Tag Archives: Bible

Christian and Against Immigration?

Posted on by Leave a comment

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

I always chuckle when right wing Missionary zealots like David Wood, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer spew their garbage about immigration. Remember kids, ‘America is for Americans!‘, ‘Say NO! to Immigration!‘, ‘ACT! for America‘, let’s just forget that it was African slaves who built your nation, let’s also forget that the original Americans were and still are, American Indians. Let’s forget that the South was divided between Mexicans and the French (in Louisiana), or those damned Irish and Italian immigrants during America’s industrial boom didn’t exist. Let’s forget to quote what the Bible says about immigration, even though we claim to be Christians.   See, I’m not a hypocrite, I recognize that America was built on the blood, sweat and tears of the immigrated peoples. So what does the Bible say about allowing immigration?

“‘When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. 34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself…….37 “‘Keep all my decrees and all my laws and follow them. I am the Lord.’” – Bible, Leviticus 19:33-34, 37.

Don’t defend your racism, superiority complex, hate and myopic world view by ignoring what your scripture says. I’m calling you right winger’s out. If you are a Christian and you hate immigrants, you may have a thing or two to take up with that God you worship.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Refutation: Easter Story Found in Quran

Posted on by One comment

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

This is a response to Answering Islam’s Oksar on, “Easter Story Found in Quran“.

  1. Introduction.
  2. The Qur’aan on the Death and Resurrection of Jesus.
  3. When did Jesus Die According to the Qur’aan?
  4. Why Did Jesus Have to Die?
  5. Conclusion.

Introduction

Oskar deceptively tries to utilize shadh (solitary) opinions from one translator’s understanding of the Qur’aan and pretends as if one person’s opinion overrides that of all the other centuries of Islamic scholarship. Cherry picking to say the very least. Unfortunately for Oskar, his writing was not very convincing, to the point that the only portion of the Easter story he found was maybe the word ‘death’, but not exactly because as he concedes it doesn’t mean ‘death’. In realising his futility he then jumped to the Bible for help which really is inconsistent writing since the topic led me to believe that the arguments were presented from the Qur’aan. Strange guy this Oskar.

Read more

Debate: Was Muhammad (peace be upon him) Foretold in the Bible? Zakir Hussein vs Samuel Green

Posted on by 2 comments

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Another excellent debate from the up and coming debater, Br. Zakir Hussein. Eloquent in his speech, spot on in his arguments, well articulated rebuttals and most importantly he stayed on topic. Samuel Green attempted to refute him a few times, but got carried away, you’ll notice that Br. Zakir played a bit of logic on Samuel and used the same method of finding prophecies of Christ in the Old Testament and applied it to his own agenda. Thereby allowing Samuel to argue against his own methodology, pure brilliance from Br. Zakir.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Quick Commentary on the Law of Apostasy in the Bible

Posted on by 10 comments

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

It is absurd that Christians argue against the law of Apostasy when their own God commanded that apostates be killed:

“If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.” – Deuteronomy/ Devarim 13:6-10.

Jesus did not comment on this law, nor did he abolish it, for he said:

““Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.  For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.” – Matthew 5:17-20.

When Jesus says that he came to fulfil the law, it means that he came to complete it. How did he complete it? By rectifying six laws, as is found in verses 20 and beyond, regarding: Murder, Adultery, Divorce, Oaths, Eye for an Eye and Loving Your Enemies. In fact, YHWH makes it clear that His laws are eternal:

“All your words are true; all your righteous laws are eternal.” – Psalm 119:160.

Concerning this verse, the exegete, Barnes, says:

“Since any one of thy laws is as certainly founded in truth as any other, it must be that all alike are eternal and unchanging. It must be so with all the essential principles of morality. Mere regulations in regard to rites and ceremonies may be altered, as local and municipal laws among men may be; but essential principles of justice cannot be. A civil corporation – the government of a city or borough – may change its regulations about streets, and culverts, and taxes; but they can never enact laws authorizing murder or theft; nor can they alter the essential nature of honesty and dishonesty; of truth and falsehood.”

Jesus himself never comments on the law of apostasy and in that, he also never repeals it. Opposingly, we have clear, extant, explicit words from him and from YHWH about the laws of God being eternal and to never be discarded, as such there is no reason, whether from the Old Testament, New Testament, YHWH, Jesus or the Disciples that any Christian can argue from, that the Law of Apostasy as given by YHWH is now defunct and inapplicable without lying about their own scripture and God.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

A Case Study of Peter’s Denial

Posted on by Leave a comment

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Note: This article by sister Elisabeth Strout, a female revert from the depths of Christianity to the heights of Islam, read her story here.

While getting ready to teach a Sunday School class on the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, my mother asked me what Islam teaches about these issues. Honestly, I responded that the Qur’an simply states categorically that Jesus didn’t die, the Jews only thought they killed him. While that leaves room for countless theories, from the switching of bodies with a look-alike, to the swoon theory, the basic teaching is that Jesus did not die and come back to life, but rather ascended to heaven without dying. I concluded with the assertion that Christians themselves cannot trust their own Bible’s teaching, as it’s riddled with contradictions. My parents confidently disavowed any possibility of discrepancy between the Bible’s four accounts of the event, and as a result, I’ve spent the last few days studying the four Biblical crucifixion and resurrection narratives closely, to analyze the contradictions between them.

There are quite a few, and while some may be written off with the “inclusive” explanation (i.e. Matthew and Mark recount Jesus’ last words as being “my God, my God why have you forsaken me”, Luke claims they were “into thy hands I commit my spirit”, while John says they were “it is finished”, and Christians generally claim that Jesus said all three in succession, “my God, my God why have you forsaken me, into your hands I commit my spirit, it is finished”.), there are some narratives that cannot be reconciled, no matter how you superimpose them.

Rather than posting them all here at once and leave readers floundering in all the references, I decided to start with a case study of one particular event in the story, namely Peter’s denial of Christ. While the wording differs insignificantly between the three questioners who point Peter out, that is not primarily of interest. Take a look at Matthew and Luke’s accounts, which are almost identical, and then compare them with John, and then Mark, and notice the incompatible details:

Matthew 26:69-75

  • All disciples flee upon Jesus’ arrest, Peter follows at a distance.

  • A servant girl in the courtyard says, “You also were with Jesus the Galilean,” Peter responds, “I do not  know what you mean”.

