World's Worst Islamic Apologist Exposed (PART II) The End of an ELF: BADELF mentally damaged by Dk

An update here, after BADELF was obliterated by my earlier post, he had a complete psychological melt down and then decided to make his entire first post in response to me dedicated to ad-hominem and then his entire second post was dedicated to red herrings! This is after SCHOOLEDELF had ignore his responsibility to address the post in question which annihilated him and his so called defense of "CT".

How unsurprising.

What BADELF of course doesn't know is that ALL OF THE PERONSAL INFORMATION he supposedly tries to expose me with is FREELY available on my YOUTUBE ACCOUNT


It must have really stung SADELF when he not only had no response but was exposed as a complete light weight, a no-body, unemployed and even girlfriendless. BADELF enjoy the last of your publicity because you won't be getting anymore, especially with fallacious pontificating like this!

Notice how hurt BADELF is he spends his entire two posts ranting and yelling in caps-lock, it's a shame really how rookies are so easily upset, SADELF was so upset he even forgot to to separate his paragraphs in his rage and hostility. 

Now that BADELF has let his frustrations with his girlfriendless life (by taking it out on others) out of his system, it's time to focus on what is suppose to be BADELF's substance and "rebuttal".

I will respond section by section to this marvelous stupendous "response" of his. I would like to thank BADELF for vindicating my original impression of him as possibly the world's worst Islamic apologist since he completely confirms this!

First he says:

LETS GO BACK TO THE MAIN TOPIC NOW WHICH IS :

Do prophets (given power by God) raise corpses from the dead or does God Alone raise the dead?

Well that's a sensible approach to take BADELF, I'm proud of you boy!

BADELF then says:

FIRST , I WAS RIGHT WHEN I CLAIMED THAT YOU YOUR AGRUMENTS HAVE NO BIBLICAL BASES , THE PROOF IS YOU STILL CANNOT PROVE THE CONCEPT OF TRINITY IN THE BIBLE , SO WHAT YOU DO ? YOU JUST USE SCATTERED PEICES FROM HERE AND THERE WHICH GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH CONCEPT OF THE TRINITY .

Long lost BADELF, changes the subject, after directing us to the ACTUAL subject. It couldn't get worse.

But BADELF also fails to address his original mistake:

The irony here is that BADELF says my arguments have no biblical basis but then says the scattered pieces I quote show how the Bible contradicts itself. So BADELF contradicts himself in the first sentence of trying to expose me. Either what I say has no Biblical basis, or it indeed does have a Biblical basis that simply contradict other parts of the Bible, it cannot be both...

He also refers to portions of the Bible that contradict his view as "irrelevant scattered pieces". But the passages I quoted were all relevant to the topic which was: Do prophets (given power by God) raise corpses from the dead or does God Alone raise the dead?" In fact there are only 2 prophets who are said to raise the dead in the OT, so those passages were perfectly relevant.

Since BADELF simply cannot make his argument cogent or coherent I will assume that he thinks the Bible contradicts itself (rather than asserting the verses I offered do not exist in the Bible, since he already confessed in his paragraph these are irrelevant passages, he admits they exist, even though they expose him), and will address what he brings to our attention. He quotes Matthew 10:1;7-11. and John 8:28, Acts 5:30 and John 11:41-43

Instead he lies and says he was referring to the Trinity in the Bible after being exposed, we know he wasn't referring to the Trinity in the Bible since immediately after he made these statements he appealed to verses that were supposedly suppose to show Apostles had divine abilities just like Jesus, the verses emboldened above. BADELF was caught with his pants down.

SADELF after redirecting us to the topic, but instead directs us to the Trinity, then again takes us on another journey related to textual criticism of the Bible!:

SECOND THING , I BEEN DEBATING YOU ABOUT THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE BIBLE AND TILL NOW YOU COULDNT PROVIDE ONE SINGLE EVIDENCE THAT THE BIBLE NEVER BEEN CHANGED OR IT BEEN NEVER CORRUPTED.
AGAIN ILL USE MY USUAL AGRUMENT : WHO ADDED JOHN 8/1-11 AND 1JOHN 5-7 TO THE BIBLE .
AND WHY WE HAVE DIFFERENT CATHOLIC ,ORTHODOX, PROTESTANT BIBLES ?
SO YOU SHOW ONLY IGNORANCE WHEN YOU ASSUME THAT THE WHOLE BIBLE BEEN PRESERVED AND IT DIDNT GET CHANGED WHILE MY CAT KNOWS THAT YOUR BIBLE GOT CORRUPTED AND CHANGED .
AND YOU OBVIOUSLY YOU DONT KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A WORD BEING GOD S WORD AND BEING MAN S WORD.
SO AGAIN I CHALLENGE YOU TO PROVE THAT THE HUMANS HANDS DIDNT PLAY WITH THE CONTENT OF THE BIBLE.

