Look What Just Arrived In the Mail…
Missionary Mishap: Priest in Church
I’m not exactly sure what’s going on here, but I’m pretty sure this isn’t normal.
and God knows best.
Islamophobia and Dishonesty
I often choose not to respond to vicious character attacks, whether they come from a major Christian apologist or a beginner in the inter-faith field. Recently Jonathan McLatchie decided to go on a string of unfortunate articles where he has targeted several Muslims in the inter-faith field. Collectively, we’ve decided to forgive him. I myself forgive him for what he has said about me, the issue(s) we have with him are purely professional, not personal. Therefore, when I saw his last few posts and articles attacking some of my colleagues, I knew that he’d have to eventually write about me. I’m okay with him having done that, I’m okay with his name calling, his insults, his mistakes. After all, he’s only human. He’s quite young, and as he matures he’d quickly find that such behaviour is inappropriate.
Now unfortunately, Jonathan seeks to blame me for sharing the words that came out of his mouth. I previously had shared a clip of one of his lectures where he openly derides Islam and Muslims as inviting a cancer and virus into European civilization. I’ll gladly share that clip again:
He insists that I’ve somehow misunderstood what he’s said. However, he does go on to state that he made a mistake in his wording, that he said something wrong:
“While I try to present information with a high level of factual accuracy (and I think I succeed in doing this for the most part), occasionally I can make a mistake or change my mind on something that I have said. I take full responsibility for anything that I say that is not accurate, and I hope to always correct those when brought to my attention.”
The problem here is with Jonathan’s thinking. Any sensible person would quickly realise that if you admit that you made a mistake, then whatever was understood from your mistaken words, you are responsible for that mistake. So, what does Jonathan do? He claims to have taken responsibility for those inappropriate words. That begs the question, if I misunderstood him, then why did he find the need to acknowledge what he said as a mistake? If I had misrepresented him as he claims, then it would mean that his words were not mistaken. However, the opposite is true. He’s admitted that he spoke mistakenly, therefore acknowledging that whatever he said was indeed wrong. That’s simple logic, it’s common sense. So from Jonathan’s own words, he said something wrong.
If I have rightfully corrected him on his mistake, then in what sense have I misrepresented him? Therefore, what we are seeing from his behaviour is pure immature nonsense. We need to look at his next statement:
“That mistake on my part aside, did I really describe “Muslim immigrants of an ethnic background to be cancers and viruses that are invading Europe”?”
He says he didn’t say this, he says what he meant was:
In what was regrettably a poor choice of wording on my part, I likened these Muslim enclaves in France to a cancer — my meaning of course was that such enclaves are a breeding ground for Islamic radicalism. It was not intended to refer to the individuals who live in these areas. By likening the enclaves to a cancer it was the ‘No Go Zone’ structure itself I was talking about, and not the Muslims living within such areas nor even the ones who were enforcing such a structure.”
Let’s stop right here. In the first line what does he say? He says he likened Muslims. Fullstop. That’s it. He’s admitted that he’s lying about me. In his own words, he’s clearly stated that when he spoke in the Church about enclaves being cancerous and like a virus, he was specifically referring to Muslims. So which is it Jonathan? Did I lie when I said you were referring to Muslims, when you yourself have said you referred to Muslims. You’ve vindicated me. You’ve thoroughly demonstrated that in your haste to insult me, you did not consider what you had written. In his later explanation, as quoted above, he indicates that he didn’t mean people, he meant structures. Yet, in the very first sentence he says he’s referring to Muslims – people! In the space of one paragraph he has demonstrated his dishonesty. At this point, I have no reason to continue this article. He’s demonstrated for me, through his own words that he was dishonest, deceitful and deceptive. I will continue just to illustrate the lengths through which he is willing to lie, he said:
“To support his allegation, Ijaz links to a video on his YouTube channel, highlighting a lecture I shared on Facebook back in September of 2015. The only problem is that nowhere in the video is it claimed that ISIS is normative for all, or most, Muslims.”