  • A different servant girl at the gate says, “This man was with Jesus of Nazareth,” Peter responds with an oath, “I do not know the man”.

  • The bystanders say, “Certainly you are one of them, your accent betrays you,” Peter responds again with an oath, “I do not know the man.”

  • The rooster crows, Peter remembers Jesus’ prediction, and weeps bitterly.

Luke 22:55-62

  • Jesus is arrested (no mention made of disciples fleeing), Peter follows at a distance.

  • A servant girl in the courtyard says, “This man also was with him,” Peter responds, “Woman, I do not know him.”

  • Another person says, “You also are one of them,” Peter responds, “Man, I am not.”

  • Another person says, “Certainly this man also was with him, for he too is a Galilean,” Peter responds, “Man, I do not know what you are talking about.”

  • The rooster crows, Peter remembers Jesus’ prediction, and weeps bitterly.

So far, so good. Again, there is a slight difference of wording, but that can be overlooked. Take note of the emphasized words in Matthew, and now watch how in John, the story takes on a lot more detail (though John was written decades later), and the contradictions begin.

John 18:15-27

  • Jesus is arrested (no mention made of disciples fleeing), Peter and another disciple follow. The other disciple gets into the courtyard because he knows an official. Peter doesn’t get into the courtyard, so the disciple sends a servant girl to open the gate for him.

  • The servant girl at the gate says, “You also are not one of this man’s disciples, are you?” and Peter responds, “I am not.”

  • The officers and servants around the fire in the courtyard say, “You also are not one of his disciples, are you?” and Peter responds again, “I am not.”

  • A relative of the man whose ear Peter cut off asks, “Did I not see you in the garden with him?” and Peter denies it.

  • The rooster crows (no mention is made of his weeping).

So now, apart from the general wording and the location of the questioners (he goes from courtyard to gate in Matt., and from gate to courtyard in John), we have several distinct differences. First, the identity of the following disciples. Matt. claims all the disciples fled except Peter, and Peter alone followed from a distance. John makes no mention of the disciples fleeing, and claims both Peter and another disciple followed. Typical of John, the other disciple remains anonymous leaving Christians to speculate that it was probably John himself. Either way, either they all fled except Peter, or they all fled except Peter and John. It can’t be both.

Secondly, the identity of the questioners. Other than the first, the servant girl, Luke leaves the second two questioners anonymous, so his version is fairly compatible with the others. Matthew on the other hand, states that the questioners were (1) a servant girl in the courtyard, (2) a different servant girl at the gate, and (3) the bystanders (identified in John as officials and servants). John claims they were (1) a servant girl at the gate, (2) the by-standing officers and servants, and (3) a relative of the man whose ear Peter cut off.

While some may be tempted to generalize “bystanders” to mean anyone, including servant girls and relatives of earless men, the gospels purposely distinguish between the two, and the relative’s words in John set him apart even further from the bystanders of Matt., Mark, and Luke. While the three synoptics list, with slightly different wording, the third questioner as having recognizing Peter as a Galilean (because of his accent in Matt.), John’s third questioner (the relative of the man whose ear Peter cut) recognizes Peter because he saw him in the garden, during the arrest. It can’t be both.

Finally, we come to Mark’s account, which has yet another notable difference. While agreeing with Matthew about all the disciples fleeing except Peter, and the third question from the bystanders about Peter being Galilean, there are a few details that don’t match up.

Mark 14:66-72

  • All disciples flee upon Jesus’ arrest, Peter follows at a distance.

  • A servant girl at the fire in the courtyard says, “You also were with the Nazarene, Jesus,” Peter responds, “I neither know nor understand what you mean.”

  • Peter goes out to the gate and the rooster crows.

  • The same servant girl sees him there and says, “This man is one of them,” and Peter denies it.

  • The bystanders say, “Certainly you are one of them, for you are a Galilean,” Peter responds with an oath, “I do not know this man of whom you speak.”

  • The rooster crows a second time, Peter remembers Jesus’ prediction, and weeps bitterly.

While Matthew specifies that the first two accusations were leveled by two different servant girls, Mark goes to the trouble of telling us they were spoken by the same servant girl. It can’t be both. The second, and more noticeable aberration, is that Mark’s account of the story, as well as his account of Jesus’ prediction, differ in the number of times the rooster crows. While Peter is told he will deny three times, and does deny three times, in all accounts, Jesus predicts it will be “before the rooster crows”, in Matt., Luke, and John, and “before the rooster crows twice”, in Mark. And sure enough, in Matt., Luke and John, Peter denies thrice before the rooster crows, while in Mark, he denies, the rooster crows (the sound of it doesn’t bring him to his senses yet), he denies twice more, and the rooster crows again. So which was it, before the rooster crows, or before it crows twice? It can’t be both.

It seems like a silly, insignificant story. Same servant girl or different one, courtyard or gate, bystanders or relative, all but one disciple or all but two disciples, Galilean accent or previous encounter in the garden, one crow or two; does it really matter? For the Christians who claim there’s not a single contradiction in the entire Bible, it does matter. You can’t get around these, and you can’t get around the dozens, if not hundreds more in the Bible, no matter how insignificant. For the more reasonable Christians who openly admit that sure, they’re ancient documents, there’s the occasional slip-up, but nothing major that affects doctrine, their intellectual honesty is refreshing, but it begs the question, can God’s divine revelation be anything less than perfect? When God sends a final text for all of mankind, shouldn’t it be held to the same standards of holiness and perfection as He himself? Others maintain that as God’s Word incarnate, Jesus himself was the final revelation, and it’s his person that matters, not the text. Yet the text is all we have of him today, and if it contradicts itself, if it can’t be trusted to deliver the truth about the small events, how can we trust its claims about matters as weighty as death and resurrection?

Did Paul Know he was Writing Scripture?

Posted on by 15 comments

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

James White concedes that Paul had no idea that his words would eventually become to be seen and believed to be scripture. He says and I quote, “No, I don’t think Paul had to, be able to go when he was done writing Romans and he goes ooh, I definitely felt that one, it’s going into the canon“. Therefore according to James White, he merely repeats what Islamic scholarship has been saying for centuries, if Paul did not consider his own work to be scripture, why should we? Check out the video as assembled by Br. Muslim By Choice that takes James White to task over his contradicting position:

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

All Christians will Enter Hell – Bible

Posted on by Leave a comment

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Following from Part 1, where I refuted Sam Shamoun’s errant claim, we now look to the Bible where it pronounces that all Christians will be  punished by the fire. The final judgement as recorded in the Book of Deuteronomy states [1]:

New International Version (©1984)
For a fire has been kindled by my wrath, one that burns to the realm of death below. It will devour the earth and its harvests and set afire the foundations of the mountains.