Back to stage one. Off topic red herrings! hah
 
First of all I have a complete series covering this. And an entire section covering textual criticism! See video 3 for those specific passages. How is this related to anything at all? Hillarious, BADELF has no response, so goes on points he thinks he has left against Christianity.

Well after two logical fallacies, finally BADELF might just get round in the next four years to getting his act together and respond to my post since again he says:

LETS GO BACK TO THE MAIN TOPIC AGAIN WHICH IS :

Do prophets (given power by God) raise corpses from the dead or does God Alone raise the dead?

Okay finally we are going to get back to the topic! BADELF says:

LET ME CRUSH YOUR WHOLE NONSENSE IRRELEVANT LECTURE WITH THE FOLLOWING NOTES:
1- IF YOU SAY JESUS IS GOD THAT LEADS US TO SAY THAT THE FATHER IS GOD AS WELL ,WHICH MEANS WE HAVE TWO GODS , AND OF COURSE THAT CONTRADICTS THE CONCEPT OF TRINITY WHICH DECLARES THAT THERES ONLY ONE GOD

LOLOLOLOL!

First of all SADELF, predictably only get's it half right:

IF YOU SAY JESUS IS GOD THAT LEADS US TO SAY THAT THE FATHER IS GOD AS WELL

He then falsely concludes: WHICH MEANS WE HAVE TWO GODS

In order to make such false conclussions: OWNEDELF, the sentence would have to be written as such:

IF YOU SAY JESUS IS A GOD THAT LEADS US TO SAY THAT THE FATHER IS A GOD AS WELL WHICH MEANS WE HAVE TWO GODS

This sentence in english would indicate two gods. However the first sentence indicates Jesus and the Father are both God (singular) while the second setence shows Jesus and the Father are two distinct gods with the use of the indefinite article. Of course BADELF already knows what God is, that God is Creator, omniscient, omnipotent etc, so we are describing WHAT CATEGORY Jesus and the Father belong to when we say they are God, we don't say Jesus is FULLY who God encompasses since that would mean Jesus is ALL THREE WHO's of the Trinity. Rather Trinitarians only say Jesus is fully WHAT God is, meaning he possesses the same substance and attributes of divinity, we don't say he is fully who God is, namely all three persons.

But again this is off topic. The topic becomes (at least in BADELF's mind): Does the Bible teach POLYTHEISM? He then ludicrously argues since the Trinity teaches God is one (we thank you for BADELF being one of many Muslims to admit this which exposes the Quran and Islam and even his God: Allah who couldn't get it right!) he ends up concluding therefore Jesus and the Father can't both be God since that would contradict the definition of the Trinity.

I honestly don't know how STUPID, BLIND, FOOLISH and illiterate BADELF is?

Did he just conveniently forget to point out that the very definition of Trinity he appeals to say that the Father and Son are apart of this "oneness" he refers to:

Also called Blessed Trinity, Holy Trinity. the union of three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) in one Godhead, or the threefold personality of the one Divine Being. (source)

Thankfully SADELF finally makes a correct statement:

YOU ARE NOT EVEN ABLE TO SAY THAT IF (JESUS GOD) MEANS THE FATHER (ISNT) GOD .

OF COURSE YOU WILL DENY TO SAY SO , BUT YOU WILL HAVE TO SAY , NO THEY ARE NOT GODS BUT THEY ARE PERSONS

The last statement is true, they are indeed persons. As for the first statement: "If Jesus is God, therefore the Father is not God".

The reason why we cannot make this statement is since this unequivocally begs the question and presupposes Unitarianism, namely the belief that God is a single person (usually the Father).

However the assumption made is that Jesus alone is the only true God and that God is only one person and therefore the Father cannot too be God.

Lets bring this out further:

1. God is only one person
2. Jesus and the Father are two distinct persons
3. If Jesus is God (and God is only one person), therefore the Father (who is a distinct person from Jesus) cannot be God (since God is only one person occupied by Jesus)

This reasoning completely follows, if premise 1 and 2 are true. However Trinitarians contest premise 1, "God is only one person".

