Can Muslims and Christians both be right?

[lini...]

Before we go any further I want to say thank you and @lini... for chopping it up.

Thanks for the convo.

 

[I.AM.PIFF]

We don't have any original versions of the Qu'ran, so calling it 'more authentic' is a stretch. It's as 'authentic' as it can be considering all earlier iterations were destroyed and ALL the 'mus'hafs' (manuscripts) date from the 8th Century and contain thousands of variances in comparison to the Qu'ran we have today. In short, there is a period of at least 60-70 years after Muhammad died before the first versions of the Qu'ran appeared. There are no manuscripts/writings earlier.
​

That's what about 99% of the 'changes' are along with spaces, punctuation, spelling and grammar. Also, there were no titles/chapter headings so, all-in-all, the changes amount to making the volumes easier to read which =/= 'corruption'.

I think you'd better define what you mean by that term since I don't comprehend what the issue is aside from the difference between the Bible and Qu'ran concerning Jesus.
​

Whenever the Prophet (PBUH) had a revelation, he'd call several of his companions (may ALLAH be pleased with them) to take notes and to conserve them in various medias: palm branches, leathers, leafs..etc. He'd often repeat the surahs to his companions (may ALLAH be pleased with them) to have them memorize the Quran and he'd often check for errors and confirmation. Several of them completely memorized the Quran (which is arguably the only book in history to have been memorized by heart, from front to back, by millions of people). So, even in the prophet's (PBUH) time, he has authorized and encouraged not only the memorization of the Quran, but also it being recorded and conserved. We also have context of the verses (when and why they were released) and if they were considered to have been revealed in Meccah or Madinah. Not to mention that the surahs of the Quran would be recited and repeated during prayers, sermons..etc

One year after Muhammad's (PBUH) death (or in 633 AD), Abu Bakr (May ALLAH be pleased with him) [who was the most loyal companion of the prophet (PBUH) and the 1st caliph] ordered the companions (may ALLAH be pleased with them) who memorized the Quran and/or kept the scribes to compile it again in fear of it being lost. This was after the battle of Yamama, in which several of the Quran memorizers had died in battle (May ALLAH accept them in his paradise). This was done to make a complete, correct copy with the help of those who had the scribes and memorized it by heart. All this was done less than a year after Muhammad's death (PBUH).

Saying all copies of the Quran were destroyed is not only an hyperbole but a straight up lie. That refers to the time of Uthman (May ALLAH be pleased with him) who was one of the sahaba and the 3rd Caliphate. Upon hearing the existence of copies of the Quran who were incomplete and/or may have mistake, he commissioned those who memorized the Quran and had scribes and mansucripts to make copies and send them. He also ordered the inspection of those copies and burned/destroyed all those who were incorrect, to avoid what happened with the people of the book and avoid divide and difference in the word of God. As there were christians who believed in the false doctrine of the trinity and those who believed in the monotheistic message of Jesus (PBUH) and whom the Quran described as righteous and worthy of paradise.

The variances you refer to is adding diacritical marks and punctuation, it didn't change the meaning or the words at all. It was done during Malik-ar-Marwan's reign. He was the 5th caliph of the Umayyad dinasty and reigned between 685-705 A.D. The only reason they were added is to give non-native Arab speakers a correct understanding and recitation of the Quran. Native arabs and those who memorized and often recited the Quran had no issues with it, it was merely done to help non-arabs.

The difference between christian and the Quran concerning Jesus (PBUH)is very importtant since it concerns Aqidah (belief/faith) and Tawheed (oneness of God). The Quran simply reject the idea of Jesus (PBUH) being God's spirit, himself or his son, the concept of original sin, that Jesus (PBUH) died on the cross, much less he died for the sins of humanity or that salvation can only be obtained through him, among other things. It states that he was one of the most righteous men that ever wlaked this earth and was nothing more than a human and God's prophet who called to the worship of the one and only true God.

