Immanuel: Prophecy of a Divine Jesus the Christ?

Posted on by Leave a comment

Isaiah 7:13-16 is one of Christian Trinitarian’s most favoured verses, they use it as an evidence of a Prophecy of Jesus’ coming and that the child named (Immanuel) in the verse is “Divine.” Is the name “Immanuel” really a Prophecy of Jesus and is the child Divine? We shall find out as read along, God willing.

Here is the verse:

Isaiah 7:13-16 (NIV) 13 Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. 15 He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.

From the above verse we can see:

  • Isaiah is frustrated and says he will give a “SIGN” to Ahaz.
  • We see the child will be born from a “Virgin” (Trinitarian translation).
  • The child that is to be born will be named “Immanuel.”
  • The child will learn to reject evil…. “boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right.”

I will deal with  Isaiah 7:13-16 in four sections as I have written above.

Read more

Umar Lee Apostates from Christianity

Posted on by 3 comments

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Umar Lee caused quite a stir when he became Christian not too long ago. His video was posted by David Wood and Robert Spencer, even Pamela Geller! Today he’s posted a new video – he’s apostated from Christianity and is now Muslim! Here’s the video, but most of us are still left wondering if David, Spencer or Pamela will post his new video too, or will they even comment on it?

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Bible Burning Egyptian Preacher Sentenced to 11 Years in Prison

Posted on by 3 comments

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Ahmed Abdullah, or ‘Abu Islam’ who burned Bibles during the ‘Innocence of Muslims’ protests, has been sentenced to 11 years in prison and his son, has been sentenced to 8 years in prison on charges of insulting religion and burning the Bible. Ahram (Arab) News reports:

An Egyptian misdemeanors court has issued an 11 year prison sentence to Islamist preacher Ahmed Abdullah (AKA Abu Islam) on charges of insulting religion and burning the Bible. Abu Islam, who is the head of two Islamic satellite TV channels – the Umma and Mariya – has also been fined LE3000, but the verdict will be suspended pending appeal.

The court also sentenced Islam, Abu-Islam’s son, to eight years in prison and fined him LE 2000 for taking part in burning the Bible with his father. This sentence is also suspended pending appeal. During an 11 September 2012 demonstration in front the US embassy in Cairo protesting the anti-Islam film “Innocence of Muslims,” the Muslim cleric publicly burned copies of the Bible. Before leaving the demonstration, he told the crowd that he would later send his grandson to urinate on the Bible.

Last week, Amnesty International expressed concern over the increasing number of charges for blasphemy and insulting religion in Egypt. Amnesty stated that the majority of those targeted by such accusations in Egypt are Coptic Christians. In February 2013, the prosecutor general ordered Abu Islam’s arrest for allegedly insulting Christianity.

Wonder how Pamella Geller, Robert Spencer or David Wood would describe an ‘Islamist Egypt’ protecting Christianity? For those who don’t know, this guy also justified sexually assaulting female protesters, see this article by Sh. Musa Furber.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Under the Radar: Caucasian Male Tries to Blow Up Bridge in Ohio

Posted on by Leave a comment

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Well this is a little awkward. No mainstream media reported this…..no cries of terrorism. Nicely hidden away on the FBI’s website:

Cleveland Man Found Guilty of Trying to Use Explosives to Destroy a Bridge in Northeast Ohio
U.S. Attorney’s Office
June 14, 2013

Northern District of Ohio
(216) 622-3600
CLEVELAND—A Cleveland man was found guilty of trying to use explosives to destroy a bridge in Northeast Ohio, announced Steven M. Dettelbach, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio, and Stephen D. Anthony, Special Agent in Charge of the Cleveland Division of the FBI.

Joshua Stafford, 24, was found guilty of conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction, attempted use of weapons of mass destruction, and malicious use of an explosive device to destroy property used in interstate commerce following a three-day trial before U.S. District Judge David Dowd. Stafford is scheduled to be sentenced on September 11 at noon.

Stafford is the last of five men to be found guilty for their roles in a conspiracy to destroy the Route 82 Brecksville-Northfield High Level Bridge. Cars travel over the bridge, which crosses from Brecksville, Ohio to Sagamore Hills, Ohio over the Cuyahoga Valley National Park.

