Tag Archives: Christianity

“Paedophiles are not criminals” says Catholic cardinal

Posted on by Leave a comment

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

In a shocking revelation, a Cardinal who earlier this week elected Pope Francis to the Papacy has indicated that not all Paedophiles are in fact…..criminals or responsible for their actions. The problem here is while it is understandable that some persons who are abused as children do go on to repeat these horrendous acts, shouldn’t the Church instead of justifying these acts by pinning them on psychological illnesses, not reform the Churches by not allowing psychologically ill Catholics to assume ordained positions?

“The shocking and controversial comments have caused uproar and will bring an unwelcome spotlight back to the Catholic Church’s vast history of child sexual abuse and child rape during a week when the curia had hoped for some respite from the ongoing stream of scandal. The elevation of Pope Francis, and revelations about his past, may have drawn our attention for a little while but thanks to Cardinal Napier the eyes of the world are once again squarely on his church’s repellant attitude towards child abuse and child abusers.

“What do you do with disorders?” asked Cardinal Napier.

“You have got to try and put them right. If I as a normal being choose to break the law knowing that I am breaking the law, then I think I need to be punished (but) from my experience paedophilia is actually an illness, it is not a criminal condition.”

Read the full report here or via the BBC UK.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Christians in Sudan: Child Marriages En Masse

Posted on by Leave a comment

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

 In the Christian majority nation of South Sudan, which broke away from the Muslim Shari’ah enforced Sudan, child marriages have become a religious and cultural mainstay. Despite the misconception that Islam promotes child marriages, it is not in the Muslim Shari’ah ruled Sudan that such a case of this magnitude is prevalent, but in the Christian majority South. The Digital Journal reports:

A newly released Human Rights Watch (HRW) report, entitled “This Old Man Can Feed Us, You Will Marry Him:’ Child and Forced Marriage in South Sudan,” calls on the government of South Sudan to adopt measures to protect girls from child marriage.

In a country where at least 48 percent of young girls between 15 and 19 are married, with some marrying as young as 12, child marriage further widens gender gaps in school enrollment, contributes to rampant mortality rates and prevents girls from being free from violence.

The report’s information was collected through interviews with 87 girls and women in Central Equatoria, Western Equatoria, and Jonglei states, as well as with government officials, traditional leaders, health care workers, legal experts, teachers, the United Nations and non-governmental organizations.

I wonder how the Christians who praised the Christian South from breaking away from the ‘evil’ Muslim Sudan, will now justify and excuse almost 50% of all marriages being child marriages in the country which they so wholeheartedly support! Would David Wood, Robert Spence or Sham the Shamoun highlight this issue and try to combat ‘child marriages’ among their peoples, or is it only wrong when a report of a Muslim doing it makes news?

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?

German Priests Carried Out Sexual Abuse for Years

Posted on by Leave a comment

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

A report about child sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church in Germany, based on victim accounts and released by the church this week, showed that priests carefully planned their assaults and frequently abused the same children repeatedly for years.

The report, compiled from information collected from victims and other witnesses who called a hot line run by the church from 2010 until the end of last year, includes the ages of the victims, the locations of the assaults and the repercussions they have suffered since. The accounts were provided in 8,500 calls to the hot line; they are not representative of abuse cases over all and cannot be individually verified. The church said the report contained information from 1,824 people, of whom 1,165 described themselves as victims.

Germany’s bishops have vowed a thorough and impartial investigation into the abuse. Bishop Stephan Ackermann of Trier, who is looking into abuse cases for the German Bishops’ Conference, told reporters after the report was released on Thursday that it served as an example of that intention.

– You can read the full article at the New York Times Website.

Review: Jesus the Christ, Man, God or Both? – Ijaz Ahmad vs CL Edwards

Posted on by 18 comments

Note: This is a review done by Br. Paul Bilal Williams via his website, ‘Blogging Theology‘. Br. Paul is a well established orator and debater from the United Kingdom and has studied Christianity and Islam for several years.

