"Ebion" "the poor one" in Hebrew - אֶבְיוֹן
Muslim polemical methods are very dubious and desperate. They constantly use liberals like Bart Ehrman, an agnostic and skeptic; and, yet, as we have pointed out before, even Bart Ehrman knows that Jesus was crucified in history.
Four examples of Muslims who skew lots of information in their polemics and attacks on Christianity and the Bible are:
1. Paul Williams (A British convert to Islam, who claims to have been a born-again Christian before becoming a Muslim) - attacking the gospel of John, the doctrine of the Trinity, and using the Ebionites as "proto-Muslims"; and quoting liberal scholars and using them inconsistently.
http://bloggingtheology.wordpress.com/ (all throughout his blog; I engaged him some in comboxes)
2. the Grandverbalizer 19 (someone not worth mentioning, who sometimes was fair; but mixes lots of unrelated thoughts and things and sometimes outright lies; but you can Google him if you want to find him)
3. Rasheed Gadir - Somebody who has a blog called "hard questions" - linked later in the article. Using the Ebionites and Dr. James Tabor. James Tabor's scholarship is very weak, as you will see.
4. Abdul Haqq (means "slave of Truth")- another Brit who converted to Islam, who was on the Unbelievable Radio program linked below and author of the shallow and fully refuted book, Before Nicea. (see below)
Attacking the gospel of John
Muslims attack the gospel of John as not written by the apostle John and claim that "most scholars" say it was not written by John and very late, etc.
However, according to Irenaeus, John lived up until around 96 AD; and so the traditional view is that John the disciple and eye-witness, the beloved disciple, the son of Zebedee, did indeed write the fourth gospel.
Also,
Muslims try to use the Ebionites
Muslims attempt to say that the Ebionites were the "original Christians" that the Qur'an speaks about.
However, Dr. Anthony McRoy, lecturer at the Wales Evangelical School of Theology, fully refutes a Muslim convert, Abdul Haqq (a British man who converted to Islam) and his book, Before Nicaea and the idea that the early true Christians were the Ebionites.
http://www.premierradio.org.uk/unbelievable.aspx?mod_page=12
Scroll down and find the Unbelievable Radio program on June 20, 2009. ("Before Nicaea") (Thanks to Dr. James White for pointing me to this past radio program.)
Some of Dr. McRoy's key points:
1. where is the evidence that the Ebionites were the early Christians or even around in the first century? Abdul Haqq, a Muslim could never answer that question.
2. They were a heretical sect first mentioned by Irenaeus around 180 in Against Heresies. Abdul Haqq could not refute that.
3. Several early church fathers note that the Ebionites were like the docetist Cerinthus and other Gnostics who denied the virgin birth of Christ and separated the man Jesus from the divine logos, the Christ, and that the logos left the man Jesus before He was crucified.
