Tag Archives: ABN

Refutation: The Muslim blogger shows why attempting to have adult dialogue with him is useless

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

It seems as though Chessie has had enough and decided to make one final stab at gaining some level of dignity before disappearing for a few months, he states and I quote:

I do not have the time and energy to even attempt to comprehend the nonsense of the Muslim blogger..maybe in a few more months, if I have free time and am bored.

Chessie seems unable to be willing to understand the nature of Christ or to engage in a proper study of Christology, in fact, after reading his last reply I am happy that he’s seen the light and decided to go back into his cave and hide for several months once more. He concedes to the fact that he is unable to, and unwilling to understand what I have written, since that is the case, it explains why all of his points thus far have been erroneous and without much reason. He says:

“When it is said Jesus Christ was the incarnation of the Word/Son that doesn’t mean the Spirit had no involvement, yet just because the Spirit had his role in the  incarnation doesn’t mean he was the one incarnated.”

I’m growing very tired of repeating myself, so I’ll make this into bullet points:

  • In Christianity, a human has both a soul and a spirit.
  • Jesus had a man’s soul, thus he was human in nature.
  • Jesus had a spirit, the Holy Spirit, thus he was guided and supported by this Spirit.

Thus, the Spirit of Christ, is the Holy Spirit, which is confirmed in the following verse:

You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. – Romans 8:9.

Chessie has failed to grasp this and has argued against this, in doing so he is not only arguing against myself, but the Pauline literature as well. I then referenced a quote from St. Athanasius’ epistle to Serapion, which read:

When the Word came upon the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Spirit entered her together with the Word; in the Spirit the Word formed a body for himself and adapted it to himself, desiring to unite all creation through himself and lead it to the Father” – St. Athanasius’ Epistle, Ad Serapion.

He was again, unable to understand the relationship between the Spirit and the Word, our focus being on the portion which reads, ‘in the Spirit the Word formed a body for himself‘, see the Word, while it is in the Spirit, formed the flesh of Christ. I suppose that the words, ‘in the Spirit‘, means little to nothing to Chessie. I then quoted a portion of Tertullian, which reads:

Nay, but he adds, And that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit,3 because God is spirit,4 and He was born of God:5 this certainly has him in view, the more so if it has also those who believe in him.’ Then if this too applies to him, why not also that other? For you cannot divide them, this to him, the other to the rest of men: for you do not deny the two substances of Christ, that of flesh and that of spirit. But if he possessed flesh no less than spirit, when he makes a statement concerning the condition of the two substances which he bore within himself, he cannot be thought to have made a pronouncement concerning spirit as being his but flesh as not his. Thus, since he was himself by the Spirit of God (and the Spirit is God) born of God, he was also of human flesh and as man conceived and born in the flesh.” – Tertullian, De Carne Christi, 18.

Chessie says after reading this:

Nothing in this statement says anything about that it was the Holy Spirit who was incarnated and not the Son, the blogger simply reads his own ideas into something he does not understand.

Except the part which says that Christ was of the Spirit and of the Flesh and that the two are inseparable. Guess he missed that/

God is spirit that is no doubt, this simply means Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not material or of the material world. Christ being born of the Spirit does not mean the person of God the Holy Spirit was incarnated instead of God the Son, it means the power of the Holy Spirit over came the virgin when the Son was incarnated in her as a child(the same exact thing the Athanasius says). Notice how it says ” this certainly has him in view, the more so if it has also those who believe in him. ” those who believe, believe under the power of the Holy Spirit and are spiritual, imbued with eternal life inside them spiritually, but that does not mean they stop being their own individual selves. No you can not divide the believer from the Holy Spirit the same way you cannot divide the believer from the Father or the Son.

I don’t see how what he’s written here is relevant to what I have said or quoted. He most certainly went off into a tangent of some sort to perhaps make his article seem longer. The quote clearly says, “for you do not deny the two substances of Christ, that of flesh and that of spirit“. Intentional ignoring of the evidences and rambling onwards to inanity will not help you Chessie, reading the quotes help. He goes on to say:

“The Muslim blogger continues debating about who or what was incarnated and gives us his eisegesis of 1 Peter chapter 1. Again reading his own prejudices into another text to suit his agenda. For one the subject matter of 1 Peter 1 is not the nature of the incarnation its prophecy. “

It seems as if Chessie has learned a new word, ‘eisegesis’, yet what he doesn’t do, is show my source, in fact he never copies the link for any of the sources which I provided for all of my quotes. There was in fact no eisegesis done on my behalf, I in fact had referenced and used Matthew Henry’s Exegesis:

“The revelations of God to his church, though gradual, and given by parcels, are all perfectly consistent; the doctrine of the prophets and that of the apostles exactly agree, as coming from the same Spirit of God. (5.) The efficacy of the evangelical ministry depends upon the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven. The gospel is the ministration of the Spirit; the success of it depends upon his operation and blessing.” – Matthew Henry’s Exegesis, 1 Peter 1:11.