New Living Translation (©2007)
For my anger blazes forth like fire and burns to the depths of the grave. It devours the earth and all its crops and ignites the foundations of the mountains.

English Standard Version (©2001)
For a fire is kindled by my anger, and it burns to the depths of Sheol, devours the earth and its increase, and sets on fire the foundations of the mountains.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
For a fire is kindled in My anger, And burns to the lowest part of Sheol, And consumes the earth with its yield, And sets on fire the foundations of the mountains.

Holman Christian Standard Bible (©2009)
For fire has been kindled because of My anger and burns to the depths of Sheol; it devours the land and its produce, and scorches the foundations of the mountains.”

International Standard Version (©2012)
For a fire breaks out in my anger— burning to the deepest part of the afterlife, consuming the earth and its produce and igniting the foundations of the mountains.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.

GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
My anger has started a fire that will burn to the depths of hell. It will consume the earth and its crops and set the foundations of the mountains on fire.

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
For a fire is kindled in my anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with its increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.

American King James Version
For a fire is kindled in my anger, and shall burn to the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.

American Standard Version
For a fire is kindled in mine anger, And burneth unto the lowest Sheol, And devoureth the earth with its increase, And setteth on fire the foundations of the mountains.

Douay-Rheims Bible
A fire is kindled in my wrath, and shall burn even to the lowest hell: and shall devour the earth with her increase, and shall burn the foundations of the mountains.

Darby Bible Translation
For a fire is kindled in mine anger, And it shall burn into the lowest Sheol, And shall consume the earth and its produce, And set fire to the foundations of the mountains.

English Revised Version
For a fire is kindled in mine anger, And burneth unto the lowest pit, And devoureth the earth with her increase, And setteth on fire the foundations of the mountains.

Webster’s Bible Translation
For a fire is kindled in my anger, and shall burn to the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.

World English Bible
For a fire is kindled in my anger, Burns to the lowest Sheol, Devours the earth with its increase, and sets the foundations of the mountains on fire.

Young’s Literal Translation
For a fire hath been kindled in Mine anger, And it burneth unto Sheol — the lowest, And consumeth earth and its increase, And setteth on fire foundations of mountains.

From this we, gather the following:

  • In the final judgement when the nations are gathered, God will unleash his fury.
  • His fury/ wrath/ anger will cause a fire.
  • This fire will burn so intensely that it would set fire to the foundations of mountains.
  • This fire will burn so intensely that it would extend unto the lowest level of hell (Sheol).
  • This devastating fire, kindled by God’s anger/ wrath/ fury will consume the entire earth.

The commentaries on this verse claim that it is to be on the day when all nations will be gathered for judgement:

The fire of God’s anger shall consume them, Deuteronomy 32:22. Are they proud of their plenty? It shall burn up the increase of the earth. Are they confident of their strength? It shall destroy the very foundations of their mountains: there is no fence against the judgments of God when they come with commission to lay all waste. It shall burn to the lowest hell, that is, it shall bring them to the very depth of misery in this world, which yet would be but a faint resemblance of the complete and endless misery of sinners in the other world. The damnation of hell (as our Saviour calls it) is the fire of God’s anger, fastening upon the guilty conscience of a sinner, to its inexpressible and everlasting torment, Isaiah 30:33. – [2]

For a fire is kindled in mine anger, And burneth unto the lowest Sheol, And devoureth the earth with its increase, And setteth on fire the foundations of the mountains. We are disappointed that none of the commentaries we have consulted gets the point of these words at all. Here is a glimpse of the eschatological conclusion that shall at the last day terminate God’s toleration of the rebellious race of Adam. See Zeph. 1:2-3. Keil agreed that we do not have hyperbole here and that the judgment foretold cannot be restricted To the Israelite nation only, but he then limited the fire which is here said to extend even to the foundations of the mountains, stating that, The fire signifies really nothing else than God’s jealousy. To us it appears impossible to accept such an understanding of this passage. The mention of Sheol here, the place of the dead, indicates that the living and the dead alike shall participate in that final judgment. – [3]

and shall burn unto the lowest hell; which denotes an entire destruction, like that of the burning of Sodom and Gomorrah with fire and brimstone from heaven; which issued in a sulphurous lake, and which sulphureous matter sunk to the bottom of the Dead Sea; and to that destruction is this of the land of Judea compared, Deuteronomy 29:23. – [4]

A fire is kindled – Great and grievous judgments shall be inflicted, which often come under the name of fire. Are they proud of their plenty? It shall burn up the increase of the earth. Are they confident of their strength? It shall destroy the very foundations of the mountains. It shall burn unto the lowest hell: it shall bring them to the very depth of misery in this world, which yet will he but a faint resemblance of their endless misery in the next. – [5]

As the above commentaries demonstrate, everyone on earth will face this fury of God’s wrath [2a][6].There are many other verses which explicitly mention what will happen in correlation to the verse in Deuteronomy thus establishing this as a worldwide literal punishment, we read in Zephaniah 3 [6], something similar:

 Therefore wait for me,” declares the LORD, “for the day I will stand up to testify. I have decided to assemble the nations, to gather the kingdoms and to pour out my wrath on them— all my fierce anger. The whole world will be consumed by the fire of my jealous anger.