Notice what Irenaeus, around 180 AD, says about the Ebionites and their belief about Jesus was similar to Cerinthus who was called by Polycarp a heretic and “son of Satan”; and other heretics. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 1, chapter 26, paragraph 1-2:
1. Cerinthus, again, a man who was educated in the wisdom of the Egyptians, taught that the world was not made by the primary God, but by a certain Power far separated from him, and at a distance from that Principality who is supreme over the universe, and ignorant of him who is above all. He represented Jesus as having not been born of a virgin, but as being the son of Joseph and Mary according to the ordinary course of human generation, while he nevertheless was more righteous, prudent, and wise than other men. Moreover, after his baptism, Christ descended upon him in the form of a dove from the Supreme Ruler, and that then he proclaimed the unknown Father, and performed miracles. But at last Christ departed from Jesus, and that then Jesus suffered and rose again, while Christ remained impassible, inasmuch as he was a spiritual being.2. Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. [see above] They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavour to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practise circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God. [my emphasis]
It is inconsistent for Muslims to use the Ebionites, as most of them did deny the virgin birth of Christ, yet Islam affirms the virgin birth of Christ. (Surah 3:45-48; 19:19-21)
4. Muslims also try to use Basilides, another Gnostic heretic mentioned by Irenaeus, to say that Jesus was not crucified. In Against Heresies, Book I, Chapter 24, sections 3-7. Basilides was another Gnostic teacher who taught that the body was evil and the the creator of the physical world was evil; therefore, that is the reason why they could not accept the crucifixion of Christ. It seems that Muhammad, since he was illiterate and could not read, and did not have the gospels or NT in Arabic, heard lots of Gnostic teaching going around and incorporated it into his Qur'an. Basiledes taught that Simon the Cyrene was crucified. Abdul Haqq makes a desparate attempt to say that Mark 15:27 means that Simon "bore the cross" in a crucifixion sense, seemingly trying to tie it to the idea of "Jesus bearing our sins"; but Anthony McRoy points out that the Greek word means that he carried the cross for a while. Jesus the Messiah bore our sins on the wooden cross. (1 Peter 2:24; Isaiah 53:1-12)
5. It is inconsistent for the Muslims to use Basilides or Cerinthus, since they both objected to the crucifixion on philosophical grounds, that the body (and sex and physical creation) are evil intrinsically, yet Islam affirms that the body is not evil, and in fact, in paradise in Islamic teaching, sex and eating and drinking and sensual pleasures will go on for eternity for the Muslim believers. (mostly for men only)
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ebionites_according_to_the_Church_Fathers
Trying to make James and Jude the first "proto-Muslims"
Muslims also make desperate attempts to say that James and Jude did not accept the apostle Paul and did not accept the Deity of Christ, nor the crucifixion or resurrection; and they are even more deparate when they use Dr. James Tabor as a source for this.
Dr. James Tabor, a former member of the Worldwide Church of God, founded by Herbert W. Armstrong, was one of the consultants for The Jesus Family Tomb film by James Cameron (Oscar winning director of very successful films such as Aliens, The Titanic, Spiderman, and Avatar). He should have stuck to his science fiction and fantasy and other types of fiction!
The Muslims here make a lot of mistakes in their attempt to use Dr. Tabor and mix a lot of things together so that the unknowing public thinks, "wow, that sounds really scholarly and intelligent!":
Dr. Tabor totally avoids all the early evidence we do have for James as being in complete harmony with the apostle Paul. (see Galatians chapters 1-2 and I Corinthians 15:1-9; and Acts 15, which shows Peter and Paul and James in harmony doctrinally with each other. Peter said, about justification for the Gentiles, that they are saved in the same way as the Jewish Christians were; "cleansing their hearts by faith" in Acts 15:9) There is no sound basis for the theory that there was an irreparable conflict between Peter/James/Jewish Christian vs. Paul's Greek and so called "pagan theology" of making Jesus into "the Son of God" or "God in the flesh" conflict. (What Muslims wrongly accuse Paul of doing, of "hijacking the real Christianity".)
http://hardquestions.wordpress.com/2008/05/06/the-ebonites-true-followers-of-jesus-who-converted-to-islam/ (more outrageous claims about the Ebionites.)
Wrong use of the Didache
The Didache is one of the earliest extra-Biblical writings that we have evidence of, usually being dated between 70 - 100 AD, which shows that Matthew and the Trinitarian baptism formula is also very early. Matthew was written between 50-60 AD. The part about the Didache in the "hard questions" documentary was very shallow and left out one of the earliest quotes that affirms baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit! Yes, the Didache 7, quotes from Matthew 28:19. See
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html
Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running, flowing] water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before. [ my emphasis]
See the phrase, "baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit in living water." - in Greek even: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/lake/fathers2.v.html
βαπτίσατε εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος ἐν ὕδατι ζῶντι.