I’ll link the video here:
If anyone watched the video, the lady explicitly says that following the Prophet’s teachings (peace be upon him), naturally leads to behaving like ISIS. The majority of Muslims worldwide follow in some capacity the Prophetic Sunnah, whether Sunni or Shi’i. Therefore, what is normative for Jonathan, if not what the majority of Muslims follow? It would either mean that he lied, that he did not watch the video, or he does not know what the term normative means. I’m inclined to believe all three. Jonathan further argued that I somehow did not represent him correctly regarding his comments about Khalid Yasin. In that very article, click here to read it, I explicitly said:
Should Jonathan correct himself, I will edit this post to reflect this.
Did Jonathan ever message me to tell me that he corrected himself? Yes, he did. Earlier today right before he posted his article complaining about it. What does that say about him? I publicly offered to correct the article if the information was incorrect and Jonathan knowing this, chose to mention he did correct himself shortly before making a post to whine about it. Integrity is important. All he had to do was give me a heads up and I’d gladly have corrected the article, but he chose not to do so. This means that he wanted an opportunity to complain about. He waited for weeks before opening his mouth. This is simply inappropriate behaviour for a person who dares call others names.
As many would know, Jonathan has upset quite a few people in the inter-faith community, both Muslim and Christian. There was a point in time that I asked him, why he joined out of all people, David Wood and Sam Shamoun as partners in his apologetics. There were many other people he could have aligned himself with, Dr. White, RZIM, etc. Instead he chose people who lack credibility in their own Christian circles. He chose to align himself with people that identified with his ideas, beliefs and vitriolic views. Therefore, I find it quite funny that he speaks with such hate against me. His problem isn’t that I misrepresented him, it’s that I dared to publicize his statements. As we’ve seen above, he’s clearly admitted to referring to people as cancerous and as a virus. There is quite literally nothing to debate about, his own words have settled that matter.
Interestingly, it’s almost a weekly occurrence where he says he wants nothing to do with me. Guess what happened today? After posting his article, we exchanged a few e-mails again. He says one thing publicly and another thing in private. I’d like to share something posted by Br. Yahya recently directed at Jonathan‘s deceptive behaviour:
A quick note to Jonathan McLatchie [pass it on to him please]
Firstly, if you introduce me again with such underhand negativity…like you did just now and in your previous comments in your response on the Son of Man (which I let slide) I will be on the brink of playing tit-for-tat with you. That will mean, I will introduce you negatively every time I mention you, right now I’m leaning towards calling you a plagiarist (a true epithet for you…you’ve been found out on a few occasions IIRC).
I can handle negativity, insults and even arrogance. Here’s something I recently received from (perhaps one of your co-religionists):“Muslims are filthy pig swill….. Go to hell. I would rather fight you cunts till I die than become one of you”
Now, I have a thick skin and don’t usually respond in kind. Sticks and stones break your bones but names…
However, one thing I will not stand for is two-faced behaviour. When you say you want to improve relationships and even want to meet up for a cup of coffee and then continue with underhand slights there’s an issue. It’s an issue with your sincerity.
Another thing I was willing to let slide, you liking comments calling people idiots (namely myself:)) and liking other negative comments about Ijaz Ahmad and perhaps others. You’re ‘notorious’ for it. You seem like a passive aggressive type….your buddy Shamoun beats his cheat and really gets his hands dirty (normally in the act of picking up ‘pig swill’ and hurling at Muslims). Your other buddy Wood strips down and gets into his wife’s undies to have a go. Your buddy Pastor Najm rattles off his anti-Muslim diatribes facing the camera. Those boys, sure their acts are deplorable and betraying their spiritual natures, but you do get the feeling they will stab while you’re facing them. The same with the two con men from Egypt, ‘Prince’ and Dakdok (not entirely sure if they are your buds). You on the other hand wait lull me into a false sense of security and wait for me to turn my back and then get your drawing pin out and prick me…what’s the end game, death by a thousand cuts?
In the end, I forgive Jonathan for his behaviour, his insults, his misrepresentations. He’s young, he’ll make mistakes and hopefully he can find a route to more mature discussion.
and God knows best.