The commentaries say of this verse:

Despite the fact of Deane and other respected commentators understanding this verse as a prophecy of the nations “being converted” unto God, it appears to us that the verse must refer to the eternal judgment. “All the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy” could hardly apply to anything else. See chapter introduction for the manner in which this verse actually ties the preceding and succeeding paragraphs together. The great theme of Zephaniah is the judgment; and the doom of Jerusalem for their sins soon to executed upon them by the power of Assyria prompted this reference to the final judgment, of which Jerusalem’s judgment, like all similar judgments, was a pledge and token….The gathering of this passage is a harvesting of the earth, the execution of the final judgment upon all men….This is parallel with the gathering of the nations, the purpose for which is stated in the next clause, that I may pour upon them my indignation….It is noteworthy that John D. W. Watts unequivocally assigned this verse eight to the final judgment. “The scene returns to the universal judgment with which the book began.”  – [7]

Then all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of his jealousy; both Jews and Gentiles shall be reckoned with for their enmity to the gospel. Principalities and powers shall be spoiled, and made a show of openly,and the victorious Redeemer shall triumph over them. – [8]

The outpouring of all God’s wrath, the devouring of the whole earth, in the fullest sense of the words, belongs to the end of the world, when He shall say to the wicked, “Depart from Me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire.” In lesser degrees, and less fully, the substance of the prophecy has again and again been fulfilled to the Jewish Church before Christ, at Babylon and under the Maccabees; and to the Christian, as when the Muslims hemmed in Christendom on all sides, and the waves of their conquests on the east and west threatened to meet, overwhelming Christendom. The Church, having sinned, had to “wait” for a while “for God” who by His Providence withdrew Himself, yet at last delivered it. – [9]

Devoured – Consumed as if burnt up. – [10]

The New Testament itself also explicitly mentions that Christians will be burnt as a test of their faith, we read in the Pastorial of Peter [11]:

“These have come so that your faith–of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire–may be proved genuine and may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed.”

This is something which the New Testament scholars also confirm [12]:

“though-“which perisheth, YET is tried with fire.” If gold, though perishing (1Pe 1:18), is yet tried with fire in order to remove dross and test its genuineness, how much more does your faith, which shall never perish, need to pass through a fiery trial to remove whatever is defective, and to test its genuineness and full value?”

We’re not done there, Paul himself continues this trend of a fiery punishment for Christians as a test of their faith, we read in 1st Corinthians the following [13]:

“his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man’s work.”

Barne’s Notes on the Bible says of this verse [14]:

“Because it shall be revealed by fire – The work, the edifice which shall be built on the true foundation shall be made known amidst the fire of the great Day. The “fire” which is here referred to, is doubtless that which shall attend the consummation of all things – the close of the world. That the world shall be destroyed by fire, and that the solemnities of the Judgment shall be ushered in by a universal conflagration, is fully and frequently revealed. See Isaiah 66:15; 2 Thessalonians 1:8; 2 Peter 3:7, 2 Peter 3:10-11. The burning fires of that Day, Paul says, shall reveal the character of every man’s work, as fire sheds light on all around, and discloses the true nature of things. It may be observed, however, that many critics suppose this to refer to the fire of persecution, etc. Macknight. Whitby supposes that the apostle refers to the approaching destruction of Jerusalem. Others, as Grotius, Rosenmuller, etc. suppose that the reference is to “time” in general; it shall be declared ere long; it shall be seen whether those things which are built on the true foundation, are true by the test of time, etc. But the most natural interpretation is that which refers it to the Day of Judgment.”

“It is not to be supposed here that the material fire of the last Day shall have any tendency to purify the soul, or to remove that which is unsound; but that the investigations and trials of the Judgment shall remove all that is evil, as fire acts with reference to gold and silver. As they are not burned but purified; as they pass unhurt through the intense heat of the furnace, so shall all that is genuine pass through the trials of the last great Day, of which trials the burning world shall be the antecedent and the emblem. That great Day shall show what is genuine and what is not.”

Similarly, the People’s New Testament says [15]:

“Because it shall be revealed by fire. As fire destroys wood, hay, stubble, but leaves gold, silver, precious stones (see 1Co 3:12), so the work of some builders, when tested, will vanish. They do not do solid work.”

Wesley’s Notes on this passage says [16]:

“And therefore it is added, he who builds wood, hay, or stubble, shall be saved as through the fire – Or, as narrowly as a man escapes through the fire, when his house is all in flames about him. This text, then, is so far from establishing the Romish purgatory, that it utterly overthrows it. For the fire here mentioned does not exist till the day of judgment: therefore, if this be the fire of purgatory, it follows that purgatory does not exist before the day of judgment.”

Unfortunately for the Christians who claim that the Qur’aan states that all Muslims will be burned by the fires of hell, the New Testament and Old Testament jointly claim that Christians and non-Christians would be tested by fire, purified by the fire, enter into the fire of purgatory, will be judged by the fire of the Last Day also known as Judgement day. Thus the Christians at Answering Islam, particularly the joker titled Sam Shamoun is a clear Biblical apostate as he denies these verses and their clear meanings as countless Christian theologians have stated throughout the centuries. Thus in conclusion, it is a Biblical belief – which no Bible believing Christian can deny that all Christians will be purified and judged by the fires of the Last Day/ Judgement Day/ Purgatory.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

 

Notes:

[1] – Deuteronomy 32:22, Bible.
[2] – “Deuteronomy 32:22“, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible. See note 2a.

[2 – a] Some commentators believe that the place of final gathering is Jerusalem in Judea, they reference Zechariah 12:3 for this when all the nations of the earth will be gathered. Some commentators also believe it to be figurative, however as Coffman and others indicate, see [7], it is impossible to have a proper understanding with such an interpretation, he does not consider it to be a hyperbole (figure of speech), but as being a literal final judgement, see [3]. Some like Wesley see it as an example of what they will face in the afterlife, see [5]. The fact that this is literal is given in Zephaniah 3, see [6].

[3] – “Deuteronomy 32:22“, John Burton Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament. See note 2a.
[4] – “Deuteronomy 32:22“, John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible. See note 2a.
[5] – “Deuteronomy 32:22“, Wesley’s Notes. See note 2a.
[6] – Zephaniah 3:8, Bible.
[7] – “Zephaniah 3:8“, John Burton Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament.
[8] – “Zephaniah 3:8“, Matthew Henry’s Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible.
[9] – “Zephaniah 3:8“, Barne’s Notes on the New Testament.
[10] – “Zephaniah 3:8“, John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible.
[11] – 1 Peter 1:7, Bible.
[12] – “1 Peter 1:7“, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary.
[13] – 1 Corinthians 3:13, Bible.
[14] – “1 Corinthians 3:13“, Barne’s Notes on the New Testament.
[15] – “1 Corinthians 3:13“, People’s New Testament.
[16] – “1 Corinthians 3:13“, Wesley’s Notes.