A similar case SADELF might know about is when Muslims appeal to John 17:3 we have no argument against the assertion that the Father is the only true God, we simply do not affirm the Father alone is the only true God.

Anthony Rogers puts this best:

The first claim is immediately undermined by the fact that the one whom Jesus calls "the only true God" is the Father (John 17:1-2), a notion that Muslims anathematize. Therefore, even if this were some kind of unitarianism, it is certainly not Islamic-unitarianism.

As for the second claim, that Jesus is not God, it rests on a logical fallacy. The reasoning goes something like this: The Father is the only true God; Jesus is not the Father; therefore, Jesus is not God. When stated more formally, the argument takes the following form: A is B; C is not A; therefore, C is not B.

Even someone untrained in logic should be able to immediately see that this is fallacious. It is no different than arguing the following: Plato (A) is mortal (B); Socrates (C) is not Plato (A); therefore, Socrates (C) is not mortal (B). Both arguments - the one against Christ's deity and the one against Socrates mortality - take the same form; hence, both are fallacious. Things would be different if the text said "only the Father is God", or "the Father alone is the only true God", but it does not. [Muslim apologist Shabir Ally seems to recognize this, at least implicitly, assuming his remark wasn't intentional, for he unwittingly misquotes this verse in one of his articles attacking the deity of Christ, saying: "Jesus too confirmed that the Father alone is the only true God (see John 17:1-3)".]¹

{This argument might also be stated in the form of a conditional: "If one is the Father, then one is the only true God; Jesus is not the Father; therefore, Jesus is not the only true God". In this case, the fallacy committed is that of denying the antecedent. As above, things would be different if the text would yield: "If and only if one is the Father...". As above, this, too, is ruled out by the text. That much is clear.}

Thus, in saying that the Father is the only true God in John 17:3, the deity of Jesus is neither affirmed nor denied, for it might be that Jesus is one with the Father or that He shares His Father's nature, a claim that Jesus repeatedly makes elsewhere in various ways.

In sum, then, the conclusion at this point must be that the text stands over against Islamic-unitarianism and does not deny the deity of Christ. For these two reasons, we must conclude that John 17:3 is decidedly not an Islamic proof-text.(source)

Moving on to SADELF's next blunder:

2-IN CASE YOU SAY THAT ,YOU GONNA ADMIT THAT THE FATHER ISNT GOD BUT HES A PERSON , AND JESUS ISNT GOD BUT HES A PERSON , AND THAT CONTRADICTS THE CLAIM YOU MADE THAT JESUS IS GOD , AND YOU CONTRADICT THE BIBLE WHICH CLEARLY SRATES THAT THE FATHER IS GOD.

Unfortunately for SICKELF the creeds don't change because of his confused inability to comprehend standard logic. The Father and Son are fully divine persons of God. And the Father is fully God (what God is, not fully whom God is) and the Son is fully God(what God is, not fully whom God is).

Trinitarians can refer to the Father as God (since in many places in the Bible it can function as a proper noun for the Father, just like "Lord" functions as proper noun for Jesus in many places), or at other times they may use God as a describing noun, meaning the term "God" is describing the nature of the person in question, namely what he is.

In fact even the dictionary describes God like this, as in what he is:

theol: the sole Supreme Being, eternal, spiritual, and transcendent, who is the Creator and ruler of all and is infinite in all attributes; the object of worship in monotheistic religions

The dictionary is careful to use the word being as opposed to person, since being is what something is, and person is who someone is. Further more, the dictionary shows "God" is a perfect example of a descriptive noun, identifying one's characteristics, namely the nature of what something is!

Ironically the New Testament has both uses of the word: God. To identify who someone is: namely the Father, and also to identify what something is: namely Jesus.

"God" is not always used as merely a descriptive noun in the New Testament, it's used as a proper noun to identify a member of the Godhead.

The New Testament quite easily identifies "God the Father" as a proper noun belonging to the Father, using this to identify this individual of the God head. At the beginning of his epistle to the Romans, Paul states:

To all those loved by God in Rome, called to be saints: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ! Romans 1:7

"God" then in the first part of this sentence, although without qualification as "the Father" in the very next past of this sentence is expanded and expounded into "from God our Father", showing Paul identifies without even qualifying the usage of the word God, that mostly "God" refers to the Father (without specifying the word "Father", although he does at times it is meant to be understood from the mere use of "God").