Missionary Mishap: Pig Headed
Last week we covered the poor arguments of a young polemicist who tried to mimic one of Jonathan McLatchie’s atrocious arguments (which he later recanted). Unfortunately, this young and impressionable missionary, France Francis has done it again. He’s made the Missionary Mishap list for a second week running…
Unashamedly, this missionary considers people like Jonathan McLatchie and Sam Shamoun to be his heroes. That’s surely no surprise for anyone here.
and God knows best.
Do We Have the Actual Words of Christ in the NT?
Question:
Missionaries often claim that Jesus said x or said y in the New Testament. I have seen you say that the NT does not contain the actual words of Jesus, is this a Muslim claim?
Answer:
It is disingenuous for Christians to claim that Jesus said anything based on New Testament quotes. Traditionally in Graeco-Roman literature, under which the New Testament falls there are two main forms of quotations, ipsissima verba (the very words) and ipsissima vox (the very voice). The majority of New Testament quotes claimed to be said by Jesus fall under the category of ipsissima vox, meaning that someone has interpreted Christ’s alleged words and developed this quote according to their understanding of what was said. Similarly, this form of quotation also refers to invented quotes, where authors spoke (wrote) on behalf of others, based on the reasoning that they believe the quotes would have been accepted by the original speaker. Thus, it was and is common in Graeco-Roman literature to find works being written in other people’s names or quotes being manufactured and attributed to other people. Daniel Wallace, a conservative Christian scholar has said something similar regarding this topic:
Myth 2: Words in red indicate the exact words spoken by Jesus of Nazareth.
Scholars have for a long time recognized that the Gospel writers shape their narratives, including the sayings of Jesus. A comparison of the Synoptics reveals this on almost every page. Matthew quotes Jesus differently than Mark does who quotes Jesus differently than Luke does. And John’s Jesus speaks significantly differentyly than the Synoptic Jesus does. Just consider the key theme of Jesus’ ministry in the Synoptics: ‘the kingdom of God’ (or, in Matthew’s rendering, often ‘the kingdom of heaven’). Yet this phrase occurs only twice in John, being replaced usually by ‘eternal life.’ (“Kingdom of God” occurs 53 times in the Gospels, only two of which are in John; “kingdom of heaven” occurs 32 times, all in Matthew. “Eternal life” occurs 8 times in the Synoptics, and more than twice as often in John.) The ancient historians were far more concerned to get the gist of what a speaker said than they were to record his exact words. And if Jesus taught mostly, or even occasionally, in Aramaic, since the Gospels are in Greek the words by definition are not exact.
A useful distinction is made between the very words of Jesus and very voice of Jesus, known as ipsissima verba and ipsissima vox, respectively. Only rarely can we say that we have the very words of Jesus, but we can be far more confident that what is recorded in red letters in translations is at least the very voice of Jesus. Again, if ancient historians were not as concerned to get the words exactly right, we should not put them into a modernist straitjacket in which we expect them to be something they were never intended to be. – Source.
It is very difficult to claim that a quote belongs to the second category of ipsissima verba, that is, verbatim speech. Scholars differ on the very few instances where they believe Christ’s true speech may have been recorded. There is very little general agreement regarding these instances and each case needs to be inspected and qualified critically. Additionally, since we do not have the original words of Christ in their original language, there exists a difficulty in translating where language devices have been used. As such, this matter of a different language, after already being re-interpreted by someone other than Jesus makes the matter of knowing what Jesus actually said quite complicated. This is especially true in places where we have single quotes attributed to Jesus, without any other witnesses. How would we know that the one listening and recording, understood what was said? There is no way to know.
Therefore, the next time a missionary claims to have the very words of Christ, you may want to point out that this is historically untrue and that the quote itself requires extensive examination before qualification.
and God knows best.
Missionary Mishap – Copying Bad Arguments
Everyone wants to be a debater. Today, all it takes is a keyboard and adding a title to one’s name. In this case we have a callow missionary by the name of Evangelist France Francis. He has previously boasted that he is a friend of Jonathan McLatchie (a quick perusal of Jonathan’s timeline indicates that ‘France’ comments often on his page). With that said, while Jonathan has accepted that he made an error with regard to his claim that nowhere does Allah say: ‘I am God, Worship Me’ in the Qur’an, his young missionary friend has yet to get this memo:
As can be seen, Br. Mustafa Sahin an up and coming Muslim apologist and debater, knocks France the Evangelist out of the park. His Qur’anic reference directly refutes the missionary:
Indeed, I am Allah. There is no deity except Me, so worship Me and establish prayer for My remembrance. –20:14.
