mocking you. And it’s not even the first time I did it.
            “I showed why that article is garbage.”- this is not what the article is arguing for. Read carefully all the explanations.
            “You really should stop engaging in polemics, because you are embarrassing yourself and your religion!”- I will stop bothering with you (eventually), but for now you’re too much fun and it’s hard for me to resist it.
            “The controversy is over whether evolution can create new organisms. I actually subscribe to intelligent design, which is a scientific theory. I don’t subscribe to Biblical creation, which is a ridiculous story created by ignorant people.”- so much empty words, no answer to my question. I’ll repeat again: why isn’t the theory of evolution (the dominant scientific view for life’s origin) in the Quran? Will you come up with “The Quran is not a book on biology”? Yeah, just like it is not a history book, right? This is very convenient excuse for dawamongers when they got pressed on the “science
            in the Quran” joke. I expect a reasonable answer,
            not bad excuses.

          • LOL!! Your desperation is showing! Everyone can see how you are not engaging the issue and keep trying to give vague answers and then go of on tangents. Don’t worry orange guy. Your embarrassment is just beginning!

            This is what your pseudoscholar at AI said:

            “Rabbits go through a process called refection wherein they take their dung and chew on it in order to get at the remaining partially digested food.”

            This is not true! Rabbits do not “chew” the “dung”. That is not what refection is. They swallow the “dung” whole. Ergo, the Bible is wrong. Get over it.

            As I said, evolution is simply change over time. You would have to be a moron (I’m thinking you are one) to deny that this does not occur. We see it all the time. Here is an example: we can develop resistance to certain diseases. This is evolution, or more specifically, natural selection. Admit it, orange guy. You are way in over your head and you have no idea what you are talking about.

          • “LOL!! Your desperation is showing! Everyone can see how you are not engaging the issue and keep trying to give vague answers and then go of on tangents. Don’t worry orange guy. Your embarrassment is just beginning!””- the obligatory “intro” of your “replies”.
            “This is not true! Rabbits do not “chew” the “dung”. That is not what refection is. They swallow the “dung” whole.”- it was not the only possible explanation in the article, so no point for you, I’m afraid.
            “As I said, evolution is simply change over time.”- you keep missing the target. I asked why does the Quran give a different
            version of life’s origin than the one held by the vast majority of
            biologists. Still no answer.

          • So no response again. Your Bible says rabbits “chew” when all they do is swallow whole. This small detail is enough to destroy the credibility of your so-called “scripture”. No wonder you keep running from this fact and giving vague answers.

            Modern science has no answer for how life started, dummy. There are various theories, but no definitive answer. You are confusing the origin of life with evolution and natural selection, which just goes to show how laughably clueless you are. Maybe you should get some elementary scientific education first.

            While staunch evolutionists claim that given enough time, life could have started on its own, they have not been able to demonstrate how. And in actuality, for all the conditions of life to occur, there simply would not be enough time. In short, it would be mathematically impossible. You would need things like amino acids spontaneously forming proteins, something that would have been impossible by chance. If there was just one chance of it happening spontaneously, it would have taken trillions of years. The universe is only about 14 billion years old. That is why atheist evolutionists have had to come up with theories like “multiverse” or “panspermia”. But none of these theories has any credibility.

  2. “You seem to be living in his head rent free.”- I know. This was my aim. Now his time will be wasted entirely on me. I almost feel bad about him. Almost.

    Reply

    • To be honest, I’m glad that he likes this blog though he seems to be obsessed with it. He keeps insisting that I respond to the Nazarene argument and I will. I won’t do it immediately though as I have more important things to write about, for example Archbishop Vigano’s third letter that came out today. My website doesn’t revolve around Faiz. I’ve never commented once on his blog. The only things that I’ve ever read on it are things that he’s posted here “refuting” me. In 2018 my viewership has skyrocketed and that’s because I’ve been tackling key apologetic and cultural issues. I think the problem that Faiz and other Islamic apologists have is that they have to become atheists to attack the Christian faith. The first time he attacked me, I honestly thought that he was an atheist. Pretty sad.

      Reply

      • I’m having fun with him for most of the time, but he seems to be suffering from some kind of undiagnosed anxiety and lacks control over his emotions. His behaviour is becoming more and more obnoxious. Be prepared for a really thunderous comeback from him.

        Reply

          • You comedian or something? I promised Allan a thunderous comeback from you and all you provide is this? I guess I should have expected it, especially from someone who lists Dan Brown’s books as “recommended reading”.

