Recommended Websites and Blogs:

759 thoughts on “Links

      1. stewjo004


        You are going for a doctorate?!?!?!?!? I just feel like I know nothing about you now… QB is a master biologist, Heathcliff is going for a doctorate, Vaqas do you work for NASA or something?

        Regarding your thesis, Heathcliff I agree. We know the metaphor of water for revelation appears elsewhere in the Quran. So this makes sense as a metaphor as opposed to prohibition with a slight implicit showing of alcohol’s corruptive nature. Thank you for that one real eye opener.

        Liked by 2 people

  1. stewjo004

    Hey, everybody France’s tolerances at it again. Let’s read from the champion of free speech and religion:

    “France’s Macron issues ‘republican values’ ultimatum to Muslim leaders

    French President Emmanuel Macron has asked Muslim leaders to accept a “charter of republican values” as part of a broad clampdown on radical Islam.

    On Wednesday he gave the French Council of the Muslim Faith (CFCM) a 15-day ultimatum to accept the charter.

    The CFCM has agreed to create a National Council of Imams, which will reportedly issue imams with official accreditation which could be withdrawn…President Macron has also announced new measures to tackle what he called “Islamist separatism” in France.

    The measures include a wide-ranging bill that seeks to prevent radicalisation. It was unveiled on Wednesday, and includes measures such as:

    Restrictions on home-schooling and harsher punishments for those who intimidate public officials on religious grounds

    Giving children an identification number under the law that would be used to ensure they are attending school. Parents who break the law could face up to six months in jail as well as large fines”

    What! Say it ain’t so kuffar are undermining their own principles while talking crap about us! Who would have ever had thunk? 😱😱😱

    More BS from France:

    “The French government is not the champion of free speech that it likes to think it is. In 2019, a court convicted two men for ‘contempt’ after they burnt an effigy depicting President Macron during a peaceful protest. Parliament is currently discussing a new law that criminalizes the use of images of law enforcement officials on social media. It is hard to square this with the French authorities’ vigorous defence of the right to depict the Prophet Mohammed in cartoons…France’s record on freedom of expression in other areas is just as bleak. Thousands of people are convicted every year for “contempt of public officials”, a vaguely defined criminal offence that law enforcement and judicial authorities have applied in massive numbers to silence peaceful dissent. In June this year, the European Court of Human Rights found that the convictions of 11 activists in France for campaigning for a boycott of Israeli products violated their free speech…n a disturbing sign of history repeating itself, the French government is now in the process of dissolving organizations and closing mosques, on the basis of the ambiguous concept of ‘radicalization’. Throughout the state of emergency, ‘radicalization’ was often used as a euphemism for ‘devout Muslim’. Gérald Darmanin, the Minister of Interior, has also announced his intention to dissolve the Collective Against Islamophobia in France (CCIF), an organization that combats discrimination against Muslims. He has described the CCIF as ‘an enemy of the Republic’ and a ‘back room of terrorism’. The Minister has not produced any evidence that could substantiate his claims.

    I’m sorry lol I just can’t take it sometimes from these liars.


    1. Vaqas Rehman


      Just like was stated in the video the idea of Jesus(a.s.) saying that they will be like angel implying purity and yet in their scriptures angels eat food(and there is said to be food in heaven), have desires, and can fall. It just seems so odd to me. It really feels more like the biblical Jesus(a.s) was just saying it to get out of the trap set by the Sadducees in Mark 12:18-23 at best or a contradiction at worse.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. stewjo004

        @ Vaqas

        I couldn’t find my 5 gospels pdf so I could go into detail but the reality is the saying is inauthentic, only Mark 12:17 and Mark 12:38-39 are

        This brings up a question. I was thinking of doing a modern version of Ibn Kathir’s “Lives of the Prophets” with modern biblical criticism to assemble a more authentic bio of what we know of the prophets using Jewish, Christian and Islamic sources. Do you think anybody would be interested in that?

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Vaqas Rehman


        Heck yeah man that sounds awesome! I know I would be interested in it at least. And while I can’t speak for everyone I feel like it would do well and be of great benefit. Just don’t overwork yourself since that sounds like quite an undertaking at first glance.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. stewjo004

    @ Vaqas

    Well, I did most of the heavy lifting already (spoiler noting we don’t already know) there are now only the adding of any “obscure” authentic ahadith in their bios. if you’re interested I can email it to you and you can tell me what you think.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. mr.heathcliff

    jesus said do not separate what god made in heaven (then contradicts himself by saying adultery is enough for a divorce )

    “god sealed trumps victory”

    they were more sure than jesus!


  4. stewjo004

    Isa refutes Christians:

    To some who trusted in their own righteousness and viewed others with contempt, He also told this parable: “Two men went up to the temple to pray. One was a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed, ‘God, I thank You that I am not like the other men—swindlers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and pay tithes of all that I receive.’ But the tax collector stood at a distance, unwilling even to lift up his eyes to heaven. Instead, he beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner!’ I tell you, this man, rather than the Pharisee, went home justified. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.” (Luke 18: 9-13)

    Even though they’re going to try to argue you have to accept Jesus as your Lord and savior blah, blah, blah” The tax collector in the parable didn’t do that he repented to God alone for what he did.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. mr.heathcliff

    zionist bastard :
    I don’t think that Israel is the greatest country on earth. I’m telling you that Arab countries have tried to militarily remove Israel when Israel was much weaker and failed. It is also a fact that Israel has one of the most sophisticated militaries on earth and nuclear weapons, and that Israel specifically maintains military control over the WB/J&S for that strategic depth and the high ground. You will never militarily remove Israel. Accept that and we can have peace; otherwise, the Palestinians will continue to suffer and the Arab world will continue to be a dysfunctional embarrassment.

    –]Mohammed_Monthir 2 points 4 hours ago*
    Israel was weaker? when? in 1948, when Arabs didnt know how to use grenades, the Jews had Jewish divisions which were trained by the Brits? or when you had artillery when we didn’t? and when you have more troops than we had? or when you lost to ALA because SOME of them were trained by Nazis… in a balanced battle, you can’t win… and also you had Jewish officers from all the world… Polish/Russians/Germans/Britain/ etc came to lead your army meanwhile the only arab army that had only one non-Arab officer was the Jordanian army.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. stewjo004


      Yeah, this is just a pipe dream:

      1. They almost lost all the wars, the Arab leaders just had no real intent to remove them. Also, if memory serves didn’t they lose their last real war against Lebanon who is again not even a real contender in the region but a proxy? As noted the armies they beat weren’t even trained properly and only exist to keep their local civilian populations in check (and even then they have turned til and ran away). Notice how its leaders nobody likes or appointed who are trying to be cool with the country.