 

 

Refutation: Refuting Shabir Ally on the Preservation of the Bible

Posted on by One comment

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

In a recent showing of, ‘The Jesus or Muhammad Show‘ (there’s no either or, we love and follow both as Muslims), David Wood and Pastor Joseph tried very comically to demonstrate that the Qur’an validates the Bible. As a Muslim who is familiar with Christian deception and missionary work, within 1 minute and 41 seconds I had no choice but to feel embarrassed for the show’s hosts who were clearly arguing beyond their means. They quoted the Qur’an which says:

“Say, “We have believed in Allah and in what was revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Descendants, and in what was given to Moses and Jesus and to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and we are Muslims [submitting] to Him.” – Qur’aan 3:84.

Here’s a quick question for the self proclaimed ‘Pastor’ and the Muslim phobic David Wood, the very verse you used states that a scripture was given to Jesus. This is what we believe, that a scripture was given to Jesus, not in a ‘scripture’ which was authored decades later which eventually through the Ecumenical Council of Carthage in 397 CE was deemed to be ‘scripture’. They progressed to mention (without evidence) that the Qur’an does the following:

  • Confirms the Inspiration of the Bible.
  • Denies the Preservation of the Bible.
  • Denies the Authority of the Bible.

The problem with this is that the Qur’an actually:

  • Confirms the Inspiration of the Injil to Jesus.
  • Confirms that God’s word is not changed but that men wrote other words and then claimed it to be God’s (2:79).
  • Confirms the Authority of the Inspired Scripture revealed to Jesus known as the Injil.

They confused themselves by thinking that what the verse speaks of is the New Testament, but no Christian in his right mind (for David and his Pastor could be differently minded) believes that the New Testament originated with Jesus and was sent to Jesus from God in a complete rendition. Therefore Muslims and Christians are referring to two distinct scriptures where one originates with Christ and where one is alluded to Christ decades after by unknown scribes with unknown authority. As for when we say we make no distinction between the scriptures, we mean that we do not distinguish between God’s revelations. Since Christians confirm that the New Testament did not originate during Christ’s time, then it is an explicit acknowledgement that it is not what Allaah revealed to Christ, thus we can distinguish it as non-canonical ‘scripture’ to Muslims and as a consequence, it cannot be considered to be inspired by Allaah.

They then went on to quote the following ayats:

“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. 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.” – Qur’an 3:3-4.

David then said that we believe in the inspiration, but not the preservation or authority of the New Testament due to the above verse. The problem with this egregious thinking as I outlined above is that we Muslims make a distinction to what was physically in Jesus’ hand as a scripture, versus something written decades after and validated only in 4th century CE. Therefore we affirm God’s inspiration of scripture, preservation of scripture and authority, we however do not affirm that God inspired the New Testament which did not exist at Jesus’ time. David then presents what he claims to be the ‘Muslim reasoning’:

  1. The Qur’aan confirms the inspiration of the Christian scriptures.
  2. Muslims open the Bible, realise it doesn’t line up with the Qur’aan and then claim corruption.

Let me correct David’s infantile simplification, rather we believe:

  1. The Qur’aan confirms the inspiration and revelation of a scripture given to Christ Jesus.
  2. The Qur’aan does not confirm the inspiration of a scripture written decades after Jesus and validated in a 4th century Catholic Council.

After all, David himself knows that he cannot validate his claims without first and foremost, significantly misrepresenting the Muslim position, how else would he make money? In further deluding himself, he references another ayah of the Qur’aan:

“Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel, who enjoins upon them what is right and forbids them what is wrong and makes lawful for them the good things and prohibits for them the evil and relieves them of their burden and the shackles which were upon them. So they who have believed in him, honored him, supported him and followed the light which was sent down with him – it is those who will be the successful.” – Qur’aan 7:157.

David’s argument is that this verse refers to the Christians and Jews of Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) time and it implies that the current Bible is what would have existed at that time. The problem with this thinking is that not all Christians at his time, nor all Jews would follow the same Soteriology, Christology or scripture.  For David to claim that the same ‘scripture’ was used by Arabian Jews and Christians, would have to mean that he has some explicit, empirical evidence for what the Christians and Jews in Arabia would have used as scripture. Since he does not, then he is simply appealing to wishful thinking. A simple example from before Jesus’ time and sometime after, would be the scrolls of the Jerusalem Jews versus that of the Essenes in Qumran. Both are Jews, but the Essenes had a radically different corpus of scrolls such as the War Scroll, the Community Rule, the Rule of Blessing and the Pesher on Habbakuk. We also know that Christians themselves had different canons and codices, one of the easiest examples is the 7 Deutero-canonical books of the Catholics. Therefore, who is to say that all Christians and Jews had the same scripture? This is wishful thinking and not based on scholarly research or study. They then progressed to another verse which reads:

“So if (فَإِن) you are in doubt, [O Muhammad], about that which We have revealed to you, then ask those who have been reading the Scripture before you. The truth has certainly come to you from your Lord, so never be among the doubters.” – Qur’aan 10:94.

David begins his rabid diatribe by claiming that Muhammad (peace be upon is having doubts), the problem with this is that David’s Church has not taught him how to read properly. The verse begins with saying “So if“, thus, it is not a declaration of doubt, rather it is a choice, an option. For example what if I said:

“If David was sexually abused by Pastor Joseph…”

Does this mean I am claiming with absolute certainty that David was sexually abused? According to David, the answer to this would be yes. Since this is the case, I personally am taking this opportunity to implore David to take up a reading and comprehension course at any vocational school, as his Church study seems to have rendered him deficient in the mind. David goes on to present a false dichotomy, he says there are only two views, either the revelation of the Christ has been corrupted or it hasn’t. Well it’s neither of those options as the Qur’aan in 10:94 is not referring to what was written by unknown Greek men decades after Jesus, but what was given to Jesus himself. Therefore David’s dichotomy is both irrelevant and nonsensical.

David then switches gears to claim once again that when the Qur’aan refers to the Torah and Injil (Gospel), that it is referring to the present Christian and Jewish writings, as a consequence the Jewish Bible and the Christian New Testament have therefore, never been altered. He used the following quote to ‘validate’ his claim:

“And recite, [O Muhammad], what has been revealed to you of the Book of your Lord. There is no changer of His words, and never will you find in other than Him a refuge.” – Qur’aan 18:27.