          • Awww, still crying? It’s okay, orange guy. We’ll get you some sweet Valencia oranges. Will you stop crying then?

            Yeah, Dan Brown novels are pretty good. I am currently reading Origin, though I am not really a fan of novels in general. Science, religion, and history are more interesting.

      • Well I did say I was patiently waiting, didn’t I?

        Come on, Allan. Petty comments don’t mean anything and are not at all impressive. I could care less about your “skyrocketing” blog. And since when am I “obsessed” with your blog? This is the first time I have commented in months! So come on. Don’t get distracted. Once you are done with the “important things”, do give me a buzz and we will see if you can be objective. Let’s see what you can dig up about the Nazarene prophecy. Until then, you and your cheerleader orange guy will only keep embarrassing yourself with the useless babble. Pretty sad.

        Reply

        • Hi Faiz,

          I’m glad that you’re waiting patiently. You’ll be interested in tomorrow’s post. It’s about your fellow Muslim Alexander the Great.

          Reply

          • LOL, so I assume you want Muslims to comment on that? I thought you said you were focused on “important” things? But instead I see you digging up old polemics? Disappointing, Allan. Very disappointing.

          • Anyone who wants can comment on it. I just thought you’d like to read about your fellow Muslim.

            I’m usually a few posts ahead of what I publish. I wrote this one last week. I’m not going to completely throw off my schedule to satisfy a Muslim blogger. Like I said, this website doesn’t revolve around you. You don’t see me trying to tell you what to do on your website, do you?

            Also, I thought that you said you were patiently waiting. I suppose the patience has run out? I’m not going to give you a date but I do promise a response on the Nazarene issue. You constantly bringing it up won’t speed it up. You can still try though.

          • Oh I am still waiting. I was just pointing out how you keep trying to deflect and make excuses. I really don’t care about your schedule. I happened to look up your blog and saw the article on Christine Ford, and responded. You didn’t seem to mind your schedule being delayed when you wrote your replies, though. Just saying! 😉

          • ” I’m not going to completely throw off my schedule to satisfy a Muslim blogger.”

            Notice how I used the word “completely”? I don’t mind tampering with it here or there. I have about three posts that I want to write responding to you of which the Nazarene post is only one. They’ll come, don’t you worry. You just need to realize that my website doesn’t revolve around you.

            I’m curious, do you do this with other people as well? Do you try and tell them what to write on their websites? I’ve never had anyone commenting on my website trying to dictate what I write before. Maybe a recommendation here or there but nothing compared to what you’re doing.

          • By the way Allan, you might remember that you pulled this similar trick on BloggingTheology a while ago. I asked you about Stephen’s errors in quoting Biblical stories in the book of Acts, and you said you would respond when you had time. Obviously, after dodging for several months, you probably just forgot. Anyway, whenever you have time, hit me up about your Nazarene savior. 🙂

          • I hate to break it to you Faiz, but I’m not going to go out of my way to track you down and tell you when I’ve written the post on the Nazarene. You’re free to come and go as you please on this website, but I have little interest tracking you down, even when I respond to you.

          • Come now, Allan. You were on BT for a while after that. You could have easily “tracked” me down. Look, it’s okay. I know you were probably unable to answer anyway. I am just saying that I have seen you use this trick before. But please, by all means, take all the time you need. You know how to reach me now, right? 😉

          • Faiz,

            My website isn’t going anywhere. I’m not going to try and change the domain name just to avoid you. You know where to find me.

            When I responded to Gary Matson, I didn’t go over to his website and tell him that I responded to him. When I exposed the double standards of James White on giving Muslims heck for quoting Raymond Brown while having no problem quoting him to Catholics in debate I didn’t go and search him out.

            I’m not going anywhere. You’re welcome to come to this website whenever you want. I’ve always published your comments. However, my responses to you will be here.

          • I’m not “dictating” anything, and I have no idea why you are being so uptight. Relax, Allan. You need a massage or something?

            Like I said, take all the time you need. Maybe I will write an article on the Nazarene prophecy anyway and discuss the Christian excuses for it.

          • I might have to, because I might die of old age by the time you get to it. Kidding, of course! 🙂

            But seriously, I have a lot of respect for you, which is more than I can say for most of your fellow apologists. Despite our differences, I still think you are a reasonable guy. A bit uptight, but still reasonable.

    • Well, we have to catalog your failures for others to see, right? Hopefully, some honest Christian will come along and see what lengths you guys go to to avoid discussing the challenges to your Bible. Allan claims Christians are not afraid, but the opposite seems to be the case.

      Reply