Had he quoted this, then his charade of saying that I committed eiesgesis and that the verse was solely about prophecy would have been debunked, therefore he had to intentionally claim I did not use an exegesis. Look at the desperation and dishonesty of this despot. He continues by saying:

“Now what I have pointed out about 1 Peter 1 is not my private interpretation, many others see the text the same way…”

Except that the one commentary he references is not focusing on which ‘Spirit’ came to the Prophets. The commentary I referenced focused on and explained that the Spirit of Christ which came to the previous Prophets was the Spirit of God. That the Spirit of Christ and the Spirit of God are one and the same, something which Chessie for some odd reason does not want his readers to grasp. He spends a few paragraphs trying to use his newly found word of eisegesis, which he ends up using quite appallingly:

(The same verse Muslims eisegesis by reading Muhammad into it)…

This sentence is wrong in so many ways, I personally had to take a deep breath and compose myself after reading such an incomprehensible sentence. This is probably the first time he’s using the word eisegesis and in a bout to attempt to sound smart, he tried using it again, unfortunately for him, his excitement to use a word he does not understand falls flat on his face. Quite hilarious to say the least, but I cannot say I expected more from a man twice my age, currently in a faith and mid-life crisis. Then he does something out of pure desperation that I think even he was too low to do, but then again, this is Chessie Edwards:

The blogger then makes the astonishing illogical self refuting statement…
” If the Spirits and Soul of Christ did not perish, and the flesh also did not perish, as the flesh returned to life “

Except that’s not what I said. If you’re going to quote someone and call them illogical, atleast try not to quote them partially:

If the Spirits and Soul of Christ did not perish, and the flesh also did not perish, as the flesh returned to life, then what sacrifice was actually done if nothing died?  This leads to my third argument from my original article of which Chessie has also failed to address, it reads:

“If we take John 3:16 as a literal study, then we have numerous paradoxes being applied, for if the Son did ‘die’, but did not truly ‘die’, then the ‘sacrificial death’ was not fulfilled. If you claim the sacrificial death was fulfilled, then this is disproven by Thomas touching a physical body of Christ, whose wounds he felt. Thus if Christ was meant to be an ultimate sacrifice but did not die, but merely suffered wounds and continued to live, then there was no actual sacrifice.”

Lastly, Chessie closes off with saying:

I still as of yet do not know why a immaterial spirit or soul has to cease to exist in order for someone to be truly dead, he has yet to explain this. Also If Christ’s body did not die how did it come back to life ? You have to die to come back to life.

As I told Chessie and as I would tell him again, to die is to cease to live, if Christ died, then which Christ died? Did the Christ of the flesh or the Christ of the Soul and Spirit die? If the soul does not die, how does he interpret Ezekiel 18:20 which reads, “The soul who sins is the one who will die.” If Christ’s flesh perished, then this was not a true sacrifice as God created something and killed the creation, not Christ himself. In closing, Chessie will now return to his shack in the woods and will pop out when he needs more schooling on his despotic faith. I look forward to him returning into hiding once more.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.


CL. Edwards Responds: Certainty in Jannah

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Mr. Edwards decided that he wouldn’t respond to the entire post, so he’d just post a comment because as in his own words, my exposition was “too long”. Not a problem, let’s see what estranged concept he brings to the table this time:

Edwards' Comment

His question is rather absurd, but to humour him, the answer is quite simple. Only God can for a certainty determine where I will go. I do not know the future and I don’t speak on behalf of God. However, the Qur’aan tells us what we need to believe in and what we need to practise upon to gain Jannah and as Muslims we strive towards that, knowing that God’s mercy is greater than His anger. It’s absurd to say, “yes”, because I am not God, I do not know the future and I do know what God’s judgement upon me will be, as I, like all other humans, are a sinner.

The Qur’aan does not make it difficult though, so what does a Muslim need to act upon and believe to gain heaven?

This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah;

Believe in the Qur’aan, use it as a form of guidance, so that we develop taqwa (God consciousness).

