According to Jay Smith the LETTERS OF PAUL are just MERE TAFSEER of the Old Testament and “other scriptures” (?). Tafseer means interpretation. If the letters of Paul are just mere tafseer, why is it they become the main core of the New Testament which comprised almost 90 percent of it. These should be written in a separate book. In the Islamic standard, no single tafseer is included in the Holy Qur’an. Hence, the letters of Paul must be written in a separate book. Jay Smith failed not elaborate as to what specific book or verse/s in the Old Testament that each letter is intended to for being a tafseer. He should have elaborated on the following letters of Paul: LETTERS OF PAUL TO THE DIFFERENT CHURCHES: 1). Romans - tafseer of what is it intended for? 2). Hebrews - tafseer of what is it intended for? 3). Corinthians - tafseer of what is it intended for? 4). Galatians - tafseer of what is it intended for? 5). Colossians - tafseer of what is it intended for? 6). Philippians - tafseer of what is it intended for? 7). Ephesians - tafseer of what is it intended for? 8). Thessalonians - tafseer of what is it intended for? LETTERS OF PAUL TO THE DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS: 1). Timothy - tafseer of what is it intended for? 2). Titus - tafseer of what is it intended for? 3). Philemon - tafseer of what is it intended for? 4). James - tafseer of what is it intended for? 5). John - tafseer of what is it intended for? 6). Jude - tafseer of what is it intended for? 7). Peter - tafseer of what is it intended for? Sources (to name a few): 1. Islam vs. Christianity 2. What is the Standard Islamic Narratives? 3. Webinar: Understanding Islam -09-24-23
How I earnestly wish that there is now an ORIGINAL ARAMAIC GOSPEL because I am dying inside to read it. I hope there is a translation in English. It's hard to read it in its original form in Aramaic. I don't know that language. I think Aramaic is much harder to read than Arabic. I believe that this Gospel is a book of spiritual guidance from God. Unlike the 4 make-believe gospels, their contents are purely biographies of Prophet jESUs (pbuh) but with a huge hole in the accounts of his life covering the primetime of his age. From what museum or library can we find the original ARAMAIC GOSPEL? Is there any original manuscript for it? I am urging Jay Smith and his cohorts to produce that book as soon as possible so that Muslims and Christians alike will be enlightened. -09-20-23
The BIBLE in the eyes of JAY SMITH. According to Jay Smith is that he believed that there is really ONE ORIGINAL GOSPEL. Since he cannot find it, he assumed that the gospel of John is already that book. But his is only mere assumption. He failed to make any clear evidence to show that his assumption is correct. Hence, he has to show manuscripts in Aramaic as evidence for his assumption that the gospel of John is the already real Gospel of Pophet jESUs (pbuh). By his hasty assumption, he undoubtedly discarded the gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke into useless books which have no more meaning to the whole Christendom, and hence not fit to be used as the basis of the religiosity of the Christians. According to Jay Smith the LETTERS OF PAUL are just MERE TAFSEER of the Old Testament and “other scriptures” (?). Tafseer means interpretation. If the letters of Paul are just mere tafseer, why is it they become the main core of the New Testament which comprised almost 90 percent of it. These should be written in a separate book. In the Islamic standard, no single tafseer is included in the Holy Qur’an. Hence, the letters of Paul must be written in a separate book. Jay Smith failed not elaborate as to what specific book or verse/s in the Old Testament that each letter is intended to for being a tafseer. He should have elaborated on the following letters of Paul: LETTERS OF PAUL TO THE DIFFERENT CHURCHES: 1). Romans - tafseer of what is it intended for? 2). Hebrews - tafseer of what is it intended for? 3). Corinthians - tafseer of what is it intended for? 4). Galatians - tafseer of what is it intended for? 5). Colossians - tafseer of what is it intended for? 6). Philippians - tafseer of what is it intended for? 7). Ephesians - tafseer of what is it intended for? 8). Thessalonians - tafseer of what is it intended for? LETTERS OF PAUL TO THE DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS: 1). Timothy - tafseer of what is it intended for? 2). Titus - tafseer of what is it intended for? 3). Philemon - tafseer of what is it intended for? 4). James - tafseer of what is it intended for? 5). John - tafseer of what is it intended for? 6). Jude - tafseer of what is it intended for? 7). Peter - tafseer of what is it intended for? Sources (to name a few): 1. Islam vs. Christianity 2. What is the Standard Islamic Narratives? 3. Webinar: Understanding Islam -10-28-23
According to Jay Smith is that he believed that there is really ONE ORIGINAL GOSPEL. Since he cannot find it, he assumed that the gospel of John is already that book. But his is only mere assumption. He failed to make any clear evidence to show that his assumption is correct. Hence, he has to show manuscripts in Aramaic as evidence for his assumption that the gospel of John is the already real Gospel of Pophet jESUs (pbuh). By his hasty assumption, he undoubtedly discarded the gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke into useless books which have no more meaning to the whole Christendom, and hence not fit to be used as the basis of the religiosity of the Christians. Sources (to name a few): 1. Islam vs. Christianity 2. What is the Standard Islamic Narratives? 3. Webinar: Understanding Islam -09-22-23
@@RafikKhan-ol4zk Christianity is a relationship with God and not a religion. God revealed him self to the Israelites and Jesus brought back our original spiritual state. That was Gods plan.
Islam has lost all the convincing arguments: The scientific argument is gone, the intellectual argument is gone, the archaeological argument is gone, the linguistic is gone, the theological argument, the moral argument is gone, and the historical argument is gone. This puts Islam back to square-one in the 7th century A.D. - the time of its origin in the ancient City of Petra when Islam had only two arguments - the deceptive argument and the beheading argument. * We must acknowledge that the one argument that is not gone from Islam is the Muslim birth-rate argument. The following is an instruction to Muslims from their god, Allah (the merciful), on the matter of birth-rate: Quran 47:35 reads, “(O you who believe - Muslims) Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when your number be the uppermost in the land...” At a time in Islam’s future when the Muslim birth-rate puts Muslims in the majority, all the convincing arguments that were lost to Islam will mysteriously come back - the scientific arguments will come back, the intellectual arguments will come back, the linguistic arguments will come back, the archaeological arguments will come back, etc., etc.