Before we go any further I want to say thank you and @lini... for chopping it up.

Allah said in the Koran
Surah 3:3-4
He has sent down upon you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming what was before it. And He revealed the Torah and the Gospel. [4] Before, as guidance for the people. And He revealed the Qur'an. Indeed, those who disbelieve in the verses of Allah will have a severe punishment, and Allah is exalted in Might, the Owner of Retribution.

If Allah was refering to Jesus why don't Muslims read the Bible as Allah has said he gave the Torah and the Gospel (which conflicts with the Koran)?

I had no plans to mention ISIS any more.

The pleasure is mine, it has been very nice so far.

As for those two verses, it says that the Quran revealed by ALLAH (SWT) to Muhammad (PBUH) is the continuation of the Torah and the Gospel revealed to Moses (PBUH) and Jesus (PBUH) and who were sent to previous people. And now the Quran is the law and word of God and the fulfillement of his letter to humans and we should all follow it. It says that those who followed the Bible and Torah shoudl follow the Quran as it's the ultimate revelation by God, not that muslims should become christians and jews. And I've already address the issue of "conflict" multiples times in this thread.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Saying all copies of the Quran were destroyed is not only an hyperbole but a straight up lie.

Not according to Sahih al-Bukhari Vol. 6, Book 61, #510

http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/061-sbt.php​

Narrated Anas bin Malik:

Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were Waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to 'Uthman, "O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) as Jews and the Christians did before." So 'Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, "Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you." Hafsa sent it to 'Uthman. 'Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, 'Abdullah bin AzZubair, Said bin Al-As and 'AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue." They did so, and when they had written many copies, 'Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. 'Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. Said bin Thabit added, "A Verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur'an and I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari. (That Verse was): 'Among the Believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.' (33.23)

So ALL the other versions created by Muhammad's companions don't exist anymore which is what I stated. Whether or not they were 'incorrect' is moot since we can't compare them. Uthman wasn't born until 45 years after Muhammad was already dead, so what we have is his version, not the original compiled by Abu Bakr. What happened to the original manuscripts sent to Hafsa which preceded the Qu'ran we have today? Were they burned along with all the others?

The variances you refer to is adding diacritical marks and punctuation, it didn't change the meaning or the words at all.

Which is EXACTLY the same thing that happened with the Gospels.
​

The difference between christian and the Quran concerning Jesus (PBUH)is very importtant since it concerns Aqidah (belief/faith) and Tawheed (oneness of God). The Quran simply reject the idea of Jesus (PBUH) being God's spirit, himself or his son, the concept of original sin, that Jesus (PBUH) died on the cross, much less he died for the sins of humanity or that salvation can only be obtained through him, among other things. It states that he was one of the most righteous men that ever wlaked this earth and was nothing more than a human and God's prophet who called to the worship of the one and only true God.

Jesus DID die, though. That's a fact of history, not theology, and multiply attested from various sources, Christian and non.​

 

[lini...]

Not according to Sahih al-Bukhari Vol. 6, Book 61, #510

http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/061-sbt.php​

So ALL the other versions created by Muhammad's companions don't exist anymore which is what I stated. Whether or not they were 'incorrect' is moot since we can't compare them. Uthman wasn't born until 45 years after Muhammad was already dead, so what we have is his version, not the original compiled by Abu Bakr. What happened to the original manuscripts sent to Hafsa which preceded the Qu'ran we have today? Were they burned along with all the others?