      2. They have not actually fought an Islamic army. They are tired from only fighting 20% of the Ummah (who was on a whole Arab nationalism spill) and this is with no Khalifah, any type of real organization or direction, just loose bands of pissed of people. They still have another 80% to contend with and keep in mind we are NEVER going to forget the area as it’s in our history. So every time we study the history of the Khalifah Rashideen, Salahadeen or read the Quran it’s on our minds. That is something that exists generationally (again with WAY more people than just the Palestinians) This is not even close to the record of the time we haven’t had it and they were WAY more entrenched than the Jews are and had an entire united Europe backing the Crusader states. Even NOW they are showing cracks:

      They can delay, put proxy states, barriers, posture about how tough they are etc. It’s simply a delay of the inevitable as we are talking about 1/5th of the world population (and growing) does not want you there. Again they are struggling with a small contingent of Arabs. The ONLY reason they even exist is because of far-right Christians in the US thinking by helping them they’re going to bring Isa(as) back.

      Once we work out the kinks we’ve had coming into the modern world that’s all she wrote. Again delay, plan, steal, kill, cheat, etc but statistically, SOMEBODY is going to figure out the winning formula. The fact that they gave that half @$$ed “peace” offering shows they not about this while it’s literally a religious duty on our side.

      3. As for the nukes argument, last I checked the Muslim world had them to (cough Pakistan cough) Furthermore keeping it all the way 100; I’m pretty sure we would rather take the hit of them nuking us than letting them keep the Holy Land so it’s not any type of real deterrent. Furthermore good luck justifying that response to the UN. The rest of the world barring the US is already tired of Israel’s antics. Threatening to/ causing a nuclear war that will affect other parties worldwide not even involved in the conflict is probably not a good idea not to mention if you just get plain overrun by the Arabs alone who don’t have nukes. Then whoo the PR scandal of unnecessary force…(shutters) I don’t even want to imagine.

      4. And most importantly they do not have a true understanding of Allah. They sat there and cried for centuries to Him about getting it and then did not rule by the Torah after He tested them. All this is, is to establish a hujjah against them.


    1. stewjo004


      The second post kinda summed everything up. Man, this is so sad, now go ask the laymen Jew or Christan about this and they don’t even have the slightest clue…

      Liked by 1 person

  6. mr.heathcliff

    today on efdawah there was a christian called frank who said “god feels pain”
    this shocked me

    how does a being who has POWER OVER everything “feel pain”

    so this means there is sin (c1) which gives yhwh (c2 )painful experiences.

    c1 gives c2 experiences would imply yhwh does not have power over everything because c1, which is an outside cause gives yhwh painful experience.

    there are OUTSIDE causes which cause yhwh (first cause) to have experience meaning outside cause has POWER to put EFFECT in yhwh.

    i thought main stream catholic paganism rejected such beliefs?

    Liked by 2 people

    1. mr.heathcliff

      he also made blunder that yhwh cannot be in presence of sin. yhwh used to be in his temple and in presence of sinful moses, not represented by any idol.

      since yhwh brings his presence some how the object either gets his sin eatten away or frank is talking non biblical nonsense.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. stewjo004


        On a roll today I see. Regarding “God feeling pain yeah that’s a common shirk. I had one trying to emotionally manipulate me one time saying:

        “God cried over you”

        And I had to check myself from busting out laughing.

        Liked by 2 people

  7. mr.heathcliff

    15. Even if the divine nature could suffer (which it can’t), it would not avail to satisfy the penalty for sin because that penalty is owed by humanity (not divinity) and must be paid by the human nature.

    Even if the divine nature in Christ could suffer somehow, it could not contribute toward satisfaction. Satisfaction to divine justice had to be made by the human nature alone, not by the divine nature in any way.

    This fact would seem to rule out the power which you allege that the divine nature (which itself experienced no suffering) bestowed on the sufferings of the human nature. For if that infinite power does not arise from the human nature but is bestowed on the sufferings by his divine nature, I fail to see how satisfaction could have been made to divine justice. Divine justice not only requires that human nature itself should make satisfaction, but divine justice also utterly demands that the power of satisfaction should come from human nature.

    An analogy will clarify this. Suppose the law requires someone to carry a burden on his own shoulders as punishment for some infraction of the law. If the person indeed has the burden placed on his shoulders but at the same time receives help from another person who comes along and lends assistance, either by bearing some of the weight or by offering support in any way, then satisfaction is not made to the law. Likewise, if the human nature indeed suffered but was at the same time continually sustained by the divine nature so that it could bear the punishment, then satisfaction was not made to the divine law, which determined the penalties to be endured by the human nature. Nor will satisfaction have genuinely been made to the law if the one who should bear the burden is helped extraordinarily by consuming some food or drink that produces superhuman strength, or by any other source introduced from without.

    The law that decreed the punishment careful-ly takes into account the typical strength of a human being, and metes out punishment to harm the offender as the seriousness of the crime warrants. If the offender’s strength ismiraculously increased, then the offender does not yet feel the affliction that the law intends. Consequently, a fair judge would never allow a guilty person to be strength-ened and supported in this way. But suppose that the transgressor is furnished with ex-traordinary strength that far and away ex-ceeds the strength people typically possess, so that the burden which is heavy for everyone else is not particularly heavy for this individual. Since the force of the burden cannot—or rather, should not—be diminished, the fair judge, complying with the spirit of the law rather than its letter, will increase the burden. The judge will do this because the intent of the law is that the transgressor should experience the weight of the burden that the transgression demands.

    …If this human nature is strengthened from a source outside itself, so that it experienced the punishment much less—or even somewhat less—than the law required, the human nature will not have made satisfaction to the law in any way (pp. 79-81).


    i don’t this guys arguments have been addressed. in the “sacrifice” of jesus, there seems to bE rigging.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. mr.heathcliff

      did you see the joke of a live stream today on sc dawah?

      anyway, from an islamic perspective, how would you address the claim that “we humans are evil menstrual rag scum bags” ?

      from a biblical perspective one is to love god with all ones heart, i guess even the evil parts off it have to be filled with love

      since crosstians see everything as evil, then i guess a christian lady sees her new born as wicked and adulterous /just for existing as human it is condemned already ?

      from a logical angle, without use of any scriptures , how can we address this ?

      god made man and then allowed an evil force to tempt him. then that mans nature changed into sinful nature?then man was dumped in disease and suffering plus an “evil nature” he had to fight AND satanic force? god continually let the evil force tempt man knowing full well his (mans) offerings were “menstrual rags,” but god sent guidance anyway only to tell himself (god ) that its all useless ?

      you know what is worse.

      crosstians always talk about deeds, but the same can be said about repentance and faith. how sure are they that this SURVIVED the “disease” of “original sin” ? they still sin and they repent. james white says “even my repentance isn’t good enough”

      so what does this tell us ? the cross lets you get away from sin and GUILT.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Vaqas Rehman


        I didn’t notice any livestream, can you post a link? Also do you know what the Jewish view on Isaiah 64:6 is? Since they also don’t believe in original sin I’m wondering what their interpretation is on that verse. Especially since I’ve seen it quoted by Christians a lot. In any case I agree with what you wrote.