Jesus the Christ, Man, God or Both? – Ijaz Ahmad vs CL Edwards

A Review of the Debate by Paul Williams 

Ahmad’s opening statement threw down the gauntlet:

‘If we are to be fair and objective in our study of who the Messiah was, then we can’t work backwards, that is to start with the bias we already have and then look at the previous scriptures to justify our claims and beliefs. This is a form of revisionism.‘

He has in mind here a favourite methodology adopted by Christians: that of reading into Jewish texts their own later beliefs about Jesus. Scholars call this practice ‘eisegesis’.

Though Ahmad did not mention well known Christian apologist Dr Craig in his opening presentation, he could have called him as a witness for his defense as Dr. William Lane Craig would agree with him! Though Craig’s comments focus on Jesus’ alleged death and resurrection, they perfectly demonstrate how Christians read back into the Jewish Bible beliefs that no Jew ever held about their Messiah.

Craig writes:

‘Early Christians were convinced that Jesus’ resurrection, like his crucifixion, was, in the words of the old tradition quoted by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15. 3-5, “in accordance with the Scriptures.” In Luke’s story of Jesus’ appearance on the road to Emmaus, the risen Jesus chastises the two travelers: ” ‘Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and enter into his glory?’ And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24. 26-27).

The difficulty is that when we ask, “What Scriptures are they thinking of?”, we come up with sparse results. Hosea 6.2 ‘ “After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him” – has been suggested because it mentions the “third day” motif found in the old formula cited by Paul.

But Hosea 6.2 is never explicitly cited by any New Testament author, much less applied to Jesus’ resurrection. In the apostolic sermons in the Acts of the Apostles, we find Psalm 16.10 interpreted in terms of Jesus’ resurrection: “For thou dost not give me up to Sheol, or let thy godly one see the Pit.” But if we look at the principal Old Testament passage cited in the Gospels with respect to Jesus’ resurrection, we find the story of Jonah and the whale. “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matthew 12.40).

Now the problem for the theory in question is that nobody, especially a first century Jew, reading the story of Jonah and the whale would think that this has anything whatsoever to do with Jesus’ burial and resurrection! Similarly for Psalm 16.10; this has to do with David’s confidence that God will not allow him to see defeat and death. And as for Hosea 6.2, this has nothing to do with resurrection of the dead but with the restoration of the national fortunes of Israel.

The point is that no one who did not already have a belief in Jesus’ resurrection would find in these Scriptures any impetus to think that Jesus had been raised from the dead. To this we may add the fact that in Jewish belief the resurrection of the dead was always an event at the end of the world involving all the people, an event which obviously had not yet taken place.

Once the disciples came to believe in Jesus’ resurrection, then they could go to the Scriptures looking for verses to validate their belief and experience, and passages like Jonah and the whale and Psalm 16.10 could be re-interpreted in light of Jesus’ resurrection. But to think that the belief in Jesus’ resurrection was derived from the Old Testament is to put the cart before the horse; it gets things exactly backwards.’

***

What a stunning admission by Craig! At a stroke all those much vaunted “prophesies” in the OT about Jesus the Messiah turn out to be entirely absent from the Jewish Bible and can only be ‘discovered’ there if you artificially graft Christian beliefs onto the texts, in disregard of the original context and original meaning of the passages. But this is the standard ‘orthodox’ way Christians use the Bible to justify their beliefs.

Ahmad convincingly demonstrates that the Jewish Messiah was never considered to be divine or God at any time but was always expected to be only a man like other mortals.

Therefore the Christian belief in a Divine Messiah is unJewish and alien to the Torah. The final Prophet to mankind Muhammad (pbuh) was sent to correct these blasphemous excesses by Christians. Today 1.6 billion of his followers have learnt this lesson well.