Which is EXACTLY the same thing that happened with the Gospels.
​

Jesus DID die, though. That's a fact of history, not theology, and multiply attested from various sources, Christian and non.​

We do not have the verses of the Qur'an written on animal skin either. Obviously, all materials do not survive through 1400 years. But what we do know is that 1,000s of Muslims since the first revelation came to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) memorized the Qur'an. And hundreds of thousands believed it to be the words of God, so they were the proofreaders. This is why the Qur'an that we have today is not simply Uthman's version as you say. It is the words which were revealed to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

And I vaguely recall having a similar debate with you about the Gospels and it appears that you are bent on maintaining that the Gospel mentioned in the Qur'an are synonymous with the 4 gospels in the Bible. I may be wrong, but I don't think so. Perhaps this will help:

Quran 52:27 "We gave Jesus the Gospel"

Did Jesus go around quoting Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? No, therefore it should end this idea that the Qur'an substantiates the Gospels of the Bible. The gospels of the Bible say "Jesus went to Galilee preaching the Gospel." He was not preaching from the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They are his BIOGRAPHIES, not the teachings that he gave. The actual Gospels that the Qur'an is speaking of is his direct quotes. It would be compiled in the same manner that the Qur'an was compiled. The gospels of the Bible are his "Hadiths," so to speak. They cannot be accepted except in the light of his actual teachings, which do not exist as far as I know. In short, we believe in the Gospel according to Jesus (pbuh), not the gospels according to Matthew, Mark etc.


And finally, there were early Christians who did not believe that Jesus (pbuh) was crucified. And there are history books of much more modern history which are not accurate (consider the holiday observed yesterday.) In other words, because history records something, that does not mean that it is completely true. If you read the Biblical gospels closely and without preconceived ideas, you will find that Jesus (pbuh) survived the crucifixion. One of the clear moments is when he ate food. Why would a dead and resurrected man, eat food? The Bible is the most detailed book on the subject of Jesus (pbuh) and in it is proof that he was not killed on the cross. In fact, there is also evidence that he was not hung on a cross at all. All of this is highlighted in the book in my avi. Also, Bart Ehrman said that history cannot prove the miracles of Jesus (pbuh), but it can attest to the fact that many people assert that he was a miracle worker. All things considered, it is ample evidence available to suggest that Jesus (pbuh) was not crucified.

 

[I.AM.PIFF]

Not according to Sahih al-Bukhari Vol. 6, Book 61, #510

http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/061-sbt.php​

So ALL the other versions created by Muhammad's companions don't exist anymore which is what I stated. Whether or not they were 'incorrect' is moot since we can't compare them. Uthman wasn't born until 45 years after Muhammad was already dead, so what we have is his version, not the original compiled by Abu Bakr. What happened to the original manuscripts sent to Hafsa which preceded the Qu'ran we have today? Were they burned along with all the others?

Which is EXACTLY the same thing that happened with the Gospels.
​

Jesus DID die, though. That's a fact of history, not theology, and multiply attested from various sources, Christian and non.​

Saying that Uthman (May ALLAH be pleased with him) as born 45 years after the prophet (PBUH) death is ridiculous and conflict entirely with the Hadith you showed

For a start, Hafsa (May ALLAH be pleased with her) was the daughter of Umar ibn al-Khattab (May ALLAH be pleased with him) and one of the prophet's (PBUH) wives. If
Uthman ibn Affan was the 3rd caliph succeeding Abu Bakr and Umar (May ALLAH be pleased with them) and reigned during 644 to 656 AD. 45 years after the prophet's (PBUH) death would make it 677 AD, at which point it was the Umayyad caliphate and Hafsa and much of the companions (May ALLAH be pleased with them) would be already dead Plus, it's a fact that he was one of our prophet's (PBUH) companions and present during his life. Those who were burned were the versions in which there were debates, so he did that in order to prevent division and separation like it happened with Ahl-al Kitab (people of the book). At that point there were several companions who have memorized and routinely teached the Quran and helped in making those copies who were sent to muslim provinces instead of those being burned.

And I believe as the Quran said about Jesus (PBUH) was not crucified. Feel free to disagree, but this is what I believe and I have strong conviction in it

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Saying that Uthman (May ALLAH be pleased with him) as born 45 years after the prophet (PBUH) death is ridiculous and conflict entirely with the Hadith you showed

Error on my part. For some reason I read 677 CE instead of 577 CE as his date of birth. The first version was compiled in 650 CE, 18 years after Muhammad died, based on oral tradition and manuscripts. Neither of which we have.