      2. mr.heathcliff

        The romans were ruthless scum bags, they used to use their slaves and then crucify them. think about the pagan “god-man,” he wasnt born with any illness and ran away from authorities many times. Why does how slaves were used and crucified more relatable than a “god-man” pressing a reset switch?

        this nonsense crap “jesus felt our pain” (and then RESEt himself)

        Does not speak for the hundreds of slaves who were used like dogs , then nailed.


      3. mr.heathcliff

        it is funny that crosstians think that he is “righteous in blood of jesus” when they been telling the jews that their faith and repentance isnt good enough ….thats why yhwh had to “come down” and die like animal being offered .

        In christianity it gets disastrously worse.

        hear the end, the crosstian admitted “satan has his own independent will”

        1. the servant by volition, is able to BRING into EXISTENCE will OF DISOBEDIANCE

        2. So ask a crosstian, who created the act of EATING from the TREE and the will to CHOSE DISOBEDIENCE,

        3. crosstian will surely say ADAM.

        4. adam (his sin nature)along with satan is allowed to leave the garden and CREATE more sin…..

        5. some how repentance and faith in presence of yhwh was not good enough

        6. if you know that adam has sin NATURE AND HAS potential to create his OWN sins, why was adam not killed off in the garden?

        Liked by 1 person

      4. mr.heathcliff

        “The answer is simple and it is because the death of Jesus is useless and REPENTANCE is better than the death of Jesus and it is the key for forgiveness for anyone but not the death of Jesus.

        The Trinitarians are not sure the death of Jesus can save them, hence repenting like anyone else. They realized within their heart that the death of Jesus cannot save them, hence their repenting like anyone else.

        The Christian atonement is useless because they do repent and they cannot sin and want to be forgiven without repenting just like Muslims, Jews and anyone else. If they repent like anyone else, it means they are not sure of the atonement and the death of Christ for their sins otherwise, they will focus on the atonement for their sins to be forgiving rather than repenting like anyone else and put the death of Jesus useless.”

        you crosstians have cheapened the “intrinsic value” of the “sacrifice”

        it is said that the jewish faith, repentance and works were “menstrual rags” and this is the reason why yhwh came to do self killing of himself .

        now when a crosstian repents, what does he say ” dear yhwh, i did a sin and you ALREADY transferred the sin on your flesh and tortured yourself through the romans”

        now why is a crosstian being forgive

        is it because of an EFFORT in remorse, guilt, sincerity …..this is already refuted by the fact that they say “not good enough”

        if it was, there would be no need for yhwh to kill himself

        what this shows is

        1. there is no FORGIVENESS in crosstianity, only a reminder to yhwh that he VIOLENTLY beat himself up

        2. crosstians CANNOT have GENUINE remorse or guilt, if they argue this, then they would have to say that yhwh UNFAIRLY did not gift such ABILITY to the jews prior to them .


    1. mr.heathcliff

      vaqas interesting point about ALLAHS nature and His divine will and how they dont contradict.
      the christian god thinks like a male who wants to become a female

      Liked by 1 person

  8. mr.heathcliff

    The hypostases share a divine nature. They are not “floating”. Agreed ?

    Thank you. Assume you have a causal definition of the relations? That is fine. Right, so if they share the divine nature would they also share the essential properties that are exemplified by that nature?

    Sir I don’t really understand what you think I am pushing. Let me break the logical argument down

    If x “shares” a divine nature then it exemplify the necessary properties

    The Son shares a divine nature

    Therefore the Son exemplifies the necessary properties.

    Agreed ?

    Let me help you. Those that hold this view tend to say that divine aseity is a property of a hypostasis and not a nature. I think that is bizarre when we talk divine nature.

    I am not making an identity claim. I am
    not saying that the hypostases are the ousia(we can discuss that at as well). I am saying because they share the nature they exemplify properties

    Ok this move now. So now we are predicting omniscience of the nature and not the hypostases?

    So we do not predicate the properties of the “persons”. Sure, I am happy if you go along with this angle. You do realise this is going to open a can of worms? Want me to show you how?

    Firstly we would have this odd issue of properties that are LITERALLY predicated of the nature. Yet we don’t say that the nature acts or the nature thinks etc. Do you ? So we need to clarify what we mean by predication.

    Secondly we are forced into a unity of action of view of the immanent trinity. There are NO DISTINCT acts. There is one act that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit “do”. So how do you take into account indexicals like “I am the Father”? Can the Father “say” that on this view?

    Thirdly, it will take some interesting gymnastics to describe how EXACTLY the Son is becomes DISTINCTLY incarnate with this view. Happy for you to explain.

    Fourthly, if we can’t differentiate the persons because of the distinct acts, we are left with the relations as the ESSENTIAL differences between the hypostases. Care to tell me the difference between proceeding and begetting?

    Fifthly, how can one explain the DISTINCT ecomomic acts that seem to be the natural reading of the NT? How would you go about it getting a natural reading of such texts?

    Finally (for now) there are Christians that disagree with you. So it isn’t THE Christian model

    Well if you are predicating it of the nature and there is one nature, how do you get more than one act?

    You haven’t told me the meaningful difference between proceeding and begetting. What is the meaningful difference?

    That is fine we can go into difficult passages in the NT. How can you distinguish a meaningful difference between a primary actor and creating THROUGH somthing if there is a single act? That is one example. Plenty of others

    No that is fine. The other positions could be wrong. It just seemed odd to me that you portray it as if it is THE Christian model. It maybe. I personally disagree and can go into the Church Fathers. Want to go into the Apostolic ones?

    Sure the relations view is standard. There are people like William Lane Craig that disagree (also be careful. Remember the apostolic fathers) but his model is quite odd in that it has no historical basis. I am talking about the unity of action of view.

    No not temporal issue. We can do things simultaneously as a collective group(three wills) or literally share IN THE SAME ACT. Which one?

    So here is the issue then. We can’t differentiate the persons because of properties and acts and the only way is relations. We also have no idea what the difference in meaning is between begetting and proceeding. It seems we have a problem now with identity no?

    We don’t know the meaningful difference between the words. Nothing can be said about ANY MEANINGFUL difference? Know of the laws of identity?