To correct David, the verse is not referring to the Jewish Old Testament written some 3000 years after Moses as is presented in the current oldest codex known as the Qumran scrolls as written by the Essenes, nor is it referring to the earliest Christian codices as is presented in Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, some 4 centuries after Christ. Rather, as I have said before and as I would say again, this verse is speaking in relation to the books revealed directly to Moses and Jesus the Christ, not to the renditions of ‘scripture’ presented to us, yet are dated to be centuries after both personalities. He went on to mention one of Sam’s argument where the Qur’aan mentions ‘what is between his hands‘, Christians fondly misinterpret this to mean it is referring to the previous scriptures:

And We descended to you The Book with the truth, confirming to WHAT (IS) BETWEEN HIS HANDS from The Book (musaddiqan lima bayna yadayhi)

Initially the ayat says that Allaah sent a book to Muhammad {saw}, a revelation. This revelation is confirming what is between Muhammad’s {saw} hands [The Qur’aan] from the previous revelation [Injil]. Since David is a bit dense, I shall break this down step by step for him:

(1) Allaah says He revealed scripture to Muhammad {saw}.
(2) He says this scripture, that He has revealed which Muhammad {saw} has (presently) in his hands (possession – the Qur’aan) confirms the previous scripture.
(3) The previous scripture’s message is confirmed in what is in Muhammad’s {saw} book now, (1) – the Qur’aan.

Notice his provided translation says what is between his hands from the book. The ayat presents the case of two books being revealed, but one is presently in the hands of Muhammad {saw} and that is the one Allaah has revealed. This book presently in Muhammad’s {saw} hands confirm what was from the book, previously revealed. Let’s see what Shaykh Rafi Uthmani [db] had to say on this ayat:

In the fifth (48) and sixth (49) verse, the address is to the Holy Prophet Muhammad {saw} saying that to him Allaah has revealed the Qur’aan which confirms the Torah and Injil, Books previous to it, and is their custodian as well. This is because, after the people of the Torah altered the Torah and the people of the Injil made changes in the Injil, it was the Qur’an alone which turned out to be the overseer and protector which exposed the alterations made by them, lit up truth and reality in their proper persepctive. Even today, the true teachings of the Torah and Injil still survive through the Qur’aan, while those who inherited them and those who claim to follow them have disfigured them to the extent that it has become impossible to distinguish truth from untruth. – Tafsir Maar’iful Qur’aan, Mufti Rafi Uthman, page 181.

To make sense of David’s argument, if we take his understanding into consideration we get the following:

(1) Allaah has revealed a book to Muhammad {saw}.
(2) Forget (1) for now.
(3) The book in your hands, which is not (1) confirms…
(4) What was from another book previously revealed.

So then, the question begs itself, if it’s confirming a previous scripture (لِمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ – that which preceded it), then what currently is in Muhammad’s {saw} hands? What is in his hands now that’s confirming the previous revelation? David is saying the answer to this, is the previous revelation. If that makes no senseto you, as much as it does to us, then we’re on the right track. How exactly can the verse be saying that God has presently sent confirmation and that the confirmation He has sent is currently in Muhammad’s {saw} hands but the confirmation is the previous scripture, not the scripture God currently revealed to Muhammad {saw}? That leads us into a circular argument, more academically, to the fallacy of circular thinking:

David is saying the previous revelation is the book in Muhammad’s {saw} hands and it refers to itself as a previous revelation being confirmed by God.

How exactly David, is the previous revelation referring to itself as “previous”, shouldn’t it be…..current? Shouldn’t it, logically speaking, refer to itself as the current revelation to make complete sense of the ayat? Essentially, his argument is based upon a world play upon the word study fallacy and does not it into the context of the ayat (verse). The explanation which he proposes ignores rational thought, edifies non-sequitur arguments, i.e. it does not logically follow through, to be true. They then progressed to another misinterpreted verse:

“And let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient.” – Qur’aan 5:47.

This once again needs to be contextualised with the verse directly preceding it, which reads:

“And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous.” – Qur’aan 5:46.

The Qur’aan is telling the Christians to follow the law as given to Jesus. Not to follow a corpus of writings originating decades after the man himself. In addition to this, what did Allaah ask them to judge by? What judgement was He referring to? In the verse directly preceding the aforementioned verses we are told what exactly it is, He was commanding the people of the Gospel to judge by what Allaah revealed and not to judge by their whims and fancies, in reference to the law of Qisas:

“And We ordained for them therein a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and for wounds is legal retribution. But whoever gives [up his right as] charity, it is an expiation for him. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – then it is those who are the wrongdoers.” – Qur’aan 5:45.

If David wanted to be honest, and if he wanted to present an accurate study of what the verse was saying, then all he had to do was read the verses directly preceding the one he quoted (5:47), rather he isolated a verse and wholly misrepresented it to delude himself and the 5 people that tune in to watch his ranting and raving.  David and Pastor Joseph then stated the following:

  • We have the text that was before Muhammad (peace be upon him), during his time and the text which was after him, thus 5:47 must be referring to the Bible we as Christians have today.

The problem with this, is that the Qur’aan in 5:47 tells the Christians to judge by what God revealed and then God mentioned what He revealed in 5:46 and 5:45, which was the law of Qisas. Since this is the case, for the New Testament to be what 5:47 was referring to, then it must contain the law of Qisas as is found in 5:45, since it does not and by using the logical law methodology of proof by contradiction, the New Testament cannot be considered to be what 5:47 was referring to. A simple counter example would be to ask David and Pastor Joseph if 2 Timothy 3:16 includes in its intended scope the 7 Deutero-canonical books of the Catholics and the Community Scroll of the Essenes. If not, then David and Joseph are not being honest and fair with their interpretation and study of the Qur’aanic ayat and have thus conceded to abusing the true meaning of the verses presented.

Lastly, David runs to misinterpret another verse in a mad dash to establish some credibility in hopes of conveying his perverse message:

“Say, “O People of the Scripture, you are [standing] on nothing until you uphold [the law of] the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to you from your Lord.” And that which has been revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase many of them in transgression and disbelief. So do not grieve over the disbelieving people.” – Qur’aan 5:68.

This ayah in particular follows the same formula as the one above, we must read the preceding verse which states:

“O Messenger, announce that which has been revealed to you from your Lord, and if you do not, then you have not conveyed His message. And Allah will protect you from the people. Indeed, Allah does not guide the disbelieving people.” – Qur’aan 5:67.