By comparison, Paul's letters are dated to about 50 CE (17 years later) and he was in contact with two Apostles: Peter and James. Paul knew of/quoted from the Gospels so they were written prior to him, but we don't have those originals, either.
​

And I believe as the Quran said about Jesus (PBUH) was not crucified. Feel free to disagree, but this is what I believe and I have strong conviction in it

History tells a very different story............​

Such indeed were the precautions of human wisdom. The next thing was to seek means of propitiating the gods, and recourse was had to the Sibylline books, by the direction of which prayers were offered to Vulcanus, Ceres, and Proserpina. Juno, too, was entreated by the matrons, first, in the Capitol, then on the nearest part of the coast, whence water was procured to sprinkle the fane and image of the goddess. And there were sacred banquets and nightly vigils celebrated by married women. But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

~Annals Book 15, Chapter 44

Now, if there were someone else documented as being responsible for the religion who was also executed by Pontius Pilate (who was actually a procurator for 10 years, prefect for 3) during the reign of Tiberius, there is no documentation to show that to be the case......​

http://jnt.sagepub.com/content/37/1/3?etoc​

In debating the meaning of Jesus’ arrest and death at Jerusalem, scholars have paid too little attention to normal Roman practices of dealing with persons found armed in public in Rome or other cities under their control. Moreover, the idea that only one or two of Jesus’ disciples were armed has been accepted uncritically in spite of the probability that more or all of them were armed. This article highlights the significance of Jesus’ disciples being armed when he was arrested just outside the walls of Jerusalem, linking that fact with other details from the sources, such as Jesus’ opposition to the temple, the presence of Samaritans among his early followers, the absence of lamb at the last supper, and the fact that he was executed by the Romans as a ‘social rebel’. Jesus led his followers, armed, to Jerusalem to participate in a heavenly-earthly battle to overthrow the Romans and their high-priestly client rulers of Judea.

The author/researcher.......

http://religiousstudies.yale.edu/martin

Some researchers say Jesus was mentioned in the Talmud, but that is debatable. Jewish scholars have denied it stating that the 'Yeshu' in the text is actually a student of another rabbi.​

 

[lini...]

Error on my part. For some reason I read 677 CE instead of 577 CE as his date of birth. The first version was compiled in 650 CE, 18 years after Muhammad died, based on oral tradition and manuscripts. Neither of which we have.

By comparison, Paul's letters are dated to about 50 CE (17 years later) and he was in contact with two Apostles: Peter and James. Paul knew of/quoted from the Gospels so they were written prior to him, but we don't have those originals, either.
​

I don't know how you can keep "oral traditions." And18 years is time enough where a large number, perhaps the majority of Muslims of the Prophet's time were still alive and able to verify the Qur'an.

None of the Gospels that we have today come close to 18 years after Jesus (pbuh). They were not even written by eyewitnesses, or people who met Jesus (pbuh) at all.

The gospels of the Bible are inspired by Paul's writings and written after Paul's writings. So he couldn't have quoted them. And Paul taught a different doctrine from the doctrine Jesus (pbuh) taught in the Biblical gospels. And he avoided the disciples of Jesus (pbuh) because he was making up things! And he admitted that early Christians accused him of preaching a different Gospel, from the one that they knew of. As I said, several early Christian groups did not believe that Jesus (pbuh) was crucified.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

We do not have the verses of the Qur'an written on animal skin either. Obviously, all materials do not survive through 1400 years. But what we do know is that 1,000s of Muslims since the first revelation came to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) memorized the Qur'an. And hundreds of thousands believed it to be the words of God, so they were the proofreaders. This is why the Qur'an that we have today is not simply Uthman's version as you say. It is the words which were revealed to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

We also know that within 6 mos. to 1 year after Jesus was executed, he was worshiped as a 'deity'.​

And I vaguely recall having a similar debate with you about the Gospels and it appears that you are bent on maintaining that the Gospel mentioned in the Qur'an are synonymous with the 4 gospels in the Bible. I may be wrong, but I don't think so. Perhaps this will help:

Quran 52:27 "We gave Jesus the Gospel"

Did Jesus go around quoting Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? No, therefore it should end this idea that the Qur'an substantiates the Gospels of the Bible.