    Right, so on this model I have highlighted my concerns. There is a view held by Richard Swinburne who is Eastern Orthodox that would disagree. Not arguing on authority by the way. I argee with your concern of tritheism on his model.

    when you say something is different then the words would carry some meaningful properties that we can differeniate things with. They carry no meaningful properties that would differentiate. It violates the basics of identity man!

    Your model now collapses into absolute mystery. We don’t know what the relations mean and thus we don’t know what are the hypostases in any meaningful way. This then takes us to how we differentiate the hypostastes from the natures.


  9. mr.heathcliff

    Let me add one to what the brother says below: the Quran keeps speaking out again and again and again regarding people who mock the idea of dust and bones being brought back on Judgment Day. Now if Muhammad is just copying The Bible and apocryphal traditions for his own ends then surely the Valley of Dry Bones in Ezekiel 37, one of the most important passages in both Jewish and Christian tradition, and which could be used to illustrate one of the main recurring topics of The Quran, would be some grand centerpiece?
    Now look what all is said about the valley:
    “Bethink thee (O Muhammad) of those of old, who went forth from their habitations in their thousands, fearing death, and Allah said unto them: Die; and then He brought them back to life. Lo! Allah is a Lord of Kindness to mankind, but most of mankind give not thanks.”
    The story isn’t even so much told as it is mentioned in passing. The Quran devotes more of its word count to outlining how you should write a contract than it devotes to this story. Now *there’s* a delusional serial plagiarist for you if ever there was one! Perfectly fits the profile of an intentionally fraudulent cult leader too, doesn’t it?
    But if, on the other hand, he was genuinely passing on messages from God….
    I don’t mean to give the impression that this is proof positive or anything. But I hope it all (the shared post and my addendum) gives you the briefest pause for thought.


  10. mr.heathcliff

    MRQUESTIONER2013April 7, 2014 at 1:24 pm
    3. The women arrive at the tomb and find it empty. Mary Magdalene leaves the other women there and runs to tell the disciples that the body of Jesus is missing (John 20:1-2).

    7. Mary Magdalene later returns to the tomb on a second visit. She sees the angels, and then she sees Jesus (John 20:11-12).


    1. who OTHER than john gave a HINT that mary m departed? none of the synoptics give a hint about mary m’s sudden departure.


    1On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. 2They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, 3but when they entered, they did not find the body of jesus. 4While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them. 5In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? 6He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: 7‘The Son of Man must be delivered over to the hands of sinners, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’ ” 8Then they remembered his words.

    9When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others. 10It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles. 11But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense. 12Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. Bending over, he saw the strips of linen lying by themselves, and he went away, wondering to himself what had happened.

    who are the WOMEN in verse 1?
    Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others.

    so are the christians assuming that MARY M done a quick EXIT while the other women were wondering/perplexed?

    notice that when they WONDER , KAI idou /behold MEN appear from out of nowhere. this is CONNECTED chronology. women WERE perplexed and then all of a SUDDEN two men appear out of no where. there is ABSOLUTELY no hint that luke thought that mary m departed when they were wondering what was going on.

    notice that in verse 10, mary M and the other women REPORT to pete and deciples. this would be pete’s SECOND visit because according to christian harmonization, she ALREADY ran to peter before.

    look at their harmonization

    mary departs and tells peter (john)

    So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!”

    VISIT 1 , peter runs to the tomb

    So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. (john)

    Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first.

    He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in.

    Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there,

    then finally

    Then the disciples went back to where they were staying.

    so how come peter and team didn’t FIND the perplexed women IN the tomb? where did they go? he ran ahead and got to the tomb BEFORE mary. another deciple OUTRAN pete.

    When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others. 10It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles.

    according to the harmonization, peter ALREADY knew that the TOMB was empty and the linen CLOTHES were LYING around.

    luke says:

    Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. Bending over, he saw the strips of linen lying by themselves, and he went away, wondering to himself what had happened.

    so pete DOES A second visit and DISCOVERS THE SAME thing he discovered on his FIRST visit. NOTHING new.

    first visit EMPTY tomb
    2nd VISIT nothing new. no angels and no jesus.

    poor peter makes 2 VISITS and no angel appears to him.
    maybe he shouldn’t have denied jesus with an OATH?


    the mary madgalene problem


  11. mr.heathcliff

    1. The vegan ( Allah guide him to good) is right: eating meat is not fardh, it’s not even a sunnah, it’s simply permissible. The prophet Sallalaahualaihiwasallam used to eat meat rarely and rely mostly on complex carbs and proteins. This is even when he was able to get access to meat. This is true if many sahabah also, many of whom used to be wrestlers.
    2. Zabeeha ( halal slaughter) is doubtless the most humane and ethical way to slaughter an animal, however I think the issue here is not that: the vegan argument is that NO slaughter of animals is humane/ethical and must be stopped. At one level we must agree that profit driven capitalism has ignored animal welfare and assembly line Zabeeha, is not much far from animal cruelty. However the vegan argument is flawed at its core message, because it seeks to stop all slaughter due to a warped sense of ethics which we will discuss in the next point (this argument, btw is not new in veganism, being commonly found in hinduism and the jain religion)
    3. There is debate as to whether plants feel pain ( although personally I’m certain they do) however what is not debatable is the survival instinct, which effectively defines life itself! so to eat a carrot is to thwart the survival instinct of a plant just as much as it is to eat chicken, the difference being the chicken makes more noise! its useful to remember from an evolutionary perspective, the carrot plant did not fill its roots with nutrients so that others could benefit! therefore it should be just as unethical to eat a potato, pick a flower, or slaughter a lamb. if you follow this logic far enough, you’ll seriously consider not breathing ( which in it itself should be unethical, since killing is unethical, even if its your own life. now you are really stuck!)
    4. the question of ‘how can a loving God create animals that give you high cholesterol’ is a variant of the problem of evil. ultimately the same God created alcohol and cocaine, but gave us the common sense to avoid them and showed us living examples of what they do to people, which we see on TV, social media and indeed in real life. with meat, He gave us the example of the prophet and the sahabah (which we sadly dont follow) but made it permissible out of kindness. you might as well reframe the question as ‘ why did a loving, intelligent God no create a food that would satisfy our individual sense of self-righteousness!
    5. there are some factual errors in the video, but i will leave them out for now. but in summary, what i have seen of the the vegan argument, it makes some good points which are a reminder for muslims, but in essence it remains a flawed argument. the best approach is that of balance, which we were shown in the sunnah and the sunnah is sufficient, walillahilhamd.
    wa billahi tawfeeq


  12. mr.heathcliff

    “For one thing, if Matthew’s Gospel indicates that Jesus said “forsaken” and not “mocked” – his source for the passage was Mark! That would suggest that this word is also what Mark had. Moreover, Mark first cites the cry in the original Aramaic. The word in Aramaic for “mocked” is different for the word “forsaken.” The Aramaic word Mark uses is “forsaken.” So why would he even both giving the Aramaic if what he wanted to do was to have Jesus cry out “mocked”? He simply would have given the Greek form of the text.”

    if you put your “apologetic hat” on, one could say that jesus, before he was forsaken, cried out “why have you mocked me?,” then later on , he crieed out “why have you forsaken me?”