It truly is amazing just how fast bad arguments can spread. Even when the missionary you allegedly learn from recants his position, missionaries still insist on using those bad arguments. It’s quite embarrassing to say the least.
and God knows best.
The rivals of Paul who were followers of Jesus
2 Corinthians 11:4 provides a clue to the existence of a powerful rival group that opposed Pauline Christianity
by Ibn Anwar BHsc (Hons), MCollT
The text of 2 Corinthians 11:4 reads as follows:
“For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.”
From this verse, we may glean that there was at least one group that was prominent enough to receive Paul’s attention and compel him to spend ink on it that was teaching a different Jesus and a different gospel than what Paul was teaching as James Dunn writes, “Similarly in 2 Cor. 11.4 the “other Jesus” preached could refer to a differently interpreted Jesus tradition.” [1]Though little detail is given concerning this group, we may reasonably speculate about their fundamental beliefs that disconcerted Paul by looking at the content of the context of 2 Corinthians 11:4, with particular focus on what points that Paul emphasise therein.
In Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, one of his primary concerns is with the crucifixion of Jesus, the belief that Jesus suffered and died as a sin offering. As James Dunn writes, “The most distinctive emphasis of Paul’s preaching on Jesus, however, was on Jesus’ crucifixion… in 1 Cor. 2.2 Paul recalls how ‘I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified. For in Cor. 15:2 he recalls the message he had preached to the Corinthians, including the message that ‘Christ died for our sins…” [2] From the emphasis Paul puts on this theme, we may discern that those mentioned in 2 Corinthians 11:4 may well have opposed this belief that Paul was propagating. To this effect, commenting on the phrase “another Jesus” in 2 Corinthians 11:4 the scholar Colin Kruse writes:
“It may well be that in their preaching Paul’s opponents stressed the power and glory of Christ to the virtual exclusion of the fact that he had also known weakness, humiliation, persecution, suffering and death. Paul preached Christ crucified as Lord, so a proclamation like that outlined above would seem to him to be the preaching of another Jesus.” [3]
This means that anyone who did not preach that Christ was crucified as Lord, that he suffered humiliation, persecution, suffering and ultimately death on the cross were antithetical to Paul’s ministry and were therefore preaching another Jesus.
David Garland who is Dean of George W. Truett Theological Seminary at Baylor University, likewise, writes:
“Another Jesus” refers to a different interpretation of Jesus that is not congruent with with the facts of Jesus’ life and death. Paul’s emphasis in 13:4, that Christ was “crucified in weakness,” suggests the possibility that the rivals presented a Jesus who was not “weak, suffering and humiliated.” They may talk about Christ, but Christ crucified is not the heart of their gospel nor does it influence the way they live.” [4]
From the above, we learn that this group gave no importance to the crucifixion of Jesus and it was certainly not part of their fundamental beliefs.
Michael Gorman however, tells us that this group’s teachings may well have amounted to the repudiation of the crucifixion rather than a mere disinterested detachment. They in fact abandoned the belief in the crucified Christ.