***

A few comments on the opening statement by CL Edwards

Edwards boldly states:

After seriously studying the first century evidences concerning Christ, while being logically consistent, I had to change my position, and I now hold to the hypostatic union i.e the belief  Jesus had two natures. There is no historical proof anyone during this time held Jesus to be just a man.

He might need change his position once more as scholars have long realized that the earliest Christians did not believe Jesus was divine. Read Peter’s sermons in Acts and ask yourself did he consider Jesus to be God (see Acts 2:22 & 2:36 for example)? Read Mark’s gospel: Jesus prays to God; is ignorant about various matters; denies he is ”good”;  feels abandoned by God on the cross. Does such a man seem like God in the flesh to you?

Much of Edwards presentation is simply a list of proof texts culled from the Bible. He does not show any critical awareness of how Christology developed in the New Testament, and just how radically different Mark’s gospel is from John’s gospel in its portrayal of Jesus.

As every undergraduate in Bible studies knows, it is clear that there has been a development in the way Jesus is presented in the pages of the New Testament. Look at the earliest gospel to be written, that of Mark.

This shows us a very human figure. Here are 7 examples:

1) Jesus is a man who prays to God (1:35)

2) Jesus is unable to work miracles in his own town (6:5) – but see Matthew’s redaction of Mark in 13:57-58.

3) Jesus confesses his ignorance about the date of the End of the world (13:32).

4) Jesus did not know the identity of a woman who touched him and had to ask his   disciples for help (Mark 5:30) – but see Matthew’s redaction in 9:20-21.

5) Jesus was so irritated by the absence of figs he cursed a fig tree even though it was not the season for figs (Mark 11:14) – but see Matthew’s redaction in 21:18-22.

6) Jesus even denies that he is perfectly good (Mark 10) – but see Matthew’s redaction of Mark in 19:17.

7) Mark portrays Jesus despairing of God’s help at the crucifixion as he cries: ‘My God my God why have you abandoned me?’ (15:34) – Luke and John both omit this.

So it seems clear that in the earliest gospel Jesus does not exhibit any of the attributes of God that Jews, Christians and Muslims commonly accept: unlike God, Jesus is not all knowing; he is not omnipotent; he is not perfectly good; he is not eternal; he is notimmortal; he is not unchanging. Therefore it seems obvious that he cannot be God.

If we read the last of the four gospels to be written, the gospel of John, we move into a different world. Here Jesus seems to move effortlessly through his ministry, he is clearly portrayed as a divine figure, indeed as “God” himself.

Instead of Jesus saying in Mark’s gospel “Why do you call me good – no-one is good but God alone”, John has Jesus say: ‘Before Abraham was I am’.

In the very first chapter of the gospel according to John, the Prophet John the Baptist proclaims Jesus to be ‘The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world’ when he first meets him.  But in the earlier synoptic gospels, John the Baptist not only does not say this but half way through Jesus’ ministry sends messengers to Jesus asking “Are you the Messiah we’ve been expecting, or should we keep looking for someone else?” (Matthew 11:2)

So even this brief survey has shown the enormous evolution of the story of Jesus which occurred in less than two generations after Jesus was taken up by God.

Unlike in the earlier gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke, in John Jesus speaks with a clear awareness of his divine existence with God from before his time on earth (5.19ff and 8.12ff make this clear). But the question cannot be ducked: whether the Jesus of the fourth gospel was intended to be historical, whether Jesus of Nazareth actually spoke in the terms used by John. Were the claims about Jesus in John’s gospel already in place from the beginning of Christianity? It seems hardly likely.

Few scholars today would regard John as a source for information regarding Jesus’ life and ministry in any degree comparable to the Synoptics gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. It is worth noting briefly the reasons why scholars think this:

One is the very different picture of Jesus’ ministry, both in the order and the significance of events and the location of Jesus’ ministry. For example, the cleansing of the temple happens at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry in John but occurs at the end of Jesus’ ministry in the synoptic gospels. A clear contradiction.

