User talk:AbdulAli
Ummmm... No. Arawn Emrys (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Historical Jesus[edit]
Anybody can be a scholar, even us. It's worth asking the question "Who is this scholar, and what are his investments in the issue? Does he support our views? If he doesn't, should we even consider him? If he does, do we really need to question further?" If he is a theologian, then it is still worth asking "Does he agree with us? If not, can we really consider him a scholar, regardless of what he says?" If this methodology is applied, as we suggest, we will end up with the true scholars, who are in complete support of our assessment of Jesus' historicity. When apologists quote scholars or 'experts' of Jesus' historicity, they are most certainly quoting other scholars who do not espouse our views and therefore cannot be considered reliable sources.
Why? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 04:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Just a FYI[edit]
Here you go — just since your conclusion that the Qur'an "doesn't contain many contradictions" must stem from having read it it with one eye closed. Also, please don't override existing quotes when adding new ones. Thanks. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Just another FYI[edit]
It's against RW policy to blank out talkpage posts. If you want help to set up an archive, ask a moderator, and you may archive stuff you don't want on your talkpage. But not delete. Thx. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- My apologies for both incidents. — Unsigned, by: AbdulAli / talk / contribs
- No worries! Also: On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay, thanks! AbdulAli (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
While we're at it[edit]
Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)