And at the end of Paul's epistle repeats a similar phrase:

so that you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ with a united mind and voice. Romans 15:6

There is therefore no doubt in New Testament scholarship, that authors in the New Testament view God as a personal noun for the Father and Lord as a personal noun for Jesus. Paul bears witness to this fact at the start and finish of even this one epistle!


However the same author part way through his letter to the Church of Rome, has no problem also using "God" as a descriptive noun, to describe WHAT Jesus is:

To them belong the patriarchs, and from them, by human descent, came the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever! Amen. Romans 9:5

 Yet else where Paul says:

"yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him. 1 Cor 8:6

Surely Paul is mad? If Paul identifies the single God as the Father, and Jesus as the single Lord, then how could also refer to Jesus as "God" after all there is only one single God: the Father! Paul even in the same epistle as referring to God as Father and Jesus as Lord still identifies Jesus as God. What is going on here?

• Paul says the one God is the Father (1 Cor 8:6, Romans 1:7;15:6)
• Paul says Jesus is not the Father (he is one Lord)
• Paul says Jesus is God (Romans 9:5)

All this difficulty is solved when we realize Paul uses proper nouns to identify distinctions between the Father and Son, yet he does not exclude Jesus from being of the nature of the one God, any less than he excludes the Father from being of and possessing the nature of the one Lord. Paul merely uses these title distinctions to make distinctions between the persons, yet he never uses these title distinctions of "God" and "Lord" to deny that both are inherently ontologically both God and Lord.

Now that we know Paul refers to Jesus as both Lord and God, how about God the Father?

In his epistles to the Ephesians Paul carries out the same theme:

Eph 1:2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Eph 1:3 Praise the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavens.

Eph 1:17 I pray that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, would give you a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him. 

Eph 5:20 giving thanks always for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ 

And at the end of his epistle:

Eph 6:23 Peace to the brothers, and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Yet this does not stop Paul from interchangeably referring to God the Father even as the Lord:

Children, obey your parents as you would the Lord, because this is right. Honor your father and mother, which is the first commandment with a promise, so that it may go well with you and that you may have a long life in the land. Fathers, don’t stir up anger in your children, but bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord. Children, obey your parents as you would the Lord, because this is right. Slaves, obey your human masters with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ. Don’t work only while being watched, in order to please men, but as slaves of Christ, do GOD'S WILL from your heart. Serve with a good attitude, AS TO THE LORD and not to men, knowing that whatever good each one does, slave or free, he will receive this back FROM THE LORD. And masters, treat your slaves the same way, without threatening them, because you know that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with Him. Finally, be strengthened BY THE LORD and by HIS vast strength. Put on the FULL ARMOR OF GOD so that you can stand against the tactics of the Devil.  Ephesians 6:1-11

Paul refers to God the Father as the Lord (a proper noun he exclusively gives to the one Lord Jesus) elsewhere:

Do not be mismatched with unbelievers. For what partnership is there between righteousness and lawlessness? Or what fellowship does light have with darkness? What agreement does Christ have with Belial?4 Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? And what agreement does GOD'S SANCTUARY have with idols? For we are the sanctuary of the LIVING GOD, as GOD SAID: I will dwell among them and walk among them, and I will be THEIR GOD, and they will be My people. Therefore, come out from among them and be separate, SAYS THE LORD; do not touch any unclean thing, and I will welcome you. I will be a FATHER TO YOU, and you will be sons and daughters to Me, says THE LORD ALMIGHTY. 2 Corinthians 6:14-18

Hence for Paul to give proper nouns to the Father and Son, (respectively in Koine Greek: theos and kurios and in Hebrew: Eloheem and YHVH) never means for Paul that the Father does not constitute "Lord" or Jesus Christ does not constitute "God", rather the names are only to identify the personal distinctions and a more formal terminology to describe the persons of the Godhead.

But Paul is not the only one who realized this, so did James!

Did James or Paul, apply BADELF's clumsy reasoning? Such as:

1. The Lord is only one
2. Jesus and the Father are two distinct persons
3. If the Father is Lord (and the Lord is only one ), therefore Jesus (who is a distinct person from the Father) cannot be Lord (since Lord is only one who is the Father)

This is the very same fallacious reasoning BADELF uses to reject the divinity of the Son, yet using the same ludicrous argument, we would have to reject the Lordship of either the Son or the Father, since the category of "single Lord" can only be occupied by one person at a time according to SADELF! Well we know that James like Paul refuses to accept the false analogous reason of the clumsy fool LOSTELF.
James describes the Father as Lord:

But He gives greater grace. Therefore He says: God resists the proud, but gives grace to THE HUMBLE. Therefore, submit to God. But resist the Devil, and he will flee from you. Draw near TO GOD and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, sinners, and purify your hearts, double-minded people! Be miserable and mourn and weep. Your laughter must change to mourning and your joy to sorrow. Humble yourselves BEFORE THE LORD, and He will exalt you. James 4:6-10

We praise our Lord and Father with it, and we curse men who are made in God’s likeness with it. James 3:9

Yet even James understood the proper noun for the Father was "God", but this never meant the Father was not Lord for him, nor did it mean the Father was considered the single Lord excluding Jesus from being Lord:

From James, a slave of God and the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes dispersed abroad.3 Greetings!  James 1:1

My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. James 2:1

So does brainless ELF get it now? God is a personal noun used of the Father in the New Testament, and Lord is a personal noun used to describe the Son, these are ways of making a distinction in persons and using a set official terminology for purposes of understanding and creed.
Yet the NT authors were by no mean rigid to say that because the Father is the "one God" therefore Jesus is not. Rather we see they still accepted Jesus was of the being of God (what God is), as used as a descriptive word describing Christ's divine nature, the same nature possessed by the very Father.

We also see the authors of the NT describe the Father as "Lord" describing his divine name and nature, yet never identifying him as Jesus, thus showing "Lord" can be used as a formal proper noun in most cases applied to Jesus Christ, or it can be used more loosely to show the Father is Lord(what he is), again using a descriptive word to describe God's inherent ontological nature.

BADELF next says:

3-YOU LAST CHANCE YOU HAVE TO SAVE YOUR DIGNITY IS TO SAY, THAT : THE FATHER AND JESUS AND THE HOLY SPIRIT ARE PERSONS AND GODS IN THE SAME TIME 

SADELF was paritally right, they are: persons and God (singular, not plural) at the same time. Person = WHO someone is and GOD here = WHAT something is.

ELF next says:

AND THAT WOULD BE A DISASTER BECAUSE YOU EQUAL THE WORD (PERSON) WITH THE WORD (GOD) , 

False, as explained over and over.

THEREFORE WE WILL HAVE 3 GODS (WHEN YOU CLAIM THAT THE WORD PERSON IS THE SYNONYM OF THE WORD GOD).

They are not synonyms. False again.

I WILL NOT PUT WORDS ON YOUR MOUTH SO ILL HAVE TO ASK YOU :
ONION HEAD :
IS THE FATHER A PERSON OR GOD OR BOTH ?
IS JESUS A PERSON OR GOD OR BOTH ?
IS THE HOLY SPIRIT A PERSON OR GOD OR BOTH ?

Persons and God.

SO WHATEVER YOUR ANSWER WILL BE YOU WILL FALL IN A LOGICAL CONTRADICTION TO NOT FALL IN THAT PIT YOU WILL HAVE TO SAY :
THE FATHER IS THE GOD , JESUS IS A PERSON NOT GOD (PROPHET), THE HOLY SPIRIT IS A PERSON NOT GOD .

Perhaps if I constantly made false dilemmas and begged Unitarianism I would be?

THEN YOU WILL REACH THE RIGHT CONCLUSION WHICH IS , THE GOD GAVE THE POWER TO THE PROPHET JESUS TO RAISE THE DEAD LIKE THE GOD DID WITH 2 PROPHETS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT :)

Of course if clumsy ELF had of read the passages I cited to CT in the Old Testament, he would have seen the passages do not claim God gave his own powers to the Prophets (an act of idoltary and shirk in Islam and Christianity), rather that they INVOKED GOD to perform the miracle, the only thing a Prophet may do is beseech God who then uses his own divine power to perform miracles.

Finally Elfie says:

WHOS THE ROOKIE NOW MR ONION HEAD

Couldn't have said it better!

I'll leave it at that.

Time to go back to pre-school OWNEDELF.

This source of entertainment has been brought to you by:

Derek Adams 

www.AnsweringAbraham.com

World's Worst Islamic Apologist Exposed