Another is the striking difference in Jesus’ style of speaking – much more discursive and theological in John, in contrast to the aphoristic and parabolic style of the Synoptic gospels. Jesus’ way of speaking is the same, whether Jesus speaks to Nicodemus, or to the woman at the well, or to his disciples, and very similar to the style of John the Baptist, and indeed very similar to the 1st Letter of John. The conclusion is unavoidable that the style is that of the author of the gospel of John rather than that of Jesus himself.  

Probably most important of all, in the synoptic gospels Jesus’ main message is the Kingdom of God and he rarely speaks of himself, whereas in John the Kingdom of God hardly features and the discourses are largely about Jesus’ own self-consciousness andself proclamation. To put it simply, in the earlier gospels Jesus does not preach about himself but God and his kingdom. In John, Jesus speaks about himself and his Father. Had the striking ‘I am’ claims of John been remembered as spoken by Jesus, how could any gospel writer have ignored them so completely as the Synoptics gospels do?

In conclusion, Edwards could benefit from an introductory course in New Testament studies to bring him up to speed with what his own scholars are teaching!

Muhammad [saws] in the Bible According to a Priest Turned Muslim

Posted on by 2 comments

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Dr. David Benjamin Keldani or Dawud Benyamin (1867-c.1940) was a Catholic priest who converted to Islam and adopted the name Abd ul-Aḥad Dāwūd.  He started an attempted to disprove claims by Muslims that Muhammad is mentioned in their Bible, but to his surprise he ended up asserting the claim and accepting Islam. He wrote Muhammad in the Bible – originally published in 1928. To read the book “Muhammad in the Bible”, click here.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Thousands of Children Tortured by Christian Schools in Switzerland

Posted on by Leave a comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

A recent report detailing boarding school abuse by Christian teachers has caused an uproar in Switzerland. According to the report, the children faced ‘torture’ and ‘sadistic like’ punishments for over 4 decades. Yahoo (NZ) reports:

Thousands of children fell victim to violence and abuse in Catholic boarding schools in Switzerland up until the 1970s, according to a recent study decrying “sadistic” practices resembling “torture”. The former student, whose name was not given, was one of around 50 former boarders at 15 different boarding schools in Lucerne between 1930 and 1970 who in chilling detail testified to their experiences in a report ordered by the canton. “Many boarding school children long felt guilty over the experiences they had. Some managed to move on, others failed and some committed suicide,” said Furrer, who along with two colleagues had spent a year and a half delving into the murky past of these establishments.

Although child sexual abuse is common among Christian preachers, the author of report states that they did not expect to find such a large scale of child sexual abuse. One Punishment known as waterboarding (infamously used by the CIA for torture) was used to punish innocent children for wetting their beds or being noisy by nuns:

Some cases of violence and sexual abuse were already known, he told AFP, but “we were not expecting it to be this large-scale.” When a child was too noisy or wet the bed, the nuns running the schools used cruel punishments like “pushing small children’s heads under water,” Furrer said, comparing the practice to “waterboarding”, a controversial interrogation technique broadly considered to equate to torture. The report of around 100 pages, seen by AFP, details the abuses, hardships and humiliations suffered by the Swiss boarding school students, many of whom had been taken from their poor families and placed there by authorities.

The children also faced hunger, to the extent that almost all of them went hungry and thirsty. Attempting to have a sip of water while being extremely thirsty invoked the wrath of the Christian teachers:

Going without food was commonplace, one of the former boarders recalled. “I cannot remember anyone who wasn’t hungry. Basically everyone was hungry,” he said. Children who tried to have a sip of water in between meals were also harshly dealt with, according to the report. “If someone bent over a faucet to drink, his head would be pushed down so his face hit the faucet,” another former student testified. “The degree of punishment and abuse clearly went well beyond what was admitted to at the time,” according to the study, which points out that some teachers showed “sadistic” tendencies and used practices “close to torture,” including punching or kicking children in the face.

