Islam Muhammads' genocide: Banu Qurayza

[createdtoworship]

This debate is concluded, due to rude behavior on this thread, however to end this discussion I would like to post a previous post that was never fully addressed...

If it was 5% or 2% or 0.5% the point would be the same.



The actual, incarnate Word of God, Jesus Christ, spoke Galilean Aramaic as a native language.



Languages aren't pagan or Christian or Jewish or whatever. There are languages and dialects that are mostly used by people belonging to these different religious communities, but the languages themselves don't have an inherent religious identity, only the connotation (or not) with the people themselves who do.



There's not really anything to resolve. This is just how languages work, and you can either accept it or not. I'm not really interested in continuing a conversation with someone who has magical beliefs about particular languages. I've dealt with that enough among Coptic people (where at least it is an interesting sociolinguistic question; it is not, however, a matter of theological fidelity).



Again, this doesn't mean anything. Every language originated among a pagan people. Hebrew included.

Heck, on a much more important note, Judaism itself as a religion shows obvious influence from other religions, like Zoroastrianism. Here's a Jewish source on that, if you're curious: ZOROASTRIANISM - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Given that, I don't really see why language issues should take much of our time, especially when they mostly haven't been issues in Christian history. Generally before the invention of Protestantism, the most you get is disinterest from Christians except for a few figures like St. Jerome, since for most of Christian history Hebrew was seen as the language that the Jews were using, whereas we already had the Bible in Greek, Syriac, Coptic, etc. -- languages that were not so closely identified with the Jews.

well I disagree sir, aramaic was used by pagan nations for most of it's predominant history, and to use Allah as an authoritative use for the name of God is just unusual. Aramaic Christians may use allah or another of the 13 words in aramaic for God if they so choose, that does not make aramaic on the same level as greek or hebrew. Jesus himself can speak every language, it's not like there is a language he doesn't understand so to say because He spoke aramaic that is some how validates it, it does not. God can use any sinful medium He wishes, He often used pagan kings in the old testament that believed in false gods to execute His divine will. So I guess the burden of proof lies on you to prove to us that we should believe Allah is the appropriate name for the True God, and secondly that Allah is better suited versus the other 13 descriptions of god in aramaic. So at this point I feel this discussion is at a dead end, unless you can provide substantial evidence, which I assume you cannot, I guess we are done here.

thank you everyone for the debate I am sorry to cut it short, typically when debating skeptics of Christianity or what not, eventually the other party will start to get short tempered and start belittling my posts, and at that point, I conclude the debate as a forfeiture on their part, as ad hominems don't add intelligence to a conversation, they simply introduce logical fallacy which is error-some.