  • Douglas L. Wright, of Indianapolis, was sentenced to 11 ½ years in prison, followed by a lifetime of supervised release.
  • Brandon L. Baxter, of Lakewood, Ohio, was sentenced to nine years and nine months in prison, followed by a lifetime of supervised release.
  • Connor C. Stevens, of Berea, Ohio, was sentenced to eight years and one month in prison, followed by a lifetime of supervised release.
  • Anthony M. Hayne, 35, of Cleveland, was sentenced to six years in prison, followed by a lifetime of supervised release.

Those four men pleaded guilty last year to conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction, attempted use of weapons of mass destruction, and malicious use of an explosive device to destroy property used in interstate commerce.

The initial plot involved the use of smoke grenades to distract law enforcement in order for the co-conspirators to topple financial institution signs atop high rise buildings in downtown Cleveland, according to the complaint.

The plot later developed to the utilization of explosive materials. The defendants conspired to obtain C-4 explosives contained in two improvised explosive devices to be placed and remotely detonated, according to the complaint.

The defendants discussed various bridges and physical targets in and around the Cleveland, Ohio metropolitan area over the course of several months. The final plan resulted in the Route 82 Brecksville-Northfield High Level Bridge being the designated target.

Make of this what you will……
wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Image of an Invisible God?

Posted on by Leave a comment

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

I’ve been told by missionaries that Christ is the image of the unseen, invisible God. Rationally speaking, the image of an invisible God…..should be invisible, no? Is it perhaps wrong of me to assume that the image of something unseen is…..unseen? I think the problem stems from a misappropriated verse in Genesis 1:

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” – Genesis 1:26.

We maintain that the first rule of exegesis is to interpret scripture with scripture. When we read this verse, we must ask a very important question, what is its context? The context of this chapter is to enlighten us as to God’s dominion over all creation – His power over the earth, the heavens and its inhabitants. In verse 26 He mentions creating mankind in His image. Any sane minded person upon reading this will eventually ask, what does ‘creating mankind in His image‘ mean? Well, the meaning is given in the very same verse, YHWH answers this by saying, ‘so that they may rule…‘. Therefore, according to the immediate context of the verse and the overarching plot of the chapter, in His likeness is referring to mimicking God’s authority to rule, to have dominion, albeit on two very different scales.

Most interestingly, the place of a God who has a viewable image is something actively argued against in the New Testament. We’ll now read from one of Paul’s epistles, written decades before the Johannine Gospel:

“20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.” – Romans 1:20-23.

Paul duly informs us that foolish men with blackened hearts, exchanged the glory of an immortal God for images that looked like mortal human beings. Does that sound familiar? Modern Christians believe Christ is the image, the incarnation of an unseen, immortal God. The irony is simply astounding. Let’s continue to read from the New Testament:

“Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill.” – Acts 17:29.

Statues of Christ? Carvings of Christ made from wood? Paintings? These are all images of an alleged divine being, the unseen divine being, made by human design and skill. En toto, we see that the New Testament argues against the incarnation of God, we see that it is absurd and foolish (according to Paul), that we should accept men who claim an immortal unseen God looks like a mortal human being.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

On the Murder of the 14 Year Old Boy for Blasphemy in Syria by Rebel Fighters

Posted on by One comment

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Shaykh Muhammad al Yaqoubi (damaat barakatahum), a leading Syrian scholar, diplomat and vocal opponent to Bashar, had this to say:

By H. Eminence Shaykh Muhammad Al-Yaqoubi

A group of Muslim fighters in Aleppo executed yesterday a fourteen-year-old boy in after accusing him of blasphemy against Prophet Muhammad PBUH.

We denounce this inhuman unIslamic crime; and we demand that the murderers be captured and brought to justice. They are but a gang of criminals who use religion to cover their thirst for power.

What these criminals just committed is one of the most cruel crimes ever perpetrated by the name of Islam. They murdered an innocent life and executed a child who happened to be a good Muslim from a righteous family who observes Islam; and we confirm that what the child said is not balsphemy against the Prophet of Islam in any form.