Is this another case of no true scotsman, or will Christendom apologize for the vast amount of child abuse that kids worldwide have had to face?

wa Allaahu ‘Alam,
and God knows best.

Christian Missionaries Paying Muslims to Convert in Syrian Refugee Camps

Posted on by 2 comments

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

This Muslim sister, from a Syrian refugee camp, details how the Christian missionaries are flooding the camps with Christian literature and offering to pay rent, buy clothes and food if the Muslims take the Bibles and learn them. They are attempting to pay Muslims to read their Bible to convert them, but it isn’t working thus far, this young sister from Syria explains:

May Allaah protect the Muslims from the Shayataan Bashar al Alawi and from the Missionaries, Ameen.

wa Allaahu Alam,
and Allaah knows best.

Top 10 Muslim vs Christian Debate Clips

Posted on by One comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Br. Muslim by Choice has released a hilarious 10 clip countdown of the best Muslim vs Christian debates. Some familiar faces include Dr. Shabbir Ali, Br. Sami Zataari and Ustadh Ali Ataie, alongside infamous Islamophobes, James White, Jay Smith and arsonist Anis Shorrosh. Entertaining and educational, it’s quite the video to watch:

wa Allaahu ‘Alam,
and Allaah knows best.

New Covenant, Old Traditions

Posted on by 4 comments

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

The crucifixion of Christ is alleged to have herald into commission, the New Covenant [1].  However, if we are to do a basic reading of the New Testament narrative of Christ’s alleged death, we run into some theological conundrums. The unknown authors of the synoptic Gospels were familiar with the Tanach, citing it at every chance they got, yet in doing so they’ve unearthed a vast amount of room for misapplied dogmas and theological errata. Often times, leading to the mess we’re about to uncover. On the cross, Jesus is alleged to have said:

“About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lemasabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).[d]” – Matthew 27:46.

Most people see that little citation, that “d” and don’t seem to investigate it. So where does that “d”, lead to?

Matthew 27:46 – Psalm 22:1

Therefore, it is apparent that while Jesus was on the cross, he was referencing this chapter from Psalms. If we go to the chapter in Psalms, most people upon reading would be shocked at the contents within:

1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me,
so far from my cries of anguish?
2 My God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer,
by night, but I find no rest.

According to the reading, God has abandoned Christ on the Cross. This is a far worse depiction of Christ, than any Pharisee could muster. Christ is depicted as abandoned by God, he is suffering and is not being saved by God, hardly a ‘willing sacrifice’ if you were to ask me. Strikingly, even Jesus concedes to the fact that if he was being crucified, that his own “Father”, did not answer his cries for help, this wasn’t for a moment, but lasted day and night. A most strange circumstance, considering that Christ is alleged to have said, “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.[2]” Unfortunately for Jesus, this was not the case, as God never answered him. If it didn’t work for Christ on the Cross, why do Christians expect anything to be granted to them, save for them believing they are greater than Christ, for if Christ’s sonship could not merit mercy from the “Father”, on what grounds should a lay Christian expect to be given more mercy than the son himself?

3 Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One;
you are the one Israel praises.
4 In you our ancestors put their trust;
they trusted and you delivered them.
5 To you they cried out and were saved;
in you they trusted and were not put to shame.

The diatribe continues by questioning God’s actions, see, God saved the Israelites when they called out to Him, yet when His own alleged Son calls out, there was no answer. Christ is also indicating here, that he was put to shame, yet the Israelites were not, can any Christian answer as to why Jesus was put to suffer and was void of God’s mercy and help?

6 But I am a worm and not a man,
scorned by everyone, despised by the people.
7 All who see me mock me;
they hurl insults, shaking their heads.
8 “He trusts in the Lord,” they say,
“let the Lord rescue him.
Let him deliver him,
since he delights in him.”