Who believe in the Unseen, are steadfast in prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them;

Believe in what Allaah has ordained for us and what He has told us, but which we have yet to know or experience. Perform praise and worship of God and live life within the means He has provided for us in a righteous way.

And who believe in the Revelation sent to thee, and sent before thy time, and (in their hearts) have the assurance of the Hereafter.

Belief in the Qur’aan, Injil, Tawrah Zabur, Suhuf al Ibrahim. As for assurance of the hereafter:

(And in the Hereafter they are certain) that is the resurrection, the standing (on the Day of Resurrection), Paradise, the Fire, the reckoning and the the Scale that weighs the deeds (the Mizan). The Hereafter is so named because it comes after this earthly life. – Tafsir ibn Kathir : Suratul Baqarah (2) : 4.


They are on (true) guidance, from their Lord, and it is these who will prosper.


(They are) refers to those who believe in the Unseen, establish the prayer, spend from what Allah has granted them, believe in what Allah has revealed to the Messenger and the Messengers before him, believe in the Hereafter with certainty, and prepare the necessary requirements for the Hereafter by performing good deeds and avoiding the prohibitions.

(And they are the successful) meaning, in this world and the Hereafter. They shall have what they seek and be saved from the evil that they tried to avoid. Therefore, they will have rewards, eternal life in Paradise, and safety from the torment that Allah has prepared for His enemies. Tafsir ibn Kathir : Suratul Baqarah (2) : 4.

Therefore the Qur’aan is extremely clear, it essentially spells it out for all Muslims, that sincere belief and God sanctioned actions would secure one a place in heaven. Of course Mr. Edwards doesn’t believe in this doctrine. He believes that no matter what he does, he gets to go to heaven, which brings up the question, does God reward sin? Funny enough, his friend and long time partner in crime (of deceit), Antonio Santana did admit to us that God rewards sinning in Christianity:

Antonio - Skype Convo

It’s absolutely nonsensical for one to say he knows where he is going in the afterlife merely based on some inconsistent and incoherent belief of “salvation in Christianity”, which has been thoroughly refuted here. They’re self claimants to their own misigivings, even the Jesus of the Bible lets it be known that merely believing in him will not benefit you in the least:

Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. – Bible : Matthew (7) :21.

So who are these people who won’t go to heaven then?

The sense of this verse seems to be this: No person, by merely acknowledging my authority, believing in the Divinity of my nature, professing faith in the perfection of my righteousness, and infinite merit of my atonement, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, shall have any part with God in glory. – Adam Clarke’s Exegesis : Matthew (7) : 21.

In fact, the Bible wages sin and deceit for the one who speaks on God’s behalf, specifically when it comes to God’s will (judgment, doings etc):

Will you speak wickedly on God’s behalf?  Will you speak deceitfully for him?- Bible : Job (13) : 7.

The meaning of this verse is made much clearer by a scholarly Christian’s commentary:

“In order to support your own cause, in contradiction to the evidence which the whole of my life bears to the uprighteousness of my heart, will ye continue to assert that God could not thus afflict me, unless fragrant iniquity were found in my ways; for it is on this ground alone that ye pretend to vindicate the providence of God. Thus ye tell lies for God’s sake, and this ye wickedly contend for your maker.” – Adam Clarke’s Exegesis : Job (13) : 7.

See, Job in this verse or rather, this chapter, is condemning the people to whom he was sent to preach. It is because they began to play God and judge who is righteous and sinful among themselves. Decided who God afflicted and whom God did not afflict with punishment. They claimed because Job was afflicted, that he was a sinful man (yet it was not the case, he was purer than them all), whereas they perverted the truth (much like Mr. Edwards) and cast righteous judgement on themselves:

“Will you speak wickedly for God?
As he suggests they did, they spoke for God, and pleaded for the honour of his justice, by asserting he did not afflict good men, which they thought was contrary to his justice; but: then, at the same time they spoke wickedly of Job, that he being afflicted of God was a bad man, and an hypocrite; and this was speaking wickedly for God, to vindicate his justice at the expense of his character, which there was no need to do, and showed that they were poor advocates for God…”- The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible : Job (13) : 7.

Well, atleast through Biblical means, his own scripture and by extension his own God, has deemed him a wicked and hypocritical man. Casting judgement on himself (for righteousness) whereas condemning others, when he does now know what God knows is in their hearts. I suppose he needs to be rewarded with Grace for his sin. God rewarding sin, what a joke.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]