The 3 persons of the Trinity are named there. Dr. Tabor forgot that. Oops! He also left out that James calls Jesus “the Lord” twice. (James 1:1, 2:1 - "glorious Lord") Lord is kurios, also used in the LXX for “Yahweh”. (see Psalm 110:1, which is quoted in all the synoptic gospels (Matthew 22:44; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:42-43) and Acts 2:34-35; and Hebrews 1:13 and alluded to in I Corinthians 15:25 - and other places that talk about Christ's ascension and session at the right hand of the Father; all to point to the Deity of Christ. Heb. 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; Ephesians 1:22; Colossians 3:1)
They also seem to skew what the Eastern/Greek Orthodox priest says in the video documentary, but at least it is clear that the Orthodox priest says that belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ is essential!
I am not impressed with Dr. Tabor as a scholar, when one looks a little deeper into the historical facts of these issues.
One cannot just name the Ebionites and connect them without any evidence to Jewish Christians or Jews or “the Nazarenes” in the first century. Muslims seem desparate to try and make a case for “proto-Muslims” from the first century in the Ebionites and Arians in the 4rd Century onward; as they both rejected the Deity of Christ. But, wait, most of them accepted the crucifixion and yet most of the Ebionites rejected the virgin Birth!
Posts
19 comments:
Thanks Ken! An excellent article.
I am glad it was helpful !
First Muslims could actually care less about any of old Jewish-Christian groups, nor do Muslims solicit these “Christian” scholars or Academics. These scholars whether you call them liberal not, or just plain disagree with them have arrived at conclusions that are similar to the Islamic narrative, but not taking Islam into consideration. For example if you read James the Brother of Jesus by Robert Eisenman. Throughout his book he compares James’ strong attachment to the Faith/work principle, dietary habits..etc..etc.. to Islam and its precursor. So now any time we see a Jewish- Christian group with believe in a strict monotheism, as opposed to a tri-unity, plus a strong adherence to the law, as closely related to Muslims by scholars.
So Muslims hear that and we laugh and tell non-Muslims don’t take our words for it, your own scholars say this. So rather than, the Muslim being desperate and dubious, its Christian scholars or academics hoping on the Islamic bandwagon because they have reached similar conclusions.
The Muslims have been talking about the distortion of the bible since the 7th century, now Bart Ehrman has reached certain conclusions, independent of Islam. It’s also interesting, how many Muslims that you noted, who use these examples were converts to Islam, so something is striking accord in Christians converting.So at the end of day, it looks like its effective.
First Muslims could actually care less about any of old Jewish-Christian groups, nor do Muslims solicit these “Christian” scholars or Academics. These scholars whether you call them liberal not, or just plain disagree with them have arrived at conclusions that are similar to the Islamic narrative, but not taking Islam into consideration. For example if you read James the Brother of Jesus by Robert Eisenman. Throughout his book he compares James’ strong attachment to the Faith/work principle, dietary habits..etc..etc.. to Islam and its precursor.
So now any time we see a Jewish- Christian group with believe in a strict monotheism, as opposed to a tri-unity, plus a strong adherence to the law, as closely related to Muslims by scholars.
So Muslims hear that and we laugh and tell non-Muslims don’t take our words for it, your own scholars say this. So rather than, the Muslim being desperate and dubious, its Christian scholars or academics hoping on the Islamic bandwagon because they have reached similar conclusions. The Muslims have been talking about the distortion of the bible since the 7th century, now Bart Ehrman has reached certain conclusions, independent of Islam. It’s also interesting, how many Muslims that you noted, who use these examples were converts to Islam, so something is striking accord in Christians converting. Its Academia, how desperate can it be and it appears effective.
Actionable Intelligence -
It doesn't seem you really read the article and the specific argumentation and all the loose connections that these scholars and Muslims make in order to be sensationalistic and also how they leave out very important information on the public TV shows. Dr. Tabor is not much better than Dan Brown types.
The Qur'an itself never says the text of the Bible is corrupted. In fact the Qur'an affirms the text of the Bible, ignorantly of what it actually says. (2:136; 5:46-48; 10:94; 29:46)
The doctrine that the Christians and Jews changed the previous revelation, Tahrif, - this came later, since they later realized that there were lots of contradictions in Islam with real Christianity.