9 Yet you brought me out of the womb;
you made me trust in you, even at my mother’s breast.
10 From birth I was cast on you;
from my mother’s womb you have been my God.

11 Do not be far from me,
for trouble is near
and there is no one to help.

At this point, Christ, in referencing these verses, he no longer considers himself a ‘man’, he considers himself to be less than a man. We’ve all heard of the hypostatic union, half man, half God, well as it turns out, Christ negates being a man and assumes the role of a worm. I guess this is the Hypostatic Union Version 2.0. It’s also telling that Christ says there is no one to help him, this would either mean that Christ who is God, could not help himself or God, the all powerful, failed to help his son.

12 Many bulls surround me;
strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.
13 Roaring lions that tear their prey
open their mouths wide against me.

This is most intriguing, why does Christ reference Psalms 22, when it is in these passages that insults to Gentiles are still considered to be normal? If Christ was dying for their sins, shouldn’t he be dying with the intention of, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.[3]” Yet this is not Jesus’ attitude, it’s quite the opposite, he lowers himself to mocking and insulting, with curses meant for gentiles. In fact, this verse contains some level of anti-Semitism (not too dissimilar to John 8:44-48), Adam Clarke, a famed Christian exegete comments:

The bull is the emblem of brutal strength, that gores and tramples down all before it. Such was Absalom, Ahithophel, and others, who rose up in rebellion against David; and such were the Jewish rulers who conspired against Christ. Bashan was a district beyond Jordan, very fertile, where they were accustomed to fatten cattle, which became, in consequence of the excellent pasture, the largest, as well as the fattest, in the country. See Calmet. All in whose hands were the chief power and influence became David’s enemies; for Absalom had stolen away the hearts of all Israel. Against Christ, the chiefs both of Jews and Gentiles were united. [4]

Christ therefore, according to Christian theology, in his weakest moment, not only questioned God’s mercy but he fell privy to the sin of insulting and cursing both Gentiles and Jews. This as previously stated, in direct contrast to the earlier statement of, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”

16 Dogs surround me,
a pack of villains encircles me;
they pierce my hands and my feet.

Lastly, we jump to the last of the insults, using a term that he also used to describe gentiles in Matthew 7, which reads:

“Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.”

Who are these dogs? According to several commentaries, it refers to ‘disbelievers‘, therefore Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists are all considered to be dogs by the Christian God while bringing into commission, the New Covenant. The People’s New Testament Commentary says:

The dog was regarded an unclean animal by the Jewish law. They probably represent snarling, scoffing opposers. The characteristic of dogs is brutality. To try to instill holy things into such low, unclean, and sordid brutal minds is useless. [5]

Therefore infidels (those who are unfaithful) to Christ, are like dogs, because we oppose the religion of Christianity. How strange are these words indeed, especially when Christ was supposed to be dying for our sins. In his supposed ultimate act of mercy and sacrifice, Christ berates, curses and abuses the very people he is allegedly killing himself for.

Conclusion

While Christ was dying for our sins, he references Psalms 22. Upon reading Psalms 22, we discover that it entails a man who is abandoned by God, void of God’s mercy, leading the one in pain to question God’s authority and means of grace. The person suffering then decides to insult, mock and curse those who do not accept his beliefs. If these verses were referenced by Christ as a means of expressing his emotion while on the cross, then the notion that Christ introduced a New Covenant is hogwash, as Christ insults, mocks and curses both Gentiles and Jews. If this is not what Christ intended to communicate with his referencing of the aforementioned passages, why would he allegedly reference them to begin with?

Sources:

  1. Luke 22:20, “In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.”.
  2. Matthew 7:7.
  3. Luke 23:34.
  4. Adam Clarke’s Commentary, Psalms 22:12-13.
  5. People’s New Testament Commentary, Matthew 7:6.
« Older Entries Recent Entries »