“What is very likely, however, is that Paul saw a massive incongruence between their gospel and their lifestyle (since for Paul an apostle was his or her message, and vice versa), between a message of Christ’s death for sin (s) and a preoccupation with powerful manifestations of the Spirit. Is this grounds for a charge of heresey? Yes, it is, at least for Paul, if it amounts to the repudiation of the cross as both the foundation and the form of life in Christ… to abandon the crucified Christ and the God-given Spirit of cruciformity is to offer another gospel.” [5]
The scholarly understanding that this group that Paul regarded as preaching another Jesus and another gospel disassociated themselves from the “suffering servant” image of Jesus that is so prominent in the Pauline portrayal of Jesus’ purpose and ministry seems to be across the board. Their detachment from any theological significance given to the cross seems to be one of their hallmarks. The massive New Jerusalem Biblical commentary comments:
“4. This is perhaps the most important clue in the quest for the identity of Paul’s opponents: if someone comes : his adversaries were from outside Corinth (3:1, 10:14-16), preaches a Jesus other than the one we preached. The sudden switch from “Christ” ( 10:1,5,7,14; 11:2,3) gives Jesus a special significance; the emphasis is on his earthly existence. Since the intruders claimed to “belong to Christ,” they must have shared the tendency of the “spirit-people” to downgrade the importance of Christ’s humanity, which was displayed in service, suffering, and death…
The Judaizers (3:3) preached a different gospel (Gal. 1:6-9). Since Paul’s ministry was a “ministry of the Spirit” (3:8) and of freedom (3:17), his opponents must have given their allegiance to a different spirit, viz., that of the new covenant, which they understood in a way that Paul could not accept (see comment on 3:6). The Judaizers would have shared common ground with the “spirit-people” (-> 1 Corinthians , 49:18) insofar as the wisdom tradition of the latter was rooted in the law.” [6]
From the above, we may discern, as we did from preceding scholarly references that this group of preachers had no interest in the suffering and alleged death and Jesus. Additionally, O’Connor tells us that they had a firm belief in the importance of the law in direct opposition to Paul who primarily concerned himself with “freeing” people from the “bondage” of the law through his version of Christ’s ministry.
Jan Lambrecht gives us an even greater insight as to the identity of this opponents of Paul who uniquely opposed him in his fundamental beliefs: the crucifixion and the law.
“Let us listen to what Paul himself says. The most pertinent text is 2 Corinthians 11:22-23a: “Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they descendants of Abraham? So am I. Are they servants of Christ? – I am talking as out of my mind – I am more.” For Paul these people are decidedly Jewish Christians, even ministers of Christ.” [7]
From the above we see that Paul himself in the immediate context of 2 Corinthians 11:4 identifies these individuals as Jewish Christians. And though he labels them “Satan”, “deceivers”, and “false apostles”, he is unable to forthrightly deny them as real ministers or servants of Christ. He sees himself as a better servant (“I am more”) but this necessarily implies that he sees them as equally servants of Christ but of lower status and inferior. Lambrecht continues:
“The opponents were probably not very numerous. It is, we think, is not completely impossible that there were connections between them and the Jerusalem authorities (see our discussion of 10:12-18), nor, as most scholars hold, is it absolutely certain that they were wholly from Paul’s opponents in Galatia, those who compelled the Gentile Christians to live like Jews (Gal 2:14; see our discussion of 2 Cor 10:4-6; cf. Gal 1:7-9).” [8]
The above tells us that there is possibility that this group had links to the Jerusalem Church which was headed and lead by the direct apostles of Jesus and it also tells us that their movement was quite widespread as it is possible that the opposition Paul faced from opponents in Galatia were the same people as they had similar traits to those who went to Corinth to challenge Paul. This group was in fact quite successful in their ministry, at least in the early days, prior to the victory of Pauline Christianity over all others, pulling many, even the Gentiles, to their fold:
“Many Christians of Corinth must taken sides with the intruders and detached themselves from Paul, at least during a certain period of time. Second Corinthians shows us a Paul who, above all, wants to win them back.” [9]
The People’s New Testament Commentary by New Testament scholars Eugene Boring and Fred Craddock provides an even better overview of this group, what they believed and why Paul opposed them so.
11:4 Another Jesus …spirit …gospel: These may be only general descriptions of the false message and ministry of the rival apostles, or in Paul’s mind they may have had specific content. “Another Jesus” has been understood in several ways:
1. The opponents may have emphasized the life and teachings of the earthly Jesus, whom Paul had not known. The details of Jesus’ earthly life did not play a role in Paul’s own gospel, which focused on the act of God in the whole Christ event, not on stories about and sayings of the earthly Jesus.
2. The opponents may have contrasted the exalted heavenly Christ and the purely human Jesus, one who could be disdained and even cursed (see on 1 Cor. 12:3). If so, it means that before their arrival in Corinth some Corinthians already leaned toward this view which the new missionaries elaborated and exploited.
3. Since Paul places their Christology in contrast to his own, which emphasizes the vulnarability and weakness of the crucified Christ (see 1 Cor. 1:18-2:5; 2 Cor. 13:4; Phil. 2:5-11), they may have emphasized the power of the miracle-working “divine man” Jesus, a view that had no place in Paul’s own understanding. It may be that they saw the power at work in Jesus’ life as continued in their own powerful ministry, just as Paul saw the self-giving of a victimized and crucified Jesus as continued in his ministry. Neither group saw a way of combining the pictures of Jesus the divinelike miracle worker and the Jesus who died a human death on the cross. Paul chose the weakness of the crucified Jesus as the power of God; they chose the power of the miracle-working of Jesus as representing the power of God. [10]
This group then had access to stories concerning Jesus and his words during his ministry while Paul did not. They also had difficulty allowing Jesus to be the victim of some curse and exalted Jesus over above Paul’s victimized Jesus model. They adopted Jesus’ deeds of miracle as important to the person of Jesus and completely abandoned any attachments to the crucifixion while Paul fixates himself on the crucifixion to the subtraction of all else. Even though Paul identifies them as “false apostles” as we have seen above and even called them ministers of Satan (contradicting himself as we illustrated that he couldn’t help but recognise that they were ministers of Christ), Boring and Craddock write, “Though Paul considers them false, they were probably sincere Christian leaders whose differences with the Pauline mission were so great they considered him a false apostle, a danger to the churches, whose converts had to be “corrected.” ” [11]
In the foregoing discussion we have seen the many shades of colour of this mysterious and nameless group found in 2 Corinthians 11:4. Although we may never know exactly what they believed and who they were in precise terms (unless some new early manuscripts that document their existence and beliefs are unearthed), we have gleaned from Paul’s own writing, as we have done above, what they may very well have believed. In all likelihood, this was a group that completely detached themselves from the alleged crucifixion of Jesus and emphasised the earthly ministry of Jesus. This was probably the utter most sticking point that irked Paul so much to the extent that he labels them not only false apostles but the servants of Satan himself. The rift between Paul and this group must have been quite significant and their beliefs must have greatly agitated Paul for he would not have been so harsh in the epithets that he affords them which he affords to none of his other numerous opponents elsewhere. Despite Paul’s meanderings about their supposed distasteful behaviour that were incongruent to the gospel they were preaching, which is something that we cannot confirm as there are absolutely no independent corroborating eyewitnesses to justify Paul’s appraisal regarding this, what is evidently clear is that his theology of the cross was completely disregarded by this group and this was probably the unpardonable sin that led Paul to identify them as servants of Satan. This removes the Christian apologetics critique on Islam that it brought something new when it put doubt on the crucifixion of Jesus by seemingly denying that it actually took place. It would appear that denial of the crucifixion and/or any importance attached to it was in vogue even at the time of Paul. This then corroborates the Qur’anic crucifixion narrative as historical rather than merely mythical.
Notes:
[1] Dunn, J. D. G. (1998). The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. p. 196
[2] Dunn, J. D. G. (2009). Christianity in the Making, Volume 2: Beginning from Jerusalem. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. p. 576
[3] Kruse, C. (1987). The Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians: An Introduction and Commentary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. p. 184
[4] Garland, D. E. (1999). The New American Commentary: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of the Holy Scripture, 2 Corinthians. Nashville, Tennessee: B & H Publishing Group. p. 464
[5] Gorman, M. J. (2004). Apostle of the Crucified Lord: A Theological Introduction to Paul and his Letters. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B Eerdmans Publishing Company. p. 322
[6] O’Connor, J. M. (1990). 2 Corinthians. In Raymond E. Brown (Ed.), The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. pp. 826-827
[7] Lambrecht, J. (1998). Second Corinthians. In Daniel J. Harrington (Ed.), Sacra Pagina Series. Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press. p. 7
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Boring, M. E. & Craddock, F. B. (2010). The People’s New Testament Commentary. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press. p. 570
[11] Ibid. p. 571
Does Angel Gabriel Choking the Prophet Mean He Is Not an Angel?