Liberal scholarship is unbelieving and skeptical and does not believe in miracles or the supernatural or that God can speak through prophets and inspire apostles to write letters and books that are "Holy Scripture".
So, it is inconsistent for Muslims who actually DO believe in miracles and God and His ability to communicate to use scholars that make their points based on unbelief and skepticism about God and revelation. The Muslims also believe in the virgin birth. (yet most of the Ebionites did not accept the virgin birth, and none of the modern liberal scholars accept the virgin birth.
Yet, the Gnostics believed the body was evil.
Islam does not believe the body is evil.
The Gnostics rejected the crucifixion based on their rejection of the body. So, it is inconsistent for Muslims to use the Gnostics and Basilides for denying the crucifixion and the Ebionites because of their rejection of the virgin birth.
You wrote:
First Muslims could actually care less about any of old Jewish-Christian groups, nor do Muslims solicit these “Christian” scholars or Academics.
On the contrary, they are forced to try and find the early "proto-Muslims" in the Ebionites ( or Gnostic groups, or Jewish groups, or Arians ( a recent book by a Muslim is trying to say the were "proto-Muslims") - they do this all the time, they certainly DO care; and they are forced to do this by the Qur'an itself and its understanding that it is a 3rd revelation/religion that is a continuation and restoration of the Abrahamic religion. They cite the liberals all the time, long before Bart Ehrman.
AI:
You haven't really thought your laughter through. While you are busy laughing, we're finishing the work of pointing out that there were no Muslims before Mohamed.
The family of Noah weren't Muslims.
The followers of Moses weren't Muslim.
The followers of Jesus weren't Muslim.
Only the followers of Mohamed are Muslims.
That, of course, explains why the Shahada partners Mohamed and his god Allah. It was a religion invented by Mohamed, lacking any historical roots.
This might not be such a serious criticism, except that Islam tries to claim Moses and Jesus for itself. In doing so, it shows itself to be false.
“Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby And they say: "The Fire shall not touch us but for a few numbered days:" Say: "Have ye taken a promise from Allah, for He never breaks His promise? or is it that ye say of Allah what ye do not know?"
Christians and Jew are People of the Book, so whom exactly is the Quran is referring to in these verses. Aside from men making up scripture. The Quran also mentions mixing truth with falsehood and Concealing truths.
As far as citing these academics again you are missing the point. It is the very fact, that these scholars are unbelieving, don’t believe in miracles, or supernatural but in their so-called unbiased scholarly pursuit they have reached similar conclusion. So that would be the argument, Quran aside taking a un-biased appraoch, look what their scholars say. There is a saying something to the extent,” that the biggest truth or proof, is what your enemy attest too.” Of course its implied by saying enemy that you guys have bitter disagreements
As far as traditional Islamic academics, for us knowledge is the Qur’an or the Sunnah, WE PRESENT PROOF IN THE QURAN AND SUNNAH, we may also use the sayings of the Salaf. In an inner-Islamic debate Bart Ehrman will not be presented as a proof for anything.
But yes as a tool of dawah, when trying to reach the non-Muslim, Muslims will use it. Dawah, however is not considered an Islamic science.
Its just the irony of calling it desperate but you name a lot of converts to Islam using it,so it maybe effective.
TURRETINFAN
Unlike you Christians who have no need for the Hebrew of the old testament or the Greek of the New testament, word actually have meaning. In Arabic the word Muslim comes from the root S.L.M. which means peace, Muslim is actually a Verbal Noun, that is a noun describing an action, so it would be one who submit to the peace. In Islam one of the Characteristic or Attributes of God is Peace. Therefore did Noah submit to the command of God? In the same way in which Christian, who speak Arabic refer to God as Allah and not in the same sense Muslim refer to him. Words have meaning, not just tribalism and cheerleading, but continue to feel free to prefer style of substance
We are not the Jews who reject Jesus, and Yet the Christian fall into the same problem they accuse the Jew of. In any case God is centered in our message not a man, so don’t shoot the messenger. The Pun is intended.