  13. mr.heathcliff


    And at the ninth hour Jesus cried [boao – same for the voice crying in the wilderness] with a loud voice [phone-megas], saying, . . . My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? (Mark 15:34)

    And just as significantly, in two earlier dramatic scenes in this gospel, readers had been regaled with scenes of demons crying out with loud voices at the moment they were commanded to leave the bodies they had so long possessed.

    And when the unclean spirit [pneuma] had torn him, and cried out with a loud voice [phone-megas], he came out of him. (Mark 1:26)

    And cried with a loud voice [phone-megas] . . . and the unclean spirits [pneuma] went out . . . (Mark 5:7-13)

    Luke’s gospel changes Mark’s narrative here, however.

    And when Jesus had cried [phoneo – spoke] out with a loud voice, he said, “Father, into your hands I comment my spirit.” And having said this, he breathed his last. (Luke 23:46)


    1. mr.heathcliff


      Luke’s Jesus did not weakly aphiemi (depart) with a loud voice, but more positively “spoke” or “cried out” (phoneo) with a loud voice. And far from being an utterance of despair or defeat, the voice conveyed a calm controlled peace at the moment of death: “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.”

      We know that this author was re-writing Mark’s Jesus here quite consciously and deliberately. The author of Luke’s gospel was portraying a very different Jesus from Mark’s. Luke’s Jesus was at no point in despair on the cross. He nowhere utters the famous cry of dereliction from the 22nd Psalm. Instead, he tries to refocus those mourning for him on his way to his death:

      Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me . . . (Luke 23:28)


      1. mr.heathcliff

        whats interesting is that jesus like the unclean pnuemas go out with a loud cry, its like a pattern which mark follows , unless someone can show an example of a pnuema going out with LOUD words.


  14. mr.heathcliff

    ibn anwar
    As ZU’L Zorander says, “In life there is no going back… Only forward.” So whatever the situation, especially when we hit an impasse, then, moving on is the only option. But let’s make a couple of things clear as we move on. When we say that God does not die, we don’t actually mean ceasing to exist in the absolute sense as is mistakenly suggested in your effort to ameliorate the apparent problem with the idea of a dying God. When it is said that God does not die but men do or that God is immortal (athanasia[Literally means ‘do not die’ ), but men are mortal, that simply means the life that men enjoy on any given plane and in particular the earthly one is fleeting. He will experience the cessation of existence on a plane, that is earth and be transported to another. This process called death is to which God is immune. His existence is never fleeting and He will not experience the cessation of life on any plane, for all planes are under His absolute dominion. So to say that God died in the person of Jesus is antithetical to this understanding of death, yet it is required in Christian orthodoxy to stipulate that God did actually die but as to what that really means the Trinitarian mind is always boggled and no clear solution has ever been offered.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Vaqas Rehman


        I agree with the above sentiment completely. God is immutable and does not change or die. For some reason some Christians do not understand that fact even though their own orthodoxy says as much. even the bible agrees with this fact. I mean just look at the relevant verses from Ezekiel 28

        The word of the Lord came to me: 2 “Son of man, say to the ruler of Tyre, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says:

        “‘In the pride of your heart
        you say, “I am a god;
        I sit on the throne of a god
        in the heart of the seas.”
        But you are a mere mortal and not a god,
        though you think you are as wise as a god.
        3 Are you wiser than Daniel[a]?
        Is no secret hidden from you?
        4 By your wisdom and understanding
        you have gained wealth for yourself
        and amassed gold and silver
        in your treasuries.
        5 By your great skill in trading
        you have increased your wealth,
        and because of your wealth
        your heart has grown proud.

        6 “‘Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says:

        “‘Because you think you are wise,
        as wise as a god,
        7 I am going to bring foreigners against you,
        the most ruthless of nations;
        they will draw their swords against your beauty and wisdom
        and pierce your shining splendor.
        8 They will bring you down to the pit,
        and you will die a violent death
        in the heart of the seas.
        9 Will you then say, “I am a god,”
        in the presence of those who kill you?
        You will be but a mortal, not a god,
        in the hands of those who slay you.
        10 You will die the death of the uncircumcised
        at the hands of foreigners.

        I have spoken, declares the Sovereign Lord.’”


      2. mr.heathcliff

        crosstian logic is dead

        if God said xyz and jesuz said xyz, then jesuz and god = same

        on the other hand

        if jesus said xyz and moses said xyz

        then jesus is moses?

        Liked by 2 people

  15. mr.heathcliff

    no blood

    Acts 15:19-21, James said: “…my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”


    56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live forever.” 59 He said these things while he was teaching in the synagogue at Capernaum.

    66 Because of this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him.

    Then, upon ejaculating, Jesus drank his own semen and told Mary, “Thus we must do, that we may live.” Upon hearing this, Mary instantly fainted, to which Jesus responded by helping her up and telling her, “O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?”

    66 Because of this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him.


    1. mr.heathcliff

      christianity is cutt off from yhwh

      For they have forsaken me
      and made this a place of foreign gods;
      they have burned sacrifices in it
      to gods
      that neither they nor their fathers
      nor the kings of Judah
      ever knew,
      and they have filled this place
      with the blood / of the innocent.
      Jeremiah 19: 4-5

      Because of the suffering that your enemy will inflict on you during the siege, you will eat the fruit of the womb, the flesh of the sons and daughters the Lord your God has given you.
      …because of the suffering your enemy will inflict on you during the siege of all your cities.
      Deuteronomy 28: 53, 55

      I [the Lord Almighty] will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters and they will eat one another’s flesh during the stress of the siege imposed on them by the enemies who seek their lives.
      Jeremiah 19: 9

      With their own hands compassionate women have cooked their own children who became their food when my people were destroyed.
      Lamentations 4: 10

      Any Israelite or any alien living among them who eats any blood—I will set My face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people.
      …I have given the blood to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar…
      Leviticus 17: 10-11

      timeline 2:23


    1. The hindutva is full of incels, seeing Hindu women choosing Muslim men isn’t a rare sight that’s why all those conspiracy theories came up…i remember in 2019 when the kashmir kerfuffle started again Hindutvas were celebrating online that they’re gonna marry and rape their women some even shared pics of chechen girls claiming they are kaahmiris….india is a nice country with lots of good hindus no doubt but soon things will change fast, as someone who’s been raised up by hindus since my birth it’s a matter of great sadness to me…but as Muslims we must always remember we have no real allies except Islam itself, we shouldn’t let emotions get in our way….dharmic unity is a thing always remember that, we have no staunch allies even among the secularists

