Christian Apologist “Orangehunter” Comes to the Aid of Allan Ruhl…and Fails Miserably

So it seems I have touched a nerve with a Christian apologist called “Orangehunter”.  This guy is apparently very angry at my responses to Allan Ruhl, and decided to try his luck at answering my challenge to Ruhl.  Here is our discussion so far (this is on Ruhl’s blog): http://allanruhl.com/refuting-faiz-on-surah-616/#comment-1973

Notice his bluster and lack of any substantive argument.  When he did try to make a point, he just quoted a bunch of random verses from the NT and concluded that they somehow confirm his conclusion.

  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.

    • 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

      • 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.

      • 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…

        • 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.

          • 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?

    • 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.

 

5 thoughts on “Christian Apologist “Orangehunter” Comes to the Aid of Allan Ruhl…and Fails Miserably

  1. stewjo004

    @ QB

    To begin you gotta love that Christians can only use “John’s Jesus” for any of their theology

    Down the line

    1. the beautiful (sic) connection and interweaving between the OT and NT

    Does he mean writers writing years later trying to fit Jesus(as) into anything regardless of the context such as:

    A. I will call my Son out of Egypt

    “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. (Hosea 11:1)

    where he stayed until the death of Herod. This fulfilled what the Lord had spoken through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my Son.” (Matthew 2:15)

    or

    B. the ‘prophecy of Judas”
    Then what was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price set on Him by the people of Israel, and they gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord had commanded me.”[47]

    Vermes:
    “The quotation is said to be of Jeremiah, but it is invented or is more exactly a garbled mixture of Zechariah 11:12-13 and Jeremiah 18-2-3, 36:6-15.”[49]

    Is that the ‘interweaving” they’re talking about us not appreciating QB?

    2. Jesus(as) and John(as) say nothing

    13For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John. 14And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come. (Matt 11:13-14)

    So in their mind, Jesus goes on a whole tirade to explain that John(as) is the correct understanding of Elijah but is quiet on the ‘the Prophet’ hmmm… that’s interesting. Anyway, if Jesus(as) doesn’t correct a belief by definition they must agree with it.

    As for his 2nd part, the Jews expected a Jew and were upset Muhammad(saw) was an Arab.

    3. No Muslim has handed out the OT,NT and Quran together:

    Uhh.. because those aren’t the books Allah sent and the OT and NT just glorified fanfiction? When Musa(as) was teaching the Jews he wasn’t reading the Pentateuch to them. But here how about they trace the OT and NT back to Musa(as) and Isa(as) and well talk about accepting them? Here I’ll make it easier why don’t they tell us who wrote their earliest manuscripts? That way we can get into what Isa(as) did and didn’t say.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. The level of gullibility and brainwashing is astonishing. These guys would literally argue than an apple is the same an orange if their faith required them to say so, regardless of common sense or that pesky thing called evidence.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s