Verse 68 is commanding Jews and Christians to follow the Torah and the Gospel by following what was revealed to Muhammad (peace be upon him)! The verse is simply saying that if the Christians and the Jews who want to uphold the Torah and the Gospel, then they can only do so by following the Qur’aan. This verse does not validate the Bible as the Christians and Jews developed after Moses and Jesus respectively. Rather it is referring to the scriptures given to Moses and Jesus directly and since both Christians and Jews do not possess any of the above, it is therefore wishful thinking and confirmation bias to read into the Qur’aan their rendition of scripture, as opposed to what those two great and mighty Prophets of Allaah possessed.

In some parting advice for David and Joseph, in as much as you want to pervert the Qur’aan with your inane rants, know that us Muslims are far more educated in what you hope to use against us and that any arguments you can bring forth can be easily dismissed and corrected.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Refutation: How can Jesus be God, when he calls the Father the only true God?

Posted on by 8 comments

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Question:

Jesus himself admitted that the Father is the only true God. Since Trinitarians believe that the Father and the Son are distinct Persons, that they are not the same Person, wouldn’t this prove that Jesus denied that he was God?

Answer:

Once again, the wheels of Shamounian Logic have been rolling and here we are analysing another one of his mishaps. Sam’s answer to this question is to begin by denying that the question has any validity, as per his modus operandi the questioner is always a Unitarian or Muslim with ulterior motives. He quotes  John 17:1-5, 8, 10-11, 20-26 which reads (note: emphasis is his):

“After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: ‘Father, the time has come. Glorify YOUR SON, that YOUR SON may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people THAT HE MIGHT GIVE ETERNAL LIFE TO ALL THOSE YOU HAVE GIVEN HIM. Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I HAD WITH YOU BEFORE THE WORLD BEGAN … For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me … All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come TO ME through them. I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name – the name you gave me – so that they may be one as we are one … My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be IN US so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I IN THEM and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me BECAUSE YOU LOVED ME BEFORE THE CREATION OF THE WORLD. Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them AND THAT I MYSELF MAY BE IN THEM.’”

Then he derives this list of conclusions from the passages:

  1. Jesus is God’s Son.
  2. Jesus gives eternal life to all that God gives him, which is a claim to being absolute Deity since only God can give eternal life.
  3. Jesus existed in glory with the Father even before the world was created.
  4. Jesus demands to be glorified by God, something which no mere creature could ever demand.
  5. Jesus states that everything that the Father has belongs to him, which makes him the heir of everything that exists.
  6. Jesus indwells all the believers, an indication that Christ is omnipresent and therefore God since God alone is omnipresent.
  7. Jesus is the object of the Father’s love even before the creation of the world.

To the contrary, his list is erratic, he reads meanings into words and verses that do not present the conclusions he’s arrived at (big surprise there) and they clearly don’t answer the questions at hand. If the Father is the only true God according to Christ, why is Sam trying to disprove Christ’s claim and make Christ into a deity? Let’s analyze Sam’s conclusions and debunk them one by one:

  1. The word son is used throughout the Old Testament and is not unique to Christ. See Exodus 4:22, Jeremiah 31:9 and Psalm 2:7. According to Galatians 3:26, we are all God’s son. Thus according to Shamounian Logic, we are all Gods once God calls us His son.
  2. Christ gave eternal life by being an authority over the people, as the verse clearly says. When we read John 5:30-31, we understand that his authority was as a  judge to the people and that he guided them with religious edicts. Hence this does not make him a God, but an authority operating under God’s will.
  3. God gloried Christ before the world began, just as in Ephesians 1:4, God chose all of mankind to be holy and blameless in His sight. Sam uses this verse to emphasize the ‘before the world began’ mantra of Christians, but this is also applied to all humans in the aforementioned verse and is thus not unique to Christ.
  4. Jesus explains in John 16:14 that he is glorified because he leads people to glorify God, he doesn’t demand it, rather God glorifies him because of his mission.
  5. Nowhere does Jesus state that everything which belongs to the Father belongs to him, Sam’s just making stuff up.
  6. According to the verse Sam quotes to reach this conclusion, the believers also dwell in Christ and God, thus if Sam is to be rational, if Jesus being in God makes him a deity, then the believers dwelling in God also make them deities.
  7. We are all an object of God’s love before the creation of the world, see point 3 and Ephesians 1:4.

Now, I’m not sure if Sam noticed this, but he’s found himself in a bundle, he says and I quote:

Thus, the context makes it clear that Jesus’ statement about the Father being the only true God in no way was meant to deny that Christ is God as well, since he goes on to make claims that only God could make.

There exists a significant contradiction in Sam’s statement. Christ explicitly states that the Father is the only true God. The word ‘only’ is of great importance as it denotes singularity and not plurality. Sadly, Sam Shamoun then contradicts Jesus by saying even though Christ says that their is only one true God, that Christ has lied and also claims to be a God. Therefore, Sam is claiming several notions:

  1. That Christ does not understand what the word ‘only’ means and thus is not all knowing and cannot be God.
  2. That Christ lied and therefore is not ‘The Truth” and therefore cannot be God.
  3. That Sam himself is lying about Christ and YHWH and is thus a deceiver.

Considering our options, whichever way we look to interpret Sam’s mendacious and heretical view, of Christ and YHWH, he crucifies himself by accepting that Christ implores him to follow the one deity known as the Father. It’s also important to point out that Christ never makes a Godly claim of himself, as indicated in my article: Non Compos Mentis, therefore when Sam says that Christ made statements only a deity can make, I’m still looking for such unique words which have yet to be demonstrated. Sam then goes on to claim the following:

– The Trinity is the only true God.
– Each specific member of the Trinity is the only true God.
– Therefore, the members of the Trinity are the only true God, whether individually or collectively.

The problem with these assumptions is that they are not stated in the Old or New Testament. Christ himself does not say that the Trinity is the only true God, he says the Father is the only true God. What Sam has done is called scriptural emendation, where he has emendated or altered the text to prove his bias notion. This is a sign of a desperate man. Christ never mentions the Trinity, or a Godhead or that each member of a Trinity is a Deity. I call upon Sam Shamoun to bring forth one statement of Jesus the Christ which says this! Since Sam’s two previous premises are false, then it logically follows that his conclusion is false.

Sam then appealed to Hebrews 1 to prove Christ’s deity, which have debunked indepth here: Does God Call Jesus God? Hebrews 1:8-12.