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I won’t say Hinduism, but hindus have liberalized with time, back then your caste was tied to you at birth now it changes depending on the region you are….Modi himself is a dalit, but if you are in a conservative area you’re treated like a shudra ergo untouchable ergo like shit ergo discriminated by society economically, socially etc

        Liked by 1 person

  16. stewjo004

    @ Deatsch

    What I didn’t know he was dalit. The irony of him defending a system that he is on the lowest rung is hilarious. So the question is looking at the situation it appears to me at least as an outsider looking in that the most sense is to give dawah to the lower castes in India (and apparently with an emphasis on the women). Do you think this is smart or do you think a better plan is in order because we can’t keep doing the same thing there?


    1. @Stew, No harm in trying, but many religious dalits don’t mind their caste but sure dawah may still help coz they having nothing much to cling to unlike those of other castes who enjoy benefits….infact in the past most converts were actually dalits if im not wrong…

      The Muslim community is poor, ghetto-ish….after all those years…last but not the least they’re being liberalized with time….


      1. stewjo004

        @ Village Boy

        Oh, they’re ghetto?

        But anyway the main point is looking at the situation in India Muslims need more numbers and political representation.


      2. Muslims already have the numbers lol during elections both congress and secularists parties and hindutva parties tries whatever they can earn Muslim vote…Muslims have representatives too but they’re bloodsuckers, some even trust hindutva parties such as shiv sena over them lol….not only they lack education but those educated at the top turns out to be liberals….quick experiment do a quick Google of indian Muslim intellectuals, probably all you’ll find are either commies or liberals, why is this the case I still wonder…and yes they’re mainly ghetto…and yes they need numbers for what’s to come

        Liked by 1 person

  17. stewjo004

    @ Village Boy

    I was told by another Muslim from there Asaduddin Owaisi was solid:

    In your opinion what’s the best thing then that the Muslims in India should do?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Bro Owaisi is a joke, ik many other indian muslims who prefer voting hindu than him….he’s a good politician with lots of fake promises that’s it, he was playing politics even during the anti CAA protests, when Pakistan voiced their support he told Pakistan to mind it’s own business so he can score brownie points…he’s what we call “kosher opposition”…Indian Muslims need more of Malcolm X kind of mindset instead of Luther

      “In your opinion what’s the best thing then that the Muslims in India should do?”

      Do what Ali Jinnah or Bangladesh did

      Liked by 1 person

      1. stewjo004

        @ Village Boy

        I’m not opposed to the idea. I would actually love it if they did and reconnected us to Malaysia and Indonesia. Question is there more Muslims in the northern or southern half of India?

        Liked by 1 person

      2. @Stew, off topic, remember once a Muslim on discord I think having problems with the hadith about semen stains on clothes like ” whoaaa how can this be? Semen stains what? Wth! Why semen how can this be”,

        I’m was like dude what’s the problem are you even married

        Liked by 1 person

  18. mr.heathcliff

    “How are you getting this interpretation out of these verses? Verse 2 explicitly says: “And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them.” The verses are clearly talking about a prophet that will lead the people of Israel away from Yahweh to other gods and NOT about a prophet who will claim to abrogate the law. I really want to hear you justify this.”

    (before you read the response,note that the newt testament is super glued to the old testament)

    It’s verse 3, actually, and it specifically says:

    וּבָ֤א הָאוֹת֙ וְהַמּוֹפֵ֔ת אֲשֶׁר־דִּבֶּ֥ר אֵלֶ֖יךָ לֵאמֹ֑ר נֵֽלְכָ֞ה אַחֲרֵ֨י אֱלֹהִ֧ים אֲחֵרִ֛ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר לֹֽא־יְדַעְתָּ֖ם וְנָֽעָבְדֵֽם׃

    And the operative words are “אֱלֹהִ֧ים אֲחֵרִ֛ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר לֹֽא־יְדַעְתָּ֖ם” – “other Gods/angels/heavenly-beings
    that you did not know of.”

    Due to Jesus’ novel claim to be the Son of God and coequal with God, as that is an entity who was previously not known to the Jews or part of the Jewish religion, Jesus qualifies.

    Additionally, those verses come immediately after another critical verse. Deut. 13:1 says:

    אֵ֣ת כָּל־הַדָּבָ֗ר אֲשֶׁ֤ר אָנֹכִי֙ מְצַוֶּ֣ה אֶתְכֶ֔ם אֹת֥וֹ תִשְׁמְר֖וּ לַעֲשׂ֑וֹת לֹא־תֹסֵ֣ף עָלָ֔יו וְלֹ֥א תִגְרַ֖ע מִמֶּֽנּוּ׃

    Which means “Be careful to observe only that which I enjoin upon you: neither add to it nor take away from it.” In other words: no abrogation allowed. The conjunction of these verses further indicate that an alleged prophet who falsely claims to abrogate the law is tantamount to a prophet of a false god.

    The fact that Christianity doesn’t follow Torah law, and that Christians point to Jesus’ own words and deeds to excuse that behavior, indicates that Jesus (or whomever instructed Christians to abandon Torah law) was a false prophet.

    If the God of Israel was, from the beginning, triune, then no new beings were revealed as such. Rather, a personage of God was revealed.

    That doesn’t matter. The verse instructs us to reject any so-called prophet who preaches of a heavenly being that we Jews did not previously know.

    Jews were unaware of any alleged other personages of God. We are therefore instructed by God to ignore any prophet who claims to speak of one.


    Liked by 1 person

  19. stewjo004


    Liked by 1 person

  20. mr.heathcliff

    jesus’ kingdom is more violent than any earthly rulers kingdom.

    jesus said “thy kingdom come thy will be done”

    so how to kristers interpret
    “my kingdom not of this world’


    When Jesus Christ admitted that His kingdom was “not of this world,” He was not implying that it was spiritual and/or invisible. Actually, He meant that His kingdom is separate and distinct from the system upon which the world’s governments of Pilate’s time (and even those of today) are built. It will be a kingdom that God Himself, not some mortal man, will establish and administrate, a glorious monarchy in which God’s will shall always be accomplished on earth.


    But it is equally important to recognize what Jesus is not proclaiming. He is not saying that his kingdom is an ephemeral, internal religious experience that does not impinge on economic, political, or social issues in the real world. As the NRSV, the NIV, and other translations indicate, his kingdom is instead from another realm (John 18:36). His rule—like he himself—originates from heaven. But he has come to earth, and his kingdom is a real kingdom on this earth, more real than even Rome could ever be. His kingdom come to earth has a different set of operating principles. It is powerfully at work within the world, but it does not receive its marching orders from the present rulers of the world. Jesus doesn’t explain at the time what it means for his kingdom to be from another world yet in the world he himself constructed. But he reveals it in vivid terms later, in the vision reported in Revelation 21 and 22, when the New Jerusalem comes down out of heaven. Jesus’ kingdom descends to take its rightful place as the capital of this world, where all his disciples find their eternal home. Whenever Jesus speaks of eternal life or the kingdom of God, he is referring to the earth we inhabit now, transformed and perfected by the Word and the power of God.


    1. mr.heathcliff

      Dr. William Lane Craig issues a confused answer. On the one hand, he admits that Jesus can be viewed as an “imperialist” if we construe that term “broadly.” On the other hand, he wishes to make distinction in the cosmic geography of where any dominion is exercised by Jesus.

      If I understand Dr. Craig, he claims that Christ’s empire is heavenly, not earthly.

      However, we have abundant evidence in the New Testament that Christ intended to establish his dominion on earth or that he endorsed God’s dominion on earth. One example is in the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6:10 (RSV): “Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, On earth as it is in heaven.”

      This prayer speaks of a kingdom, and a desire that God exercise power on EARTH, not just in heaven.

      Another example, is in Revelation 19:11-16 (RSV), which evangelical Christians consider to be an accurate description of what will occur at Jesus’ Second Coming:

      “[11] Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! He who sat upon it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war.
      [12] His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems; and he has a name inscribed which no one knows but himself.
      [13] He is clad in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God.
      [14] And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, followed him on white horses.
      [15] From his mouth issues a sharp sword with which to smite the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron; he will tread the wine press of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.
      [16] On his robe and on his thigh he has a name inscribed, King of kings and Lord of lords.”

      Note that he will rule the nations with a rod of iron, and that certainly does not refer to heavenly nations. And does being “King of Kings and Lord of Lords” not qualify one as the most supreme imperialist?

      I could literally multiply examples many times over, but I do address this in more detail in Chapter 6 of my book, The Bad Jesus: The Ethics of New Testament Ethics (2015):

      Perhaps, Dr. Craig also should start reading more evangelical scholarship that makes the case that Jesus was viewed as an earthy emperor or at least challenged Caesar’s emperorship. See, for example, Joseph Fantin’s book:

      Otherwise, Dr. Craig appears uninformed about evangelical scholarship that makes a case similar to mine, but just doesn’t normally use the word “imperialist” for Jesus.


  21. mr.heathcliff

    did jesus think that he came for the whole world?

    A Canaanite woman from that region came out and started shouting, ‘Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is tormented by a demon.’ But he did not answer her at all. And his disciples came and urged him, saying, ‘Send her away, for she keeps shouting after us.’ He answered, ‘I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.’ But she came and knelt before him, saying, ‘Lord, help me.’ He answered, ‘It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.’ She said, ‘Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.’ Then Jesus answered her, ‘Woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish.’ And her daughter was healed instantly. (Matthew 15:22-28)

    Jesus began with a myopic vision: he was sent only to care for Israelites. The Canaanite “dogs” were out of his purview. But it wasn’t until he was confronted with one of these dogs, face to face, that he discovered, to his surprise, that they are humans too, and dignified, even in their despair, capable of greater faith even than the so-called “faithful.”

    He was tempted in all ways as we are, tempted to see the Other as less dignified, less worthy, less faithful, less capable of faithfulness, less inclined to tolerance. He was tempted to see the Other as Other, rather than as Self. At first, he couldn’t see his own people, couldn’t see himself, in her. But confronted with that Other, Jesus learned. He learned to sympathize. To sympathize with the enemy. Jesus learned.


      1. mr.heathcliff

        ibn anwar

        This verse is perhaps even more clearer if it is understood in its context. The story goes that a Canaanite woman, which Mark 7:26 interestingly identifies as ‘Ellenis syrophoinikissa to genei’ (a Greek, of the Syrophoenician race), approached Jesus begging him to help her daughter who is possessed by a demon crying to him, “eleeson me, kyrie uios Dauid” (have mercy on me, lord son of David). The following verse (v. 23) notes that Jesus simply ignores her begging and even his disciples who were with him “erotoun” (implored) their master to help her, but he firmly tells his disciples to “apolyson auten” (dismiss her). He then says the memorable words above, “ouk apestalen ei me eis ta probata ta apololota oikou ‘Israel.” (I was not sent but to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.) But this woman is persistent and refuses to leave. She “prosekynei” (literally means licking the hands of its master as a dog, but figuratively means bowing or prostrating to another out of respect) before Jesus and says, “Kyrie, boethei moi.” (Lord, help me.) Jesus still refuses to render any assistance to this poor Gentile woman and dismisses her rather roughly as one of the “kynariois” (dogs), i.e., “It is not right to take the bread of the children and cast it to the dogs.” In other words, “the children” here refers to the lost sheep of the House of Israel and “bread” here would be God’s blessings upon them that are not to be shared with the Gentiles who are akin to dogs. One would think that the woman would relent after such a remarkably cold treatment, but she does not. She shamelessly accepts the label of a dog and says, “Nai, kyirie; kai gar ta kynaria esthei apo ton psichion ton piptonton apo tes trapezes ton kyrion auton.” (Yes, Lord; even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.) In her reply, she solemnly accepts the canine identification of Gentiles and that the children of Israel are their masters. And perhaps once she has lowered herself to that very level, of a slave or a servant, a dog unto the children of Israel, Jesus in this episode is moved by her spirit (v. 28) and gives her the “crumbs” that she so desired and her daughter gets healed.

        In this pericope, it becomes very clear that Jesus’ strict exclusivism is an inescapable historical datum. Jesus illustrates to his disciple in this episode how important it is to keep to the Jewish community and to preach only to them and that God’s blessings that He has given to them through Jesus is not to be so freely shared with outsiders. The woman only receives a small fraction of the actual “bread” because she exhibits genuine spiritual awakening that puts her in her place: that of an inferior to the children of Israel. Gentiles are dogs as they do not belong to the family and as such may not be deemed as one of the members of Jesus’ ministry. Commenting on the episode, Grieve writes:

        “XV. 21-28. The Healing of the Greek Woman’s Daughter (Mk. 7;24-30*). — Lk. may have thought the story unacceptable to his Gentile readers. Mt. adds the saying, “I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” He makes the woman come out of the heathen territory, for Jesus could hardly go thither, much less work a miracle, after the prohibition to the disciples in 10:5. 23f. suggests that He desired, out of compassion, to overstep His Divinely imposed limit, but that He must abide within. There is a struggle in His mind. Perhaps 26 is more accurate than Mk. 6:27, which implies that Gentiles shall be fed by-and-by.” [5]

        First, it should be noted that Mark 6:27 in the quotation given as a reference is a mistake. Obviously, this is a slip of the mind and the good scholar actually meant to reference Mark 7:27 which parallels Matthew 15:26 that he refers to. Secondly, according to Grieve Matthew adds verse 24 to the episode as it is absent in Mark. But it is quite possible that this is originally in Q rather than Mark (Mark and Q [Quelle meaning source] are the two common sources for Matthew and Luke in the two-source hypothesis to which most scholars concede), but it is omitted by Luke because as Grieve testifies, “Luke may have thought the story unacceptable to his Gentile readers.” Should this be true and that may well be the case, since Matthew 10:5-6 clearly solidifies the idea and uses the same expression “ta probata ta apololota oikou ‘Israel” (the lost sheep of the House of Israel) as Matthew 15:24, then 15:24 is most probably not an editorial note by Matthew but is the words of Jesus indicating the restriction imposed upon his ministry. Grieve states that Jesus was not able to tag along with her into the Gentile areas because of the clear prohibition that he himself had given to his disciples earlier in Matthew 10:5, but despite that, he was moved by the woman’s persistence and acceptance of her role as a dog unto the lost sheep of the House of Israel and so he somewhat sidestepped the “Divinely imposed limit” and allowed her a peek into the kingdom. The “crumbs” that she was afforded through the little peek was all that Jesus was prepared to offer the Gentile, otherwise, his actual ministry is not for her or any of the other Gentiles. He was to “abide within” the “Divinely imposed limit”.


        Question: After warning his disciples to avoid contact with the gentiles (all non-Jews) and even those Jesus considered half breeds (Samaritans or Jews left behind after the Babylonian exile in 586 BCE and to be excluded in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah), plus the fact that Jesus himself set the example: These twelve Jesus sent out after instructing them:

        “Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans; but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (Matt. 10: 5 – 6)

        Why do you think Peter (Jesus’ favorite apostles) gave Paul such a hard time in his mission to the gentiles as in Galatians 2: 11 -14?Why was it that the early Church pushed west and not south into Egypt (a stronghold of the Jews and home of the LXX) and on into Africa (at least North Africa)?

        Why was it that Jesus’ hand pick apostles (like Judaism itself) disappear from the stage of Church History and are never heard from again (except in legends and apocryphal gospels and epistles) after the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 CE?

        Why was it that Paul had such a hard time convincing Jews that God exclusive Covenant with His Chosen People or Israel was also now open to the gentiles? Why was it that Paul’s ministry to the gentiles was continually attacked by the Judaizers? And finally, why was it that Paul can’t quote a single statement made by Jesus approving of his ministry to non-Jews?


      2. mr.heathcliff

        anwar wrote:
        and even his disciples who were with him “erotoun” (implored) their master to help her,

        i agree with this. if they knew that their mission was to the jews, then why would jesus remind them
        “i only came for the jews” ?

        it makes better sense that in their compassion, they wanted jesus to help her.

        help her, she keeps crying after us

        “i only came for the lost sheep”


      3. mr.heathcliff

        God’s blessings that He has given to them through Jesus is not to be so freely shared with outsiders. The woman only receives a small fraction of the actual “bread” because she exhibits genuine spiritual awakening that puts her in her place: that of an inferior to the children of Israel. Gentiles are dogs as they do not belong to the family and as such may not be deemed as one of the members of Jesus’ ministry.

        Matthew’s Jesus has some cruel fun with her and her sick daughter: “It is not proper to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” Dogs (κυναριοις) is Jesus’ Jewish hate term for Gentiles ( Matt. 7:6 “κυσιν “). Finally Jesus heals her daughter, but only after he extracts from her a verbal confirmation before his disciples and the people watching that only the Jews have God’s blessing and she and her daughter are indeed dogs (notice the play on words here θυγατηρ (young girl) with κυναριοις (small dog)).


      4. mr.heathcliff

        “father forgive them for they do not know what they r doing”

        no repentance. no faith.

        yet a gentile woman is insulted and abused because she requests for crumbs which fall


  22. Mikail of the revived islamic caliphate

    Hey dude, can you explain this one for me inshallah. In a surah altho idk which, it mentions and praises tne companions may Allah be pleased with them fo being humble, then it says that it is their description in the tauraat and in the injeel in the form of the parable of the seed. Im wondering as to its meaning.


    1. mr.heathcliff

      “then it says that it is their description in the tauraat and in the injeel in the form of the parable of the seed. Im wondering as to its meaning.”

      the messenger is a farmer and the sahaba are his crops


  23. Mikail the first of his name, the protector of his people

    “Muḥammad is the Messenger of Allah. And those with him are firm with the disbelievers and compassionate with one another. You see them bowing and prostrating ˹in prayer˺, seeking Allah’s bounty and pleasure. The sign ˹of brightness can be seen˺ on their faces from the trace of prostrating ˹in prayer˺. This is their description in the Torah. And their parable in the Gospel is that of a seed that sprouts its ˹tiny˺ branches, making it strong. Then it becomes thick, standing firmly on its stem, to the delight of the planters—in this way Allah makes the believers a source of dismay for the disbelievers. To those of them who believe and do good, Allah has promised forgiveness and a great reward.“

    -Surah Al-Fath, Ayah 29


    1. mr.heathcliff

      i don’t know , you need to ask faiz and stew about this.
      what seems to me to be the possibility is that the verses could be drawing a link between the actions of muhammad p and ibraheem p.
      ibraheem is commanded to purify the house of God , make bowing and prostration
      prophet muhammad purifies the house and he along with the people bow and prostrate

      “You see them bowing and prostrating ˹in prayer˺, seeking Allah’s bounty and pleasure. The sign ˹of brightness can be seen˺ on their faces from the trace of prostrating ˹in prayer˺. This is their description in the Torah”

      this verse is proof that torah is missing things which Allah revealed to ibraheem

      “And their parable in the Gospel is that of a seed that sprouts its ˹tiny˺ branches, making it strong. Then it becomes thick, standing firmly on its stem, to the delight of the planters—in this way Allah makes the believers a source of dismay for the disbelievers.”

      this seems to be talking about the companions of the prophet who are his victory similar to how farmer after putting in his hard work gets to see his final result. “standing firmly on its stem, to the delight of the planters”

      stew and faiz probably know more about this , i don’t know .

      maybe something to do with “kingdom of God”

      i don’t know


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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