That is not my argument.​

The gospels of the Bible say "Jesus went to Galilee preaching the Gospel." He was not preaching from the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They are his BIOGRAPHIES, not the teachings that he gave. The actual Gospels that the Qur'an is speaking of is his direct quotes. It would be compiled in the same manner that the Qur'an was compiled. The gospels of the Bible are his "Hadiths," so to speak. They cannot be accepted except in the light of his actual teachings, which do not exist as far as I know. In short, we believe in the Gospel according to Jesus (pbuh), not the gospels according to Matthew, Mark etc.

1 Corinthians 15: 1 - 8 (KJV)

Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; by which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: and that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: after that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.​

Paul preached the SAME gospel which was verified by James and Peter. Titling the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John 'gospels' was nothing more than a naming convention like 'Apocalypse' and 'Epistle'. Gospel just means 'good news'.​

If you read the Biblical gospels closely and without preconceived ideas, you will find that Jesus (pbuh) survived the crucifixion.

From the extra-biblical documentation, that wouldn't be the case. Also, placing someone who wasn't dead in a tomb wasn't a Jewish tradition.​

One of the clear moments is when he ate food. Why would a dead and resurrected man, eat food?

I don't know if he was 'resurrected' or even what that means in the 1st Century context. I do know that people who've come back from death can still eat although their mental capacity is diminished due to loss of oxygen to the brain.​

The Bible is the most detailed book on the subject of Jesus (pbuh)

Not really. It only covers a few years of his life. There are many years missing that we know nothing about.​

and in it is proof that he was not killed on the cross.

There is too much evidence contrary to it in and out of the text.​

In fact, there is also evidence that he was not hung on a cross at all.

Crucifixion was noted throughout the Roman Empire. A 'cross' wasn't necessary. Just a board or a tree would do.
​

All of this is highlighted in the book in my avi. Also, Bart Ehrman said that history cannot prove the miracles of Jesus (pbuh), but it can attest to the fact that many people assert that he was a miracle worker. All things considered, it is ample evidence available to suggest that Jesus (pbuh) was not crucified.

http://ehrmanblog.org/why-was-jesus-killed/
​

The crucifixion of Jesus by the Romans is one of the most secure facts we have about his life. Whenever anyone writes a book about the historical Jesus, it is really (really, really) important to see if what they say about his public ministry can make sense of his death.

 

[lini...]

I usually like your responses and think them to be well thought out and well put together. I don't feel the same way in this instance. I am content with my arguments and your attempts at a rebuttal.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

I don't know how you can keep "oral traditions." And18 years is time enough where a large number, perhaps the majority of Muslims of the Prophet's time were still alive and able to verify the Qur'an.

That's why this talk of 'corruption' doesn't make any sense. Why apply different standards when the two are practically the same in that regard?​

None of the Gospels that we have today come close to 18 years after Jesus (pbuh). They were not even written by eyewitnesses, or people who met Jesus (pbuh) at all.

ALL of them were written prior to the destruction and 3-year siege of Jerusalem in 66 CE. Luke didn't record the deaths of Paul and Peter in 64 & 65 CE respectively. Luke also didn't record the death of James in 62 CE. Luke predates Acts since they were a 2-volume work. Paul quoted Luke in 1 Corinthians which wouldn't be possible if it weren't already well-known. Luke quoted Mark and Matthew, so they pre-date Luke. Paul, by his own admission, spent about 14 years traveling throughout the Middle East before returning to Jerusalem and speaking to James before he was executed. 62 - 14 = 48 CE. Jesus was crucified 30 or 32 CE. 48 - 30 = 18 years for Paul's first document (1 Thessalonians) which was preceded by Mark, Matthew, and Luke/Acts.

The Apostles and many eyewitnesses were still alive to correct any errors in the stories being circulated.
​

The gospels of the Bible are inspired by Paul's writings and written after Paul's writings.

Paul wrote after Mark, Matthew, and Luke/Acts were already written.
​

And Paul taught a different doctrine from the doctrine Jesus (pbuh) taught in the Biblical gospels.

Paul taught the SAME doctrine Jesus taught to Peter & James and conferred with them to make sure his teaching was in-accord with what they were teaching.​

And he avoided the disciples of Jesus (pbuh) because he was making up things!

Were he 'making things up' that would have been discovered by the other Apostles and witnesses who were still alive.​

And he admitted that early Christians accused him of preaching a different Gospel, from the one that they knew of.

Considering he used to persecute them, I'd have been more suspicious if he wrote they hadn't.​

As I said, several early Christian groups did not believe that Jesus (pbuh) was crucified.

We have the writings of a Roman historian, the Synoptics, and several other extra-biblical documents that he was executed.​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

I usually like your responses and think them to be well thought out and well put together. I don't feel the same way in this instance. I am content with my arguments and your attempts at a rebuttal.

I cannot read these texts theologically, only historically.

​

 

[lini...]

That's why this talk of 'corruption' doesn't make any sense. Why apply different standards when the two are practically the same in that regard?​

ALL of them were written prior to the destruction and 3-year siege of Jerusalem in 66 CE. Luke didn't record the deaths of Paul and Peter in 64 & 65 CE respectively. Luke also didn't record the death of James in 62 CE. Luke predates Acts since they were a 2-volume work. Paul quoted Luke in 1 Corinthians which wouldn't be possible if it weren't already well-known. Luke quoted Mark and Matthew, so they pre-date Luke. Paul, by his own admission, spent about 14 years traveling throughout the Middle East before returning to Jerusalem and speaking to James before he was executed. 62 - 14 = 48 CE. Jesus was crucified 30 or 32 CE. 48 - 30 = 18 years for Paul's first document (1 Thessalonians) which was preceded by Mark, Matthew, and Luke/Acts.

The Apostles and many eyewitnesses were still alive to correct any errors in the stories being circulated.
​

Paul wrote after Mark, Matthew, and Luke/Acts were already written.
​

Paul taught the SAME doctrine Jesus taught to Peter & James and conferred with them to make sure his teaching was in-accord with what they were teaching.​

Were he 'making things up' that would have been discovered by the other Apostles and witnesses who were still alive.​

​

​

For starters:

 

[Quarterback]

You're entitled to your opinion and all that, but this thread and discussion had been very civil except for your posts. You're acting like a child lacking attention and you don't have any positive contribution to this thread.

Look @Quarterback ya'll, give him a hug, friends

nikka, Idgaf how much yall wanna jackoff to your fairy tales, but when you start with your PBUH bs, then I gotta call u out on it. The nikkas are dead and buried, they may not have existed, and even if they did.. fukk em. One was a pedo, the other a bum. So at you for having such an inferior mind.

 

[I.AM.PIFF]

nikka, Idgaf how much yall wanna jackoff to your fairy tales, but when you start with your PBUH bs, then I gotta call u out on it. The nikkas are dead and buried, they may not have existed, and even if they did.. fukk em. One was a pedo, the other a bum. So at you for having such an inferior mind.

Piss be upon you, fakkit

 

[Quarterback]

Piss be upon you, fakkit

You really follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. He would definitely want you to say that to someone.

Retard.