Question:
Missionaries argue that an angel would not choke someone or be violent, and so the “angel” that Muslims believe to be Gabriel was actually a demon. Some claim this was a demon parading as an angel because of this act of choking. What can we say to them?
Answer:
You can advise them to study their Bible(s) more often. If acting violent means that an Angel is actually a demon, or that the one being hurt by the Angel is evil, what happens to the story of the Angel (of the Lord) wrestling with Jacob (Israel)? The main story is found in Genesis 32:22-31, however the story itself is referenced in Hosea 12:4 and clarifies with whom Jacob (Israel) wrestled with:
Yes, he wrestled with the angel and prevailed; He wept and sought His favor. He found Him at Bethel And there He spoke with us,
Following the missionaries’ logic, it would either mean that the Angel (of the Lord) was evil and demonic, that Jacob (Israel) – the Father of the Twelve Tribes was evil and demonic or that both of them were evil and demonic. Irrespective of which choice they choose, the argument negates a major aspect of their faith. That in itself discredits the argument. Even if we were to forego this one major incident, there are many instances where angels were violent in the Bible, one significant example of that is as follows:
Then the angel of the Lord went out and put to death a hundred and eighty-five thousand in the Assyrian camp. When the people got up the next morning—there were all the dead bodies! – Isaiah 37:36.
Thus, this is not a very good argument and it would benefit the Muslim to encounter a missionary using it, as it can allow us to invite them to Islam. Thank you for your question.
and Allah knows best.
Is the Canonization of the NT a Divine Proof?
Question:
Missionaries often claim that the canon of the New Testament was not decided by a Council, and that its authors were guided by God. They also claim that since a Council was not needed and that all of Christendom accepted the books, it is a divine proof from God that Christianity is the truth. How do we respond to this?
Answer:
This is factually incorrect. The proto-orthodox Church whose canon of scripture later came to be known as the New Testament, did in fact have two Ecumenical (Unity) Councils regarding the canon of their scripture. The Councils of Carthage in 393 and 397 CE respectively, are historically considered to be when the Church ‘confirmed’ the canon. Most Christians seem to be unaware of these Councils and so make this claim that the canon was not decided by any Council, and so the emergence of their scripture is a divine truth. Even if we were to forego these two Councils, this is in itself a poor argument. This argument, is in essence stating that a divine truth does not need a Council to determine beliefs.
However, Christianity’s history is replete with Ecumenical Councils regarding the very basic tenets of their faith, most notably those of Nicaea, Constantinople and Chalcedon. Thus, if the lack of Councils demonstrate divine truth then the very existence of the aforementioned Councils discount Christianity’s most foundational beliefs as divine truths. As absurd as this argument may seem, I myself have experienced it firsthand. I recall an incident some years ago with a group of Jehovas Witnesses came to preach to us and we had a discussion regarding errors in the New Testament. One Elder quipped that the canon was determined by God, and that no human chose their canon. To say the least, that discussion did not last very long once they learned of Carthage.
Interestingly, Islam did not need any Councils to determine our beliefs. Thus, if a missionary was consistent, the lack of Councils in Islamic history to determine our beliefs is an evidence of the divine truth of Islam. This argument actually discounts Christianity as a divine truth and establishes Islam as the truth. Yet, given that so many missionaries use this argument one does have to wonder if they truly ponder what they’re saying before they say it. It’s truly quite a peculiar argument that seems to be extremely common. Unfortunately it’s also quite a bad one.
and God knows best.
Missionary Mishap: Jonathan McLatchie’s Argument Fails Spectacularly
Jonathan is known for making mistakes, whether that’s being ignorant of the Bible (he didn’t know God literally inscribed the ten commandments according to Exodus), or ignorant of the Qur’an:
In this amazing video from Br. Yahya Snow, Jonathan claims that nowhere in the Qur’an does Allah say: I am God, worship me. That’s unfortunate, for the Qur’an says:
Indeed, I am Allah. There is no deity except Me, so worship Me and establish prayer for My remembrance. – 20:14.
Br. Yahya has a ton more clips of Jonathan to be released in the coming days. Subscribe to his YouTube channel here: Yahya Snow.
and God knows best.
Calling Christians 
You must be logged in to post a comment.