In response to the crime, we have issued a detailed fatwa on the impossibility of the implementation of Islamic penalties in today’s Syria. We explained with valid proofs all the errors and fallacies in this crime which was wrongly done in the name of Islamic Shari’a.

On this painful occasion, we call upon all foreign fighters to leave Syria and go back to their homelands. We know our country better and we confirm that we do not need fighters and we thank everyone who sincerely want to help our people. Yet, we announce that what our people need most is food and medicine and what the Free Syrian Army needs most is ammunition.

Last but not least, we offer our sincere condolences to the family of the boy, praying that Allah grant them patience and forbearance and that their child precede them to the Heavens. We pray that Allah bestow His Infinite Mercy to the martyrs of our country and that He grant our people victory and relieve them from their agony.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Refutation: Idolatry and Islamic Worship

Posted on by One comment

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Anthony Rogers, accompanied by a gang of roused propagandists, spent a significant amount of time attacking Islamic monotheism and those who defend it because they assume Muslims misunderstand their doctrine of their incarnate God. Ironically, in order to demonstrate how Muslims ‘misrepresent’ Christian theology, Anthony Rogers decided not to teach Muslims about his theology, but to instead misrepresent Islam. So great is his wisdom, that instead of trying to elucidate his doctrine, he went on a tirade of foul mouthed angry posts to the extent one could sense the foam, form around his mouth due to his rabid ranting. He says:

We’ve all heard Muslims say that worshipping Jesus as the Word made flesh is inherently and inescapably idolatrous, particularly since Jesus in His humanity has a form and could be seen, handled, touched, etc.

To correct Anthony, our issue cannot be summed into such a myopic and incredulous sentence, rather our issues are:

  1. Worshiping the creation.
  2. Believing God can change – even though He the First and the Last – absolute.
  3. Believing that God can gain, change and alter in form and essence.

Hereon, Anthony builds a quasi-childish argument. He quotes an ayah which states Muslims will be able to see God on the Day of Judgment. Then, due to his faulty inference reasoning, he claims that since we can see God on the Day of Judgement, then God will also be in a created form. From this, we can now understand that his argument is not to explain to the ‘misrepresenting’ Muslims, the doctrine of an incarnate God, but to ideally commit the tu quoque fallacy through argumentum reductio ad absurdum. What does this mean? Simply explained his response is, ‘you believe the same too‘, and ‘my response can be qualified by reducing your corpus of texts to a cherry picked and out of context hadith for which I myself do not understand‘.

He quotes a lot of hadith – a lot. Why? To demonstrate that Muslims believe that God will eventually assume a form, do the texts state this? Nope, they don’t. So where does he get this idea from? Probably from the sanitarium his closest friends and teachers escaped from.

To begin with, there are two ayat of the Qur’aan which form the absolute basics of Islamic theology from which we can then extend their context to, in relation to any other text , whether that be from the Qur’aan, or the Hadith corpus. This is the first rule of scriptural exegesis and theology – to interpret scripture…….with scripture! Isolating a few verses and removing them from the context of their theological foundation is nothing short of abject dishonest on the part of Mr. Rogers. We read:

  • there is nothing whatever like unto Him, and He is the One that hears and sees (all things). – 42:11.
  • And there is none like unto Him. – 112:4.

Therefore, to say that God has a form or will be incarnate, is to misrepresent and misinterpret the hadith which are within the theological bounds of Islamic theology stemming from its own scripture, as are duly quoted above. What does it therefore mean, or what do the ahadith mean, when they claim we will be able to see God on the Day of Judgement? We read the following from Shaykh Faraz Rabbani who in response to this question, “Then how can we see Allah? Wouldn’t it entail affirming a direction, body, and form for Allah?“, he states the following:

No, it doesn’t–because the beholding of Allah Most High is “without resemblance [to the beholding of created things] and without encompassing,” as Imam Ibrahim Laqani mentions in his primer on Islamic beliefs, Jawharat al-Tawhid.