"Unlike you Christians who have no need for the Hebrew of the old testament or the Greek of the New testament, word actually have meaning."
That's a false dichotomy. While the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures are more powerful than your Arabic Koran, and consequently can be translated into other languages while retaining meaning, we still affirm that the Greek and Hebrew words have meaning.
"In Arabic the word Muslim comes from the root S.L.M. which means peace, Muslim is actually a Verbal Noun, that is a noun describing an action, so it would be one who submit to the peace."
It is a little ironic that a religion that professes peace is (a) so frequently characterized by war and (b) rejects the Prince of Peace, namely Jesus the Christ.
"In Islam one of the Characteristic or Attributes of God is Peace."
Allah is not God. Only the LORD (YHVH) is God, and Allah is not the LORD. There are 99 names of Allah, but not one of them is YHVH.
"Therefore did Noah submit to the command of God?"
Noah obeyed the command of the true and living God - but his name was not "Allah."
"In the same way in which Christian, who speak Arabic refer to God as Allah and not in the same sense Muslim refer to him."
Some do use "Allah" as if it means "God" and without referring it to the god of the Koran. There are, perhaps, good reasons not to do that. Whether or not they have good reasons for their practice doesn't seem particularly germane to this discussion.
"Words have meaning, not just tribalism and cheerleading, but continue to feel free to prefer style of substance"
A charge of "tribalism" from a Muslim is not a very serious charge, don't you think? Your jurists still think that the Shahada must be spoken in Arabic, don't they?
"We are not the Jews who reject Jesus, and Yet the Christian fall into the same problem they accuse the Jew of."
We accuse the unbelieving Jews of Rejecting the Lord of Glory. We accuse you of the same thing. You accuse us of rejecting a prophet (who you partner with Allah in your shahada). It's hardly comparable.
"In any case God is centered in our message not a man, so don’t shoot the messenger. The Pun is intended."
We don't have to win the debate with fleshly weapons. We can point to history, which shows that Islam's claims are false.
-TurretinFan
Actionable Intelligence:
The verse from the Qur'an you quote is Surah 2:79-80. "woe to those who write Scriptures with their own hands, and say, "This is from Allah" . . .
The context goes back to 2:63 where he focuses in on the children of Israel and Moses - so this is about a group of Jews who
according to verse 78 are unlettered and who only know the Scripture by hearsay. (orally, and apparently not accurately).
Interesting that you left out the references and the context.
Christians are not cited in this context.
It is Islamic teaching and Sahih tradition that Muhammad was unlettered (illiterate) - and he is the only one who only knew about the Scriptures by hearsay and orally only [The Jews and Christians had fixed written texts for centuries before Muhammad], and it (Muhammad's understanding of OT and NT) was obviously garbled and mixed up with Gnostic traditions and Gnostic apocryphal gospels and legends. (Infancy Gospel of Mary and Thomas, the Arabic infancy gospel, the Proto-evangelium of James, the legend of the Seven Sleepers; the mixing of Jewish Midrash traditions, etc.
It is actually Muhammad who falls under the "Woe!" of 2:78-79, for it is he was illiterate and heard false things orally and got it all wrong.
Official Islam teaches that Muhammad was illiterate - Surah 7:157. Interesting . . . Same concept for the illiterates in 2:78. Interesting indeed . . .
It is easy for one man to come along and claim something from God - highly subjective. And conveniently get new revelations every time he needed something for himself. Even Ayisha noted this in one Hadith concerning his desire for another man's wife - Zaynab Bint Jahsh - Ayisha said, something like, "how Allah comes quickly to give you new revelations for your desires."
Yet, the Bible has many authors who confirm one another. 4 witnesses, for the 4 gospels, one on each street corner is better historical evidence for the gospels, that the one man claiming he has a revelation from the angel Gabriel.
the context of the verse is also about the Jews who broke the Sabbath - the Qur'an says, "Be ye apes, despised and hated". (2:65)
2:78-79 still does not vitiate the other verses that talk about the text - 2:136, 2:62; 5:46-48; 10:94; 29:46 and that "no one can change the words of Allah" - (6:34; 6:116; 10:65; 18:27)
The desperation is not that they just use liberal scholars who attack the Bible at all, the desperation is in using them, they leave out points that contradict the very nature of Islam itself. (anti-supernatural presuppositions; Ebionites that denied the virgin Birth, yet Islam accepts that; and all the liberal scholars who DO believe that Jesus really died in history, yet Islam contradicts one of the most evidenced historical facts of all - the crucifixion of Jesus Al Masih. The desperation is seen in using very weak and goofy scholars like Dr. Tabor.
Using something that leaves out a very early evidence for the Trinity - Matthew 28:19 being quoted in the Didache 7; is another desperate and dubious method.
Actionable Intelligence:
The fact that both western agnostics and skeptics and atheists and people disillusioned with Christianity (read: history after the first 3-4 Centuries, when Christians were persecuted - Justinian, Charlemagne, colonialism, Crusades, Inquisition, injustice done to American Indians and African slaves, British in India, etc. and some wars that are perceived as unjust, etc.) - and Muslims use the same liberal sources and issues to attack the Bible, only shows that both are at their core "haters of the true God, the God of love and truth, the Trinity, revealed through the incarnation of the Son of God.. "
Elaine Pagels is famous for seeking to find diversity in the early church in Gnosticism and to argue for feminism and female leadership in churches; yet the very main source that many use for seeking to say this is the Gospel of Thomas, and yet it is the one that has a very anti -female flavor and verses, such as saying 114 -
114) Simon Peter said to Him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are
not worthy of Life."
Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her
male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you
males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the
Kingdom of Heaven."
this defeats Pagels and the Da Vinci codes types in one verse!
That is the kind of inconsistency that both liberals and Muslims share - trying to use some early (but not the earliest) as proof for some other kind of Christianity, yet its very nature and content from the very same thing one is trying to use, contradicts a consistent use of it.
Ken, the irony, the inconsistency, the hypocrisy is all too unbelievable and are are doing the very thing you have accused Muslims of, as you would call it, How desperate and dubious. DO YOU BELIEVE THE QURAN IS THE WORD OF GOD? DO U BELIEVE HADITH ARE DIVINE INSPIRED TRADITIONS OF THE PROPHET, BUT YOU PRESENT IT AS A PROOF FOR YOUR ARGUMENT. I COULD UNDERSTAND IF THIS CURRENT POST WAS OFF THIS TOPIC BUT YOU ARE VIOLATING THE UNDERLYING PRINCIPLE OF YOUR POST. SO ARE YOU ADMITTING THAT YOU ARE WRONG, IF SO I WILL ANSWER YOUR ARGUMENT. I GIVE YOU A HINT IT INVOLVES ARABIC GRAMMAR AND VERB TENSES
No, it is not the same thing, because
The Bible came first
Had established fixed Scriptures for centuries before Muhammad and the Qur'an.
yet, it wants to affirm the Scriptures - I think Muhammad sincerely thought he was affirming them in Monotheism and 10 commandment types of law; yet he was sincerely wrong, as has been proven already.
the burden of proof is on you.
The Qur'an gets some things right
that Jesus is Al Masih
That He did miracles.
That He was born of the virgin Mary.
That He is sinless - Surah 19:19
That there were prophets before and revelations, etc.
Since the true things were gotten from the previous Scriptures and communities (Jews and Christians, mixtures of heretics, nominals, and the Orthodox in Syria and farther away); it does not follow that using the true things means I have to believe the false things also, or that the Qur'an is inspired. It is not. It is a human book, made up by a man who did exactly what Surah 2:78-79 accused others of doing.
Therefore, it is not hypocritical or inconsistent, since the truths that are in the Qur'an are based on the earlier established revelations.
Actionable Intelligence,
Please don't use capitals so much; it appears you are shouting and getting angry (as is known in internet and email etiquette.)
we can have a rational discussion and informal debate here, if you are willing.
Also, why hide things from other nations by "it involves Arabic grammar and verb tenses" ??
Cannot Allah get His word out into other languages so that other nations can understand?
This is also mentioned in 2:77 - "Are they then unaware that Allah knows that which they keep hidden and that which they proclaim?
All is out in the open in Western Christianity and scholarship; but many things in Islam are kept hidden, it seems.
Many Muslims have said to me, "you don't understand the deep meaning of the Arabic word here." - as, it seems, a way to shut down conversation and reason.
Sad.
First and foremost, let me apologize, for putting all caps, my intent was not to yell but to emphasize.
“How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”
Please read my prior post, and for the record and as a point, I don’t hurl insults at Jesus (pbuh) or belittle him. As Prophet (pbuh) and man I respect him and love him.
I have no burden of Proof. I have not put for any religious argument, as I have nothing to prove other than that the standard and the underlying principle you created in your post, that is the way you chose to “frame” you argument made no sense, and as it turns out you, yourself are the proof of my argument, as your hypocrisy is apparent and the very thing you have accused others of, you have done.
Just how you chose to use your Islamic references throughout you post, as a proof and evidence, however you totally reject the proof but forth. Even if you talk about the miraculous birth, do believe in the birth as the Qur’an frames it, do you agree with Qur’anic narrative of the miraculous birth and it has nothing to do with a “Son” of God. No of course not. You do this and then criticize people who do this. You talk about consistency but can’t even stay within the parameters of your self-made standards. You have no credibility.
I noted the Arabic as a point of adding clarity for a person such as yourself you then criticize that but in your own post actually put the Greek to clarify a point. My friend you are a house divided against itself in yourself.
First and foremost, let me apologize, for putting all caps, my intent was not to yell but to emphasize.
Thanks; apology accepted.
“How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”
I don't see how that applies; if the OT and NT were indeed revelation from God in time and space; and the OT prophesied of Al Massih (Genesis 3:15; 12:1-3; 22:18; Psalm 2, 16; 22, 110; Daniel 9:24-27; Isaiah 7:14; 9:6-9; 53; Zechariah 9:9; just to name a few); and the NT as we have it and as Christians had in the centuries before Muhammad, then it is true and proves Qur'an and Islam are false. So it is not hypocrisy to defend the NT and use the Qur'an which came about 600 years later to show that it is inconsistent internally by affirming the OT and NT and yet contradicting it.
Please read my prior post, and for the record and as a point, I don’t hurl insults at Jesus (pbuh) or belittle him. As Prophet (pbuh) and man I respect him and love him.
If Jesus Al Masih claimed to be the Son of God in history around 26 -30 AD (which He did - John 5:16-18; 8:24-58; 10:30-39; 19:1-7; 20:30-31) and you say that is blasphemy, then that is not honoring Him as He is really is. So it is not an insult for Christians to not believe Muhammad was inspired by God, if indeed he was not, and the historical evidence is on our side. I am not trying to insult; but just make the intellectual and apologetic arguments. Don't take it personally. The Bahai's and Ahmadiyas came centuries after Muhammad and claimed some new religion or fulfillment of Islam, and that is by nature a heresy or apostasy from Islam. It is the same as Islam claiming to be the fulfillment of OT and NT.
Continued
I have no burden of Proof. I have not put for any religious argument,
I don't understand what you are saying there.
as I have nothing to prove other than that the standard and the underlying principle you created in your post, that is the way you chose to “frame” you argument made no sense, and as it turns out you, yourself are the proof of my argument, as your hypocrisy is apparent and the very thing you have accused others of, you have done.
I disagree; I don't see where there is any hypocrisy or inconsistency.
Just how you chose to use your Islamic references throughout you post, as a proof and evidence, however you totally reject the proof but forth.
Some of it was correct; but some of it was wrong. Muhammad was illiterate, as Muslims dogmatically believe and the Qur'an says. He heard things. The NT was not yet translated into Arabic. There were heretical groups on the fringes of the Byzantine Empire. The churches had left their first love. (Revelation 2:4-5) They started praying to Mary and having icons and statues a little bit earlier than Islam; Muhammad got the wrong idea about that obviously - Qur'an 5:72-78; 5:116 - thought Mary was part of the Trinity. Muhammad got the wrong idea of what Christians meant by "Son of God" - Surah 6:101; It is obvious and clear as to what happened.
Even if you talk about the miraculous birth, do believe in the birth as the Qur’an frames it, do you agree with Qur’anic narrative of the miraculous birth and it has nothing to do with a “Son” of God. No of course not.
It is possible for someone later, in a different language, without the text of the original; to hear something and see icons and statues and misunderstand? Yes. It is not inconsistent nor hypocrisy for me to agree that some things in the Qur'an are true, but they are twisted and changed, and things are added and subtracted from them.
You do this and then criticize people who do this. You talk about consistency but can’t even stay within the parameters of your self-made standards. You have no credibility.
You have not proven that this is inconsistent, when your so called revelation came 600 years later, affirms the previous one; yet contradicts it; it necessarily and logically proves the later claims are false.
I noted the Arabic as a point of adding clarity for a person such as yourself you then criticize that but in your own post actually put the Greek to clarify a point. My friend you are a house divided against itself in yourself.
Good point about me using Greek. But it is explained; and we are willing to explain the meanings. If Muslims explain clearly their points about Arabic, then that is a good step in communication and relationship. I appreciate your tone here but you have not proven your point at all; sorry.
God is precise: It is a woman Rev 12 that delivers the true word John1:1, Rev 12:5, Rev 12:13 who restores Acts 3:21 all things to the world before Christ’s return. This woman exposes the lies of Satan who has deceived the whole world Rev 12:9. This woman creates a new thing in the earth by fulfilling God's promise to Eve Gen 3:15, Jer 31:22, Isa 14:16. Moses and Elijah are together with the word Matt 17:3 they all three are in this one woman. She is like unto Moses Num 12:3. She was raised up Acts 3:22 from the Laodicean church that becomes lukewarm because they refused to hear her Rev 3:14-17. She is bold like Elijah Matt 17:11, Luke 1:17. As Elijah was alone declaring the true God to the people 1 Kings 18:22 so also her witness alone turns the hearts of the fathers to the children Mal 4:5-6 to prepare a people for the Lords return before the great and dreadful day of the Lord Matt 17:3, Luke 9:30. Those who will not hear Acts 3:23 the true word of God she now delivers to the world free of charge, as a witness, at the heel of time from the wilderness Rev 12:6 will not be allowed inside the walls of God’s coming kingdom from heaven Rev 21. This true testimony of the true value of the blood of the Lamb delivers the truth that not one child of God will be put in a hell fire no matter what their sins. It never entered the heart or mind of God to ever do such a thing Jer 7:31, Jer 19:5. God created evil Isa 45:7 to teach his children the knowledge of good and evil Rom 8:7, Gen 3:22 so that at their resurrection they become a god Matt 22:29-30, Ps 82:6. Prove all things. You cannot rightly judge this unless you read all that has been written by this woman first Pro 18:13. Start here http://minigoodtale.wordpress.com Check out the bruising of Satan and the reason for all of mankind’s sufferings. This is the Gospel that shall be preached in all the world as a witness and then the end will come.
Val - that is just weird and goofy stringing together unrelated Scripture texts and strange interpretations. And nothing to do with the subject of this post.
Looks cultic to me.
Post a Comment