He continues by stating:

The same Scriptures teach that Jesus is the only sovereign Master and Lord:

“For admission has been secretly gained by some who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly persons who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master (δεσπότης) and Lord (κύριος), Jesus Christ.” Jude 1:4

The problem with this text is that Master does not denote a deity, otherwise we are all deities according to the use of the same word in Titus 2:9, which reads:

Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters (δεσπότης), and to please them well in all things; not answering again;

Similarly, the word Lord (κύριος) as is used in the Greek also does not denote a deity, it’s a title of honour and respect:

Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord (κύριος): whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement. – 1 Peter 3:6.

Therefore, none of the verses Sam Shamoun has referenced declares Jesus to be a deity as both terms are titles used to describe men and are titles of men. Sam then sought to embarrass himself by stating the following:

In fact, a careful reading of John 17:3 helps to further confirm that Jesus wasn’t denying his absolute Deity:

“And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, AND (kai) Jesus Christ whom you have sent.”

The Lord Jesus, by using the Greek conjunction kai in his prayer, makes himself the necessary object of the knowledge that leads to eternal life. In other words, Jesus basically made himself a coequal partner with God by claiming that eternal life is dependent on knowing both the Father and the Son.

To correct Sam, the verse is rendered as such: “And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God and Jesus the Christ whom you have sent.”

Without appealing to Christians who already believe Jesus to be God, by reading the verse we see a distinction between God and the Christ, for the verse describes God as the only true God. Only denotes uniqueness and singularity, whereas ‘and Jesus the Christ‘, denotes Jesus as distinct from the God as is described as “the Christ whom you (God) have sent“. Therefore the verse by using ‘and’ distinguishes the Christ from the God, by denoting the Jesus as one sent by God. Similarly, Jesus was not made co-equal to God by claiming eternal life is dependent on knowing both Christ and God, for Christ was the one sent to teach the people about eternal life:

“Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?” – Matthew 19:16.

Christ was therefore, tied to the knowledge of eternal life, for he was the teacher as sent by God to teach the people how to attain eternal life as the Gospels themselves state. There is no need to go beyond the Gospel itself and demonstrate what scholars say as that is man’s interpretation of the text, whereas the scripture itself explains in what way Jesus was tied to ‘eternal life’, i.e. his role of teaching how to attain it. This is the first rule in scriptural exegesis, something which Sam’s sect follows, known as ‘sola scriptura’, the rule is laid out as ‘interpret scripture with scripture firstly‘.

Lastly, Sam appealed to the Gospel of John to demonstrate some quotes were Jesus is mentioned as the ‘saviour of the world‘, being a saviour entails simply ‘saving’ a person or people and there were many saviours before the Christ:

“In the twenty-third year of Joash the son of Ahaziah, king of Judah, Jehoahaz the son of Jehu became king over Israel in Samaria, reigning seventeen years. But he did evil in the eyes of Yahweh, and he went after the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat with which he had caused Israel to sin, and he did not depart from it. So the anger of Yahweh was kindled against Israel, and he gave them into the hand of Hazael king of Aram and into the hand of Ben-Hadad the son of Hazael repeatedly. Then Jehoahaz entreated Yahweh, and Yahweh listened to him, for he saw the oppression of Israel, because the king of Aram oppressed them. Yahweh gave Israel a savior, and they went out from under the hand of Aram. So the Israelites lived in their tents as formerly.” – 2 Kings 13:1-5.

““But they rebelled and were rebellious against you and cast your law[l] behind their back and killed your prophets, who had warned them to turn back to you, and they did great blasphemies. 27 Therefore you gave them into the hand of their enemy, and they brought trouble to them. Then in the time of their trouble they cried out to you, and you heard from the heavens, and according to your great compassions, you gave them saviors, and you saved them from the hand of their enemies. 28 But when they had rest they returned to doing evil before you, and you abandoned them in the hand of their enemies, and they ruled over them. Then they returned and cried out to you, and from the heavens you heard and many times rescued them according to your compassions. ” – Nehemiah 9:26-28.

A saviour does not have to be a God, but merely one who ‘saves’. Seeing as YHWH sent many saviours before, then this title does not imply deity in the least. In conclusion, despite what shenanigans Sam tries, he cannot escape from the fact that Christ refers to the Father as the only true God. The word ‘only‘ is defined as:

on·ly

adj.

1. Alone in kind or class; sole: an only child; the only one left.
2. Standing alone by reason of superiority or excellence.


adv.

1. Without anyone or anything else; alone: room for only one passenger.

Sorry Sam, but it seems as though you’ve found yourself in a precarious situation, the word only is a singular term, referring to something which is alone, sole or unique, it does not indicate plurality in any sense. To imply otherwise would be a gross perversion of the English language and a perverse violation of the text itself.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Scholar Relates Gospel Traditions to the “Telephone” Game!

Posted on by Leave a comment

Question Mark

Speaking candidly on the historicity of the gospel traditions, especially its transmission, New Testament Scholar Bart Ehrman makes the following intriguing comparison:

“You are probably familiar with the old birthday party game “telephone.” A group of kids sits in a circle, the first tells a brief story to the one sitting next to her, who tells it to the next, and to the next, and so on, until it comes back full circle to the one who started it. Invariably, the story has changed so much in the process of retelling that everyone gets a good laugh. Imagine this same activity taking place, not in a solitary living room with ten kids on one afternoon, but over the expanse of the Roman Empire (some 2,500 miles across), with thousands of participants – from different backgrounds, with different concerns, and in different contexts – some of whom have to translate the stories into different languages. The situation, in fact, was even more complicated than that.” (The New Testament – A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, Chapter 3, Where it All Began: The Traditions of Jesus in Their Greco-Roman Context, p.44)

One of the very reasons why Qur’an had to be revealed with narrations of Jesus (peace be upon him) in it was because, as evident from above, the actual revelations given to or the words uttered by Jesus (peace be upon him) were lost in their transmission. With this the actual message of Christ (peace be upon him) was also lost. As on mere conjectures eternal fates could not be banked, the final Messenger (peace be upon him) was given divine glimpses of the life of Jesus (peace be upon him).

We also need to make a healthy parallel comparison of the transmission of Gospel traditions to that of Qur’an and Hadith. It was an extremely imperative, prudent and monumental task undertaken by Muslim scholars to protect the chain of transmission of Qur’an and Sunnah in the form of “Isnads”.

We have detailed biographies of all the people involved in the transmission of Islamic narratives right from the beginning. Just vicariously imagine the chaos which was circumvented by preserving transmission chains of Qur’an and Hadith – it was not let to take form of some “Telephone” game!

« Older Entries Recent Entries »