It is completely possible for Allah to create beholding in His servants, without there being physical directionality between them and Him.

This beholding is one of the greatest of spiritual favors. May Allah make us of those who are granted ultimate felicity, through true following of the Beloved Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him).

From the Shaykh’s answer, we understand now that since God is all-powerful, and I assume Anthony believes his God is, then we can agree that God is able to allow us to behold Him, without having to take a shape and or form. We also know from the Qur’aan that God is veiled from us:

“It is not fitting for a man that Allah should speak to him except by inspiration, or from behind a veil, or by the sending of a messenger to reveal, with Allah’s permission, what Allah wills: for He is Most High, Most Wise.” – 42:51.

This veil according to two ahadith is light, as Shaykh Salih al Munajjid explains:

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) on the night of the Mi’raaj (ascent into heaven) did not see his Lord. He was asked ‘Did you see your Lord?’ He said, “I saw Light.” According to another report: “Light – how could I see Him?” i.e., between me and Him there was a great veil of light. According to a hadeeth in al-Saheeh, it is narrated that Allaah is veiled in Light. That appears in the hadeeth in which the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “His veil is Light and if He were to remove it, the glory of His Countenance would burn everything of His creation, as far as His gaze reaches.” Because His sight reaches everything, and everything would be burned by this immense Light.

As for the argument we expect – if God does not take a form, as Anthony argues through his application of Christian theology upon Islamic scripture, how can we see God, or how are we to understand that we can ‘behold’ God? We read from  Ibn ‘Abd al-Salam’s, “al-Fatawa al-Mawsiliyya“, the following:

“Concerning the vision of Allah Most High in the hereafter, He shall be seen with the light which He created in the eyes in addition to the light of knowledge. For vision unveils what knowledge does not unveil, and if the exalted Lord wanted to create in the heart a light such as the one He created in the eyes so that it could look at Him by means of it, it would not be difficult for Him at all. Nay – if He wanted to create the light of the heart and that of the eyes in the hands and the feet and the nails it would not be difficult for Him at all!”

Given the evidences presented above, we can understand that a complete theology accepts that God is without form, unlike His creation, while being able to allow His creation to behold Him, without his having a need to take a form. We must remember, that a God who needs, such as the Christian God which Anthony believes in, cannot be an all-powerful being, for having a need, makes God dependent and God is dependent on nothing. In closing, we must remember that Anthony is not a scholar, nor is he a gentleman, we cannot expect him to uphold any form of academic objectivity, scholastic honesty or intellectual integrity. His arguments are as of those found on the stage, mere theatrics to amuse the easily bewildered, the simple minded and the intellectual stunted. I do not expect him to represent Islam accurately, nor do I expect him to amend his ways, for he is nothing more than an internet missionary and these traits are alien to him, his lifestyle and his theology.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Addendum:

Concerning the hadith in which it is stated (taken directly from Anthony’s post):

Then (Allah) the Lord of the worlds will come to them in a shape nearest to the picture they had in their minds about Him. It will be said, ‘What are you waiting for?’ Every nation have followed what they used to worship.’ They will reply, ‘We left the people in the world when we were in great need of them and we did not take them as friends. Now we are waiting for our Lord Whom we used to worship.’ Allah will say, ‘I am your Lord.’ They will say twice or thrice, ‘We do not worship any besides Allah.’ ” (Bukhari,6.60.105)

Again, in isolating any text is tantamount to clear cut dishonesty, we read other ahadith which qualify the meaning of the above one:

Allah’s Apostle said, “Allah said, ‘I am to my slave as he thinks of Me, (i.e. I am able to do for him what he thinks I can do for him). – Sahih al Bukhari Volume 9, Book 93, Number 596.

The Prophet said, “Allah says: ‘I am just as My slave thinks I am, (i.e. I am able to do for him what he thinks I can do for him) and I am with him if He remembers Me. If he remembers Me in himself, I too, remember him in Myself; and if he remembers Me in a group of people, I remember him in a group that is better than they; and if he comes one span nearer to Me, I go one cubit nearer to him; and if he comes one cubit nearer to Me, I go a distance of two outstretched arms nearer to him; and if he comes to Me walking, I go to him running.’ ” – Sahih al Bukhari Volume 9, Book 93, Number 502.

According to this, Allaah will be seen (as I explained above, by Allaah allowing us to behold Him – without form) by the creation, in varying degrees, dependent on their position with Him, i.e. their piety, worship, etc. Some will be able to behold His majesty, while others may not be able to behold Him to such a degree as those who were pious and righteous. – wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Explaining Ezekiel 18:21

Posted on by One comment

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

I’ve often seen Christian missionaries who in trying to defend Paul’s doctrine of salvation in Christianity, use the following verse:

“But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not die.” – Ezekiel 18:21.

What they mean to say by quoting this verse is the following:

  1. No one person can fulfill all the laws of God – it’s impossible. This however is a logical dilemma, why would God command us to do the impossible? It’s also quite possible, as Paul himself did claim to obey all the laws, and so were Zechariah and Elizabeth.
  2. We all die because we sin.

What does it mean by they will not ‘die’? Clearly, this is the main point of their argument. In Christ you will not die, for you will attain eternal righteousness by his grace. To the contrary, the verse isn’t stating that one would actually die due to their sins, rather the verse’s meaning of ‘dying’, is explained not more than 10 verses after:

Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, people of Israel? – Ezekiel 18:31.

It’s a spiritual death that Ezekiel is referring to here. It does not mean that God has a new plan of salvation in mind, nor does it mean that humans cannot follow God’s law or that God will not forgive us for sinning. Clearly, isolating the verse has its benefits for many missionaries, but while they ignore its immediate context, we will always seek to highlight it as much as is possible.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Why Yahweh Cannot “Rest”

Posted on by Leave a comment

Earlier in this blog we have urged Christians to reconsider their belief especially with regards to God’s divine attributes. In it, the traits of God are unique and cannot be shared with His creatures; on the same lines, since the attributes of mortals are created, bounded and limited, they cannot be vested upon God! Nevertheless, sadly, many of those who identify themselves as “monotheists” breach monotheism exactly in this area. They would either believe in a “God” with humanly traits or give humans the attributes of God. And both these situations are deadly.

Nevertheless, rooted in monotheism, pure belief does get reflected sporadically in Christian thinking. Consider, for instance, a particular biblical incident. We read in the Book of Genesis that God sanctified the seventh day because “in it he had rested from all his work” (Genesis 2:3, King James Version).

Christians would never allow any misinterpretation of the preceding verse, especially the usage of the word “rested” in it. They would explain that to rest here means that God completed His work of creation and therefore “ceased” working on the seventh day. And thus, “rested” is not to be understood with its general import that God became tired of long six days of work, and consequently “rested” on the seventh day!

As monotheists we should not have any objections to this exegesis. God is perfect and so is His attributes and therefore, nothing imperfect can be associated with Him. We must have a conciliatory approach because it does not behoove the God of Abraham (peace be upon him) to rest out of exhaustion; and it is rightly deemed as blasphemous in Christian circles to interpret that God was tired of work. At the same time the exegesis also entails that God’s attributes are immutable – they cannot change with time and space. If God did not exhaust when He was creating everything that exists, then He would never exhaust out of any work that He does.

Nevertheless, Christian thinking takes a U-turn when it comes to Christology. Christians would not apply same principles when considering the deity of Christ (peace be upon him). Although the Yahweh of Genesis is exegetically not allowed merely to “rest”; in the New Testament we have a complete “God” being killed, let alone the incarnation and everything earthly, non-divine entailing with it! Christians should scruple that if Yahweh cannot “rest” then “God” certainly cannot “die”!

Oral Transmissions are Worthless and Wholly Inaccurate

Posted on by 2 comments

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

I recently came across a Christian missionary who hides behind the moniker of ‘Radical Moderate‘. One of his arguments concerning the transmission of scripture before transcription was commonplace, is that Oral transmissions are worthless and wholly inaccurate. I beg to disagree based on my studies. For people who make such a statement, we must ask them, before textual transmission existed, did civilizations exist? For large groups of humans, or even small groups of humans to live together and understand one another – they had to communicate.

cc-2013-oraltransmission

Civilizations contain thousands if not hundreds of thousands of persons over several thousand, hundred or decades of years. Their structure, religions, politics, arts, government relied on communication. Seeing as a majority of all peoples were illiterate, their primary form of communication was aurally and orally. Let’s take into consideration the argument that oral transmissions are inaccurate.   For civilizations to maintain their order, they had to have consistent and constant communication between all arms and segments of society. A breakdown in communication would cause a disruption of harmony and bring the civilization into chaos. Since we know civilizations last decades, centuries etc, then in lieu of proof by contradiction, the method of communication solely through oral transmission is proven to be accurate and worthy.

It is highly improbable that human communities could have existed since time immemorial, without conveying knowledge from one generation to another without a reliable form of transmitting information. For example, what foods to eat or not, since peoples were mostly nomadic, this is important. More examples would be the recipes for medicinal cures, stories of the ancients and even methods of food preparation. They very fact that knowledge, was transmitted without need for books or text, for centuries, if not thousands of years before writing became commonplace, then it is clear that oral transmission is a very accurate form of transmitting data. To disprove this, then one would simply have to claim that no information was ever accurately conveyed throughout generations of human civilization – which is impossible, ergo proof by contradiction substantiates my argument.

Sadly, for those who are unlearned and choose to persist in their ignorance, they commit to anachronistic reasoning and claim that oral transmissions are wholly unreliable. Perhaps, in our times this is the case, we are a world that has been exposed to textual transmission as a cultural norm for centuries, whereas for the majority of human existence this was not the case. Clearly, the minority of human civilization, does not negate the majority. We read from Catherine Hezser the following:

“In the three synoptic Gospels all communication between Jesus and his disciples, sympathizers, and local Jewish communities is conducted orally. In order to spread his message and reach a larger number of people, Jesus and his disciples are therefore said to have constantly traveled, especially within Galilee, but also between Galilee and Judaea, at least at the beginning and end of his career.”

“In antiquity, when no telephones, postal services, and internet connections existed, the  transfer of information and knowledge depended on direct or indirect contacts and personal mediation. If one wanted to ask someone’s advice or tell him or her something, one would either  have to go and visit that person oneself or send an oral or written message through an intermediary.”

“Nevertheless, it becomes clear that written communication was considered more official and forceful than oral messages but at the same time prone to falsification and misuse. Oral messages, on the other hand, were used in more urgent and confidential circumstances. They may also have been considered more honest and reliable, if one could trust the bearer or force him to reveal the sender’s true intentions.”

“It therefore seems that only Luke, who lived and wrote in a Hellenistic (and probably upper-class) context, would automatically assume that Jesus and other important early Christian figures could read and that he was literate. In Mark and Matthew, on the other hand, the emphasis is very much on Jesus’ oral teaching, whereas reading and writing are never mentioned.”

– Oral and Written Communication and Transmission of Knowledge in Ancient Judaism and Christianity, by Catherine Hezser.

From this, we must understand that if an Evangelical inerrantist holds that the eyewitnesses were the authors of the NT gospels, and we know that they wrote them or transcribed them after the Pauline epistles were written, post 65 CE, then they had to recall every single statement Jesus transmitted for more than 32 years in great detail before transcription. Therefore our missionary friend, implicitly accepts that oral transmission is an accurate form of preservation of information. As for whether or not, oral communication is the worse form of the preservation of data, we read the following from Irving Fang’s, “A History of Mass Communication”:

“The gathering of knowledge in a way that might be characterized as an information revolution had its faint beginnings in the Hellenic world during the eighth century B.C., when the Phoenician alphabet took root in Aegean soil. It was the period after the Greek emergence out of the Dark Ages.

Because of the alphabetic script and the availability of papyrus, the Iliad and the Odyssey, the epic poems of Homer, recalled and repeated orally for the previous four centuries by storytellers, were at last written down.”

Finally, we read that due to oral transmission, for over 4 centuries, great Graeco works were preserved! In light of all this evidence, it is nothing short of absurdity to claim that oral transmission is unreliable.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »