Monday, March 15, 2010

Bible prophecy: is the rise of Muhammad and/or Islam foretold?

The Bible contains numerous prophetic passages concerning many important events and peoples throughout its pages. The Babylonian, Persian, Greek and Roman empires are just a few of the more important ones that immediately come to mind.

For a number of years now, I have asked myself this question: Does the Bible predict the rise of Muhammad and/or Islam? One would think that this massive cultural/political/religious movement, which has been inextricably linked with Christians and Jews for well over millennia now, would at the very least be mentioned in the Bible. To make a very long story ‘short’, yes, I have come to believe that it does.

In this post, I will examine one such passage: Isaiah 63:1-7:

1 Who is this who comes from Edom, With garments of glowing colors from Bozrah, This One who is majestic in His apparel, Marching in the greatness of His strength? "It is I who speak in righteousness, mighty to save."

2 Why is Your apparel red, And Your garments like the one who treads in the wine press?

3 I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the people there was none with me: for I will tread them in mine anger, and trample them in my fury; and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment.

4 "For the day of vengeance was in My heart, And My year of redemption has come.

5 "And I looked, and there was no one to help, And I was astonished and there was no one to uphold; So My own arm brought salvation to Me; And My wrath upheld Me.

6 "And I trod down the peoples in My anger, And made them drunk in My wrath, And I poured out their lifeblood on the earth."

7 I shall make mention of the lovingkindnesses of the LORD, the praises of the LORD, According to all that the LORD has granted us, And the great goodness toward the house of Israel, Which He has granted them according to His compassion, And according to the multitude of His lovingkindnesses. (NASB)

Though commentators traditionally apply the above to Jesus Christ, I think that Muhammad is clearly a better fit.

Muhammad was first of all an Edomite (see information below); Jesus was not.

Muhammad spent a lot of time in Bozrah during his merchant days; Jesus never went to Bozrah.

Muhammad was a military leader, hence the “red apparel”, “garments like the one who treads in the wine press”.

Muhammad for quite sometime was essentially “alone” in Mecca; he was persecuted and had his life threatened on many occasions by the Meccans. However, he later exacted vengeance on the Meccans, and “trod down the peoples in My anger”.

Muhammad constantly praised God and contrasts the blessings “granted us” with the “great goodness toward the house of Israel, Which He has granted them”.

Excursus: Edomites and Arabs
The Bible strongly implies that the descendants of Ishmael and Esau (Edomites) were closely linked through marriage/bloodlines and geography. Esau married one of Ishmael’s daughters (see Gen. 28:9; 36:3); and Ezekiel 25: 12-14 links Edom with Teman and Dedan, indicating that the descendants of Esau ranged from North Arabia (i.e. Edom/Idumea) all the way thru South Arabia (i.e. Dedan). Pslam 83:6 links the “tents of Edom and the Ishmaelites” together. Note the following comments:

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia states:

We also find northern Arabian tribes mentioned among the descendants of Abraham by Keturah (Gen. 25:1-4) and Hagar (25:12-15) and among the descendants of Esau (Gen. 36). (1979 edition - Vol. 1, p. 220.)

A Baptist website has the following to say:

The descendants of Ishmael and Esau would remain closely associated throughout their history. (In Psalm 83 -- as we shall see, the descendants of Esau and those of Ishmael are found in alliance against End-Time Israel.) As God had foretold, a great people sprang from Ishmael. Today's Arabs are the family of Ishmael grown great!…Consider the additional fact that Edomites intermarried with the stocks of Ishmael and Canaan. The Edomites were descendants of Esau (who was also called Edom), the elder son of Isaac and Rebekah. Earlier, when Jacob and Esau were yet in Rebekah's womb, "the children struggled together within her" (Gen 25:22). [http://web.archive.org/web/20080209225440/http://thewayofpeace.org/mideast_prophecy_1.html]

Further, Arab historians in the past have usually divided the ancient Arab people into two major groups: the pure Arabs (identified with Southern Arabia); and the mixed Arabs (identified with Northern and Western Arabia)—Muhammad and his descendants are part of the mixed Arabs (see Thomas Patrick Hughes, Dictionary of Islam, pp. 18, 19.).


Looking forward to others thoughts and reflections on this passage from the Bible.


Grace and peace,

David

250 comments:

1 – 200 of 250   Newer›   Newest»
Spoils23m said...

David,

Are you pondering becoming Muslim?

Spoils

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Hi David,

I am relatively new to your blog, and I find this post quite interesting. I have been following your blog for sometime now, but never made any comments. Well, today that has changed!:-)

You asked whether the Bible predicted the rise of Islam, and you quoted Isaiah 63 as a possible prophecy. Unfortunately David, Isaiah 63 is not a prophecy about Islam. Isaiah 63 is a prophecy which will meet it's fulfillment in Revelation 14 & 19. Please read Revelation 14:18-20.

18And another angel came out from the altar, which had power over fire; and cried with a loud cry to him that had the sharp sickle, saying, Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth; for her grapes are fully ripe.

19And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great WINEPRESS OF THE WRATH OF GOD.

20And the winepress was trodden without the city, and BLOOD came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs



Continued... next post.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Revelation 19:11-13

11And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

12His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.

13And he was clothed with a VESTURE DIPPED IN BLOOD: and his name is called The Word of God.


The prophecy relating to the rise of Islam, but more specifically, the rise and fall of the Ottoman empire is best seen in Daniel 11:36-45.

36And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.

37Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

38But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.

39Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain.

40And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.

41He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon.

42He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape.

43But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps.

44But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many.

45And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.



Disclaimer: I am not anti-Muslim. I am just relating historical data. :-)

Peace.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Another thing. In prophecy, place names are sometimes symbolic. So saying Jesus never went to Bozrah does not do the prophecy justice. We read elsewhere in the Bible, such as in the book of Revelation where God speaks about Babylon falling, yet Babylon had fallen thousands of years before the book of Revelation was written. Babylon of course was employed in symbolic language, not literal. Therefore, to say Jesus never went to Bozrah is to miss the symbolism of the prophecy entirely.

Peace,

Hillary
Daughter of Wisdom/Christian Spiritual Teacher

Lisamck said...

Hey Dave,

With good reason, one is hesitant to take this as a description of the Messiah. It is my understanding that some Catholic commentators, following St. Jerome attribute this prophecy to one/some of Maccabees. The problem I see here from any Christian perspective is found in v. 7. If we admit that the Koran is described under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit as : " I shall make mention of the lovingkindnesses of the LORD, the praises of the LORD, According to all that the LORD has granted us, And the great goodness toward the house of Israel, Which He has granted them according to His compassion, And according to the multitude of His lovingkindnesses", it seems like we would have to wonder if perhaps this book might be inspired too.

I think I could entertain the idea that the passage fits Mohammed until v.7. If v. 7 applies to Mohammed, virtually every Christian body has ignored it for two milennia. Even supposing the work (the Koran) is not to the level of Scripture, would not this interpretation still require that Christians grant a respect and admiration for Mohammed, Islam, and its Holy Book hitherto unknown?

Rory

Joel said...

I think we would do well to reconsider if the traditional Islamic accounts of Muhammad are even accurate at all. See these articles related to "Hagarism":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagarism:_The_Making_of_the_Islamic_World

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Syro-Aramaic_Reading_of_the_Koran

Accepting the Islamic story of its own origins may be a mistake.

Joel said...

I also wanted to point out this article in First Things:

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/10/reading-the-quran-through-the-bible

Ken said...

Isaiah 63:1 --
"It is I who speak in righteousness, mighty to save."

Hard to see this as Muhammad; -he did not speak in righteousness and he did not save.

Although he was from the North Arabian tribes;
(that information is good information; but it doesn't mean that "the one coming from Bozrah" is someone born there.

"coming from Bozrah" in Isaiah 63:1 could mean, he is coming after having judged his enemies there. It doesn't necessarily mean "someone who was born there"

Ken said...

Context folks!

Isaiah 62:11
Savior
His reward is with him
and his recompense accompanies him

There was originally no chapter break of 63

Flows from 60 and 61, which are about the Messiah.

63 seems to be about the future judgment when the Messiah will judge all His enemies.

Rev. 19:11-15

David Waltz said...

Hi Spoils,

Appreciate your question; but no, I am not “pondering” over a conversion to Islam.

Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hi DofW,

Thank you so much for taking the time to post your insights into this passage; you wrote:

>> I am relatively new to your blog, and I find this post quite interesting. I have been following your blog for sometime now, but never made any comments. Well, today that has changed!:-)

You asked whether the Bible predicted the rise of Islam, and you quoted Isaiah 63 as a possible prophecy. Unfortunately David, Isaiah 63 is not a prophecy about Islam. Isaiah 63 is a prophecy which will meet it's fulfillment in Revelation 14 & 19. Please read Revelation 14:18-20.>>

I would like to read all these passages anew, and reflect on them before making any comments—please be patient.


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hello Rory,

I was truly hoping that my favorite ex-Baptist minister would show up! You posted:

>>With good reason, one is hesitant to take this as a description of the Messiah. It is my understanding that some Catholic commentators, following St. Jerome attribute this prophecy to one/some of Maccabees. The problem I see here from any Christian perspective is found in v. 7. If we admit that the Koran is described under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit as : " I shall make mention of the lovingkindnesses of the LORD, the praises of the LORD, According to all that the LORD has granted us, And the great goodness toward the house of Israel, Which He has granted them according to His compassion, And according to the multitude of His lovingkindnesses", it seems like we would have to wonder if perhaps this book might be inspired too.>>

Me: You make a very important observation here Rory—the fact that early Christian commentators were, “hesitant to take this as a description of the Messiah.” Even when armed with the passages from the Book of Revelation that DofW pointed out, it remains, at least to me, a bit of a stretch to interpret this passage as Messianic. (More on this later, the Lord willing.)

>>I think I could entertain the idea that the passage fits Mohammed until v.7. If v. 7 applies to Mohammed, virtually every Christian body has ignored it for two milennia. Even supposing the work (the Koran) is not to the level of Scripture, would not this interpretation still require that Christians grant a respect and admiration for Mohammed, Islam, and its Holy Book hitherto unknown?>>

Me: Personally, I do not think that one must believe that the Qur’an is inspired Scripture in order to apply Is. 63:1-7 to Muhammad; and as you seem to indicate, one could certainly stop the application at verse 6.

I would like to spend the rest of the day studying and reflecting on ALL the contributions that been made here in the combox—hopefully our Lord will enlighten my studies…


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hi Joel,

Thanks much for providing the links; after brief response to Ken, I will check them out!


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hello Ken,

I would first of all like to say that I have enjoyed your last two posts over at Beggars All. Would like to share a few of my own thoughts concerning your second post, but it will have to wait until I pondered over all that is going on here.

As I mentioned above, I would like to spend some time reflecting on, and studying, all the data that has been so graciously provided before I give a detailed response/s; however, I would at this time like to mention out two important points for you to think about:

1.) How the NT writers interpreted many of the OT passages (i.e. apostolic exegesis).

2.) The fact that Isaiah calls the Persian king Cyrus a “messiah” (i.e. anointed one – LXX: Christ); such an application should give us cause for some serious reflection on use of other terms that are ‘traditionally’ considered by Christians to have application to Jesus Christ alone.

Much more later, the Lord willing.


Grace and peace,

David

Ken said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ken said...

David,
I am glad you enjoyed my two recent articles there at Beggar's All.

No one has commented yet on the second one!

Amazing!

Yes, the two points you make are well taken and understood.

I think the context is clear on Cyrus and his "anointing" is specifically said to be for the task of restoring the Jews to the land and re-building the temple.
Isaiah 44:28-45:13

Isaiah 45:4-5 is clear "though you have not known Me" - twice - so we know this section is not about the Messiah who would be the sacrifice and substitution - Isaiah 52-53; 42, etc.

Sometimes the Servant of the Lord is Israel, the people of God (eg. 49:6 - Acts 13:46-47)

Sometimes it is the Messiah, Jesus Christ.


search around at www.answering-islam.org and you will find some interesting articles on Muhammad's claim to be from Ishmael.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

David wrote:

" The fact that Isaiah calls the Persian king Cyrus a “messiah” (i.e. anointed one – LXX: Christ); such an application should give us cause for some serious reflection on use of other terms that are ‘traditionally’ considered by Christians to have application to Jesus Christ alone."

----------------------------------

David, thanks for taking the time to read my comments. :-)

Now the use of the word 'Messiah' or "Anointed One" to refer to persons other than Christ. A person can only be an anointed one or messiah (lower case)if such a person was anointed by God to carrry out a mission for God. I give you an example, Cyrus was anointed by God to rebuild the temple. King Saul was anointed by God to be king of Israel and so was David. To take Messianic prophecies and apply them to Mohammed would be to say Mohammed was anointed by God to carry out a mission for God. So that raises the question: Is Mohammed a messiah of God? If the answer is yes, then the prophecies theoretically could be applied to him; however, if we apply the principles of Biblical exegesis, where we use the Bible to interpret itself, we will find that the interpretation of Isaiah 63 is found in Revelation 14 and 19.

Peace

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God, Peace be unto you. This is indeed a very interesting post. It seems that David has brought up some very interesting points as well.

I would like to comment about something Daughter of Wisdom and Ken have posted if I may.

Daughter of Wisdom feels that the following is in reference to the Ottoman Empire.

36And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.

37Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

38But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.

Verse 36 is troubling because no Ottoman Sultan has exalted himself above every God.
Verse 37 is troubling because the Ottoman Sultans were known for their love of women. To say that this king (whom ever he may be) has no regard for any God sounds more like an Atheist.

Verse 38 mentions a god whom his fathers knew not also seems hard to believe. The only God that the Ottoman sultans worshipped was Allah. They strongly believed that this was the same God worshipped by Jews and Christians.

If perhaps a particular Sultan could be named it may be more helpful in our research?

Ken seems that directing a person to a web site that is polemical in nature in it's relationship to Islam would be very insightful.

Not to say that answering-islam has no benefit, however it is a known historical fact that Muhammed (pbuh) is an Arab. Many Christian sources attest to the idea that Ishmael is the father of the Arabs.A person who denies this is truly just being mean spirited.


There is a concerted effort by some groups to burn bridges between Islam and Christianity.

If David allows I am posting a link that gives some reasons why Muslims may find evidence to suggest that Muhammed is mentioned in the Bible

at:
http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2009/11/muhammad-written-about-in-bible.html

If I offended or transgressed the limits than my hope is in the mercy of Allah and I ask of your forgiveness.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Wow Grandverbalizer! Not offended at all! It is good when people of differing faiths can engage in a civil discussion.

Now I was the one who brought up Daniel 11:36-45 as a prophecy about the Ottoman empire. Please check out the facts yourself. Don't take my word for it, because this is all about history, and how the Bible predicts events way ahead of time. The part you were concerned with was vss. 36-38.

"36And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.

37Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

38But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things."


I do not claim to know all the answers but here goes.

Verse 36 is referring to the abolition of paganism and worship of gods such as genies and desert spirits by the ancient Arabs before Islam.

Verse 37 refers to the low status of women within the culture, even the male-domination of women (Oops! I hope I have not offended anyone here!). It is not referring to the love men have for their wives.

Verse 38 refers to the God of forces. This is alluding to battle, war, and conquest in the name of God.

No one can deny the Ottoman empire did these things. The Holy Roman empire did similar things as well, and the passage could also apply to the Holy Roman empire; however, vss. 22-35 deals with the Roman empire, which was eventually overthrown by the Ottoman Empire.

Just a classic case of the rise and fall of world empires.

Peace.

David Waltz said...

Hi Hillary (DoW),

I was out today and am just now reading the new comments. Checked out your blog yesterday, and I see that we have a least two common interests: the Bible and smooth jazz!

I am pretty much ready to share some of my thoughts on your posts, but it will have to wait until tomorrow (I am just too tired tonight, it was a very busy day).

Thanks much for your continued participation and patience.


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hello GradVerb,

Welcome to AF!!!

As I mentioned to Hillary, I was out today, and I am just too beat to post anything substantive tonight. I did read your “About Me” (http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2010/03/about-me.html) post on your blog—very interesting! Hopefully tomorrow I will have the time and energy to offer a few comments.

Have much more to share, but it will have to wait…


God bless,

David

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God, Peace be unto you. Daughter of Wisdom those were some points that do require thought.

I will admit that I am not an expert on Biblical exegesis or Hebrew interpretation of the Bible though I am still struggling with that interpretation.

And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.

If verse 36 is talking about the abolition of paganism BEFORE the advent of Islam how do the Ottomans fit into this picture?

Also if there is an abolition of paganism does this mean he stands for the true God? If so how does he in the same text speak marvelous things AGAINST the God of gods? I find it hard to accept that an Ottoman sultan did this. Not saying they were saints, but to say that they spoke against the Most High is hard to accept.

I am equally puzzled why this prophecy couldn't refer to the Seljuk Turks rather than the Ottomans since they played a more key roll in the shaping of things to come. Indeed why doesn't it refer to the Abbasid or Ummayid dynasties before?

37Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

Who is the "HE" in this passage? Is this a literary device that is employed to mean the whole of the Ottoman empire? I am curious to know which Ottoman Sultan did not regard the God of his fathers? Since the Ottomans were preceded by the Seljuks it seems they all worshipped the same Allah.

As far as women having a 'lower status' If you compare them with post modern standards than I wouldn't argue the point. However, if we are to judge by standards of that time. Having the right to own property, divorce, choose and refuse your husband, even initiate your own marital contract (which the Hanafi code of the Ottomans allowed), being teachers and scholars and having a woman's testimony outweigh that of a man seems to be an increase in status rather than a decrease?

The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name. (Exodus 15:3) If we understand the God of forces to be a God that does not sit back and idly watch the kingdoms of mankind doom each other to idol worship and perdition, but rises up and storms every place until all people say There is no God but the One God than this is an interesting point.

In Sunni Islam there are four different legal schools. For the Ottomans they follow the Hanafi legal code. In this legal code the world is divided into dar al harb and dal al salam (the abode war i.e those who are at war in one way or another with the God of Abraham) or the abode of peace (those who submit and surrender to the God of Abraham).

Atleast in the Hanafi legal code treaties are made only with those who allow the propagation of the faith with in their borders. One may trade with them and sign military pacts.

Thank you once more for your time and patience. Peace be unto you.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Thanks Grandverbalizer! You are truly educating me a lot. Let me first make a disclaimer that I am not history buff. I am a Spiritual Teacher, and my main gift is the interpretation of scripture - not history. I make the scriptural interpretation and leave the details of history to people like you who are more knowledgeable. With that being said, let me just clarify what I had said about the aforementioned verses.

Verse 36 is referring to the abolition of paganism in the Arab world. Before Mohammed, the Arabs worshipped genies and desert spirits. Mohammed changed all that with the introduction of Islam and the worship of Allah as the one and only God. The Islamic faith was also the faith of the Ottomans, who were instrumental in spreading Islam throughout the much of the Middle East and the Eastern Roman empire. Wherever they went, they spread Islam, in just the same way the Romans spread Catholicism wherever they went.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Grand verbalizer wrote:

"If so how does he in the same text speak marvelous things AGAINST the God of gods? I find it hard to accept that an Ottoman sultan did this. Not saying they were saints, but to say that they spoke against the Most High is hard to accept."
---------------------------------

God of gods could be referrring to Jesus. In Christianity, Jesus is worshipped as God. In Islam, Jesus is viewed as a prophet, but not God. I do not find it a stretch to imagine that in the early stages of Islam there could have been some controversy regarding the deity of Christ, and harsh words said about Christ. You know, even in Christianity we have those conflicts too! You would be surprised to learn how many people who claim to be Christian,that actually oppose the idea that Christ is God, and even criticize Christ for it! Some of the harshest verses in scripture are leveled against Christians who speak against Jesus!

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Grandverbalizer wrote:

"I am equally puzzled why this prophecy couldn't refer to the Seljuk Turks rather than the Ottomans since they played a more key roll in the shaping of things to come. Indeed why doesn't it refer to the Abbasid or Ummayid dynasties before?

----------------------------------

The passage probably rolls everything into one, starting from Mohammed through to the Ottoman empire.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Grand verbalizer wrote:

"Who is the "HE" in this passage? Is this a literary device that is employed to mean the whole of the Ottoman empire? I am curious to know which Ottoman Sultan did not regard the God of his fathers? Since the Ottomans were preceded by the Seljuks it seems they all worshipped the same Allah."
---------------------------------

The "He" is truly a literary device to denote either a specific person or to those who represent a particular office, or the empire -such as the office of the king or Sultan.
That same literary device is employed elsewhere in scripture to refer to nations or individuals, such as God referring to Israel as a woman by using 'she.'

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Actually, the status of women in ancient Israel was higher than that of Islam. Women of Israel could hold political offices, were prophets, could hold property, probably could not initiate a divorce,but had rights of re-marriage under Old Testament law. Women in Israel were subject to polygamy as well, but the first wife had preeminence over the household and the other women.

Ken said...

Salaam O Aleykum to the Grandverbalizer !!

Thanks for your comments and interaction here.

Concerning my comments, you wrote:

Ken seems that directing a person to a web site that is polemical in nature in it's relationship to Islam would be very insightful.

It is mostly apologetic (defending Christian truth) in nature; but I realize that Muslims will be offended by some, if not most, of the things written there; and it is natural for Muslims to think it is polemical. I don't necessarily agree with everything written there.


Not to say that answering-islam has no benefit, however it is a known historical fact that Muhammed (pbuh) is an Arab.

Yes, I agree with you; I never claimed that he was not an Arab. His ancestory more likely goes back to Sheba and Joktan (the original Arabs, Southern Arabian Gulf), or descendents of Keturah (central Arabia), rather than Ishmael himself. Arabs are a much wider ethnicity than the descendents of Ishmael. Southern Arabs ( Yemenis, Omanis) were around long before Ishmael - Sheba and the descendents of Joktan in Genesis 10:25-30 are the original Arabs and existed long before Ishmael.

Arab today must means “one who speaks Arabic as his native tongue”. There are at least 5 different sub-groups of Arabs today - maybe more - and 5 major dialects of Arabic (and more under that) - today, an Arab is just someone who speaks Arabic. But the Dereje (? spelling) Arabic of Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia is quite different from Levant (Palestine, Lebanon, Syria) Arabic, or Gulf Arabic. Egypt is different from all of them; and Iraq is different also. The ethnic make-up of these different areas are different from each other. Berbers in N. Africa; Copts in Egypt; Babylonians and Assyrians in Iraq, etc. The Islamic invasions and conquering of these peoples assimilated them into the "Ummah" and there different dialects reflect a mixture with the original peoples of specific areas.

Ken said...

Part 2
To the Grandverbalizer:

Many Christian sources attest to the idea that Ishmael is the father of the Arabs.

It is popularly thought that Ishmael is the father of the North Arabians, true. The article below says that Nabaioth, one of the descendants of Ishmael, settled in Edom and they became the Nabatean (from Nabaioth) Empire, who built Petra, which is in modern day Jordan. Later the Romans conquered them and the survivors moved to Damascus.

But there are probably some who went south and mixed with the descendants of Abraham and Keturah also (Genesis 25:1-6) who were the original Central Arabians. (according to some) And others over time and centuries.

But see this:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Index/I/ishmael.html

All I was saying is that one should do some research here on the claim that Muhammad came from Ishmael. I don’t think Abraham nor Ishmael went to Mecca, as is claimed by Islam, nor that they built the original Kaaba. According to the Bible, Abraham definitely never went that far south east. But it is possible that some of the descendants of Ishmael did. But most sources say they settled in Edom, Petra, and surrounding areas. (Jordan and North Arabia) Mecca and Medina are in Central Arabia.

A person who denies this is truly just being mean spirited.

I am not being mean-spirited; and I don't deny Muhammad was an Arab. Please don’t say that. I love Arabs, and other Muslims, Iranians, Kurds, Turks, Pakistanis and have had 26 years of friendship and outreach with them and drank many cups of tea and strong coffee and eaten shish-kabab and hummus and pistachios and roasted pumpkin seeds and many friendly discussions about the Injeel and Isa and God with many Muslim friends.

Yes, Muhammad definitely was an ethnic Arab. Nothing wrong with that. God loves all the nations. (Revelation 5:9; John 3:16; I John 2:2; Romans 5:8) All I was doing was pointing out some articles that show from the Bible and the Hadith collections and Ibn Ishaq (siraat) and other Islamic sources information about Muhammad's genealogical history and the claim to be a direct descendant of Ishmael.

I wish you the true peace that only Isa Al Masih can give - John 14:27

"Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, nor let it be afraid."

(see also
1. The need for Peace with God: Mark 7:20-23; Matthew 5:21-30; Isaiah 59:1-2; Genesis 6:5; Luke 18:9-14; John 3:36; Mark 9:48

2. The way to peace with God: Romans 5:1-12; Matthew 11:28-30; Mark 1:15; Matthew 3:8; Luke 13:1-5; Acts 17:30-31; I John 5:13)

Ken said...

oops - typo -

This,

Arab today must means “one who speaks Arabic as his native tongue”.

should have been

"Arab" today just means “one who speaks Arabic as his native tongue”.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God, Peace be unto you. First I want to thank the host of this web site for allowing us to interact and have an exchange here. The warmth and love shown by the Christians to me here will not soon be forgotten.

To Daughter of Wisdom I wish more people in this world would be as humble and filled with humility as you are. As far as your statement that he shall speak against 'the God of gods' that this indeed refers to Muslim rejection of Christ as absolute deity than I concede the point to you. I can see how that interpretation from a Christian stand point would be valid.


As far as women in Islam and Judaism well I won't venture further into that; suffice to say that I will be posting some information about this on my blog in the future if Allah wills.

To Ken my apologies as I was not saying that you were mean spirited I am actually making reference to the author of the answering-islam web site who first ventured into paltalk some aeons ago to field test his polemic against the unsuspecting.

I can sense peace from both you and the Daughter of Wisdom.

But I heard with my own ears the treacherous and malevolent language of the owner of that site. Far from being filled with the Holy Spirit indeed. Some people debate to earnestly contend for truth and others do it for sport.

I will agree with your assertion that a person should look into the claims that Muhammed (pbuh) was of Arab descent. However, I hope that Christians sincerely look into the matter of the Ashkenazi "Jews" and their history. The implications of Revelation 2:9 should not be ignored. Nor the political ramifications as a pretext to assert dominion over the land of Palestine.

An interesting book on the subject 'The 13th Tribe by Arthur Koestler'. A highly controversial book but not without reason.

Infact many Muslim scholars today as well as Christians are in the dark about a terrible secret that has been kept.

Once again thank you all for the grace and charitable disposition.
Peace be unto you.

Ken said...

Thanks for your good and gracious attitude, Grandverbalizer!

You wrote:
I will agree with your assertion that a person should look into the claims that Muhammed (pbuh) was of Arab descent.

He was an Arab; there is not doubt that.

The question is; was he from Ishmael (Nabaioth, Kedar, Edom, Petra, modern Jordan and North Arabia) or the Central or Southern Arabs (the original Arabs) - today's Yemen and Oman.

David Waltz said...

Hello Hillary,

You have graciously taken the time to write so much, that am struggling a bit over exactly were to begin my comments. I think I will start with your references from the Book of Revelation. You wrote:

>>Unfortunately David, Isaiah 63 is not a prophecy about Islam. Isaiah 63 is a prophecy which will meet it's fulfillment in Revelation 14 & 19.>>

IMHO, Rev. 14:17-20 is not a parallel to the events of Rev. 19, with perhaps the most important distinction being that the agent of wrath/vengeance in 14 is an angel, while it is “The Word of God”, the “King of kings, and Lord of lords” who is the agent in 19. As such, I can understand how 19 and Is. 63 can be linked, however, I think 14 is a bit of a stretch. Since I see 19 being the much stronger case of the two, I shall now focus on this chapter.

I possess over 20 commentaries on the Book of Revelation, and surveyed about ½ of them earlier—all of them link certain verses of chapter 19 (esp. v. 15) with Isa. 63; and all but one see the events as being yet future (the exception being David Chiliton’s, The Days of Vengeance—Chilton is a post-millennial theonomist, so this is to be expected).

I also checked the numerous commentaries at BibleClassics.com, and they too affirm the same. So, I must acknowledge that a solid consensus of Evangelical commentators since the Reformation are in agreement with you.

Now, if these commentators are correct, then Isa. 63:1-6 is a reference to the future judgment of mankind after the fall of “Bablyon the Great”, and not a reference to Jesus Christ’s first advent. However, every early Church Father that I found who comments on Isa. 63:1-6 clearly held that it was a reference to Jesus Christ’s first advent and His work on the Cross! And further, I have not been able to find (to date) a single Christian commentator who looked at the possibility that the referent of Isa. 63:1-6 could be Muhammad. From these observations, I discern two important points: first, a consensus of commentators can be wrong; and second, a neglect of possible historical applications. With the latter in mind, is it possible that Isa. 63:1-6 has a dual-fulfillment?


Grace and peace,

David

Ken said...

Correction to my last statements for more clarity:

"The question is; was he from Ishmael (Nabaioth or Kedar) (see Genesis 25:12-13; Isaiah 42:11; 60:5-7; Psalm 72:10-11)
or Edom, Petra, modern Jordan and North Arabia)
or the Central Arabs (descendents of Abraham and Keturah or Midian or others?)

or Southern Arabs (the original Arabs) - today's Yemen and Oman.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Thanks Grandverbalizer. Peace to you as well.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Thank you David for allowing me to write so much! I hope I did not overwhelm you. Thanks for your patience.

Your wrote:

IMHO, Rev. 14:17-20 is not a parallel to the events of Rev. 19, with perhaps the most important distinction being that the agent of wrath/vengeance in 14 is an angel, while it is “The Word of God”, the “King of kings, and Lord of lords” who is the agent in 19. As such, I can understand how 19 and Is. 63 can be linked, however, I think 14 is a bit of a stretch. Since I see 19 being the much stronger case of the two, I shall now focus on this chapter."
-----------------------------------

Firstly I was not suggesting that Revelation 14 parallels Revelation 19. I quote Revelation 14 and 19 as fulfillments of Isaiah 63. Let me show you how. Look at Isaiah 63:3.

I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the people there was none with me: for I will tread them in mine anger, and trample them in my fury; and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment.

Compare to Revelation 14:19-10

19And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God.

20And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs.


Both passages are dealing with the trodding of the 'grapes of wrath' in God's winepress. Revelation 14 does not say the angel trod the winepress, but from Isaiah 63 we learn that it is the One from Isaiah 63 that treads the winepress - not an angel.

The angels in Revelation 14 are only reapers. They reap the earth of the grapes, but nowhere does it suggest that they are the actual ones carrying out the vengeance of God. If we go to Matthew 13, the parable of the wheat and tares, we see that the angels are the reapers.

Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn (Matthew 13:30)

The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels (Matthew 13:39).

The angels' job is to reap out of the earth all that do iniquity (Matthew 13:41), and gathered them together (vs. 30) until the day of God's vengeance (vs. 42).

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Sorry for the typos. Up to late on the computer! :-)

Daughter of Wisdom said...

David wrote:

"From these observations, I discern two important points: first, a consensus of commentators can be wrong; and second, a neglect of possible historical applications. With the latter in mind, is it possible that Isa. 63:1-6 has a dual-fulfillment?"
----------------------------------

David, while it is true that people can come up with wrong conclusions, I do not think in this case the commentators are wrong. If one truly uses Biblical exegesis without reference to history, one would come up with the same conclusions I did. As I said before, I am no history buff. My gift is in scriptural interpretation. I interpret scripture and then I look into history for the evidence of fulfillment or non fulfillment. That is how I know when a prophecy has been fulfilled or is yet to be fulfilled.

The history of Mohammed does not fit in with Isaiah 63 at all. There might be some coincidental things in Isaiah 63, but for a prophecy to be considered as fulfilled, then the prophecy must be exactly fulfilled. Verse 7 speaks of the house of Israel and verse 8 refers to the Israelites as "my people."

7I will mention the lovingkindnesses of the LORD, and the praises of the LORD, according to all that the LORD hath bestowed on us, and the great goodness toward the house of Israel, which he hath bestowed on them according to his mercies, and according to the multitude of his lovingkindnesses.

8For he said, Surely they are my people, children that will not lie: so he was their Saviour.


When did Mohammed become an advocate for the house of Israel? (vs. 7). When did Mohammed become an Israelite (my people) and their savior? (vs. 8).

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God, Peace be unto you. I also would like to point some material out to Joel that is found here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/27159510/Islam-Review-Cristoph-Luxenberg-s-Syriac-Origin-of-the-Quran < Quite a lengthy read but it debunks any idea that the Qur'an was originally in Aramaic. Amazing!

Christians often complain that Muslims use post modern scholars such as Bart Ehrman in their critique of Christianity.

However, one wonders if James White and the other Christians would be ready to accept the host of fanciful and fantastic ideas that these same orientalist would turn about on Christianity.

I'm just hoping that we do not have a double standard. As standard that we accept the attacks upon the claims of Islam, because well they are attacks on Islam.

Than we turn around and say that these same researches are shoddy when they question biblical archeology or even the historical existence of Jesus.

One Christian apologist in the U.K who really loved to advance these type of claims Jay Smith seems now to have abandoned these ideas.

David did an excellent job in pointing out to Turretin Fan facts about Christian factions worshipping a Trinity consisting of Mary, Jesus and the Father. Yet in the face of these facts the drum beat still goes on that the Qur'an "got the Trinity all wrong".

Any way on the subject of Muhammed (pbuh) in the Bible I was wondering the thoughts you people have about Isaiah 42 why would you say this does or does not reference Muhammed (pbuh) ?

Peace be unto you.

Shahiroz W. said...

Dear Rory,

I'm a friend of Davids. We've known each other for years. Though we adhere to different faiths we have always mutually respected and shared each others viewpoints and perspectives on various writings including scripture. I am Muslim, Shia, Ismaili, Nizari, a follower of His Highness the Aga Khan. Please ask if any clearification is required. Also please note what I have written below is simply my own personal understanding and perspective based on years of study and dialogue. Another Muslim may again see things differently. For we each have a right to exercise our own reason and intellect to understand scripture.

David asked me to read his post and tell him what I thought. Well his post seemed reasonably standard to me. The reason being its easy for me to see it as a prophecy about Muhammad and requires no leap of faith on my part. And although his post didn't really grab my attention I am glad I visited his post and took the time to read all the comments because what really intrigued me was your response and I felt a desire to comment to you. Normally I wouldn't because it seems pointless. A Christian mindset and a Muslim mindset are different and never the twain shall meet unless there is an openess to it. However, in your comment I see you are willing to see the possibility of another interpretation.

Anyways first, can we agree that Isaiah 63:1-7 is not at all clear how it can refer to Jesus Christ as we know of Him in History to date. Second, can we agree that inspite of the ramifications, it is easier to see these verses referring to Muhammad because we know He wasan edomite, we know he visited Basrah on numerous occasions, we know he lead in the militsry, we know engaged in many wars.

Having said that can I take you away from Isaiah and just posit some points of faith and reason. To see if we are in agreement or not? For I know when you read them you will see something different from what I see simply because I am reading the Bible through the eyes of a Muslim and the teachings of Muhammad and Ismaili Islam and that allows me to see things you wont see. I will comment, or leave you questions under each quote below so you can perhaps also see regardless of whether you agree.

to be continued....

Shahiroz W. said...

continued....

1. There is One God. he is a loving God, merciful, and compassionate, but also a wrathful God, punishing and destructive.
- This is straight forward and both our scriptures attest to it.
2. Jesus was an earthly manifestation of God, his character was utmost loving and compassionate.
-Okay so God manifested as Jesus, and as Jesus He only showed his merciful and compassionate side...but we know He has another side to him.
3. Jesus said John 8:58 "Before Abraham was I AM"
- so we know Jesus was pre Abraham, yes He meant primordially but is it possible he meant on earth as an earthly manifestation as well?? Why Abraham? Why didn't he say before Adam here?
Muhammad (SAW) said, "I was a Prophet while Adam was between clay and water" and the hadeeth, "I was a prophet when there was no Adam and no clay"
4. Jesus said: red letter, NASB: John 14:6 "I am the way, the truth, and the life no one comes to the Father but through me"
-So if one doesn't recognize Jesus they wont recognize the Father...and Jesus could only be recognized as fulfillment of OT prophecy.
5. Jesus said John 13:16 "Truly, truly I say to you,...nor is one who is sent greater then the one who sent him"
-because it speaks generally "one", it leaves the possibility for more than one to be sent.
-what does "sent" refer to?
-Muhammad said 'I was the first Prophet to be created and the last to be sent'
6. Jesus said John 13:19 "From now on I am telling you before it comes to pass, so that when it does occur you may believe that i am He"
-"from now on"...why?, "before it comes to pass"...before what?..."when it does occur"...implies in time..."you may believe that I am He"...why wouldn't they believe...and who is He??
7. Jesus said John 13:20 : Truly, truly, I say to you, he who receives whomever I send receives Me; and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me."
-whomever...implies a person..."I send"...implies not Jesus...
8. Jesus said John 14:9 "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'?
-How long is "so long"?, How is it that Phillip has not come to know Him? And why does Jesus sound frustrated with that notion?

Shahiroz W. said...

9. Jesus said John 14:16 "I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever;
-"another" why another?, who was the previous?, "He may be with you forever"...implies not currently the case.
17that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.
-"He abides with you and will be"...why present and future tense?
18"I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.
-again future.
19"After a little while the wor 9 ld will no longer see Me, but you will see Me; because I live, you will live also.
-how long is a little while? How will they SEE him and how will they live also?
20"In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you.
-"In that day" implies future time"
21"He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him."
-has he not already disclosed himself?
22Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, "Lord, what then has happened that You are going to disclose Yourself to us and not to the world?"
23Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him.
-Who's we suddenly?
24"He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father's who sent Me.
25"These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you.
26"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.
-the Helper, Holy Spirit seem synonymous here
-The Helper will be sent in Jesus's name, will teach things and remind of Jesus...so not Jesus
-For me this can clearly be Muhammad, he did remind us of Jesus, and parakletos, helper, if it was paraklete instead it would be Muhammad precisely.
27"Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Do not let your heart be troubled, nor let it be fearful.
-Why does he say "Peace I leave with you" suddenly...Islam is peace in arabic, for me this can be Islam
28"You heard that I said to you, 'I go away, and I will come to you ' If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.
-the Father is greater than Jesus, hmmm.
29"Now I have told you before it happens, so that when it happens, you may believe.
-this is like he is confirming the giving of a message in complete.
-there was a similar occurance in the life of Muhmmad
"This day I have perfected the Religion for you and called it Islam"
30"I will not speak much more with you, for the ruler of the world is coming, and he has nothing in Me;
-hmmm now we have mention of in my opinion a new character, "ruler of the world"...ruler ie. Imam in Arabic...hmmmm
31but so that the world may know that I love the Father, I do exactly as the Father commanded Me Get up, let us go from here.

Shahiroz W. said...

finally...

10. Jesus said John 15:26"When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me,
-when...implies in time....whom I will send....implies its not Jesus...that is the Spirit of truth...implies the spiritual aspect...ie. light/nur in my perspective...how else can a spirit be sent other than in a body..."He will testify"...implies person.

27and you will testify also, because you have been with Me from the beginning.
-hmmm what beginning?

Now if you consider John's verses in light of the possibility it may refer to Muhammad and Islam. If you then go back to Isaiah and entertain the possibility that yes all of Isaiah refers to the Messiah but is it also possible that the Messiah or God has manifested in an earthly form prior to Jesus...well the OT is certainly full of such references...even at the the time of Abraham. And so why is it so difficult to accept the possibility that he could take birth again in another body...and at that time time and circumstance warrant a different personality a more wrathful one so you see more of that side of him. And then why can't it be Muhammad in Arabia? Why can it only be Jesus in Bethleham?

I am not sure how well I have articulated what I am implying and nor am I sure if its clear. Scripture is open to points of view and we all have our own unique angles.

I know that there is belief that the Helper is the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit has to manifest into a form for us to be able to see it to communnicate with us .... a dove, etc...and likely a human body...if it needs ability to speak as in the above verses of John.

Thank you for allowing me to share my perspective. Your thoughts are very welcome.

Shahiroz

David Waltz said...

Hello again Hillary,

Thanks for responding; you wrote:

>>Both passages are dealing with the trodding of the 'grapes of wrath' in God's winepress. Revelation 14 does not say the angel trod the winepress, but from Isaiah 63 we learn that it is the One from Isaiah 63 that treads the winepress - not an angel.

The angels in Revelation 14 are only reapers. They reap the earth of the grapes, but nowhere does it suggest that they are the actual ones carrying out the vengeance of God. If we go to Matthew 13, the parable of the wheat and tares, we see that the angels are the reapers.>>

Me: My point is that in Rev. 14 angels are an integral part of the grand event being depicted—I see this as an important distinction which may indicate that the events are not the same. (Isa. 63:3 states: “I have trodden the wine trough alone; v. 5, “And I looked, and there was no one to help”.)

>>David, while it is true that people can come up with wrong conclusions, I do not think in this case the commentators are wrong. If one truly uses Biblical exegesis without reference to history, one would come up with the same conclusions I did. As I said before, I am no history buff. My gift is in scriptural interpretation. I interpret scripture and then I look into history for the evidence of fulfillment or non fulfillment. That is how I know when a prophecy has been fulfilled or is yet to be fulfilled.

The history of Mohammed does not fit in with Isaiah 63 at all. There might be some coincidental things in Isaiah 63, but for a prophecy to be considered as fulfilled, then the prophecy must be exactly fulfilled. Verse 7 speaks of the house of Israel and verse 8 refers to the Israelites as "my people.">>

Me: I hope you will not be angered for what I am about to say—I am merely going to point out the following as ‘food for thought’—the Pharisees of Jesus day had done their “Biblical exegesis without reference to history”, and when our Lord entered into history, they refused to alter their exegesis to conform to the history that was being written before their very eyes. I have asked myself for a number of years now why was it so few Jews of Jesus day believed? I submit that one important reason was their unwillingness to reexamine their understanding of Scripture. (Sincerely hope I have not offended—that is not my intent at all.)

>> When did Mohammed become an advocate for the house of Israel? (vs. 7). When did Mohammed become an Israelite (my people) and their savior? (vs. 8).>>

Me: “People of the book” (i.e. Jews and Christians) are praised in the Qur’an; through much of the history of Islam, Jews faired much better under Islamic rule than under Christian rule. The greatest slaughter of Jews since the time of Constantine has come via the hands of professed “Christians”. As for the current stance of many Muslims towards Jews and Christians, IMO, if Muhammad were alive today, he would vehemently object…


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hi GrandVerb,

Appreciate the link (http://www.scribd.com/doc/27159510/Islam-Review-Cristoph-Luxenberg-s-Syriac-Origin-of-the-Quran), a very nice collections of essays.

A bit later you wrote:

>>Christians often complain that Muslims use post modern scholars such as Bart Ehrman in their critique of Christianity.

However, one wonders if James White and the other Christians would be ready to accept the host of fanciful and fantastic ideas that these same orientalist would turn about on Christianity.

I'm just hoping that we do not have a double standard.>>

Me: IMO, James White is THE grandmaster of double-standards; for reasons unknown to me, so many of the very methods he so vehemently castigates, he in turn employs! Oh well, it is what it is…

>> David did an excellent job in pointing out to Turretin Fan facts about Christian factions worshipping a Trinity consisting of Mary, Jesus and the Father. Yet in the face of these facts the drum beat still goes on that the Qur'an "got the Trinity all wrong".>>

Me: Thanks GrandVerb. TF, White, and many other (but certainly not all) Reformed apologists I have dialogued with seem to be incapable of changing their predisposed take on any position, even when compelling data for doing so is provided. I think they may be confusing any growth/change with be “double-minded”.


Grace and peace,

David

P.S. Will check out Isaiah 42 this afternoon—heading out for a bike ride.

Chris said...

Grand Verbalizer,

I feel your comments about the Ashkenazi Jews requires a response. When people go hunting through Daniel and Revelation looking for current or future events, they come up with all kinds of silliness. Just look at the Left Behind series! With all due respect, I think the application of Revelation 2:9 to the Ashkenazi Jews is just as silly. And I think denying their ancestry is no less "mean-spirited" than denying the ancestry of Arabs from Ishmael.

Paul in Romans 2:28-29 said, "A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God." And in Romans 9:6-8 he says, "For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. ... In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring." Presumably something like this is in view in Revelation 2:9. The Jews who were slandering the Smyrnan Christians were not true spiritual children of Abraham.

I have long been wary of speculative futurist or historicist interpretations of Daniel and Revelation, because such interpretations can so easily become the cause of fear and hatred toward our neighbors. When one's reading of scripture begins to undermine one's love of neighbors, something is very wrong with that reading of scripture.

Peace,

-Chris

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God, Peace be unto you.

Chris I'm going to have to agree with your apprehension of futurist approach to scriptures. Does anyone rememeber Hal Lindsey? What is he doing these days any way? All I remember are the days when the book of Ezekiel, Daniel and Revelation clearly talked about the U.S.S.R being the great evil and enemy of God's people.

How Michael Gorbachev even had an ancient map of Gog and Magog on his forehead! Amazing!

Than 1991 came and went. Than amazingly Ezekiel, Daniel, Revelation clear as day applied to the European Union. Not to mention that the Catholic Church was a good runner up as well.

Now in the after math of 9/11 and the U.S economic crisis Islam and China are the new boogey men that get to vie for prophecy fufilment.

So these futurist are sitting back and thinking why wouldn't the Bible mention a faith that is playing such a vital roll in the world's affairs today. However, one has to be careful in passage selection. We can't allow for Islam to be portrayed in a positive light because some people might get a little bit too adventurous for thier own good ;)

I have to deal with this sort of thing among fellow Muslims all the time.

Your right that we have to be careful in application of text.
I hope that a person can see that I was simply saying to Ken that if we question the lineage of Muhammed (pbuh) than allot of interesting questions do come up about the "Jews" as well. To say that we are spiritual Jews well this does spread the mustard out a bit. This would mean that all the Muslims today could be spiritual Jews.

If the word Jew and Judah is not taken into it's historical context it can become very problematic. After all than it wouldn't really be important for the Messiah to come from the line of Judah and so forth would it?

The thing that I hope Christians start to reflect upon is this. What ever happened to the Hebrews? Why is it today that the word Jew is so prominent when we think about those who followed Moses and the Torah?

I mean Jacob did have 12 sons correct? So where are those other 11 tribes? Why is that today we only hear 1/12 of the story?

Peace be unto you.

Acolyte4236 said...

I think these verses makes more sense than Mohammed.

Matt 21:40ff "Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?"...He will bring those wretches to a wretched end," they replied, "and he will rent the vineyard to other tenants, who will give him his share of the crop at harvest time."... When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard Jesus' parables, they knew he was talking about them.

Matt 22:7 "But when the king heard [thereof], he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city."

Luke 21:20 "And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh."

Rev 14:20 "They were trampled in the winepress outside the city..."

Hebrews 13:11ff "The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp. And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood.Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore."

Given that Herod was an Edomite and allied with the Romans and the Romans are the armies that Jesus sends out in 70 AD this contextually seems like a far better explication than Mohammed.

Acolyte4236 said...

David,

You wrote, "Me: “People of the book” (i.e. Jews and Christians) are praised in the Qur’an; through much of the history of Islam, Jews faired much better under Islamic rule than under Christian rule. The greatest slaughter of Jews since the time of Constantine has come via the hands of professed “Christians”. As for the current stance of many Muslims towards Jews and Christians, IMO, if Muhammad were alive today, he would vehemently object…"

This is demonstratably false from primary source material. Jews did not fair better under the Muslims than they did under the Christian empire, East or West or in Persia for that matter. Jews suffered under the Jim Crow laws of Islam like many other non-Muslims.

As for the Holocaust, the Nazi ideaology was nihilistic hedonism promising a perfet world just around the corner if the germans were strong enough to create their own values rather than being shackled by history. This is why all historical peoples had to be eliminated lest a false consciousness of sheepish ethics intrude once again. Please also note that it was the Muslims in the East who sided with Hitler in part out of specific hatred for the Jews.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

David wrote:

"I hope you will not be angered for what I am about to say—I am merely going to point out the following as ‘food for thought’—the Pharisees of Jesus day had done their “Biblical exegesis without reference to history”, and when our Lord entered into history, they refused to alter their exegesis to conform to the history that was being written before their very eyes. I have asked myself for a number of years now why was it so few Jews of Jesus day believed? I submit that one important reason was their unwillingness to reexamine their understanding of Scripture. (Sincerely hope I have not offended—that is not my intent at all.)"
-----------------------------------

No, I am not offended at all! We run into trouble when we try to use history to interpret the scriptures. That was EXACTLY what the Pharisees did. They kept referring back to king David and the great battles he fought and won, and to Abraham and his greatness, and the Temple with its former glory. When Christ came, they rejected Him because they failed to see the SPIRITUAL applications/fulfillment of prophecy in Him. They were looking for a king who would overthrow the Roman power and restore a literal, temporal kingdom of Israel.

I am not saying do not use history, but we must be careful that we first find the spiritual application hidden within the text, before we can make a historical application.

Peace.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Grandverbalizer wrote:

"Chris I'm going to have to agree with your apprehension of futurist approach to scriptures. Does anyone rememeber Hal Lindsey? What is he doing these days any way? All I remember are the days when the book of Ezekiel, Daniel and Revelation clearly talked about the U.S.S.R being the great evil and enemy of God's people.

How Michael Gorbachev even had an ancient map of Gog and Magog on his forehead! Amazing!

Than 1991 came and went. Than amazingly Ezekiel, Daniel, Revelation clear as day applied to the European Union. Not to mention that the Catholic Church was a good runner up as well.

Now in the after math of 9/11 and the U.S economic crisis Islam and China are the new boogey men that get to vie for prophecy fufilment.
-----------------------------------

My case in point!

Hi Grandverbalizer, it is this for this very reason why the historic approach to Bible prophecy is a dangerous one. Hal Lindsey and all those others used history to interpret Bible prophecy, which will always lead to false prophecies. They had it all backwards. If they had taken the time to interpret the spiritual meanings behind the prophecies, then they would have come up with the correct historical/futuristic answers.

Hillary

Chris said...

Grand Verbalizer,

Thanks for your reply. For what it's worth, I have the same reservations about finding Islam predicted in Daniel and Revelation as I do about finding the Ashkenazis in Revelation 2:9. In my view, Daniel and Revelation are meant to be read primarily in light of the events of the times in which they were written. But to those who are set on futurist or historicist readings, I simply advise agnosticism as to what exactly is being described there. I think the primary message of these books is that God is in control, and will vindicate his people in the end. We don't need to understand all the mysterious references to beasts and whores and such in order to benefit from that spiritual message.

Peace,

-Chris

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God, Peace be unto you.
Acolyte4236 said...

This is demonstratably false from primary source material. Jews did not fair better under the Muslims than they did under the Christian empire, East or West or in Persia for that matter. Jews suffered under the Jim Crow laws of Islam like many other non-Muslims.

I think a person should have a look over at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Sephardim.html

This gives us a more full picture. Please *note* that this is not a political correct web site that always has favorable things to say about Islam.

Muslims have no problem with Jews or any of the tribes of Israel. Infact I have witnessed Imams correct other Imams when making prayers such as 'Oh Allah curse Israel and Oh Allah send punishment upon the Jews" One Imam actually stood up and said how can we as Muslims ask Allah to curse Jacob a prophet of Allah! He also said that how can we pray and ask Allah to curse any tribe of people. Imagine he said that we prayed and said oh Allah curse the Turks or the Caucasians. Finally the Imam said why are you people making spiteful prayers when you should be praying oh Allah curse the oppressors who ever they may be or even better oh Allah open the hearts and guide the people!

Any time a Muslim is saying 'curse Israel' they are doing a horrible deed by cursing a prophet of Allah.

The prophet Muhammed (pbuh) had a Jewish wife Safiyah and once the other wives were teasing her saying 'Jewess Jewess the daughter of a Jew' and she began crying and went to the Prophet and related the story.

He said to her it is true that you are a Jewess the daughter of a Jew but you go and tell them (the other wives) that your father is Moses, your unkle is Aaron and your husband is Muhammed (pbuh)! In other words be proud of who you are!

Than he said to his other wife Hafsa Oh Hafsa fear Allah!

Furthermore the Saudi family are descendants of Jews that lived during the time of Prophet Muhammed (pbuh). Why do you think Saudi Arabia never once attacked Israel when Jordan, Syria and Egypt jumped on her at once? Think people think! Yeah it's true that individual groups and people fund anti Israeli para military groups but that is not the positon of the house of Saud.

It was also said, "Please also note that it was the Muslims in the East who sided with Hitler in part out of specific hatred for the Jews."

This is such a generalized statement. The more accurate statement would be that the Ottomans sided with the Germans and Austro Hungarian Empire and Japanese in WW1 and WW2. The way the statement is made you would think that every Muslim from China, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Kenya, Iraq, Sudan and so forth made a unified conscious decision to 'support the Nazis' becuase of their 'hatred towards the Jews'.

The truth of the matter is that Israel/Jacob had 12 tribes. If I was a gambling man I would wager huge that if we truly traced the lineage of those 12 tribes the majority of their descendants are practicing Muslims today! Think about it. Babylonian captivity the diaspora. How many 'Arabs' 'Persians' 'Turks' and others truly know about thier great great ancestors who converted to Islam?

How many of those Arabs know about the blood of the tribes of Jacob that run through their veins?

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Chris wrote:

"We don't need to understand all the mysterious references to beasts and whores and such in order to benefit from that spiritual message."
----------------------------------

I disagree with that. Everything written in the Bible is for our admonition and benefit. There is NO WAY one can understand the spiritual message without first decoding the mysteries of those prophecies.


Hillary

Ken said...

So, Grandverbalizer and David W. – several questions are in order -

On the issue that the Qur'an itself (thus Muhammad, the prophet and founder of Islam) mis-understood the Trinity and thought the Christian doctrine of the Trinity was "the Father, Son, and Mother" ( Surah 5:116) --

It seems that this included the Collyridian sect in N. Arabia that offered cakes to the Virgin Mary, (from Epiphanius of Salamis’ testimony); but would you not agree that when the Muslims saw statues and icons to Mary, and Christians bowing down in front of them and praying to them and calling upon Mary and praising her; they naturally understood the Trinity as including “Mother Mary”?

Ibn Kathir says that the Holy Spirit is the angel Gabriel.
http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=5&tid=14897

So, this shows they don't know who the Holy Spirit in the doctrine of the Trinity.

Ibn Kathir says this was about the Jacobite (Syrian Monophysites), Monarchite (?), and Nestorians, in one place, and later just “the Christians”:
(Surely, they have disbelieved who say: "Allah is the third of three.") Mujahid and several others said that this Ayah was revealed about the Christians in particular. As-Suddi and others said that this Ayah was revealed about taking `Isa and his mother as gods besides Allah, thus making Allah the third in a trinity. As-Suddi said, "This is similar to Allah's statement towards the end of the Surah,
[وَإِذْ قَالَ اللَّهُ يعِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ أَءَنتَ قُلتَ لِلنَّاسِ اتَّخِذُونِى وَأُمِّىَ إِلَـهَيْنِ مِن دُونِ اللَّهِ قَالَ سُبْحَـنَكَ]
(And (remember) when Allah will say: "O `Isa, son of Maryam! Did you say unto men: `Worship me and my mother as two gods besides Allah' He will say, "Glory be to You!")[5:116].

http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=5&tid=14362

But the Nestorians and Monophysites believed in the Trinity; (They agreed with the Nicean Creed and Constantinople) their issues were how to understand the 2 natures of Christ. (Ephesus and Chalcedon) Nestorius himself, it seems, based on the finding of the Bazaar of Hericlidus years later, was orthodox and wrongly accused. Therefore, the Qur’an did mis-understand the doctrine of the Trinity. They did not even know that Trinity is from two Latin words, “Tri – Unitas” (three in one) The words translated into Arabic and Farsi تـثـلیث for “The Trinity” reflect this. The Farsi word comes from Arabic. They mean, “three” or “three sided” or “three fold” – that is not what the original word, Tri-Unitas means. The “oneness” of the Trinity was lost in misunderstanding.

So it seems that the Qur’an did mis-understand the doctrine of the Trinity.

Ken said...

Part 2 of the Qur'an mis-understanding the doctrine of the Trinity:

Is Surah 112 - "Allah does not beget nor is begotten" against pagans/polytheist Arabs

or

Against the spiritual eternal begotten (Son of God) in the Bible - ie. John 3:16; John 1:18; 1 John 4:9; with implications on the Tri-unity (Latin: Tri-Unitas, "three in one")

or
Both, against both?

2. Does not the Qur'an itself define what Allah thinks the Christians mean by "the Son of God"? (ie, that (God forbid- Istaqfr’allah! استغقرالله !) that God got married and had a sexual relation with Mary and produced Jesus.) This is what many leaders of Mormonism have taught before in their history; but they seem to try and get rid of that history of their interpretations today. Mormonism is not Christianity at all; it is an heretical cult and actually a whole new polytheistic religion; because it believes in millions of gods and that men evolve into gods.

Surah 2:116

Yusuf Ali's footnote:
“It is a derogation from the glory of Allah – in fact it is a blasphemy – to say that Allah begets sons, like a man or an animal. The Christian doctrine is here emphatically repudiated. If words have any meaning, it would mean an attribution to Allah of a material nature, and of the lower animal functions of sex.” (p. 47, footnote at Surah 2:116, The Holy Qur’an: English Translation of the meanings and commentary. By Abdullah Yusuf Ali. The Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Fahd Complex for the Prinitng of the Holy Qur’an. Saudi Arabia. 1413 Higra.

These verses below by the Qur’an seem to define what Christians mean by “Son of God”, namely they think that Christians believed that God took a wife and had a Son. The Roman Catholics and Orthodox began calling Mary, “the Mother of the God” did not help much either for their understanding. The statues and icons and prayers to Mary also gave them this impression.
Surah 6:101 - "how can Allah have a son when there is no spouse for Him?" - this along with the verses below define how the Qur'an interprets "Son of God" for the Christians. It shows no understanding of the spiritual eternally past generation of the Son; that is it is not physical at all. The Son existed before He became flesh. (John 1:1-5; 1:14; John 17:5; Hebrews 1:3; 6; 8) He was the "kalimat'llah"

کلمه الله

see also:

Surah 19:88-92
Surah 9:30
Surah 72:3
Surah 39:4

So, it seems that the Qur’an, Muhammad, and the Arabs did misunderstand the Trinity, that Surah 5;116 includes more that tri-theism, and the Collyridian heretical sect, and they misunderstood the phrase, “Son of God”, and they did not understand the spiritual eternal generation of the Son (eternally spiritually begotten) of the early Christian creeds.

Would you not agree?

Ken said...

On another note, I fully agree with Chris and the Grandverbalizer that the "Millennial Madness" and popular prophesy teachers who have been caught as wrong on date setting and date suggesting, who are on TV such as Hal Lindsay (he is still on TBN) and John Hagee (teaches heresy of word of faith and that the Jews don't need evangelism and that the leaders of Israel did not reject Jesus as their Messiah) and Jack Van Impee and also the Left Behind Series - I agree that these kinds of teachings are wrong and un-biblical and give a bad impression of what Christianity really is.

I also agree with Acolyte4236 that much of those verses were about God's justice in 70 AD on the temple and the Jewish leaders and nation that had rejected the Messiah.

The "adulterous woman" of Revelation is apostate Israel, who rejected the Messiah; and the "beast" is Rome generally - the woman rode the beast and controlled her and said, "Crucify Him, Crucify Him!" Nero Caesar's name in Hebrew comes out to 666. Revelation is mostly about Judgment on apostate Israel in 70 AD, written around 68 AD while Nero was still alive.

Rev. 17:9-10 - seven hills = Rome
Seven kings, starting with Julius Caesar, means the one who "now is" is Nero at that time.

All these judgments will come upon this generation" - Matthew 23:36-24:3; 15, etc.

But we still await the second coming of Messiah - Acts 1:11; I Thess. 4:13-18; I Cor. 15:23-26; I Cor. 15:50-55; 2 Peter 3:3-15; Titus 2:13; 2 Thess. 1; John 14:1-3; Heb. 9:27-28; Rev. 19-22.

David Waltz said...

Hi Perry (Acolyte4236),

Thanks for providing the verses from Scripture concerning the judgment of God upon Israel (via the Romans; see also Daniel 9:26) in 70 A.D. These verses are quite specific, and historic—I would like to highlight three important aspects which set certain limits on interpretation of these verses (except Heb. 13): first, the judgment/vengeance was directed at apostate Israel; second, with all due respect to Hillary, history is crystal clear as to the when (70 A.D.); and third, it is very difficult to interpret these verses as a fulfillment of Isa. 63:1-6.

Moving on to your next post, wherein you wrote:

>>This is demonstratably false from primary source material. Jews did not fair better under the Muslims than they did under the Christian empire, East or West or in Persia for that matter. Jews suffered under the Jim Crow laws of Islam like many other non-Muslims.>>

I suspect that you and I are reading significantly different “primary source material”. Over the weekend, the Lord willing, I will type up a new thread using material from Jewish scholars only—scholars who disagree with your assessment, and affirm what I wrote earlier.


Grace and peace,

David

Acolyte4236 said...

David,

I would need a reason to think that Is can't be fulfille din those passages.

Second, contemporary Jewish scholarship isn't primary source material, but secondary source material. I explicitly referred to the former.

Third, not all Jewish scholars in the secondary literature agreed.

Fourth, I suspect as I have seen previously that such sources simply regurgitate myths in Islamic primary source material. We'd reach the same kind of conclusion looking at "White" sources of how "Blacks" were treated in the American South between 1870-1968.

An analysis of primary source material from Jews themselves says something quite different than the Islamic primary source material.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Acolyte wrote:

'Given that Herod was an Edomite and allied with the Romans and the Romans are the armies that Jesus sends out in 70 AD this contextually seems like a far better explication than Mohammed."
-----------------------------------

Hi Acolyte! Are you here saying that this is the fulfillment of Isaiah 63? That Jesus sent the Roman armies to destroy Jerusalem in 70 A.D? I hope you are not really saying that, because with all due respects, I beg to differ.

I tend to agree more with David that Daniel 9:26 is the prophecy about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

"And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined" (Daniel 9:26).

Many more scriptures are found in the book of Daniel and the gospels that firmly establishes this. Isaiah 63 is not one of them. Isaiah 63 is dealing with the second coming of Jesus when He will tread the winepress of God's wrath and take vengeance upon sinners upon the earth.

Peace.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

David, please don't misunderstand me. I am not against using history to find the evidence of the fulfillment of prophecy. What I am against is the use of history to interpret prophecy. We must first interpret the prophecy, and then use history to verify fulfillment or non fulfillment.

What has been happening is that people somehow try to re-write history or make history fit into whatever they think a prophecy means. They twist the truth to make the prophecy come true. That is the trap people like Hal Lindsey fall into, because of the lack of use of proper Biblical exegesis in solving the mysteries of the prophecies. They tend to rely more upon their own personal biases and preconceptions, and what they think historically the prophecies are all about.

No intention to offend you or criticize your work. We are here to learn from each other. I am learning a lot here. I have never had dialogue with people of different religions, and this is refreshing :-).

Peace.

Jennie said...

Hi David,
I read an interesting interpretation of the Isaiah 63 passage along with Micah 2:12-13. Here is the Micah passage:
12 I will surely assemble, O Jacob, all of thee; I will surely gather the remnant of Israel; I will put them together as the sheep of Bozrah, as the flock in the midst of their fold: they shall make great noise by reason of the multitude of men.

13The breaker is come up before them: they have broken up, and have passed through the gate, and are gone out by it: and their king shall pass before them, and the LORD on the head of them.

The interpretation I read was on this page (It's rather long, but very interesting):
http://www.endtimepilgrim.org/bozrahdeliv.htm

I do believe the Isaiah passage refers to Jesus Christ, but some passages do seem to have a dual interpretation, so maybe I shouldn't rule out another possibility.

Jennie said...

By the way, somewhere in the article I linked to, Dr. Finley reveals that 'Bozrah' means 'sheepfold'. I haven't checked that out, but it makes sense.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God, Peace be unto you.

I would like to ask Ken if the arguments that are presented were first made against the Qur'an by committed Christians or people given to post modernism?

I think that would be the real question that would be 'in order'. It seems that since James White and TF were brought up there was a need to come to their aid which although admirable we need to understand where they got this information from.

Ken what do you think? Have you ever really wondered who were the first people who brought these type of arguments against the Qur'an?

The reason this question would be in order is just to make sure that White and his band are consistent when they critique Muslims for using Bart Ehrman and other 'post modern' scholars.

So did James or any other Christian for that matter come forth and first level the claim that the 'Qur'an got the Trinity wrong'?

Or are Christians using source material by the very same people who would use their craft against the foundational principles of Christianity as well?

Ken you are obviously familiar with the arguments, respectfully I wonder if you are familiar with their origin?

Maybe the good "Dr" James would be so kind as to inform you Ken where he got his novel arguments from?

Than again as I said in my blog post here:
http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2009/11/apologist-james-white-inconsistency-and.html

It may be a long until we get any real answers on the 'sources'.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Jennie wrote:

"By the way, somewhere in the article I linked to, Dr. Finley reveals that 'Bozrah' means 'sheepfold'. I haven't checked that out, but it makes sense."
-----------------------------------

Oh hi Jennie! :-)

That is an interesting scripture you quoted! Micah 2:12-13:

12I will surely assemble, O Jacob, all of thee; I will surely gather the remnant of Israel; I will put them together as the sheep of Bozrah, as the flock in the midst of their fold: they shall make great noise by reason of the multitude of men.

13The breaker is come up before them: they have broken up, and have passed through the gate, and are gone out by it: and their king shall pass before them, and the LORD on the head of them.


Using the principles of Biblical exegesis, the word 'Bozrah' does mean 'sheepfold.' See here in verse 12:

"I will surely assemble, O Jacob, all of thee; I will surely gather the remnant of Israel; I will put them together as the sheep of Bozrah, as the flock in the midst of their fold: they shall make great noise by reason of the multitude of men."

In scripture it is not uncommon to find a statement and the interpretation of the statement in the same line. The "sheep of Bozrah" is the same as "the flock in the midst of their fold." It we compare this with other scriptures referring to "fold" and "sheepfold" then we get a clear picture of Jesus talking about Himself and His people. In John 10:14-16 Jesus says:

14I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.

15As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

16And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

This implies that Jesus is the leader of the sheepfold or fold, of His people.

Great job!:-)

Hillary.

Jennie said...

Hi Hillary,
fancy meeting you here! :)
Thanks!

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Jennie, I looked at that website your referenced, endtimepilgrim and Jesus is wearing pants there! You understand what I am getting at :-)

Jennie said...

Hillary,
no I don't....are you talking about that painting at the top of the page? I can't really make out what the figure is wearing on his legs there. what's the problem?
I don't particularly like this depiction; it's very comic-bookish.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Well this depiction does make Him look like an older man, but remember when I said that when Jesus comes back that He would not be wearing robes of the 1st Century? That according to Revelation 19, He would be wearing pants! And that He would not look the same as He did in the first century but that His features would be changed per Revelation 1:12-16?


David, I hope you don't mind us girls chattering here. LOL!

Hillary

Jennie said...

Oh yes, I do remember that now, Hillary. I guess the artist agrees with you :)

David Waltz said...

Hi Ken,

I have been much too busy for a beachbum the last couple of days, so please forgive my tardy response to your post; you wrote:

>>But the Nestorians and Monophysites believed in the Trinity; (They agreed with the Nicean Creed and Constantinople) their issues were how to understand the 2 natures of Christ. (Ephesus and Chalcedon) Nestorius himself, it seems, based on the finding of the Bazaar of Hericlidus years later, was orthodox and wrongly accused. Therefore, the Qur’an did mis-understand the doctrine of the Trinity. They did not even know that Trinity is from two Latin words, “Tri – Unitas” (three in one) The words translated into Arabic and Farsi تـثـلیث for “The Trinity” reflect this. The Farsi word comes from Arabic. They mean, “three” or “three sided” or “three fold” – that is not what the original word, Tri-Unitas means. The “oneness” of the Trinity was lost in misunderstanding.

So it seems that the Qur’an did mis-understand the doctrine of the Trinity.>>

Me: First, the Latin Trinitas and the Greek Trias simply means “the number three, a triad”; second, as you yourself noted earlier, Nestorian and Monophysite Christians were not the only Christian beliefs being espoused in the Arabian peninsula during the formation of the Qur’an; and third, I think it is important to distinguish between subsequent interpretations of the Qur’an among Muslims, and what the Qur’an itself says. For instance, you believe that the vast majority of Christians prior to the Reformation of the 16th misunderstood “the Gospel”; I would ask you to ponder over whether or not similar phenomenon has occurred in Qur’anic interpretation.


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hello Perry,

Thanks for responding; you said:

>>I would need a reason to think that Is can't be fulfille din those passages.>>

Me: I just do not see Isaiah 63:1-6 as a depiction of judgment against the house of Israel; that seems to be an extreme stretch of what the passage actual says.

>>Second, contemporary Jewish scholarship isn't primary source material, but secondary source material. I explicitly referred to the former.>>

Me: Two of the Jewish scholars I was going to reference provide “primary” source material in English that is not (at least to my knowledge) available other treatments.

>>Third, not all Jewish scholars in the secondary literature agreed.>>

Me: Every Jewish author/scholar I have read states that the Jews, for the most part, had better treatment under Islamic rule, than Christian; could you please provide references to the contrary.

>>Fourth, I suspect as I have seen previously that such sources simply regurgitate myths in Islamic primary source material. We'd reach the same kind of conclusion looking at "White" sources of how "Blacks" were treated in the American South between 1870-1968.>>

Me: Uhhh…I sincerely fail to understand the comparison Perry; I am relying on Jewish sources—i.e. “’Black’ sources on how ‘Blacks’ were treated” (read as: Jewish sources on how Jews were treated).

>>An analysis of primary source material from Jews themselves says something quite different than the Islamic primary source material.>>

Me: Different, yes; “quite different”, no.


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hi Jennie,

Thank you so much for “The Bozrah Deliverance” link! I just moments ago quickly read through it; but, I really need to reread again, and thoughtfully reflect on the material…shall do so tomorrow, the Lord willing.

Take care and God bless,

David

David Waltz said...

Hello Hillary and Jennie,

Hillary wrote:

>> David, I hope you don't mind us girls chattering here. LOL!>>

Me: Not at all; I sincerely feel blessed that the two of you have taken the time to post here—I may not agree with everything you espouse, but I appreciate your insights, and seriously reflect on your efforts.

May God bless both of you,

David

Ken said...

David
thanks for this -
you wrote:

First, the Latin Trinitas and the Greek Trias simply means “the number three, a triad”;

For the Greek word, yes; but isn't the Latin word made from two words, "Tri and Unitas" ? Do you have proof of your claim? What happened to "unitas" (oneness, unity, one) ?

If you are correct, then the simple "Three" in the Qur'an and Arabic and Farsi words would include an understanding of being against the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, and not just Tri-theism.


second, as you yourself noted earlier, Nestorian and Monophysite Christians were not the only Christian beliefs being espoused in the Arabian peninsula during the formation of the Qur’an;

The Qur'an and Muslim interpretation is against all forms of these Christians groups, both heretical and orthodox. Otherwise, they would have to admit that "begotten" meant "spiritual generation from eternity past" and "son of God" was spiritual. They never understood it that way at the beginning. Is not Surah 112 also against the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity? Is not Surah 6:101 saying that God cannot have a son, because there is no wife for Him? The Qur'an itself defines what it means by "Son of God" and "begotten". What about those verses?

and third, I think it is important to distinguish between subsequent interpretations of the Qur’an among Muslims, and what the Qur’an itself says.

Yes, but the implication of what you are saying is that the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is not condemned by the Qur'an nor "Son of God", nor the Christian spiritual usage of "begotten" (eternal, spiritual relationship), and that Islam wrongly condemns those doctrines. Why does Islam condemn those doctrines, if they were not originally condemned? Or condemned, but not understood.

For instance, you believe that the vast majority of Christians prior to the Reformation of the 16th misunderstood “the Gospel”;

You would add that issue into the discussion! I understand your point. But, that is not exactly what I believe. Rather, the Scriptures were neglected, (especially Galatians and Romans and justification) and the average person may have had simple trust in Christ without all the sacerdotal and works orientation added to it. The gospel was eclipsed in the centuries of say, 500-1517; but it doesn't mean "the majority of Christians didn't believe the gospel. The official church added false doctrines and practices in and clouded the pure gospel for sure.

I would ask you to ponder over whether or not similar phenomenon has occurred in Qur’anic interpretation.

I understand your point, but Islam, in it's condemnation of anything other than "towhid" (Surah 112) includes the orthodox view of the Trinity (and begotten, son of God, etc.) and also they rightly object to the prayers, statues and icons and calling Mary "mother of the God" also - these things confirm for them what the Qur'an says. At the time of Muhammad, they were indistinquishable from each other, Collyridians, Maryanya (sp. ?); Nestorians, Monophysites, Arians, Gnostics, and nominal orthodox and catholic - Muhammad was illiterate, as Islam admits - words got corrupted into Arabic - euangelion became "Injeel", etc. - it is obvious he misunderstood.

I understand your point about at the time of Muhammad; but I still think it included the orthodox (Syria, Palestine, along Muhammad's caravan route, if all the "Christians" in N. Arabia were heretics, etcl.

Still, don't you think the Muslims read the Qur'an today and look at RCs bowing in front of statues of Mary and Surah 5:116 fills their minds?

Jennie said...

Hi David,
I'm glad to share with you what has blessed me. Dr. Finley has a different perspective than the mainstream, but it really shed light on the passages, and I think each member of the body of Christ is necessary and can help the others. Sometimes we're too quick to write others off as being 'weird' or something. We're all in different places, but we all need each other, and the Holy Spirit who is in us draws us to Christ and to each other, until we all come to maturity (Ephesians 4). I sure need that help.
In Christ,
Jennie

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God, Peace be unto you.

This material taken from:
http://apologeticstudent.blogspot.com/

Qur'anic doctrine of the Trinity - Are there mistakes?
It is commonplace, today, for many Christian apologists to propose that the Qur'anic arguments against the Trinity are flawed, because they present a false picture of the Trinity itself.

Is this correct? Absolutely not!

Lets consider some of the most common arguments:

1) "The Qur'an says that Mary is part of the Trinity. This is not correct!"

Certianly, the Christian would be 99.9% correct in the second statement above (there was a small Christian sect that did believe this, but that is beside the point) Lets assume for the sake of argument that the second part is fully correct.

So Mary isn't in the Trinity, but does the Qur'an ever suggest she is?

The word 'Trinity', thalathatun and thalathatin, is mentioned twice in the Qur'an. In both verses where it is said, Mary is not mentioned. Instead we have:

Believe, then, in God and His apostles, and do not say, "Trinity" Desist from this assertion for your own good. God is but One God; utterly remote is He, in His glory, from having a son: unto Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is on earth; and none is as worthy of trust as God.

(TMQ: 4:171)

Indeed, the truth deny they who say, "Behold, God is the third of a Trinity" - seeing that there is no deity whatever save the One God. And unless they desist from this their assertion, grievous suffering is bound to befall such of them as are bent on denying the truth.

(TMQ: 5:73)

Don't see any mention of Mary there. What could they be confusing this with?

AND LO! God said: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, `Worship me and my mother as deities beside God'?" Jesus answered: "Limitless art Thou in Thy glory! It would not have been possible for me to say what I had no right to! Had I said this, Thou wouldst indeed have known it! Thou knowest all that is within myself, whereas I know not what is in Thy Self. Verily, it is Thou alone who fully knowest all the things that are beyond the reach of a created being's perception.
(TMQ:5:116)

Worship me and my mother as deities (ilahayni) besides God (Allah).
Ilahayni is the double plural form of the root ilah which means a deity. From the sense of the Semitic root, ELH, means something with power (i.e. a potential to control affairs, something to seek the help of).

In that sense, this verse is arguing with the belief of somewhere in the order of about 1.5bn of the world's 2bn Christians.

"Oh!", but they say, "Catholics didn't worship Mary until recent history!".'

Is this true?

Lets consider the Sub Tuum Praesidium (Beneath Your Compassion), a prayer still used in Catholic and Orthodox liturgy that has existed since 250CE, at least.

Beneath your compassion,
We take refuge, O Mother of God:
do not despise our petitions in time of trouble:
but rescue us from dangers,
only pure, only blessed one.

Now what does that say about what Orthodox Christians thought (and still do think) about Theotokos (Mother of God)?

Seems to me, if the Qur'an were written by a man without access to a range of Christians and their texts and was just producing poetry based on hearsay, it would be likely to include Mary as part of the Trinity, especially if they happened to hear that prayer in passing.

Instead, the Qur'an differentiates between the claims of the Trinity and the lofty status given to Mary correctly and insightfully.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God. Peace be unto you.

part 2. 2)"In a verse in the Qur'an, God says He is a third of a third. Thats not the Trinity!"

Does God say this? Again the verse in question is 5:73, and the phrase in Arabic is:

qaloo inna Allaha thalithu thalathatin

"They say: Certainly, God is a third in a Trinity"

thalithu meaning: third and
thalatatin meaning: Three/Trinity

Both words come from the Arabic root THALTH, meaning 'three'.

So, definitely not "third of a third" and, at worst, it says "One Third of Three" (Which is the literal rendition).

Again, seems like the actual doctrine to any non biased reader.

Jennie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ken said...

Grandverbalizer,
Peace to you also; Wa Alaykum Salaam!

As far as the source of higher critical theories of the Qur'an, I don't know much about that stuff.

I am just looking at the text of Qur'an itself and the doctrines of Christianity, The Trinity, the Deity of Christ, etc. and the Bible itself. And the words such as Trinity (Tri-unitas) and homo-ousias, etc. and how the Arabic especially understood the Trinity.

Your last post proves my point - but the exaltation of Mary had already started in the 400s-500s AD; and prayers to her, the phrase "The mother of the God", and praise to her, and icons and statues and people bowing down in front of statues and icons had already started.

Don't you think Muhammad and other Arab Muslim leaders saw this in areas along the caravan routes in N. Arabia, today's Jordan, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, and in Mesopotamian areas (some were Nestorian, some were Chalcedonian, and some were Monophysite) Islam is strong against idols and statues of humans and animals. They saw this in the early Christians at the time of Islam's start and beyond.

Don't you think that Surah 5:116 includes what they thought Christians believed?

It seems you do.

Are you sayin Surah 5:116 is only about Tri-theism (The Collyridian, Maryanya sect) at the time of the Qur'an's writing, and not about the orthodox view of the Trinity; but later it does apply to the way that Roman Catholics and Orthodox exalt Mary too much?

Ken said...

David,
I always was taught that Trinity is a shortened version of two Latin words - Tri and Unitas. (Three in one)

Is this right or wrong?

You seem to say it only means, "three" or "three-ness".

What sources?

Can you prove this?

If it is only meaning "three" or "threeness"; then the Qur'an is speaking also against the orthodox view of the Trinity in 4:171 and 5:73. (and not just paganism or the Collyridian sect, or the Maryanya (sp.?) sect.

But, if the original meaning (Theophilus of Antioch and Tertullian and other ECF) is indeed "three in one" and the "unitas" aspect (oneness, one, unity) is lost in translation, and the Arabs and Muhammad misunderstood the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity; then this (among other points that show this; one of the main things is it's denial of historical fact that even liberals like John Dominic Crossan and Bart Ehrman agree with - that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed crucified by the instigation of the Jewish leaders by Pontius Pilate and the Romans) adds to the understanding that the Qur'an is just a human book and not inspired by the creator God of the previous revelations through prophets and books. (Torat e Mosa; Zabor e Davood; Injeel e Isa)

Ken said...

Tertullian, Against Praxes, chapter 3

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.ix.iii.html

"The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned,) who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (οἰκονυμία.)

[Ken: I would add that the English meaning of the word, oikonomia, where we also get "economics" from; means, administration; organization; management]

(of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world’s plurality of gods to the one only true God; not understanding that, although He is the one only God, He must yet be believed in with His own οἰκονομία . The numerical order and distribution of the Trinity they assume to be a division of the Unity; whereas the Unity which derives the Trinity out of its own self is so far from being destroyed, that it is actually supported by it. They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods, while they take to themselves pre-eminently the credit of being worshipers of the One God; just as if the Unity itself with irrational deductions did not produce heresy, and the Trinity rationally considered constitute the truth. We, say they, maintain the Monarchy (or, sole government of God). And so, as far as the sound goes, do even Latins (and ignorant ones too) pronounce the word in such a way that you would suppose their understanding of the μοναρχία (or Monarchy) was as complete as their pronunciation of the term. Well, then Latins take pains to pronounce the μοναρχία (or Monarchy), while Greeks actually refuse to understand the οἰκονομία, or Dispensation (of the Three in One)."

David,
Is not this the first source of our understanding that Trinity is “Tri + Unitas” = three in one ?

(Aside from Theophilus of Antioch's sole reference; Tertullian fleshes it out much more.)


Possible to get the Latin in a parallel column?

This was written around 200 AD, right?

So, if the Qur'an is only talking about Tri-theism and polytheism in Arabia and the heretical sect of Collyridians, then the Qur'an seems ignorant of what Christians really believed at that time.

Grandverbalizer -
Does not Surah 6:101 define for itself what the meaning of the Christian "Son of God" and "begotten" (Surah 112) means? Because God cannot have a wife.

It includes not only paganism of the Jihalat Arabs, but also all "Christians", orthodox Chalcedonians (451 AD), Nestorian, Monophysite, Collyridian, Gnostics, etc.

If you say, that at the time, it only includes the pagan Arabs who had many gods, and the Collyridian sect; and none of the verses are specifically against the spiritual eternally begotten Son of God or Tri-Unitas; then Islam cannot condemn orthodox Protestant Christianity, because we don't exalt Mary too much as the RCs do, and we believe in the Oneness of God in a Tri-Unitas being of pure love and truth and holiness and justice.

David Waltz said...

Good morning Jennie,

Took yesterday off from the internet to take care of some outdoor projects; thank you so much for taking care of the offensive post in my absence; I removed it completely just moments ago.


Grace and peace,

David

Ken said...

ثلثه
ثلاثه
The word, "thalathe" written 2 ways from Surah 4:171 = "three"

ثالث
thalith = a third

from Surah 5:73 = your "thalithu thalathatin"

or ثالث ثلثه

I don't see the "in" in the Arabic text. the ه at the end changes to "t" at the end of a word when followed by a connecting adj.-noun or genetive construction, but I don't see an "in" ending.

The word for "The Trinity" in Arabic that Arab Christians use:
الثالوث

The word that Iranian Christians use for the Trinity, because Farsi has no definite article, it is an Arabic word that makes a noun from three (ثلثه thalethe) by adding t ت at the beginning.

تثلیث

They still loose the "oneness", "one", "unity" aspect and emphasis in translation.

In Farsi, it was always needful to add "one"/"unity"/"oneness":

تثلیث وحدت

"Trinity of Unity", from wahed or vahed, "one". Allah wahed

الله واحد

خدا واحد است
"Khoda vahed ast"

Notice "ast" است means "it/he is" and is very similar to "est" in Latin, "es" in Spanish, and "is" in English. Farsi, originally is closer to European languages, being a Japhethite people. From Japheth, one of the sons of Noah.

David Waltz said...

Hi Ken,

Thanks much for your thoughtful response; you wrote:

>>David
thanks for this -
you posted:

>>First, the Latin Trinitas and the Greek Trias simply means “the number three, a triad”;

For the Greek word, yes; but isn't the Latin word made from two words, "Tri and Unitas" ? Do you have proof of your claim? What happened to "unitas" (oneness, unity, one) ? >>

Me: Every classical Latin dictionary I have checked has the primary definition as being “the number three, a triad” (e.g. Lewis and Shorts rev. of Andrews trans. of Freund’s Latin-German Lexicon). Trinitas is the noun form of trini, and not the combination of tri and unitias.

>>If you are correct, then the simple "Three" in the Qur'an and Arabic and Farsi words would include an understanding of being against the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, and not just Tri-theism.>>

Me: At some point trinitas and trias became synonymous with the doctrine of the Trinity, such that these words which originally meant simply “the number three, a triad” had come to represent the doctrine itself (and various aspects of Trinitarian theology—Lampe in his A Patristic Greek Lexicon, pp. 1404-1407, lists no less than 13 different uses of trias in the Church Fathers). I cannot say exactly when this occurred (perhaps someone else knows), but I can point to one interesting example of a modern day Eastern Orthodox theologian substituting the simple term “three” (tria/s) with the term Trinity. Note the following:

==St. Gregory the Theologian [Gregory Nazianzen] expressed the mystery of the Tri-Unity in these words:

As soon as I begin to contemplate the Unity, the Trinity bathes me in its splendor. As soon as I begin to think of the Trinity, I am seized by the Unity. (Boris Bobrinskoy, The Mystery of the Trinity, p. 1.)==

However, the Anglican patristic scholars, Browne and Swallow, translate same Greek term (tria) simply as “Three”, and “Unity” as “One”. (see NPNF 7.375).


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hello again Ken,

You also posted:

>>The Qur'an and Muslim interpretation is against all forms of these Christians groups, both heretical and orthodox. Otherwise, they would have to admit that "begotten" meant "spiritual generation from eternity past" and "son of God" was spiritual. They never understood it that way at the beginning. Is not Surah 112 also against the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity? Is not Surah 6:101 saying that God cannot have a son, because there is no wife for Him? The Qur'an itself defines what it means by "Son of God" and "begotten". What about those verses?>>

Me: It seems to me to be a denial of any form of physical reproduction by God (i.e. Mormonism), which as you know, was also denied by Catholic/Orthodox Church Fathers.

>>and third, I think it is important to distinguish between subsequent interpretations of the Qur’an among Muslims, and what the Qur’an itself says.

Yes, but the implication of what you are saying is that the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is not condemned by the Qur'an nor "Son of God", nor the Christian spiritual usage of "begotten" (eternal, spiritual relationship), and that Islam wrongly condemns those doctrines. Why does Islam condemn those doctrines, if they were not originally condemned? Or condemned, but not understood.>>

Me: I do not find an explicit denial of the Catholic/Orthodox doctrine of the Trinity in the Qur’an. As for subsequent interpretations, the Qur’an (like the Bible) has given rise to varying interpretations. Though Islam has not splintered into nearly as many varying sects as Christianity, it has split into dozens of sects.

>>I understand your point, but Islam, in it's condemnation of anything other than "towhid" (Surah 112) includes the orthodox view of the Trinity (and begotten, son of God, etc.) and also they rightly object to the prayers, statues and icons and calling Mary "mother of the God" also - these things confirm for them what the Qur'an says. At the time of Muhammad, they were indistinquishable from each other, Collyridians, Maryanya (sp. ?); Nestorians, Monophysites, Arians, Gnostics, and nominal orthodox and catholic - Muhammad was illiterate, as Islam admits - words got corrupted into Arabic - euangelion became "Injeel", etc. - it is obvious he misunderstood.>>

Me: The tawhid, oneness of God, is also a teaching of Catholic/Orthodox Christianity. I know it is popular to speak of the “absolute” oneness of God, and yet, one cannot ignore the emphasis of the 99 names of God within Islamic theology.

Anyway, I am of the opinion that one does not need to attack the Qur’an in order to defend the Bible. I know that you (and others) disagree with me on this, but for now, that is my position.

God bless,

David

Ken said...

David,
So, where did the idea come from that Trinity is from two Latin words, Tri and unitas?? It seemed to me that "inity" was a shorted form of "unity".

What about Tertullian and others passages?

I agree that "towhid" is a Christian concept also(Mark 12:29; Deut. 6:5; I Cor. 8:6); but Islam would disagree. They see it as "unitarian Monotheism" rather than "Trinitarian Monotheism".


So, you don't believe other Qur'anic passages that criticize "the Son of God" or Surah 112 (about begotten) at least include criticism of the eternal spiritual begotten relationship into eternity past, ("begotten, not made Son of God") of John 3:16, 1:18 and the creeds?

Since all these things pre-date Islam, from NT 50 AD, to other Christian writings - 110, 150, 200, 250, 300, 400, etc. - and you don't think the Qur'an addresses it, isn't that indirectly saying that the Qur'an and Muhammad had no idea what the real Christians really believed?

Ken said...

It is not a matter of "attacking" the Qur'an, it is the only logical thought and implication that if the Bible is true and the word of God and revelation stopped with Jesus and His apostles ( Jude 3, Hebrews 1:1-3; John 17:8, 16:12-13; etc.)[which you also believe], then the Qur'an is automatically not divine revelation.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God, Peace be unto you.

Ken, I think that the post that I gave was very clear. If a person still wishes to assert that the Qur'an teaches that Mary was part of the Trinity I really have nothing more to offer.

I think the burden of proof is upon the one making the claim, I have yet to see James White, TF or any Christian under the sun show me any where in the Qur'an that Mary is part of a Trinity.

As far as their being a 'correct' view of the Trinity, that would be to assume that the doctrine is correct to begin with. I as a Muslim do not take that position.

To say that the Qur'an got Christian theology all wrong as well is a tall order. I notice that you like to use the word 'Christians' in inverted commas.

You still have much discussion among yourselves as to what is orthrodox position and what is not.

I also think that a person should really investigate why the Holy Spirit is feminine in Hebrew, and Aramaic, and neuter in the Greek language.

It than becomes some what of a curiosity as to why the Holy Spirit is identified as a "He".

Of course one is going to go to the Gospel of John but it looks to me that there is something else behind asserting the Holy Spirit to be a Masculine person.

It makes sense to me that if your trying to establish a Church authority you do not want any prophecy that may assert someone else yet to come. This would than leave the room open to an authority that could challenge already established positions.

It seems to me in my research there were some theological ramifications for equating the Holy Spirit with the Comforter.Along with this burying the identify of the Holy Spirit with a single passage that equates the idenity of the Holy Spirit with masculine pronoun.

Seems to me a more flexible picture of a loving family. Father divine, Holy Spirit feminine divine, and the Son. Let US make man in OUR image. Male and Female.


David has been quite gracious to allow us to continue to exchange views on a post orignally discussing certain Biblical text and their implications for prophecies concering Islam.

I'm sorry but this statement by you is a bit hard to resist.

that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed crucified by the instigation of the Jewish leaders by Pontius Pilate and the Romans) adds to the understanding that the Qur'an is just a human book and not inspired by the creator God.

If you could point me in the direction of the historical data that shows there was a Nazareth at the time of Jesus I would be more than happy to look at that. I think you put yourself in a difficult position if you say Jesus of Nazareth rather than the Nazarene.

It seems that Bart Ehrman and the Jesus seminar are not willing to accept the 'historical fact' that Jesus 'rose from the dead' and that he was 'God incarnate' born of a 'virgin' and many other 'historical facts'. I guess that I just happen to be one step ahead of them in saying that Jesus dying on a cross is also another one of those 'historical facts' we can't be so sure about either.

However, I'm not willing to come to the conclusion that there is no God or ready to take an agnostic position on matters.

I would also be happy if you could show me the exhaustive list of extra Biblical sources that say that Jesus died on the Cross.

You see I'm not interested so much in 'His Story' as I am in interested in Our Story.

Once again thank you Ken and thank you David for the continued chance at sharing information.

Peace be unto you.

Ken said...

If Surah 112 is only against the idea of God getting married and having a son (like Mormonism - physical "begetting"); why does it also reject the spiritual eternally past relationship of the word with the Father ?

Hard to believe that the Qur'an's words are only against that, [it certainly includes that]; when they were in contact with all sorts of Christians in N. Arabia, Syria-Palestine, Nestorians and Monophysites in Iraq, etc.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Grandverbalizer, if may just jump into this conversation. You asked why the Holy Spirit is feminine in Hebrew and Aramiac and gender neutral in Greek, and why the Holy Spirit is referred to as 'He.'

Well, based on my humble understanding, God is not a humam being who is male or female. Actually, God has both male and female characteristics, not in terms of anatomy, but in terms of character. The book of Genesis tells us that mankind was created in God's image - both male and female. Therefore, male and female together reflect the totality of God. That would also explain why God endorses the joining of a man and woman in marriage as a reflection of the wholeness of God, as opposed to two men or two women.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them (Genesis 1:27).

Peace.

Ken said...

As for historical evidence that Nazareth was a little town in Galilee:

The NT writings are historical; and true, therefore Nazareth was a real town; very small and obscure.

Matthew 2:23
Luke 1:26-27
Luke 2:39

Galilee was a despised place:
John 7:41-42
John 7:52


John 1:45-46

And so, the fulfillment of the prophesy of Matthew 2:23 was of the despised nature of the Messiah, also called Nezer (branch) of Isaiah 11:1 and the descriptions of the Messiah (Isaiah 53:1-3; 53:8; 49:7; Psalm 22:6-8, 13; 69:8; 69:20-21)

It is true that Josephus mentions 45 Galilean towns, but does not mention Nazareth, neither does the Talmud.

Silence by these 2 sources does not mean it did not exist, rather it shows how small and obscure and unimportant the town was.

Moreover:

"Archeological excavations conducted beneath the church of the Annunciation have revealed that ancient Nazareth was an agricultural village. Pottery was found there dating from the Iron Age II (900-600 BC) to the Byzantine period (AD 330-640) Excavations have also uncovered a number of Jewish tombs, including four that were sealing with rolling stones, typical of tombs used up to 70 AD and similar to the one in which Jesus was laid." (Archeological Study Bible, NIV version, "Nazareth", p. 1623, executive editor: Walter Kaiser; General Editor: Dr. Duane Garrett; at least 32 other scholars contributed and 15 Museum sources for the archeological information.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Grandverbalizer:

As for Jesus dying on the cross, I will look to see what extrabiblical or historical sources I can find. I think Moslems teach that He fainted on the cross (the swoon theory). Am I correct about this?

I think I may be hard-pressed however to actually prove this outside of the Bible, because the story that was circulating around the time of Jesus' ressurection was that the disciples stole His body, so extrabiblical material that is atagonist against Christianity will downplay any talk of a resurrection. Anyway I will look.

You know, using history to back up spiritual matters has its limitations. Even with the Quran, most of what we know of Islam is from your holy books, and not historical sources.

Peace.

Ken said...

It seems that Bart Ehrman and the Jesus seminar are not willing to accept the 'historical fact' that Jesus 'rose from the dead' and that he was 'God incarnate' born of a 'virgin' and many other 'historical facts'.


Because they have a presupposition against miracles and supernatural revelation. You, however, do not have that choice - you believe in the virgin birth of Isa Al Masih - Qur'an 3:45-48; and 19:19-21. I realize it is saying Allah created Isa in the womb of Mary - but it is still a miracle; a virgin birth.

Ehrman and the Jesus Seminar folks deny that. But most of them believe the obvious and irrefutable history of the crucifixion. (Robert Price is one of the few that I have heard of that rejects even the existence of Jesus at all.)


I guess that I just happen to be one step ahead of them in saying that Jesus dying on a cross is also another one of those 'historical facts' we can't be so sure about either.

No credible or reasonable person denies that history; except a few radical atheists/ skeptics and most all Muslims. The fact of the crucifixion does not require belief in supernatural revelation or miracles, so, it is inconsistent for you to lump them all together; especially since you do believe that God can communicate, sent prophets, did miracles through prophets, and at least in the virgin birth of Isa.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

You know place names change over time,especially in a country that has been conquered so much as Israel. For example, the town of Caesaria Phillipi is not mentioned in the Old Testatment, but is in the New Testament. There was no district of Galilee in the Old Testament, only in the New Testament. The Roman conquerors had even renamed Jerusalem Aelia Capitolina under emperor Hadrian.

For more information on Nazareth you can read this Wiki article.

Peace.

David Waltz said...

Hi Ken,

Thanks for responding. I sense you may be getting a bit frustrated with me, but I hope you know that it is not my intent to do so; rather, I am attempting to replicate the efforts of some Christian Islamic scholars (see my previous threads on Islam) who differ with the more popular polemicists (e.g. Emir Canner, Ergon Caner, Ron Rhodes, James White, Sam Shamoun, et al.). I am attempting to approach the Qur’anic passages without presuppositions, trying to read them in their original context without the baggage of hundreds of years of tradition (Christian and/or Muslim).

With that said, I would like to continue our ongoing dialogue; you wrote:

>> So, where did the idea come from that Trinity is from two Latin words, Tri and unitas?? It seemed to me that "inity" was a shorted form of "unity".>>

Me: As I said in my earlier response, at “some point trinitas and trias became synonymous with the doctrine of the Trinity, such that these words which originally meant simply “the number three, a triad” had come to represent the doctrine itself (and various aspects of Trinitarian theology—Lampe in his A Patristic Greek Lexicon, pp. 1404-1407, lists no less than 13 different uses of trias in the Church Fathers).”

>> What about Tertullian and others passages?>>

Me: Tertullian, like Gregory Nazianzen, contrasts one/unity/unitas with three/trinity/trinitas—he does not conflate the two.

>> I agree that "towhid" is a Christian concept also(Mark 12:29; Deut. 6:5; I Cor. 8:6); but Islam would disagree. They see it as "unitarian Monotheism" rather than "Trinitarian Monotheism".>>

Me: Agreed; however, the question remains does the Qur’an itself address orthodox "Trinitarian Monotheism"? (You know my thoughts on this…)

>>So, you don't believe other Qur'anic passages that criticize "the Son of God" or Surah 112 (about begotten) at least include criticism of the eternal spiritual begotten relationship into eternity past, ("begotten, not made Son of God") of John 3:16, 1:18 and the creeds?>>

Me: If one looks at the Qur’anic passages that speak on the issue of God having a Son, I see none which speaks to the type of generation espoused in Catholic/Orthodox theology; and let us not forget to keep in mind the reticence of so many Church Fathers in trying to describe what is meant by generation (e.g. “who shall describe His generation”, Irenaeus quoting Is. 53:8 LXX).

>>Since all these things pre-date Islam, from NT 50 AD, to other Christian writings - 110, 150, 200, 250, 300, 400, etc. - and you don't think the Qur'an addresses it, isn't that indirectly saying that the Qur'an and Muhammad had no idea what the real Christians really believed?>>

Me: I am sure you mean by “real Christians”, Catholic Christians. Muhammad may or may not have understood what Catholic Christians taught; Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter and Jude may or may not have had an understanding of post-Nicene Catholic Trinitarianism—I am, once again, attempting to address specifically what the Qur’an says, and not what it does not say, and/or address.


Grace and peace,

David

Ken said...

Daughter of Wisdom wrote:

God is not a human being who is male or female. Actually, God has both male and female characteristics, not in terms of anatomy, but in terms of character.

Good. Thanks for the contribution.

on the "swoon theory"; only some Muslims believe that - the Ahmadiyehs (considered a heresy of Islam) - and the late Ahmad Deedat (was he an Ahmadiyeh or Sunni ?) Maybe Shabir Ally thinks that also. ( I am not sure)

The majority of Muslims hold that Allah made someone else to look like him and that person was crucified and killed, while Allah took Jesus to heaven. (like Elijah or Enoch) Thus Allah tricked the Jews and Romans, decieved them.

Allah is the very best deceiver." Surah 3:54

Arabic:
الله خیر المکارین

Farsi: بهترین مکر کننده است

Ken said...

David,
Not frustrated with you personally, but . . .

Yes, I am a little bothered by having been taught all this time that "Trinity" was made from two Latin words, "Tri" and "Unitas". If the "u" coalesces into an "i" it was easy to see this as true, given how languages differ in endings, even when transliterated.

Since I don't know Latin, nor how the grammatical endings work, if your information is correct; that is quite frustrating and disappointing and painful to have believed some information that turns out to be wrong.

Having said that, that doesn't mean the Trinity is not true; nor un-Biblical, it just means that Tertullian and others like Gregory of Nazianzus used both the full form "Trinity" (rather than just "tri" as I thought) and "Unitas" to communicate both the one nature of God; and the "three-ness" of the personal relationships within the Trinity.

But, yes, if you are right about the Latin; and the fact that I don't know Latin - I admit this has disappointed and frustrated me.

On the other hand, it also shows that the bare word, if all it means is "three"; then the Qur'an in tranlating it, and it may be including that in its denunciations of it; even though I still think it is obvious that it is condemning all Christians at that time, (not just later interpretations of the Qur'anic text) orthodox (Byzantine Chalcedonians and Latin Roman Catholics) and Nestorians, Monophysites, and heretical groups like the Collyridians, who offered cakes to Mary in worship.

By "real Christians" at that time, I mean both the Latin (western Christian world) and Greek (Byzantium) Chalcedonians, those that believed in the Orthodox doctrine of the Trinity and the Chalcedonian Creed, although I see room for Monophysites and Nestorians as Trinitarians; as their struggle was with the 2 natures of Christ.

Do you agree that the Chalcedonians and efforts by Theodosius and Justinian and others were too harsh on the Monophysites and Nestorians?

Ken said...

oops; I left out an "s" in translating; and also add explanation:

then the Qur'an in translating it
(in what they heard from the Christians)

Ken said...

David,
Where is that Irenaeus reference, citing Isaiah 53:8?

Seems like a strange translation.

Ken said...

David wrote:
If one looks at the Qur’anic passages that speak on the issue of God having a Son, I see none which speaks to the type of generation espoused in Catholic/Orthodox theology;

Ok, but do you see a mis-understanding of the Trinity when you combine Surah 5:116(putting Mary into a kind of "trinity" or "triad" (tri-theism) with 6:101 (God cannot have a Son because He cannot have a wife) and 9:30-"The Christians say that Isa is Allah's son" - that 6:101 defines what it means for God to have a son; that is, He had to have a wife; and that that idea was what, and still today is what many Muslims wrongly think that Christians believe?

If Surah 9:30 is not against "spiritual sonship" also; then what is it against?

If it is against only what something like what Mormonism has taught, then this proves that the Qur'an mis-understood all Christians, not just the Collyridians.

It clearly mis-understood the Nestorians and Monophysites, by the clear fact that they did not believe that (that idea of the Mormons) Nestorius himself was against the phrase "Mother of God" for this very reason!! This points to massive ignorance by the writers of the Qur'an, (nothing personal meant here, Grandverbalizer, and any other Muslims who may see this) if it is only condemning the small Collyridian sect and pagan Arabs who believed in literal "sons and daughters of Allah" like Greek mythology. Don't you see that, when it affirms the Injeel and Torat as revelations and has so many other details (although always changed a little) from the Bible? It seems that they thought that Christians of that day believed like the Mormons do.

David Waltz said...

Hello again Ken,

So much interesting dialogue going on here—me trying to keep up with it all!

Concerning GrandVerb’s transliteration/s, I found the following online:

4:171

Ya ahla alkitabi la taghloo fee deenikum wala taqooloo AAala Allahi illa alhaqqa innama almaseehu AAeesa ibnu maryama rasoolu Allahi wakalimatuhu alqaha ila maryama waroohun minhu faaminoo biAllahi warusulihi wala taqooloo thalathatun intahoo khayran lakum innama Allahu ilahun wahidun subhanahu an yakoona lahu waladun lahu ma fee alssamawati wama fee alardi wakafa biAllahi wakeelan

http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=4&from_verse=171&to_verse=171&mac=&translation_setting=1&show_transliteration=1&show_yusufali=1&show_shakir=1&show_pickthal=1&show_mkhan=1


5:73

Laqad kafara allatheena qaloo inna Allaha thalithu thalathatin wama min ilahin illa ilahun wahidun wain lam yantahoo AAamma yaqooloona layamassanna allatheena kafaroo minhum AAathabun aleemun

http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=5&from_verse=73&to_verse=73&mac=&translation_setting=1&show_transliteration=1&show_yusufali=1&show_shakir=1&show_pickthal=1&show_mkhan=1


4:171

171. Ya ahla alkitabi la taghloo fee deenikum wala taqooloo AAala Allahi illa alhaqqa innama almaseehu AAeesa ibnu maryama rasoolu Allahi wakalimatuhu alqaha ila maryama waroohun minhu faaminoo biAllahi warusulihi wala taqooloo thalathatun intahoo khayran lakum innama Allahu ilahun wahidun subhanahu an yakoona lahu waladun lahu ma fee alssamawati wama fee al-ardi wakafa biAllahi wakeelan

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/transliteration/004.html


5:73

73. Laqad kafara allatheena qaloo inna Allaha thalithu thalathatin wama min ilahin illa ilahun wahidun wa-in lam yantahoo AAamma yaqooloona layamassanna allatheena kafaroo minhum AAathabun aleemun

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/transliteration/005.html


I wonder what is going on here…


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Ken,

The selection/quote from Irenaeus is from his Against Heresies, Book 2.27.5 (ANF 1.400). [Note: In my translation I used “declare” instead of “describe”.]

Grace and peace,

David


P.S. Have much more I would like to comment on, but it will have to wait until tomorrow.

Joel said...

I am replying to a post from 5 days ago by thegrandverbalizer.

[1] I don't know how James White got pulled into things.
[2] I'd never heard of Jay Smith before and I'm not sure why he should impact this discussion.
[3] I do not have the time to simply read a hundred pages or so from Scribd that reviews Luxenberg's work. I would imagine that whether or not it "debunks" him is in the eye of the beholder.

Nevertheless, I would suggest that the re-evaluation of Islamic origins may just be beginning (see Robert Hoyland's work). Patricia Crone writes is "Slaves on Horses":

"The legal and doctrinal hadiths are thus only one of the problems which the Islamic tradition presents. Were they the only problem, we should still have a fairly good idea of how Islam began; but the basic trouble is that these hadiths are a layer deposited relatively late an that the layer underneath consists of rubble reorganized in minimal order. No scholar in his most extravagant fantasies would dream of reconstructing the Constitution of Medina from it debris in the hadiths about Ali; and yet scholars are doing precisely that when they reconstruct the origins of Islam from its debris in the Islamic tradition."

I don't expect Muslims to agree with these charges, but there you are. Personally, I reject the Qur’an for many reasons, including:
(a)Its’ contradiction of The Torah and the New Testament Scriptures. For example, it rejects what the Law and the prophets say about circumcision and the sacrificial system means, which clearly demonstrates the need for a blood sacrifice (“without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins”).
(b)The concept of tanzih is inherently self-contradictory. Tanzih, which as I understand it means that “God is so holy and pure that he cannot be compared to any created thing, including concepts, since all our ideas are created” (Murata, 71). For example, “Nothing is like Him” (Sura 42:11). But if this doctrine is true, then the Qur’an should not exist, for the entire book is full of ideas and concepts describing Allah, whom tanzih says is indescribable.
(c) It rejects the sacrifice of Jesus which makes perfect we who are imperfect humans. Without such a sacrifice, humanity is lost in our own sin.

The bottom line for me is Jesus the Messiah, and him crucified. As the Apostle John said, “Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also.”

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God, Peace be unto you. So much to say. Subhan'Allah (Glory be to God). I found this blog a few months back and I really love David's approach to matters.

I find it refreshing and scholastic.

To Daughter of Wisdom and Ken as far as the response about the word Nazareth and the extra-biblical information about Jesus 'dying on the cross' I'll just leave it at that.

Because I do want vigorous discussion but I don't want to descend too far to the point where we get hurt or upset with one another. We defend our respective traditions to a point and hope that God has used us an asbaab (means) to exhort one another to truth.

Ken you stated
Allah is the very best deceiver." Surah 3:54

I don't quite agree with that translation and neither the theological implications that you believe it holds.

Remember that we also have such passages as this.

For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness. 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12

'By what means?' the LORD asked. "'I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,' he said. "'You will succeed in enticing him,' said the LORD. 'Go and do it.' 1 Kings 22:22

If there are ways that Christians are able to deal with these passages and find peace you can rest assured that Muslims too have ways of dealing with text that you find troubling.

Now what happened to Jesus according to 4:157 of the Holy Qur'an.

The swoon theory is indeed first accepted and propagated by an otherwise heretical group according to 'Orthrodox Islam'.

The Yusuf Ali translation was based upon an earlier translation. Infact the first translation of the Qur'an into English was done by someone from the Ahmadi movement. That is why at 4:157 you have a foot note that says something like 'some believe Jesus died'. Although no reference is given.

Ahmed Deedat, Zakir Naik and Shabir Ally (in his early days believed this).

The substitution theory does seem to be the more popular theory.

http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2009/12/must-see-methodist-minister-embraces.html < This is a link on my blog about Jerald Dirks who was a Methodist minister who obtained a Masters in Divinity from Harvard and latter became a Muslim.

He makes an interesting point about the text in some translations where people are given a choice to choose between Jesus Barabbas (which Dirks believes to be a Patronymic) and Jesus the Messiah. So who was crucified? Jesus the Messiah or Jesus the son of the Father?

Lastly, I think Shabir Ally is extending an olive branch to Christian theologians in saying it's also possible that Jesus did die but that his spirit was raised to God. Though I will not pressume to speak on brother Shabir's behalf. However, he is atleast willing to say this could be a possible interpretation.

Lastly, you have a new wave of Muslims like myself who believe that it's doubtful rather Jesus was even put on a cross, stake, or pole at all. Those like myself also try and refute the notion of some Jews that Jesus was a false magician who was stoned to death and his corpse was displayed in a tree.

I don't know how helpful this information is but I think it accurately represents atleast 4 different takes on Chapter 4:157.

Peace be unto you.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God. Peace be unto you.

This is a post for Joel. You stated the following:

"The legal and doctrinal hadiths are thus only one of the problems which the Islamic tradition presents. Were they the only problem, we should still have a fairly good idea of how Islam began; but the basic trouble is that these hadiths are a layer deposited relatively late an that the layer underneath consists of rubble reorganized in minimal order. No scholar in his most extravagant fantasies would dream of reconstructing the Constitution of Medina from it debris in the hadiths about Ali; and yet scholars are doing precisely that when they reconstruct the origins of Islam from its debris in the Islamic tradition."

And this is all fine. You even have someone in Germany who is clamining Muhammed (pbuh) never existed.

However, you do have a new wave of western scholarship who are starting to take the claims of Islam in regards to isnaad (chain transmission) more seriously.

http://www.halaltube.com/jonathan-brown-hadith-collection-and-criticism Jonathan Brown is one such individual.

I also want to point out and may you all forgive me if it seems I'm being arrogant but I honestly believe that deep down inside many Christians wish to God they had the type of evidence that Muslims have of thier primary and secondary sources.

For example who is Luke what is his last name? Who is Matthew? Matthew who? Who is the author of Hebrews? Who transmitted on who's authority?

Muslims have a very developed science infact it is a science of higher criticism of our hadith material. Anyone who denies this really needs to research Islam a bit further. Even the highest rank of hadith (Sahih) meaning authentic atleast 50 hadiths in the collections of Bukhari and Muslim were critiqued by Imam Nawawi a great Shaf'i legal scholar. Allot of Muslims are not aware of this.


I think a very strong argument can be made that Muslims had schools of higher criticism of thier own faith long before Tubingen University was on the scene.


Take for example your statement

For example, it rejects what the Law and the prophets say about circumcision and the sacrificial system means, which clearly demonstrates the need for a blood sacrifice (“without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins”).

But please note that this is not to be found any where in the TNCH. This is from Hebrews 9:22 which even James White admits we have no idea on earth who wrote it.

Please also note that some translations say: 'And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission of sin'

Why would it say 'almost all things'?

Perhaps someone discovered this text:

Leviticus 5:11
“If he is unable to afford even two turtledoves or two pigeons, he shall present as a sin offering for his sin one tenth of an ephath of fine flour. He shall not put oil or frankincense on it, because it is a sin offering.”

I'm not saying that someone changed the translation of hebrews 9:22 I have no idea what the Greek text says and I'm willing to be corrected becuase all truth bring me closer to God.

Some times I will admit that I really am dissapointed when I see the lengths and strides made against Islam and the double standards some of my Christian brothers and sisters are willing to use.

Someone finds a nail in Palestine and it's proof that everything about Christianity is true! We do some digging in Hebron find a broken pot and it's proof that everything said and did about David was true!

Yet we reject the Qur'an based upon a passage in the book of Hebrews that does not seem to be consistent with the Tanach itself, and written by an unknown author.

Yet, we have copious amounts of information and source material for what Muslims believe and yet with the wave of a hand it's all disregarded.

Peace be unto you.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Hi GrandVerbalizer,

First I must commend you on your knowledge of Biblical scriptures. You seem to know more Bible than the average Christian!

Let me address a few of your concerns. You mentioned something about the Trinity including Father, Son, and Mary as a Christian belief in times past. I am not sure if such a thing was taught at one time, but we do know that the gnostic Christians believed that the Holy Spirit was the female divine Sophia, the wife of the Father, and mother of the Son. The gnostics were a heretical sect of Christianity that rose up during the first century and became more prominent in the 2nd Century. They were NOT the orthodox beliefs of Christians, and many of their writings and teachings have been disproved, especially in the landmark work of Iraneus: Against Heresies. Somehow however, the Catholics have taken the idea of wife of God or mother of God and applied it to Mary. Although Catholics DO NOT teach that Mary is a part of the Trinity (Catholics do teach that the Trinity is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), they have elevated Mary to prominence within the Godhead as Mother of God, or Queen of Heaven.

This is not an anti-Catholic statemtent, just evidence one can find at the Catholic website NewAdvent.

Peace.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Grandverbalizer wrote:

"Lastly, you have a new wave of Muslims like myself who believe that it's doubtful rather Jesus was even put on a cross, stake, or pole at all. Those like myself also try and refute the notion of some Jews that Jesus was a false magician who was stoned to death and his corpse was displayed in a tree."
-----------------------------------

Now what evidence are you basing your new beliefs on? What documentation do you have to refute Jesus dying on a cross?

As for Jews believing that Jesus was a false magician, that might be a belief of some Jews today, but there is a growing acceptance within the Jewish community of today of Jesus as a rabbi, within Judaism. They just don't believe He was the Son of God or the Messiah.

There are also some technical difficulties with the idea of Jesus being stoned to death and hung on a tree. Firstly, there is no documented evidence of that by any 1st Century witnesses. Secondly, it was illegal for the Jews to put anyone to death, as they were under Roman rule, and thus only the Romans could impose the death penalty. Now you may point out the story of the woman caught in adultery, as an example of an attempt at stoning, but according to John 8:5-6, the scribes and Pharisees brought her to Jesus, to TEST Him to see what He would do. They probably had no intention of stoning the woman, but they wanted to test Jesus to see if He would break Roman law and comply with Jewish law. What they were trying to do was create a legal trap for Jesus. Only Rome could impose the death penalty.

Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death (John 18:31).

Peace.

Joel said...

A brief reply (no time right now):

You said, "But please note that this is not to be found any where in the TNCH."

Lev. 17.11: For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life."

Both modern Judaism and Islam fail to keep the Law given at Sinai. Christians also no longer sacrifice, but for a reason - we have a mediator who spilled his blood and fulfilled that Law.

David Waltz said...

Hi GrandVerb,

Would like to comment on some of the thoughts/reflections you wrote in your last couple posts.

First, thank you so much for your kind words towards me; they are much appreciated. I have sincerely attempted to keep the focus and tone of the blog on a charitable and objective plane—I know that I sometimes fall short of that goal, but when I do so, I try to pick myself up, and get back on track with haste.

Second, you penned:

>>I think the burden of proof is upon the one making the claim, I have yet to see James White, TF or any Christian under the sun show me any where in the Qur'an that Mary is part of a Trinity.

As far as their being a 'correct' view of the Trinity, that would be to assume that the doctrine is correct to begin with. I as a Muslim do not take that position.>>

Me: Well said.

>>To say that the Qur'an got Christian theology all wrong as well is a tall order. I notice that you like to use the word 'Christians' in inverted commas.>>

Me: Many Christians who post here do not believe that the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches are “true” churches (i.e. they believe that they teach a “false gospel”). Interestingly enough though, the majority who hold this position adhere to the doctrines formulated in the first 4 Ecumenical Councils.

>>You still have much discussion among yourselves as to what is orthrodox position and what is not.>>

Me: Indeed; though certain parameters were established in the first 4 Ecumenical Councils concerning the doctrine of God (i.e. the Trinity), and Christology, there has always been a good number of Christians who reject those formulations; and further, even those who do accept those councils, much remains unresolved between the various sects who do so (the filioque, eternal generation, ontological and economic distinctions, essence and energy distinctions, the social and Sophia theories, are just a few that immediately come to mind).

>>I also think that a person should really investigate why the Holy Spirit is feminine in Hebrew, and Aramaic, and neuter in the Greek language.

It than becomes some what of a curiosity as to why the Holy Spirit is identified as a "He".

Of course one is going to go to the Gospel of John but it looks to me that there is something else behind asserting the Holy Spirit to be a Masculine person.

It makes sense to me that if your trying to establish a Church authority you do not want any prophecy that may assert someone else yet to come. This would than leave the room open to an authority that could challenge already established positions.

It seems to me in my research there were some theological ramifications for equating the Holy Spirit with the Comforter. Along with this burying the identify of the Holy Spirit with a single passage that equates the idenity of the Holy Spirit with masculine pronoun.>>

Me: Stephen Lambden, has written an excellent essay on this issue: “Prophecy in the Johannine Farewell Discourse: The Advents of the Paraclete, Ahmad and the Comforter” (see the book referenced HERE).

>>Seems to me a more flexible picture of a loving family. Father divine, Holy Spirit feminine divine, and the Son. Let US make man in OUR image. Male and Female.>>

Me: Could you explain a bit further how the above formulation would work within an Islamic paradigm?

And third, from another post:

>> Now what happened to Jesus according to 4:157 of the Holy Qur'an.>>

Me: You listed the “swoon” and “substitution” theories, followed by Jerald Dirks remarks; and then, ended with what I shall call the “spiritual resurrection” theory. Have you had a chance to read THIS THREAD, and/or the book referenced in it?


Grace and peace,

David

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God, Peace be unto you. Anything that is good and beneficial presented by me all the praise is to God. Only the mistakes are mine.

Let me first address the issue surrounding 4:157 of the Qur'an.

I said previously basically there are four responses to this.
1) Swoon theory
2) Substituion theory
3) Physical but not Spiritual death
4) Denial that the event even took place at all.

Now I will be very transparent in why I defend postion no.4 I believe what it does is put the burden of proof back upon the Christian. I believe that 1-3 have some holes that leave the Muslim open to theological counter-attacks.

1) Swoon theory for example. Well than if Jesus did survive the crucifiction where is he at now? Of course the Ahmadiyyah say he is buried in Srinigar Kashmir in N India.
I think the Christians in the end will not find this satisfying.

2) Substituion theory seems like a very strong position and I appreciate Dr. Jerald Dirk's contribution. However, as you will see in many translations of the Qur'an. In brackets (but Allah put the resemblance of Jesus upon another person and he was crucified). To me this is a huge embellishment that is not supported in the Arabic text at all.

3) That the body of Jesus was crucified but not his spirit or soul. I did read the blog post put up by brother David and I'm now interested to get the book recommended and read through it Allah-willing. As I said even Shabir Ally is willing to entertain this possiblity but for me again I think Muslims compromise to much by this. Becuase once we concede this point the question than will shift to the 'empty tomb' where is the body?

However, if you used well this is an effective polemic against Muslims. I also liked the touch given by adding the verse that states that those who are 'killed in the way of Allah are not dead but alive though you percieve it not'.

4) New wave apologist like myself who adopt the position that we can't know for certain that Jesus was on a cross at all based upon the following.

http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2009/05/more-thrilling-than-davinci-code.html < This is my blog post discussing the issue in more detail.

I have always been taken a back by the statement They didn't Kill AND they didn't crucify him. I've always thought this to be a bit redudant.

I mean as I ask fellow Muslims why didn't Allah simply say they didn't kill him period? Why does he say they didn't kill him (general) and than say nor was he put to death on the cross (specific).

So this is where Daughter of Wisdom's questions come in.

For me when I hear Josh McDowell, William Lane Craig, Mike Licona, and others talk about how Muslims reject historical fact that 'even Ehrman and the Jesus seminar believe in' my response is o.k what are those facts?

When I look at the examples given in the Talmud, the statements of Tacitus, and Josephus, and Seutonius I personally don't find them convincing.

I have never yet ONCE seen a Muslim during a debate take any of the above named Christian apologist to task when they name those people.

Infact Seutonius mentions nothing about a crucified messiah and neither does the Talmud. In my opinion there is a dearth of extra-biblical evidence on the subject.

Also as I was exposed to Messianic Christians who believe Jesus to be killed on a tree or a pole, and of course the claims of Jehovah's Witness these are all very eye opening for me as well. What happenend to me was the image of the cross was taken out of my head, and replace with a tau or a 'T' coupled with the fact that it could simpy just be an upright stake 'I'.

The idea of Jesus being on a cross with two thieves behind him being replaced by an image of Jesus with two other individuals together on one single large tree for example takes away atleast for me some of the 'historical' images I had in my mind growing up.

Peace be unto you.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God. Peace be unto you. This post will be directed to everyone as I feel there are some things asked to me that I either overlooked or didn't respond to.

Allah-willing I hope this helps.

Daughter of Wisdom

There are also some technical difficulties with the idea of Jesus being stoned to death and hung on a tree. Firstly, there is no documented evidence of that by any 1st Century witnesses.

I agree and that is why I disagree with anything written about it in the Talmud, and I stand on the Qur'ans assertion in 4:157 "They" did not kill him (meaning the Jews).

You also state the following:

Secondly, it was illegal for the Jews to put anyone to death, as they were under Roman rule, and thus only the Romans could impose the death penalty

I have some issues coming to terms with this based upon the following:

The gospel of John indicates that the Sanhedrin turned Jesus over to Pilate because it lacked the power to impose death: “Pilate said to them. “Take him yourselves and judge him according to your law.” The Jews replied. “We are not permitted to put anyone to death.”

(Wouldn't Pilate be aware they are not permitted to put anyone to death)?

The Mishnah, however, clearly shows that the Sanhedrin did have the power to impose death for certain crimes at least sometime before 200 C.E.

In particular, Mishnah Sanhedrin 6.1 to 6.4 specify the procedures for stoning. There is no evidence to suggest that the power did not exist in 30 C.E On the contrary, there is evidence that the Romans preferred to leave as much power as possible to control religious to question whether in fact that was the charge against Jesus. If it is assumed to be the charge, however, Mishnah Tractate 7.4 makes clearthat execution by stoning was an available option for such a crime.

Source: The Trial of Jesus by Alan Watson (1995)

Also In Acts 6:11-12 Stephen is killed by them.

"Then they suborned men, which said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God. And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and caught him, and brought him to the council,"

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God, Peace be unto you.

This is for Joel

Lev. 17.11: For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life."

Notice that the passage in Hebrews 9:22 doesn't say 'according to the scriptures'.


This may seem trivial but I thought it was noteworthy.


There are also other problematic issues with Hebrews.

Hebrews 10:5 Misquotes Hebrew Scriptures.

"Sacrifice and offering You have not desired, but a body You have prepared for me" (Hebrews 10:5 referring to Psalms 40:6).

"Sacrifice and meal offering You have not desired; my ears You have opened; Burnt offerings and sin offerings You have not required" (Psalm 40:6).

Now here is a Christian web site that responds to this but I was not convinced by the answers given.

http://www.bibletopics.com/BibleStudy/46.htm

So lastly let's look at Leviticus 17:11 in context:

"And whatever man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who sojourn among you, who consumes any blood, I will set My face against that person who consumes blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul. Therefore, I say to the children of Israel, `No one among you shall consume blood, nor shall any stranger who sojourns among you consume blood.'"


What should immediately be apparent is that the topic of this passage is not how to secure atonement from sins, but the prohibition against consuming blood. We are told parenthetically that the reason for this prohibition is that the blood contains the vitality of the animal (cf. Genesis 9:4, Deuteronomy 12:23) and consequently, when we bring an animal sacrifice, its blood serves as the atoning agent, and not another part of its body.

Since Leviticus 17 doesn't come to teach us about the principles of atonement, we will have to look elsewhere for the Bible's most important teaching on how to repair our relationships with Allah
Before proceeding, let's consider another point about what is, and what is not being said in Leviticus 17:11.

The passage does say that since blood symbolizes the life of the animal, Allah has given it to us as a means of atoning for our sins. But does the verse clearly teach that it is the only means Allah has provided to make atonement?

Here is more food for thought. Life is in the blood, o.k what is in blood that is life? What do I mean? Well, what about the majority of living things on this planet that do not have blood at all like plants and vegetation. They are alive and have life with in them but they do not contain blood.

However, they contain water!

(Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We parted them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?) (Holy Qur'an chapter 21:30)

Holy Qur’an chapter 22 verse 37
"It is not their flesh, nor their blood, reaches Allah, but to Him is acceptable observance of duty on your part. Thus has He made them subservient to you, that you may magnify Allah for guiding you alright. And give good news to those who do good."

Psalms 78:36-39
"Their heart was not steadfast toward Him, nor were they faithful in His covenant. But He, being compassionate, forgave their iniquity...remembering that they were but flesh."

Remember that song by The Human League-Human?

Isaiah 43:23-25
"You have not brought Me the sheep of your burnt offerings...or the fat of your sacrifices, but you have burdened Me with your sins...Nevertheless, I will wipe out your transgressions for My own sake, and I will not remember your sins."

Peace be unto you.

Ken said...

Grandverbalizer -
Salaam o Alaykum

May you find the peace and rest of Isa Al Masih - John 14:27; Matthew 11:28-30

A well thought out answer for the Hebrews 10:5 problem is
S. Lewis Johnson, The Old Testament in the New: An Argument for Biblical Inspiration.

http://www.amazon.com/Old-Testament-New-Contemporary-Perspectives/dp/0310418518/ref=cm_lmf_tit_4

(chapter 4, pages 53-67)

Basically, the opening or digging of the ear was an idiom for being willing to obey no matter what. The slave/servant was willing to obey with his whole life.

God was not impressed with multiplied sacrifices without internal contrition and heart repentance. Psalm 51:17 - this explains those other expressions, some that you have quoted, "sacrifice and burnt offering Thou hast not desired ", etc.

"To obey is better than sacrifice" - I Sam. 15:22

But Jesus was without sin, as even the Qur'an testifies - Surah Maryam 19:19

Jesus fulfilled that Psalm as the fullfillment of David in His complete obedience. The ear was one small part of the body; the NT inspired writer expands the part of the body, the ear, to the whole body, the OT was prophesying a part for the whole, a literary device called a synecdoche, the use of a part for the whole, the ears as parts standing for the whole body.

The point is the obedience, williing to the will of the Father, even give His life, His whole body.

Read all of Hebrews 10; and then the wider context of chapters 7-10 and then the whole book.

Al Masih offered His whole self, willingly and voluntarily giving all of Himself in love for His people from all the nations. Revelation 5:9

John 10:18

Hebrews 10:10
"By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus once for all."

There is much more on that, and others have written on that also; too much for the comboxes.

Ken said...

Grandverbalizer,

Joel is right; the Hebrews 9:22 passage is teaching from Leviticus 17:11.



Even in Islam, in the Qur'an, there is at least an idea of substitutionary sacrifice in Surah 37, (Al Saffat, those who set the ranks), verse 107 (or 108, depending on which version)



Allah says, "We have ransomed you with a mighty sacrifice."



the word "ransom", from Fedieh is used in Arabic and Farsi to convey the Christian concept in the Injeel, prophesied by the Torah and Zobur, that an innocent victim would come in the future, the Messiah, Suffering servant, and give His life as a perfect sacrifice for sin. He ransomed us from the slavery of sin; and this is the basis for forgiveness.

John (Yahya)the baptist spoke of this fulfillment in John 1:29
"Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world."

So Al Masih's death was a fulfillment of the lamb/ram sacrifice of the Ghorban/Zebh of Abraham and his son (Gen. 22/Quran 37:107-108) and the Passover lambs (Exodus 12-14) and the tabernacle sacrifices (Leviticus chapters 1-5; day of atonement, chapters 16-17; and the temple sacrifices - I Kings chapter 8; and the suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22.

Mark 10:45
"The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve and to give His life a ransom (fedieh) for many." Same Arabic/Farsi word concept in these translations of the Bible as in Qur'an 37:107-108

Ask yourself, "why did Allah substitute an innocent victim in the place of Abraham's son?" Why did the sinless one suffer death for the sinful human?

On our sinfulness:
Mark 7:20-21
Matthew 5:21-30
Luke 18:9-14
Romans 3:9-23

see also
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/01/so-why-did-allah-substitute-innocent.html

Ken said...

Dear Grandverbalizer:

Good answer on the "Allah is the best deciever" issue. Yes, we have verses in the Bible that teach God's sovereignty over all things, even sin. When God took His protective hand off Job and allowed Satan to attack him ( Job chapters 1-2), Satan could not have done that without God's permission and decision to allow it to happen. Please read the articles I link to; they cover the verses you mention and many more!

I know that word in Arabic, and it has come into Farsi ( Makr, Makara) and it clearly means, "deception, trickery, guile, scheming"

But, yes, I also believe in God's sovereignty, even over sin and that He ordains (decides beforehand what will happen) sin, but God does not do the sin itself. He allows wicked people to do the sins. He is absolutely sovereign.

The difference is that God in the Bible cannot lie; but in Islam, it seems that Allah can lie and sin if He wants/wills to; everything is subservient to the will of God. Isn't this why there is so much fatalism (Jabr, qesmat) in Islam? Many Islamic teachers have taught this.

In Christianity, God cannot do anything that is against His nature or character. Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18

But, in Islam, God can if He wills it.

Some good articles below by John Piper on how to handle the issue of God's sovereignty and sin and those verses you brought up.

www.desiringGod.org
Does God Lie?
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TasteAndSee/ByDate/2008/3044_Does_God_Lie/


http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TasteAndSee/ByDate/2001/1181_Why_I_Do_Not_Say_God_Did_Not_Cause_the_Calamity_but_He_Can_Use_It_for_Good/

Daughter of Wisdom said...

GrandVerb wrote:

"The Mishnah, however, clearly shows that the Sanhedrin did have the power to impose death for certain crimes at least sometime before 200 C.E."
===================================

GrandVerb, I admire your extensive learning! I see you are well-read, however we must be careful how we apply laws that are written in one time period to another time period. The Mishnah came after 70AD, after the temple was destroyed. The laws in it are rabbinical laws written after that time.

You also mentioned the stoning of Stephen as an example of stoning in the time of Christ. Firstly, this occured in 34AD, about three years after Christ, and the stoning of Stephen was done in a fit of passion and rage by his accusers - done on impulse. It was an illegal stoning - a mob lynching if you will. This set off a whole sequelae of events of civil unrest, mob killings, rebellions and so on, which eventually led up to the Great Jewish Rebellion of 66AD-70AD. It is CLEAR from John 18:31 that the chief priests thought it was illegal for them to put Jesus to death - that was why they turned Jesus over to Rome, otherwise, they would have put Him to death themselves.

Peace.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

As for Pilate, he wanted to push off the responsibility from himself to the Jews. Pilate did everything he could to get the Jews to change their minds, but could not. He then eventually relented and caused Christ to be crucified.

By the way, Jesus' other name - Christ- means Messiah. The only one in history to have Messiah as a part of His name.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God, Peace be unto you.

Thank you for your energetic response Ken! The thing that amazes me about Christian apologist is this: I often wonder how much better Islamic apologetics would be today if we had people of such craft that went to such great lengths to explain even the smallest objections on any issue.

It truly is a testimony to the tenacity of the faith it inspires in it's believers. Well not to mention that 99% of Islam's best material remain the Arabic, Hindi, Farsi, and Turkic languages.

It's amazing that when it comes to the Qura'n any slight objection is room for rejection of it immediately, it would be amazing to see more Chrisitans see if they could be just as creative in coming up with ways of reconciling apparent 'difficulties' in the Qur'an.

O LORD, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived; thou art stronger than I, and hast prevailed: I am in derision daily, every one mocketh me. (Jeremiah 20:7)

Let's take a good look at what Calvin said

“... Experience shows that the reprobate are sometimes affected in a way so similar to the elect that even in their own judgment there is no difference between them. Hence, it is not strange, that by the Apostle a taste of heavenly gifts, and by Christ himself a temporary faith is ascribed to them. Not that they truly perceive the power of spiritual grace and the sure light of faith; but the Lord, the better to convict them, and leave them without excuse, instills into their minds such a sense of goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption .... there is a great resemblance and affinity between the elect of God and those who are impressed for a time with a fading faith .... Still it is correctly said, that the reprobate believe God to be propitious to them, inasmuch as they accept the gift of reconciliation, though confusedly and without due discernment; not that they are partakers of the same faith or regeneration with the children of God; but because, under a covering of hypocrisy they seem to have a principle of faith in common with them. Nor do I even deny that God illumines their mind to this extent.... there is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which after wards proves evanescent” (3.2.11, Institutes).


This is scary stuff! You said that in Christianity God cannot do anything that is against his nature or will.

Well if God can deceive people about their own salvation is indeed something to ponder.

I'll have to try and get the book you recommended to see how she deals with the issue of the Hebrews text.

It just seems to me that since the Holy Spirit is 'inspiring' the New Testament writers you would think that inspring them to write the original Hebrew would come to mind rather than 'inspire' them to write from the Greek Septuagint leaving aspiring apologist to explain it all away some centuries latter.

It seems this whole prophecy buisness is a bit selective as well. I mean why can't Psalm 25 refer to Jesus?

Well because verse 7, verse 11 and verse 18 would present huge problems. However, the rest of the text goes right along with what we have in Pslams 22 does it not?

Or take Matthew 2:15 "Out of Egypt I have called my Son"

The only way that I as a Muslim could accept that Hosea 11:1 could possilby refer to Jesus in any way shape or form is to reject completely it's context.

As a Muslim I cannot yield to any understanding that says that Jesus burned incense to idols!

The only way I can accept Hosea 11 refers to Jesus is that I ignore the context and come up with some double application theory that seems to really go to great lengths to strech things.


Peace be unto you.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God, Peace be unto you.

Again Ken you wrote

The difference is that God in the Bible cannot lie; but in Islam, it seems that Allah can lie and sin if He wants/wills to; everything is subservient to the will of God. Isn't this why there is so much fatalism (Jabr, qesmat) in Islam? Many Islamic teachers have taught this.

You put the word "SEEMS" and also you said that 'everything is subservient to the will of God'.

Than you said many Islamic teachers have taught this.

Islamic theology happens to be one of my interest and I study with allot of Islamic theologians and I am curious as to which ones you had in mind and what statements? Also if you knew the difference between the Jabariyyah and the official position of Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah?

Here is what John Piper had to say,

When we say that God never lies, but ordains that lying happen, we do not mean that he approves of lying or that his law permits lying. We mean that God governs all things in the universe, including the sins of sinful men. Sin does not cease to be sin because God governs it and guides it for the good of his people and the glory of his name.

However, since God governs the entire universe he is soverign over what ever event happens in this universe. Nothing is independent of the power of Allah.

So lets take a closer look at 1 Kings 22:22
And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.

Notice that God is saying to this lying spirit "You will persuade him" and even given as a command "go forth and do it" That is definitely not tacit approval.

When we say that God never lies, but ordains that lying happen, we do not mean that he approves of lying or that his law permits lying. We mean that God governs all things in the universe, including the sins of sinful men. Sin does not cease to be sin because God governs it and guides it for the good of his people and the glory of his name.

Now did John even stop and think about what he was saying? The last part of the paragraph above makes absolutely no sense to me.

So if God governs and guides sinful deceit for the use of his people and the glory of his name what's the big deal than?

When God says, “I have deceived that prophet” (Ezekiel 14:9), he means that he can and does govern a sinful prophet’s mind so that the prophet believes a lie; but God does it in such a way that he himself is not lying. God is able to superintend a thousand circumstances and influences so that a sinful prophet will think a lie, without God himself lying or in any way compromising his perfect truthfulness.

"He means that he can and does govern a sinful prophet's mind so that the prophet believes a lie."

Notice that God does it in 'such a special way' (not specified) that he himself is not lying.

This to me is also scary stuff. This is where the theology of John Piper and the Jabariyyah are hand in hand, and part with the understanding of Qada and Qadr according to the orthrodox position of Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah.

I will say this I am finding out allot of new things from everyone here that is quite intriguing and interesting. I am learning allot from you all. Thank you!

Peace be unto you!

Joel said...

To thegrandverbalizer:

I know that these internet debates never change anyone’s mind, so it is probably futile for me to go on, but I will try to summarize what I think is going on.

[1] I said that the Qur’an contradicts the New Testament and gave animal sacrifice as one example. Rather than addressing if Islam keeps the Mosaic code you pivoted to talk about Hebrews 9.22 and how Hebrews has the Old Testament wrong in your opinion. I am not going to follow that rabbit trail with you. What I want to know is if you think that Islam indeed is following the law given to Moses?
[2] I mentioned Tanzih and received no reply.
[3] I quoted Crone on Islamic origins and you responded by attacking the origins of the Bible and mentioned isnaad. As a matter of fact, isnaad is dealt with by John Wansbrough in his “Quranic Studies” on pages 178-184 or so. Wansbrough states:

“The supplying of isnads, whether traced to the prophet, to his companions, or to their successors, may be understood as an exclusively formal innovation and cannot be dated much before 815” (page 179).

What I am positing is:

[a] Islamic origins deserve more scrutiny than they have traditionally received. Muslims like to attack the trustworthiness of the Bible and assume that Islamic origins are unassailable, but this is no longer the case.
[b] Allah as described in the Qur’an is so wholly other and beyond description [Tanzih] that the Qur’an should not be able to exist.
[c] Whatever its origins, Islam does not fulfill the Torah, in fact it does not follow the Mosaic law at many points.
[d] Islam rejects the need we have for a Savior and for a new birth.

I doubt we will get anywhere beyond this disagreement, but that’s a summary of where I see things. I’m not sure if there is a point in going further with this thread. Thanks!

Chris said...

David,

Somewhat more to the point of the OP, it seems to me that the figure in Isaiah 63 is not Muhammad but God himself. This is an example of the divine warrior motif. He comes from Edom not because that is his home, but because he has just "trodden the winepress" there. That is, he has personally worked vengeance upon Israel's enemies (represented by Edom and Bozrah).

Peace,

-Chris

Ken said...

One of the few times I would agree with Chris - he seems to understand the context itself and the author's intended meaning here, the key to proper hermeneutics.

Good job Chris, on this one.

Ken said...

Salaam to the Grandverbalizer!

Thanks for the discussion. I appreciate your good spirit.

I cannot remember exactly the names of the Islamic theologians, Sunni or Shiite or Sufi; and I will admit that I cannot produce specifics right now on what Fazler Rahman or Al Ghazzali or Razi or Ibn Kathir (although I have read some summaries and quotes by all of them).

I have also read Sufis like Al Arabi and especially, in Farsi, Iranian sufis like Rumi or Hafez or Saadi. (They talk about Jesus a lot in a way that orthodox Sunni's would not. the Sufis are seeking to connect spiritually with the one in their hearts.

What I am going by is summaries of what I remember reading that Islamic theologians have said - even admitted that we cannot say what the "dhat" (ذات) of Allah is; Allah is a transcendent force and mystery in Islam; many Muslims have told me for 26 years that Allah does not have personality( شخصیت ) (Shaksiat) [I am using the Farsi versions of these Arabic words; I am fluent in Farsi, so I know some things; but I admit I do not know Arabic; but I can see which Arabic words we have in Farsi when I read the Arabic side by side.)

As for the differences between the Jabariyye and Muta'azile and Qadariye and other views, I have looked a little into those, but it is difficult to understand what the difference is. As the internet is making these things more available, I am growing in knowing the specifics. Reading Al Bukhari on line, for example.

In every day life, in my friendships with hundreds of Muslims over 26 years from many different countries, practically, most of them work out to Fatalism, which is closest to the Jabariyye school of thought right?

Those that reject that tend to be the westernized liberal Muslim who does not really follow the details of Islam, (doesn't pray 5 or 3 times a day; goes to Mosque every now and then, prays when in trouble; tries to be generally moral; and believes in Allah as One, but doesn't concern himself or herself with any of the other details.

Continued

Ken said...

Part 2

The following link is very good, and very comprehensive, and seems to me to have many similarities with Reformed Calvinism - except that God's Sovereignty in Biblical Calvinism has a basis for His forgiveness - God's love shown by He Himself humbling Himself (John 1:1-5; 14; Philippians 2:5-11; Hebrews 1:1-8; Luke 1:34-35), becoming a man, and giving up His life as a holy, sinless, substitute for sin for people from all nations. Revelation 5:9 - the incarnation, the Tri-unity, the atonement, and God's love for all nations completes the beauty of the true God of the Bible.

That "God is Love" is something that theological Muslims have told me that they cannot say. One can only say Allah acts lovingly to whom He wills to. They say Allah's will is more important than His character, because they don't know what His nature (dhat) or character is.

The Muslims say "obeying Allah's laws and will is more important than knowing Allah in a personal relationship; in fact "we cannot know Allah" - Allah is unknowable - the goal is to obey His laws (shariat) and do His will and perform the vuzu, prayers, zakat, fasting in Ramadan, haj, good deeds, obey parents, obey authorities, etc. and leave it with Allah.

The "Tri - Unity" of God is beautiful. From all eternity God is love, God is relationship. That is why we all long for relationship with God, connection with God in our hearts. In order for God to be love in nature, there must be a relationship, lover, beloved, and love between them. As Augustine said, "our hearts are restless until they find their rest in You." As Pascal said, "humans have a "God-shaped" vaccum in their hearts and only the God of the Bible can fill it. That means the Tri-unity of "God is Love" - that means from all eternity there was a Lover عاشق، محبوب (The Father), Beloved معشوق ، حبیب(the Son), and Love عشق و محبت(the Holy Spirit).

Anyway, God's Sovereignty is "scary" to all humans, because we don't want to submit to God. We have natural rebellion against Him.

But in the Bible, it says "God loves sinners" Romans 5:8

In the Qur'an, the emphasis is "Allah does not love unbelievers, but Allah loves those who love him, the believers." In Islam, Allah is "wadood" ودود(friendly, congenial, loving") but not Mohabat nor Esheq. محبت ، عشق

Even though this link is saying it is not Jabariyyeh, it still "seems" that way.

I am writing "seems" as I did before, in order to be careful and fair to your side. It is better than saying, "it is" dogmatically, right?

http://www.learndeen.com/jm/deen-islam/aqueeda-a-tawheed/qada-wal-qadar1/44/57-concept-of-al-qadaa-and-al-qadar.html

Ken said...

Grandverbalizer and David,
So, if the Qur'an does not speak to the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity; then what is the Qur'an's understanding of "Son of God" in Surah 9:30
Surah 6:101 ( no one has yet to comment on this verse and explain how it fits with what you guys are claiming) - it defines for itself what it means by "Son of God".

Also, doesn't Surah 112 - "Allah does not beget, nor is begotten" speak at that time against what they heard the Christians saying based on verses like John 3:16, 3:18; 3:36; 1:18, I John 4:8-19; - at least what they heard from the Christians by the phrases, "son of God" and "begotten"?

If not, then how do you explain this in the light of Qur'an 6:101??

David Waltz said...

Hi Chris,

The “divine warrior” interpretation/motif of Isaiah 63:1-6 is very popular among adherents of the the Deutero- or Second Isaiah and Trito- or Third Isaiah proponents of the Brevard Childs’s school of thought—i.e. the belief that though 2nd and 3rd Isaiah had later authors than Isaiah 1-40, those authors drew heavily from Isaiah 1-40 and did not see their continued work as somehow independent (e.g. Childs, Brueggemann, Oswalt).

The difficulty I have with such an interpretation is that Isaiah (I hold to the unitary theory) is usually quite clear when Yahweh is the sole agent in a given passage—the agent of Isaiah 63:1-6 is an enigmatic figure to Isaiah—which leaves the door open, IMO, to the possibility that Muhammad is the agent of Yahweh.


Grace and peace,

David

Ken said...

I also hold to the "unitary view of Isaiah, the conservative orthodox view there is only one Isaiah, and he, the historical prophet wrote the whole book, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

David Waltz said...

Hi Ken,

I should probably let GrandVerb answer your questions, but I cannot resist giving my ‘two-cents’.

009.030
YUSUFALI: The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!
PICKTHAL: And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!
SHAKIR: And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

Yusuf Ali directs his readers in footnote #1283 to “n. 718 to 5:18”, which reads:

005.018
YUSUFALI: (Both) the Jews and the Christians say: "We are sons of Allah, and his beloved." Say: "Why then doth He punish you for your sins? Nay, ye are but men,- of the men he hath created: He forgiveth whom He pleaseth, and He punisheth whom He pleaseth: and to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between: and unto Him is the final goal (of all)"
PICKTHAL: The Jews and Christians say: We are sons of Allah and His loved ones. Say: Why then doth He chastise you for your sins? Nay, ye are but mortals of His creating. He forgiveth whom He will, and chastiseth whom He will. Allah's is the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them, and unto Him is the journeying.
SHAKIR: And the Jews and the Christians say: We are the sons of Allah and His beloved ones. Say: Why does He then chastise you for your faults? Nay, you are mortals from among those whom He has created, He forgives whom He pleases and chastises whom He pleases; and Allah's is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and what is between them, and to Him is the eventual coming.

When speaking to the use of “sons of God” Yusuf Ali in note #718 wrote:

“If used figuratively, these and like words refer to the love of Allah. Unfortunately, ‘son’ used in a physical sense, or ‘beloved’ in an exclusive sense as if Allah loved only the Jews, make a mockery of religion.”

I think we are back to what I spoke of earlier, that the Qur’an is denying that God (Allah) has a son IN A PHYSICAL SENSE. It seems to me that 6:101 confirms this:

006.101
YUSUFALI: To Him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth: How can He have a son when He hath no consort? He created all things, and He hath full knowledge of all things.
PICKTHAL: The Originator of the heavens and the earth! How can He have a child, when there is for Him no consort, when He created all things and is Aware of all things?
SHAKIR: Wonderful Originator of the heavens and the earth! How could He have a son when He has no consort, and He (Himself) created everything, and He is the Knower of all things.

IMO, a “consort” would not be mentioned unless physical birth/begetting is in mind.

Anyway, those are my musings; looking forward to what GrandVerb has to say...

Grace and peace,

David

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God, Peace be unto you all.

Well if there is one thing a Muslim can do when he enters a Christian comment section is unite Christians of various backgrounds under one banner. Can someone say crusade?

Hahaha just kidding! :)

Allah-willing I want to take this post to try and address some questions that I feel I was unjust in not replying too. I seek your patience as people of God and as I said it's an honor to be drawn to a gathering where in people are remembering God.

In Islam we believe there are group of angels that traverse the earth looking for people who remember God and than they encircle them with their wings and make mention of them to their creator. Of all things we could be talking about sports, politics, and how to make a great black berry cobbler we are discussing spiritual matters.

That said after a few more post I want to refrain from posting on anything other than the topic above. My reason is that I can see myself descending into polemic that will either hurt some people or will end up being as joel says an internet debate.

I actually enjoyed this blog post and the interaction with everyone on here.

1st I do believe that Joel is due an answer and my apologies as many things were directed at me.

The concept of tanzih is inherently self-contradictory. Tanzih, which as I understand it means that “God is so holy and pure that he cannot be compared to any created thing, including concepts, since all our ideas are created” (Murata, 71). For example, “Nothing is like Him” (Sura 42:11). But if this doctrine is true, then the Qur’an should not exist, for the entire book is full of ideas and concepts describing Allah, whom tanzih says is indescribable.

What should be kept in mind to the Muslim is that when the Qur'an describes any attribute of Allah that no comparison should be made with the created things due to the fact that Allah is transcendent and that as you quoted above nothing is like him.

This is what I honestly believe leads down the path into agnostic and eventually atheism.

The no.1 fatal flaw is believing that Allah's dhat (essence) exist in space time. Now you will hear Muslims say that Allah is every where.

However, among Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah this is not the creed of Imam Abu Hasan Al Ashari, Imam Abu Mansur al Maturdi or Imam Abu Ja`far al-Tahawi.

The creed of the Sunni Muslims is that Allah does not occupy space, be it one place or every place. Allah existed alone in his essence before there was space/time.

Allah's attributes the forgiver, the giver of peace, the most loving, the sustainer, the cherisher, the all aware, the subtle, Allah existed with these attributes even when there was no creation to be aware or feel the effects of any of these attributes.

Of course there came theological discussions among Muslims. Example two of Allah's attributes the creator and the evolver Al Khaliq and Al Bari imply that Allah was always creating and evolving. However, when one knows the subtleties of the Arabic language it also means the ability to evolve and create everything in due proportion with the knowledge of what will happen to them.

continued...

Ken said...

That's my point! --
Since "consort" means only in a physical way (marriage/sex/wife) - like the way Mormons beleive; and they knew Christians say "Al Masih is the Son of God" (9:30), then the Qur'an did not understand the spiritual Son of Meaning - the true meaning of Christianity, which had been around for over 600 years, and was evidenced to over and over and never had that physical wife marriage/sex meaning.

Don't you see that this shows that the Qur'an was ignorant of what Christians really believed and therefore the "say not three" (4:171 - in the context of Christ and "he was only a messenger" and "the kalimat'allah" (word of God) and Surah 112 (begotten) are also including their wrong understanding of what Christians really believed.

Seems obvious that Muhammad and the Qur'an were ignorant of what Christians believed, and got the Trinity wrong and the Sonship of Christ wrong.

Ken said...

The above post was in response to David's post about Surah 6:101 and 9:30, right before Grandverbalizer's above mine.

David wrote:
IMO, a “consort” would not be mentioned unless physical birth/begetting is in mind.

Me: That's my point, it defines what the Qur'an thinks Christians mean by "the Son of God", so therefore, the Qur'an and Muhammad were ignorant of what the Christians really believed, even though it was reality for over 600 years.

Ken said...

Joel wrote: (and Grandverb19 is starting to answer)

Tanzih, which as I understand it means that “God is so holy and pure that he cannot be compared to any created thing, including concepts, since all our ideas are created” (Murata, 71). For example, “Nothing is like Him” (Sura 42:11)

What is Murata, 71 ?? It would be nice to have more biographical info on that.

Tanzih is تنزیه, right? Is this word used in the Qur'an in that way?

Joel said...

Sorry Ken, I should have been more clear. The reference is to "The Vision of Islam" by Sachiko Murata and William Chittick.

I can't speak to the Arabic, wish I could.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God,

contiued from above...

For example when we compare Allah to the creation this is what gives fuel to Atheist polemic against the position of the believer. Well if God is all knowing than .... can God know what it's like not to know?

Can God change his mind about an event in the future? You see these type of questions are inheriently flawed due to the nature of the understanding that God must be like us. Our position would be why would God need to change his mind about an event in the future? But you see for the non believer or the skeptic it's a question that demands an answer because again the human intellectual standard is held to the highest.

Infact Joel it is through the creation that we know about the creator. We can see many of the attributes of our creator in creation. I did not say we see them all. We see enough to let us be aware.

However, the Muslim is to keep in mind at all times that though we see things that no matter what their correlation to Allah that Allah is Kabeer. Allahu Akbar some times translated as God is great should be translated as God is greater.

Was that food declious? Well Allah is greater. Is that mountain high? Well Allah is greater. Is your pain much? Allah is greater and so on.

Now to the controversies. Most of the early theological divisions were settled and infact this is how Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah was formed. Taking the middle road between absolute fatalism and absolute free will, between believing in infallible imams who cannot be challenged, and saying that the masses have free reign to interpret the Qur'an and Sunnah as they see fit and vie with the scholars.

Inbetween capitalism and socialism, inbetween individuality and the common good.


So let's take for example Joel you have read the Qur'an where it mentions about Allah's hand and Allah's face correct?

But if we are to take this literally it will become very problematic. For example what model or human face would we compare God too? The black, the white, those with high cheek bones or high forehead? A young baby face or wise old general?


This is where you get ta'il figurative interpretation of the Qur'an which is allowed by the principle laid down in 3:7 of the Qur'an. What is mubeen (clear or a foundational verse/s) and what is mutashaabih (allegorical/or subject to more than one interpretation).

This is also what led to the formulation of the sunni schools of Aqidah or Islamic creed.

I'm Maturdi for example and most Muslims are Maturdi or Ashari (though they don't know or appreciate the fact),just like most Christians today who say I'm Catholic, Lutheran or what you have you don't appreciate the vast scholarship that went into formulating their respective positions.


So what we believe is that when it mentions Allah's hands, face, and so forth that it is in reference to Allah's might, power, majesty. For example the Qur'an says to the Prophet (pbuh)

Serve Allah, and join not any partners with Him; and do good- to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, those in need, neighbours who are near, neighbours who are strangers, the companion by your side, the wayfarer (ye meet), and what your right hands possess: For Allah loveth not the arrogant, the vainglorious;- (Qur'an 4:36)

Now we know that you cannot physically carry slaves in your right hand correct? So we know that hands refers to power.

However, there is a minority school that held the position that they did not want to discuss Allah's attributes. They say that if the Qur'an says hands, face it means exactly that. They take the dhahir (apparent) meaning of the text.

Now these two approaches come from a fear and love of Allah.

continued...

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

2) The other side those who take apparent meaning they were afraid by applying figurative interpretation that they would indirectly deny the attributes of Allah. So out of fear of doing that and joining the ranks of the Mutazlites (neo-rationalist school who had heavy greek influence) they opted out of applying figurative interpretation for the most part.

The reason I say for the most part is because they believe that Allah is literally in the heavens upon a throne. This is where they differ with the main body of Orthrodox Islam. When I say Orthrodox Islam I mean (Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah) The People who follow the Sunnah and the consensus reached by the majority.

What happened was that these particular view went to the extreme and became known as the Mujassimah-the party who liken Allah to the creation. So much that even one of their scholars said you can ask me about anything concerning Allah except the beard and the penis! (May Allah forgive us)

That understanding comes when you believe the creator to be a corporeal body composed of parts.

Now I ask patience of you all as I narrate this and this story becuase I believe it provides insights into our faith and what is happening in the Muslim world today.

In Arabia which is primarily a region that is Hambali in jurisprudence and Tahawi in creed had a man by the name of Muhammed Abdul Wahaab who's father was very pious and took his son to sit with all the pious and learned people to learn Islam. However, the teachers of ihsan (spiritual excellence) recognised with in him the trait of kibr (pride, and exultation, wanting to be a leader above others) and they did not teach him any more Islamic science because they felt his future was not stable.

This man ended up forming an alliance with a bedouin tribe whom were Jewish converts to Islam from the tribe of Khaybar and the leader of this tribe was Ibn Saud. What happened next was a pact. AbdulWahab would be the Sheikh (capable of issuing religious legal verdicts) and than Ibn Saud would be the Amir (political leader and body).

What happened next was them attacking and destroying everyone in Arabia that differed with their views to the extend that the Khilafa of the Ottomans had to send Muhammed Pasha of Egypt against them.

What happened next is history. But basically Arabia today is the product of that moment. They teach a heretical doctrine of creed that Allah is a body composed of parts that is ala (over) the throne in his dhat (essence).

They mostly follow the hambali school of legal code, but for the most part they disavow all the four legal schools. They are the ones with the money who are building mosque all over the place giving free qur'ans and literature.

Because traditional Islam was for the most part decimated by the colonialist. Only recently has it started to come back.

By the way Bin Laden, and his people come from among them.

They believe that all Muslims who do not agree with thier view their blood is halal (permissible to take), they are an unruly lot who was predicted to come by the Prophet (pbuh).

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God, Peace be unto you all.

When I say that Bin Laden and his people come from among them I mean (the Wahabbi) and not the traditonalist. Bin Laden is not a traditonalist and he is no position to issue legal verdicts.


This is an example of how our pious scholars Imam Malik who's legal school I follow had the following encounter.

From Ja`far ibn `Abd Allah: "We were with Malik when a man came and asked him: ‘O Abu `Abd Allah! "The Merciful is established over the Throne" (20:5): how is He established?’ Nothing affected Malik as much as that man’s question. He looked at the ground and started prodding it with a twig he held in his hand until he was completely soaked in sweat. Then he lifted his head and said: ‘The "how" of it is inconceivable; the "establishment" part of it is not unknown; belief in it is obligatory; asking about it is an innovation; and I believe that you are a man of innovation.’ Then he gave an order and the man was led out."

From Ibn Wahb: "We were with Malik when a man asked him: ‘O Abu `Abd Allah! "The Merciful is established over the Throne" (20:5): how is His establishment?’ Malik lowered his head and began to sweat profusely. Then he lifted up his head and said: ‘"The Merciful is established over the Throne" just as He described Himself. One cannot ask "how." "How" does not apply to Him. And you are an evil man, a man of innovation. Take him out!’ The man was led out."

Why would they act as such? Because you have to understand that there are some places the mind and rational thought do not go.

For example I tell Muslims all the time we cannot reject belief in the Trinity simply because we do not understand it or we believe it's incomprensible this is not our way!

We do not believe it simply because we do not believe it was something revealed by Allah.

There are three aspects of our deen (way of life)
Islam -the five pillars.
This is understood through the four legal schools (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi, Humbali) in how they interpret the primary and secondary sources of Islam.

Than there is the Emaan (faith)
Emaan-has six articles. The Ashari, Maturdi and Tahawi scholars of creed are who the Sunni Muslims follow.

Than there is the Ihsan (spiritual perfection) this is what Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) said was to worship Allah as if you can see Allah and if not know that Allah sees you!

This is where you have many tariqah (paths) or sufism, tassawuf, the art and science of cleansing the heart, debasing the ego and elimination of the self.

A person who reaches a high state of outward perfection and mastery in the legal code, and high understanding in the sciences of creed will always be left wanting until their heart is in complete and total awareness of the divine.
This is not for the faint of heart, narrow is the way and wide is the path to destruction.

Sufism is not a sect it is a science that is just as much as part of Islam as is the legal and creedal schools.

To give an example of what it sets to accomplish. I can go all day long talking with a person on how tasty a Florida Gold Orange is. It's so delicious and seculant, until finally the one I am describing is left to wonder what it taste like.

Many people can talk about God but have they tasted the creator? Have they experienced him? And there is vested interest in seeing the science of Tassawuf destroyed among the Muslims. This is why we are in spiritual loss today. Yeah we are growing but I prefer quality over quantity.

The teacher or guide helps the seeker of their Lord until that person reaches a state of fana (annihiliation in the divine presence where the self no longer exist) John 10:30 and John 17:21.

A house cannot serve two masters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanaa_(Sufism)

My apologies my brothers and sisters in humanity and in faith.

I should write a book "Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah in under five post or less" hahaha :)

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God, Peace be unto you all.

respected brother David Allah-Willing I will respond to the question latter this evening what you had asked about the Father,Son and Holy Spirit as feminine divine and it's implications for me or Muslims.

Also Allah-Willing I want to respond to Joel's question about if Islam rejects what he believes Judaism taught in the blood sacrifice.

And try and get to Ken's question on the idea of the Jesus as the Son of God and what it means in the verses. My apologies as It's Friday here and have to go for the afternoon prayers.

My sincere apologist from my heart of hearts to all I offended,and do apologise David if any way anyone feels I hijacked the thread, because I find this to be a very good blog and so far the love from sister Daughter of Wisdom, brothers Joel,Chris and Ken and yourself is simply amazing.

Let us all pray that God continues to soften our hearts and let's let our engagements be about truth and not about us.

Peace be unto you all.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God, Peace be unto you all.

Ths is for David:

David: Stephen Lambden, has written an excellent essay on this issue: “Prophecy in the Johannine Farewell Discourse: The Advents of the Paraclete, Ahmad and the Comforter” (see the book referenced HERE).

Me:I went to the link but it seems that I was unable to see the work as it said it was unpublished. God-Willing I would be interested to see the paper.

>>Seems to me a more flexible picture of a loving family. Father divine, Holy Spirit feminine divine, and the Son. Let US make man in OUR image. Male and Female.>>

David: Could you explain a bit further how the above formulation would work within an Islamic paradigm?

Me: I'm not sure how the formula would work within an Islamic paradigm I know that of the 99 attributes or names of Allah they are either masculine or feminine. For example Ar Rahman and Ar Raheem the most common attributes of Allah are feminine. Allah in the Arabic language is neuter gender.

But I think the idea of the God the Father, Holy Spirit the Mother, and Jesus the Son gives us a very interesting portrait and model of a loving family. I think that it can give women a breath of fresh air in that God doesn't always need to be seen as being masculine. I think that the passage citation in Genesis would make more sense from a Trinitarian perspective 'let US make man in OUR' image in the image of God made he them MALE and FEMALE.

http://www.amazon.com/Christianity-Islam-Esoteric-Ecumenicism-Traditional/dp/0941532054 < I would really recommend this work to you David because I think it's something that would be of interest to you.





And third, from another post:

>> Now what happened to Jesus according to 4:157 of the Holy Qur'an.>>

David: You listed the “swoon” and “substitution” theories, followed by Jerald Dirks remarks; and then, ended with what I shall call the “spiritual resurrection” theory. Have you had a chance to read THIS THREAD, and/or the book referenced in it?

Me: I did see that and I thought it was excellent post, and did give my thoughts about it. I think that the challenge Muslims would run into would be how to explain the body and what happened to it. We could brush it off with a simple 'well we don't know what happened to Genghis Khan's body either', but for the Christian believer it will not work.

I hope I have responded to some of the points made.

Peace be unto you.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God. Peace be unto you all.

This is for Ken: Please take a look at 6:101 of the Qur'an. I think everyone would do well to consider some points that David raised in his post. They are interesting in unique in that I have not encountered them before.

For example notice the way that Pickthal translates.

PICKTHAL: The Originator of the heavens and the earth! How can He have a child, when there is for Him no consort, when He created all things and is Aware of all things?

The word child is used (son or daughter).

Surah 112 can also be translated as has no offspring and spranforth from none else

or simply has no children and and has no parents. Lam yalid wa lam yulad.

Also note that Surah 112 begins Qul huwallahu ahad Say that Allah is Absolute. Ahad is not divisible by no. in the Arabic language.
Wahid is divisible by no. in the Arabic language.

I believe the Qur'an is addressing the common layman as well as people who deeply involved with scholastics and or Christian scholars.

1) If you ask the common Christian layperson walking the street what does that mean that Jesus is the Son of God what do you think comes to their mind naturally?

However, let's assume that the Qur'an got Christian theology all wrong once again. So the Christian now wants us to go back to the Bible and what do we find?

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his Only Begotten Son that whosoever believes in him will not persish but have everlasting life".

What most Christians are not aware of is the development in the Christology of Christ. For example how did he become the Son of God and in what since are we to understand it?

In Psalms 2:7 I will proclaim the decree of the Lord: He said to me, "You are my Son; today I have begotten you."

Note that David was a grown man when God was speaking to him. David was adopted as the Son of God not that David always was the Son of God.

I thought there was interesting article written by Christians about what the word begotten means here:
http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_joh1_18.html

As we examine the New Testament we find the word monogenes used eight times (not counting its usage here in John 1:18). In every case it is used to describe a relationship between a parent and child (Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38; John 1:14; 3:16, 18; Hebrews 11:17; 1 John 4:9). Since this is how the Holy Spirit uses the word in the New Testament, we must accept this definition when reading John 1:18. [2]

Again I can only offer that what you may consider to be Orthrodox could be heresy to another Christian group. As is true for me as a Muslim.

continued...

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God,

continued from above.

Again the Christian will have to explain this creedal formula...

“And [we believe] in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of His Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father … .”

begotten, not made what does this mean?


She said: "Oh My Lord! How shall I have a son when no man has touched me? He said: "Even so: Allah creates what he wills: When he decreed a plan, he but says to it, 'be', and it is!"
Holy Quran 3:47

And the angel answered and said unto her, "The Holy Ghost shall COME UPON THEE, and the power of the Highest shall OVERSHADOW THEE"
Luke 1:35

In the Muslim view we say that what ever Allah decrees he says 'be' and it is.
For the Christian there is going to be some prodding by the skeptic 'how did he come upon her' how did he 'overshadow her'? If you stop and think for a minute it's language that leaves too many ill minds to run afoul.

So how did Jesus become the son of God?

As was mentioned already David was the son of God through adoption.

The baptism of Jesus

This is supported by Mark 1:11 "You are my son whom I love with whom I am well pleased"

However, the writer of Matthew changes the proclamation of the voice Matthew 3:17 'This is my son whom I love with him I am well pleased"

Now this is very easy to pass over in the text but something very subtle is taking place. You see the writter of Mark has no virgin birth narrative. Jesus is becoming the son of God at his baptism.

However, the writer of Matthew is looking at this and saying, woah wait a minute! Jesus doesn't need to be told who he is! It's the people who need to be informed. Because in my Gospel Jesus is the son of God based upon the virgin birth he knows who he is!

So this writer changes the greek text from su to houtous.

To even make the point stronger we take a look at Luke 3:22 and the holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, "You are my beloved Son; this day I have begotten you." (Moffats Translation of the Bible)

Of course this text was latter removed because it was seen as contradicting the reality of the virgin birth. Remember Luke has Jesus descended from David to Joseph.

Again we also have Paul's take in Romans 1:3-4 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

The Greek word for seed is spermatos from where we get the word sperm. Now how sperm enters into the equation of a virgin birth i'll leave it to you people to explain.

Suffice it to say that if we look above and also look at what is written in Acts Paul believed that Jesus was the son of God not based upon any virgin birth or even adoption but by his 'resurrection from the dead'. That was central to his theology. Not that Jesus WAS the son of God, but that HE BECAME the son of God in a mighty act...

To me it is doubtful if Paul believed in the virgin birth. I know people will say it is an argument from silence but when you look at Galatians 4:4 ' born of a woman born under the law' it does make one curious.

Luke 3:23And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

remember the (as was supposed) is not in the Greek text.

I know there is allot to discuss on this matter but I think we have allot on the table.

peace be unto you.

David Waltz said...

Hi GrandVerb,

Thanks much for taking time from your busy schedule to respond to my question and comments. I too for sometime now have appreciated certain attributes of God that are linked to the feminine. I believe that feminists have taken these feminine analogies way too far; but then, on the flip-side, male dominated societies almost completely ignore this aspect of divinity—as with so many other issues, we need to strive for balance.

As for your book recommendation, I own, and have read it. Frithjof Schuon is one of the deepest religious/philosophical thinkers of the 20th century (IMHO). I find myself having to go back and reread so much of what he has written, and even then, I am sure I am missing much of what he is trying to convey. His The Transcendent Unity of Religions and Understanding Islam are two more of his works that should be read by those who want to dig a bit deeper. (Though I suspect that many are just not ‘ready’ for his insights.)

Perhaps soon, either you or myself could start a series of threads to discuss his works and profound, if not controversial, thought.


Grace and peace,

David

Ken said...

Grandverbalizer19 –
Salaam!

1. The Greek text of Luke 3:23 does indeed have “being the son of Joseph, as was supposed” or “the son of Joseph, as was thought”. I am looking at my Greek NT and also here at this web-site – you can see for yourself, if you can read it.

http://bible.johndyer.name/

You have put in the verse you want in the blank space, run the curser over the space before “Go” and type in the verse.

23 Καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν Ἰησοῦς ἀρχόμενος ὡσεὶ1 ἐτῶν τριάκοντα2, ὢν υἱός, ὡς ἐνομίζετο3, Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ Ἡλεὶ4

and he was Jesus beginning about thirty years old, being the son, as was supposed, of Joseph, of Heli
1. ὡσεί, adverb, about, as, like, as it had been, as it were, like as (20-8)
2. τριάκοντα, adjective, thirty, thirty fold (11-1)
3. from νομίζω, verb, suppose, think, be wont (15-2)
4. Ἠλί, noun, Heli (1-1)

So, I don’t know where you got that information.

Luke's geneology is different than Matthew's. Luke is Mary's geneology, from Nathan, son of David, down to Heli; whereas Matthew is Joseph's geneology from Solomon, son of David. Luke does not have "son" or "begotten" as Matthew does, "Tou Heli" is a general open term, "of Heli" - so it could mean "son in law" - that is, Heli was Mary's father, and Matthew 1:16 clearly says that Jesus was from Mary, not Joseph. "the husband of Mary, from who was born Jesus"

2. Moffat’s translation of Luke 3:22 -- ?? I am looking at my own Greek NT and it has the textual variant apparatus at the bottom and there is no evidence of any “today I have begotten you” in the textual variant apparatus. It is the United Bible Society’s Greek Text, 3rd Edition, Edited by Kurt Aland, M. Black, C. Martini, Bruce Metzger, and A. Wilkren.

3. On Romans 1:3, on the Greek word, “spermatos”, you are reading the modern English meaning back into the Greek meaning and context. It just means that “concerning His Son the one born from the seed /descendent of David according to the flesh” – it just means that Mary was the “seed” or descendent of David, and Jesus got His human nature from Mary – “according to the flesh”. The word means “descendent”, not sperm. Mary’s supplied the human nature for Jesus in the womb.

4. Paul certainly believed in the virgin birth of Christ – Luke was his traveling companion and Luke clearly testifies of it. Many believe that Luke got much of his information from Paul and Mary and the other disciples on the details of Jesus’ Life. Paul got the details by revelation – Galatians chapter 1. Paul did not feel the need to repeat what Luke so clearly wrote about. "Born of a woman" in Gal. 4:4 does not speak against her virginity. استغفرالله!
(see at end)

5. “Declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead” in Romans 1 does not mean “he became the Son of God”, but only that the resurrection powerfully declared, announced, proclaimed it to be true. Announcing something that was already true in reality.
“who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord, “
His human nature was “according to the flesh” from Mary, his mother. His divine nature was “according to the Holy Spirit”, same as Luke 1:34-35.
God is Spirit (John 4:23-24); so “over-shadow” and “power of the Most High coming upon you” has no connotation of anything physical or sexual. Estaqfr’allah! استغفرالله
= "May God forgive!"

Ken said...

Thanks Joel for the bibliographical information on that book.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Hi GrandVerb:

Greetings to you and peace. I want to commend you for your diligence in searching out spiritual matters. Many people would have given up a long time ago, but you are persistent in your quest for truth and knowledge and I commend you for that. God is always looking to see who is seeking to find Him.

I know there are some differences in doctrines between our religions, but I am amazed at how the Quran excerpts you have posted here, sound so remarkably similar to the Bible. Truly, God makes Himself known everywhere, and not just to Christians and Jews, but to all men.

Romans 1:19-20

19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.


Peace.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Now GrandVerb, you asked some hard questions about the divinity and Sonship of Christ. I like that because hard questions are my speciality, and I have asked not a few myself! I just want to share with you my beliefs concerning the Sonship of Christ.

I believe that Jesus was pre-existent prior to His entry on the world's scene.

John 1:1-3

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2The same was in the beginning with God.
3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.


He became a man by entering the world as a baby born of the womb. How God did this the details are not revealed, but if man is able to implant fertilized eggs into women's bodies via IVF, how much greater God's ability to implant holy seed in the womb of Mary!

I believe Jesus' Sonship began when He was born of Mary. Prior to this He existed as equal with God.

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God" (Phillipians 2:5-6).


He made Himself into a Son when He agreed to come to earth as a man.

Now I know this all sounds like heresy to you, but if Jesus is not God, then we Christians are idolaters. Our whole faith depends upon Jesus being God, and if that is not the case, then we are in grave error. The concept of a Messiah or Anointed One is not something that is peculiar to the Christianity alone. Many religions, including Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism teach about the coming of a Messiah from God. It is just that different religions have identified different persons as the fulfillment of this, and in Christianity, we believe that person to be Christ. Hey! Even His name means Messiah!

I truly and honestly believe that Christ is the Messiah, because of His sinless life, His ministry of teachng the pure Word of God and relieving those oppressed by sin. Mostly I believe, because He lives in my heart, and I can feel His presence daily.

Peace.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God peace be unto you all...

This is for Joel:

You stated: Rather than addressing if Islam keeps the Mosaic code you pivoted to talk about Hebrews 9.22 and how Hebrews has the Old Testament wrong in your opinion.

Me: I felt that what I did was appropriate. I feel that if we look back at the post between us one of the reasons you do not accept the Qur'an is because and I quote:

" Personally, I reject the Qur’an for many reasons, including:
(a)Its’ contradiction of The Torah and the New Testament Scriptures. For example, it rejects what the Law and the prophets say about circumcision and the sacrificial system means, which clearly demonstrates the need for a blood sacrifice (“without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins”).

I felt that by pointing out to you the problematic nature of Hebrews 9:22 it would help you to maybe be more sympathetic to my view.

I believe the text that I gave showing clearly that even flour can be given as a sin offering is enough to allow for a different view than your translation of Hebrews 9:22.

I even wonder how much the statement in Hebrews 9:22 compliments the teachings of Christ Jesus.

Matthew 6:9-13 Forgive us our sins AS we forgive those who sin against us.

If I may ask do you require blood sacrifice every time someone wrongs you Joel?

Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.(Matthew 18:21-22)

As some have pointed out that this 70 x 7 in the semetic tongues 7 is a no that can also mean infinite.

This to me also doesn't seem to require a blood sacrifice.

Again Joel I believe that you are projecting your theology as a Christian back upon the TNCH.

I will admit I project my theology back upon the Bible as a Muslim.

I mean I hear Christian claims and than when I go and talk to Jews at www.jewsforjudaism.org and have correspondence with them they tell me "The Christians are liars". We don't believe in original sin, or the trinity!

So I am left to wonder which religion truly is at odds with Judaism.

Than as a Muslim there are things to me that don't add up.

For example as a person who puts faith in the teachings of the Qur'an we are told in the Qur'an chapter 87:9-19.

Therefore give admonition in case the admonition profits (the hearer).
The admonition will be received by those who fear ((Allah))
But it will be avoided by those most unfortunate ones,
Who will enter the Great Fire,
In which they will then neither die nor live.
But those will prosper who purify themselves,
And glorify the name of their Guardian-Lord, and (lift their hearts) in prayer.
Day (behold), ye prefer the life of this world;
But the Hereafter is better and more enduring.
And this is in the Books of the earliest (Revelation),-
The Books of Abraham and Moses.

continued...

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God,

continued from above.

The Qur'an I believe teaches me that Abraham and Moses both had revelation about hell fire and about an afterlife. The Torah that people have today is absolutely silent on the matter. What happened?

I mean why be so worried about getting your sins forgiven and blood sacrifice if there is no heaven or hell? Why would God neglect to give this central revelation to them?


Of interest is the theological showdown that Jesus has with the Sadducees in Mark 12:18-27. Note that Jesus who had full command of revelation and he didn't actually quote any scripture to them. He uses an anaology.

Joel I know you may feel that these are all rabbit trails. However for me I feel they are keen insights into why we as Muslims may take a step back and wonder if the picture you paint of Judaism is really that accurate.

The sacrificial camels we have made for you as among the symbols from Allah. In them is (much) good for you: then pronounce the name of Allah over them as they line up (for sacrifice): when they are down on their sides (after slaughter), eat ye thereof, and feed such as (beg not but) live in contentment, and such as beg with due humility: thus have We made animals subject to you, that ye may be grateful. It is not their meat nor their blood, that reaches Allah. it is your piety that reaches Him: He has thus made them subject to you, that ye may glorify Allah for His Guidance to you and proclaim the good news to all who do right.(22:36-37)

Peace be unto you.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

GrandVerb wrote:

"Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.(Matthew 18:21-22)

As some have pointed out that this 70 x 7 in the semetic tongues 7 is a no that can also mean infinite.

This to me also doesn't seem to require a blood sacrifice."
===================================

GrandVerb please forgive me although I know the comments were directed at Joel, but I can't resist this one. In Christianity you will find, like in any other religion, a great diversity of thoughts and doctrines pertaining to the Bible. The idea of a blood sacrifice for each time a sin is committed is NOT SUPPORTED BY SCRIPTURE. In the Old Testament, the priests would offer a blood sacrifice TWICE A DAY - the morning and evening sacrifice. Those two sacrifices would cover the sins of the ENTIRE nation. The priests acted as intercessors for the sins of the people before God.

When people commit wrongs against us (also called trepasses) we are expected to forgive them, but nowhere does it say that the offending person ought to kill an animal as a sacrifice. If that were the case, then there would have been no animals left in Israel! And yes, a lot of those 'meat' offerings were of flour/grain.

Peace.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

GrandVerb wrote:

"The Qur'an I believe teaches me that Abraham and Moses both had revelation about hell fire and about an afterlife. The Torah that people have today is absolutely silent on the matter. What happened?"

===================================

GrandVerb, you are one step ahead of us in this regard. It is absolutely true that both Abraham and Moses believed in the afterlife. The Torah (The first five books of the Bible, written by Moses) is not silent about the afterlife. Here is the revelation about the afterlife in the Torah.

Altogether, Enoch lived 365 years. Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away (Genesis 5:23-24).

Whereas the deaths of all the other patriachs are recorded this passage of Genesis 5, no death is recorded for Enoch. It just says that God took him away at age 365 years.

We also have numerous scriptures in the New Testament that attest to the belief in an afterlife by Moses and Abraham.

Peace.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

GranVerb, it is also recorded by Jude (Jesus' brother) that Enoch wrote prophesies about the afterlife.

"14Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: "See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones 15to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him." 16These men are grumblers and faultfinders; they follow their own evil desires; they boast about themselves and flatter others for their own advantage."

Peace.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God,

Peace be unto you all.

This is for Ken:

First something is in order I want to admit that I stand corrected by Ken that the 'as was supposed' is in the Greek text. However, Ken why do you feel that many translations into the English language put it as such?

Being the son of Joseph 'As was supposed'. Do you think this is done for theological reasons?

However, I'm going to stick with my reading of Luke 3:22.

For the following reasons.
1) If you found out it was the original reading you would find a way to make it fit into your theological pressupositons.

2) It's obviously a quote from Psalms 2:7 and we know what the fuller version of Psalms 2:7 is.

Next it is found in the following New Testament text...

Acts 13:32-33 (ESV) 32And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, 33 this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second Psalm, 'You are my Son, today I have begotten you.' ”

Hebrews 1:5 (ESV) uses the same words in reference to Christ: “5For to which of the angels did God ever say, ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you’? Or again, ‘I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son’?”

So I don't see why Luke 3:22 (Moffat's translation) would be problematic.

I also did not see you touch on Mark 1:11 and Matthew 3:17 and maybe you can also confirm the Greek text and why there would be a need to change the voice.

A follow up question to this would be why doesn't God openly proclaim Jesus like this from the skies like he used to do?

Lastly on Romans 1:3-4 I'm still having trouble connecting Jesus as being the 'seed' spermatos of David. You see you say the following:

"It just means that “concerning His Son the one born from the seed /descendent of David according to the flesh” – it just means that Mary was the “seed” or descendent of David, and Jesus got His human nature from Mary"

Could you show me in the Bible where Mary is a 'descendent of David'? It seems from what I have researched before coming to Islam that Christian apologist really went to great lengths some times even acrobatic in nature to explain some of these things.

Thank you for the correction of Luke 3:22.

Peace be unto you.

Ken said...

Thanks Grandverbalizer19 for the interaction and graciousness

- peace unto you. John 14:27 -

you wrote:

Thank you for the correction of Luke 3:22.

You are welcome. You mean 3:23. The text and grammar form the basis for the theology, not the other way around. They all have "as was supposed", this is understandable. A "virgin birth" is usually the first doctrine of Christianity that skeptics and atheists and unbeleiving scholars scoff at. Yet, again, they all know that Jesus really was crucified by the Jewish leaders and Romans under Pontius Pilate. Tacitus and Josephus confirm this.
The Josephus passage may have some words (about the miracles) added later, but the part of the crucifixion and death/excecution is undeniably historical.


You wrote:

So I don't see why Luke 3:22 (Moffat's translation) would be problematic.


First, because the Greek textual apparatus of older manuscripts does not have that variant, obviously possibly from some later manuscript that put it in. The United Bible Societies edition is based on an eclectic text of older manuscripts.

2. Also, Because you are implying that it teaches that Jesus became or was adopted as the Son of God at His baptism, when actually He was already the Son (Spiritually) from all eternity past- the word of God; کلمه الله
John 1:1-5; 1:14; 1:18; 17:5; 8:24; 8:56-58; 20:28

He was announced and declared to be the Son of God there at His baptism, but also earlier by the angel Gabriel in Luke 1:34-35 and also declared with power, or proved that He really was the Son of God by His resurrection from the dead - Romans 1:3-4; and the Acts 13 passage.

Jesus got His human nature from Mary - that is obvious because she was a virgin - Luke 1:26-27, 34-35. Even the Qur'an agrees with the virgin birth, that Jesus had no human father - Surah 3:45-48; 19:19-21

"as was supposed" is clear in Luke 3:23 - the people thought He was Joseph's son, but He was not.

The genealogies both include from Abraham to David, but then one son of David was Nathan (Mary's line - in Luke) and Solomon was Joseph's line (the royal, kingly, legal line) (Matthew)

Matthew deliberately uses "begotten" or "was born" or "became the father of" - normal physical births down to Joseph.

But Luke's genealogy does not have that word, just "of so and so" - it is open, in order to communicate that "of Heli" shows that Joseph was the "son in law of Heli", who was Mary's father.

There is no other way to understand the differences in the genealogies, the lack of "son" and "begotten/born"/ became the father of" in Luke's genealogy, the emphasis in Luke on Mary, and then all the other verses all through the NT about Jesus being both human, "Son of Man" and "God in the flesh"/Son of God/God the Son from all eternity.

It fits nicely. Jesus is 100% God and 100% man, He has two natures.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God,
Peace be unto you all.

Ken you state:

Yet, again, they all know that Jesus really was crucified by the Jewish leaders and Romans under Pontius Pilate. Tacitus and Josephus confirm this.
The Josephus passage may have some words (about the miracles) added later, but the part of the crucifixion and death/excecution is undeniably historical.

You say that Tacitus and Josephus are 'undeniably historical'. Could you please give me the dates and link to the web site that says what are the oldest written documents of Tacitus and Josephus?

You see one thing I'm very upset with Muslims who engage Christians like Mike Lincoa, James White and William Lane Craig is taking them to task for the so called 'historical fact' of Jesus crucifiction.

I am one of a new wave of Muslims who are not soo ready to concede any such point without any scrutiny.

I would like to ask what is the earliest surviving manuscript you have of Tacitus on the matter?

One of the reasons I believe that Christianity is a false religion is that is fabricates and distorts much of Judaism to super impose claims upon the previous faith.

Take for example you state:

"The genealogies both include from Abraham to David, but then one son of David was Nathan (Mary's line - in Luke) and Solomon was Joseph's line (the royal, kingly, legal line) (Matthew)"

However, as we all know Jesus was not the son of Joseph so there is no royal, kingly and legal line established. Of course we all know the lengths apologist have to go through to make is so. The theology determines what the text says.

For example your going to reply and talk about how he was adopted (which to my knowledge is not supported by the New Testament) text to begin with it is not Sola Scriptura and even if it were the case it is still makes one wonder why on earth God wouldn't allow for Jesus to be born of a woman who was from Solomon's line.

You than say:

"But Luke's genealogy does not have that word, just "of so and so" - it is open, in order to communicate that "of Heli" shows that Joseph was the "son in law of Heli", who was Mary's father."

Again this is what David L. Blank, Professor of Classical Languages at the University of California had to say about Armonld Fruchtenbaum and his views.

"According to the Greek original, Eli is indeed the father of Joseph. There is a definite article before each name, except that of Joseph, and that definite article is in each case the masculine genitive singular article -- you. Not only does this not clearly indicate that Joseph is skipped in the genealogy, it cannot by any stretch of the imagination be taken as so indicated. The author's comments on the Greek grammar of the passage are absurd and manifest an appalling ignorance of the facts of Greek syntax."

So where a person see's Mary in Luke is beyond me. This is not the first though. Christians see Mary in the Trinity in the Qur'an where its not. They also see Mary pop up in Luke where she's not.

She's a popular lady (may Allah bless her)..

Peace be unto you

Daughter of Wisdom said...

GrandVerb, if I jump in again, although unasked! You ask so many hard questions about Jesus which have been a source of quarrels and controversy in the church for the past two thousand years. Let me see if I can deal with some of the issues here.

The genealogy of Jesus: Matthew and Luke both give apparently different genealogies, with Heli listed as the father of Joseph in Luke, and Jacob listed as the father of Joseph in Matthew. You also correctly pointed out the disrepancy with the identification of the correct son of David, whether Nathan or Solomon. The traditional explanation given is that one genealogy is from Joseph (Matthew) and one is from Mary (Luke). I am going to submit, and some will disagree with me on this, but I have good evidence to back me up, but that the traditional explanation is problematic.

Firstly, no one traces genealogy through the female. One's genealogy is always traced through the father. If you remember, when Joseph (of the Old Testament) was in Egypt and he married a Egyptian woman, that his two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh were accepted fully as two of the twelve tribes of Israel, even though their mother was Egyptian (Genesis 48:8-14).

Secondly, nothing in scripture indicates that Mary was of the tribe of Judah. Her cousin, Elizabeth was of the tribe of Levi, of the line of Aaron, which was the priestly line, so it was more likely that Mary was of the line of Levi (Luke 1:5).

So, is Joseph the father of Jesus or the Son of God? The answer, surprisingly is both! Jesus tells us Himself that He is the Son of man, and the Son of God! He uses those terms interchangeably, indicating that He was made of the fleshly material of man, but is also the Holy seed from God! The Bible says Jesus was made into the likeness of sinful flesh for His incarnation (Romans 8:3). This is God changing His nature from that of a Spirit Being to one of a fleshly human.

Hebrews 2:16-17

16For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.


How did God do this? It is a mystery, but if you believe the story of Adam and Eve, then you can understand this. In the making of Eve, God took genetic material from Adam to make Eve. God could have made Eve from the dust just like Adam, but He chose to incorporate Adam's genes into Eve. In the same way, I believe, God incorporated Joseph's (and Mary's) genes into the fleshly body of Jesus. Sounds fantastic? Read what Jesus said in Hebrews 10:5.

"Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, BUT A BODY HAS THOU PREPARED ME."

This is the evidence based upon scripture alone, and it may conflict with the traditional explanations, but remember a lot of theology was handed to us from Roman Catholicism, where Mary is adored.

Peace.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Now for the discrepancies in the genealogy. This can be easily explained by the Levirate law. The Levirate law allowed a man to marry the widow of his deceased brother if his brother died childless. The child from that union would be reckoned as the son of the deceased, and not of the biological father. Matthew traces Jesus' genealogy through the biological parents, hence the term 'begat' is used.

Luke traces Jesus' genealogy through the Levirate system (legal system). In Luke's genealogy you have both biological and Levirate parents listed. The words 'son of' was inserted by the translators. Luke's aim was to show Jesus' genealogy through the natural parents and Levirate parents where applicable, and yet trace Jesus back to David, as the son of David, whether through natural parents or Levirate parents.

Please read Ecclesiastical History by Eusebius for more information about this.

I hope this helps! :-)

Peace.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Conclusion: Both Matthew and Luke made the case that Jesus was of the royal family of Judah, a son of David, and thus the rightful heir to the throne of David, and the kingdom of God.

Ken said...

Here is a good article on Tacitus:

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/tacitus.html

An article on Josephus and other extra-Biblical sources:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jesusref.html

And an "infidel" pulls out all the stops in criticizing Josh McDowell's "He walked among us", but admits that the history of the existence of Jesus is true and His crucifixion is part of the Josephus account that was not embellished in later versions.

Most historians don't accept the miraculous parts of Josephus' testimony, but they accept the other parts.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html#talmud

I don't accept this person's criticisms, I think the Bible is history and true; but I am willing to allow people to examine all the evidence and think and pray for themselves:

Here is a portion of that last link:

As further evidence for the authenticity of the Testimonium, McDowell and Wilson cite the Arabic version of the Testimonium preserved by tenth-century Bishop Agapius of Hierapolis in his World History. Schlomo Pines, the Israeli scholar who rediscovered the Arabic text, translates the passage as follows:

At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.[38]

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God.

Peace be unto you all.

Daughter of Wisdom I'm still having a difficult time with what was posted.

You said:

"Secondly, nothing in scripture indicates that Mary was of the tribe of Judah. Her cousin, Elizabeth was of the tribe of Levi, of the line of Aaron, which was the priestly line, so it was more likely that Mary was of the line of Levi (Luke 1:5)."

Notice that in the Holy Qur'an says

Holy Qur'an chapter 19:27-28 "At length she brought The (babe) to her people, carrying him (in her arms). They said: 'O Mary ! Truly an amazing thing Hast thou brought ! O sister of Aaron ! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!'"

Isn't this interesting that it calls Mary the sister of Aaron? Is the Qur'an trying to get the Christians to realize something. As you pointed out she is most likely of the tribe of Levi. The priest line. Jesus would be a high priest in Christian theology correct?

However, it still does not solve the problems and I'm afraid Daughter of Wisdom and Ken this is a matter where faith has to rue the day.

From the way I have seen it presented from the evidence before and against. Jesus does not come from Solomon at all. Infact I'm going to stop refering to Jesus as Jew and start refering to him as Levite from now on as that makes more sense.

Daughter of Wisdom you said:

"Conclusion: Both Matthew and Luke made the case that Jesus was of the royal family of Judah, a son of David, and thus the rightful heir to the throne of David, and the kingdom of God."

I'm sorry but I do not see that as the conclusion of Matthew and Luke at all. I see quite the opposite. I don't see how that Jesus is of the royal family of Judah. I just don't understand for the life of me why Jesus couldn't have been born from a woman who was a descendant of David through Solomon.

I believe the great lengths that apologist go to, the semantic gymnastics done in the Greek language, and 800 plus page apologetic books on seemingly very simple issues besides the fact that scripture alone no where supports the claim that either you or Ken made is reason enough for me to reject many of the claims of Christianity.

Please forgive me here for being snakry or crass, but like I said before I think that if Christians exerted the same kind of semantic gymnastics,and mental prowess when looking at the Qur'an I think they that in their heart of hearts many of thier objections to Islam would be answered. Allah knows best.

Ken please do give me some time to look at the lengths given to evaluate.

Thank you both for an energetic discussion. May the God of Abraham guide us all to what he loves.
Amen.

Peace be unto you.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Hi GrandVerb, thanks for taking the time to read my posts. Much of religion is a matter of spirituality and beliefs. I was brought up in the Christian tradition, and you have the Islamic tradition. Perhaps for you, it is important that Mary be of the Davidic line, but for Jewish genealogy, the tribe of the female is irrevelant. It is the tribe of the father that counts.


It is remarkable that the Quran identifies Mary as a sister of Aaron. I did not know that! That is in total harmony with the evidence from the Bible.

The claims of Christianity: One must be careful from whence the claims come from. I tell you, modern Christianity, with its heavy influence from Roman Catholicism is a far cry from the primitive Christianity of Jesus' time. It's time we got back to this primitive Christianity which is based upon long established Judaic traditions.

You know, Jesus never came to establish a new religion apart from Judaism. At the time of Jesus, there were four sects in Judaism - the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and Zealots. Jesus came to establish a fifth way called the Nazarene way, as a part of Judaism. Christianity is essentially Judaism, at least at it's inception. Over the centuries we have strayed away from that and have made a new religion out of it, with different sets of moral teachings (nailed Ten Commandments to cross, once saved always saved doctrines, and so on). I pray to God that people will realize some of the errors we have accepted as truth, and return back to the Living God.

For me, God loves all people, regardless of ethnic background, and one does not have to be a Christian, or Jew, or Moslem to search for God. God has made Himself known to all people, but it is up to us to be obedient to His voice. Sometimes religious persuasions are just labels that get in the way of us serving the true and living God.

Peace.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God, Peace be unto you all.

@ Daughter of Wisdom

Isaiah 62:2
"And the Gentiles shall see your righteousness, and all kings your glory: and you shall be called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord shall name."

Holy Qur'an chapter 5 verse 3
I seek protection with Allah from Shaitan, the accursed. With the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
"This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favor to you and have named Islam as your religion."

Islam means four things translated into English. Submission, Surrender, Security and Peace. Most Muslims will say that Islam simply means peace and this is not true.

The understanding is that there is an internal conflict with in the human being. We will only gain peace and security by submitting our will to the will of God. We are either in a state of rebellion or surrender.

Look at the name of some of the world faiths.
Judaism-after the tribe of Judah.
Christianity after the name of Christ.
Buddhism-after the name of Buddah.
Hinduism-after the Indus river valley region in India.

For the most part they are nouns (named after a tribe,person or place).

Islam is a verb as it describes an action. The word Muslim is a verb. Unfortunately too many Muslims believe that Muslim is a noun and if I call myself a Muslim I can still cheat, and hurt the innocent and so forth. When we do these things we are not in a state of Islam.

This is why we pray 'oh Allah cause us to die in a state of Islam'.

I'm not here to offend Daughter of Wisdom but if you want my opinion You, David and Ken are all Muslims.

You have submitted your will to the decree of God based upon the proofs and evidences as they have been presented before you. If you say you have submitted your will to the will of God that is Islam.

Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. (James 4:7)

Peace

Irene said...

I am a long time friend of the blog owner and we occasionally chat on the phone. I commented on how this particular thread really took off although I had only skimmed it. I made a very limited contribution to the thread that seemed uncontroversial to me, and was surprised to hear from Dave that someone was disappointed that I didn't respond to some comments directed at me.

I have been looking through the 163comments but haven't found anything that seemed to take issue with my only post. I am a Catholic with limited knowledge of Islam, my only study being a two time read of the Quran in English. I am also not committed to any particular school of thought in regards to the Apocalypse of St. John or end times prophecy in other parts of Scripture.

Still, I am sorry if I missed any posts that were directed at my limited participation here. If that person would like to point them out or recap them for me, I would be glad to read them carefully and give a response. I know it is disappointing to spend a lot of time putting together a comment for someone who never responds.

Sincerely,

Rory (father of Irene whose name means peace)

Irene said...

Irene is my daughter and Lisamck is my wife and I don't have a google account. I just use either of the two as they come up. In my other post the name in blue with google account was Lisamck, but I usually sign as Rory...Is that confusing...or just boring? Hehheh.
Sorry if it is both (I know it is boring).

Rory

Ken said...

Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. (James 4:7)

Grandverbalizer19 -
Thank you for the spirit in which you intend this. Yes, Christians believe in submission to God and we believe that our submission is the true submission. we also believe that no one can reach God or come to God or know God without repentance and faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and the one who actually died on the cross, paying for sin, and who rose from the dead. 1 Timothy 2:5 Al Masih is the only mediator.

I wish you peace, which can only through the God-man Isa Al Masih (Jesus the Messiah), (John 14:27; Matthew 11:28-30) who was born of the virgin Mary, sinless, lived a perfect life, obeyed the Father, taught many amazing truths and called for repentance and faith in the gospel (Mark 1:15); He allowed Himself voluntarily out of love (John 10:18) for people from all nations (Rev. 5:9) to be crucified and killed. He died. On the 3rd day He rose from the dead; (the empty tomb, the eyewitness testimony of many different persons, men and women, different accounts, 4 gospels by 4 different writers, 3 (Matthew, Peter, John) of them eye-witnesses of His life and death, (Mark is merely the secretary -writer (amanuensis) for Peter.

Luke interviewed many eyewitnesses ( Luke 1:1-4) and Mary and the women and the other apostles, and Paul supplied some of his gospel also. Paul received it by revelation and Al Masih's resurrection. (Acts 9, 22, 26; Galatians chapter 1-2; I Cor. 15)

His resurrection declared to the world that He was the eternal Son of God, (Romans 1:3-4) the Word of God made flesh ( John 1:1-5; 1:14; 1:18) This proved He was the Son of God from all eternity and God the Son; one in nature/substance/essence with the Father(and the Holy Spirit), and yet different in role, relationship, person-hood; and personality. The One God of the Bible is Triune. Trinitias Unitas, "three in One".

The resurrection also proved His sacrifice was the final sacrifice and an effective and powerful and efficient and sufficient and perfect atonement for sin, thus ending the sacrificial system of the Old Testament. (Sacrifice of Abraham, the Passover, the tabernacle and temple)

We submit to the Triune God of the Bible, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Matthew 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14

The Scriptures call you to repentance and faith in Christ, Al Masih, and His substitutionary atonement for sin and His resurrection.
Romans 10:9-10
Acts 17:30-31

There is a judgment day; the resurrection proves that Al Masih will judge all people at the final judgment. Acts 17:30-31

Ken said...

Grandverbalizer19 --

After you had time to see that the Josephus core account and the Tacitus accounts are historical and reliable; I trust you realize that those are extra "icing on the cake". Christianity is not based on those. But they give extra credibility. We have the fully trustworthy 4 gospels and Paul's writings (and Hebrews and James and Jude also) There is no denying the historicity of the life of Jesus and the crucifixion. Since you believe in the Virgin birth, and that God can do miracles, the power of the atonement in forgiving sin, and ransoming people, if historical, should not be a problem. the Qur'an even agrees that to the truth of a substitutionary sacrifice for sin - Qur'an 37:107. "We have ransomed you with a mighty sacrifice."

You have not commented on that verse from the Qur'an. It agrees with the basic story, except that Islamic theologians interpret the son of Abraham as Ishmael, even though not specifically named in the text of the Qur'an in that context. (see Genesis chapter 22)

The miracle of the resurrection should be no problem to you; since you believe in the Almighty Creator God who does miracles, who is Sovereign and powerful and sent prophets in history and inspired books.

But even without that (Josephus, Tacitus, Seutonius and other historical evidences for Jesus), we have eyewitness testimony of the 4 gospels, the apostle Paul, and James, the half brother of Jesus, and 500 eyewitnesses of Jesus' in His resurrection body (I Corinthians 15:1-9), and the women at the empty tomb. (Matthew 28, Luke 24, Mark 16, John 20) Many witnesses. the Bible is not just one book, it is a library of many books, 66 books written by over 40 authors over a span of about 2000 years.

In a court of law, one man who claimed to be God's prophet is not proof enough of his own claims. We have 4 gospels that agree with each other historically and do not contradict one another, they just compliment each other and provide different details. If the had the exact wording, people would suspect they were in collusion with one another and planned it out, "say this and that". The little differences in the details actually adds to the trustworthiness of them, not against them.

As 20 Turkish Muslim men told me on a street in Findikzade, Istanbul during Ramadan in 1994 - after I asked them, "If there is a car accident here, which is better in Turkish court of law, one witness on one corner, or one witness on each of the 4 corners? (seeing things from different angles) They all answered that "Doru!!! Dort tone daha eeyee; Doru!" ( That right!!! 4 of them is better! doru! (that's right!) "We want to read the Injeel now; your explanation has made us open to read in Turkish."

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God, Peace be unto you all.

@ Ken

First of all thank you for the first post, it was heart felt and you are doing your job as are the pronouncements in Matthew 28 for that you are to be commended in a short post to have written so well.

Now your seccond post, I'm sorry to say this but it sounds like you did a good job of duping those four Turks! Your anaology is good; however I only wish I could have been one of the four. I would have said very well, but what happens when one of us says It was a Mercedes and a BMW that collided?

But the other swears it was two BMW's that collided. The other says infact it was a car and a motorcycle. Finally there is differences on the colours.

Enter Gleason Archer and the acrobatic gymnastics. Well don't worry because here comes Gleason Archer and Arnold to tell us how yes it was a Mercedes Bens and BMW but there 'could' have been a 2nd BMW.. and 'maybe' there were was indeed a motorcycle.

'Perhaps' one of the men are colour blind and some of them only saw one of the car that 'could' have been two different colours.


All though this deserves an 'A' for effort my eternal salvation does not rest upon 'could have' 'perhaps' and 'maybe' scenarios.

Trust me Ken I don't just go out and look for reasons not to believe, I listen to what William Lane Craig, Licona, James White, Robert Morey, Anis Shorrosh, and the darling of apologetic web sites James Patrick Holding aka Robert Turkel has to say, and some times they have good points but more often than not I'm really found wanting.

Case in point our exchange about Jesus being from the line of Judah. Try as we might it's just not happening.

As far as the icing on the cake I must say that I once heard of a story where a girl played a joke on her sister by putting animal lard as an icing on the cake during her B day party! Needless to say when she took a bite out of the cake it was anything but tasty.

It was complete deception.

What I find in dealing with Christians the 'historic' reality of Jesus the son of Mary 'dying' on the Cross is that they love to bring up Seutonious, Tacitus, and Josephus. They actually get shocked when I reply AND? I just mean to tell them and is this all? I mean there was such a library of exaustive writings at that time and Christianity was as such a dynamic movement if we are to believe the stories that one wonders why there is a such a derth of extra biblical material.

However, the Christian apologist who is one step ahead may realize that after looking into Tacitus, Josephus and Seutonious that while expecting to sink my teeth into some tasty topping I'm left feeling cheated having nearly gulped down what amounts to animal lard.

So just to pre-empt the fact that I may not be soo keen on the icing they will always fall back and say, "But than again we have the cake".

Allah-willing I'll reply shortly to the link you gave to Robert Turkel's Tektonics.

Ken just so incase you may not be aware of 'James Patrick Holding' and his antics you may like to have a look at this:

http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/024jph.html

Peace be unto you.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God, Peace be unto you all.

@ Ken I believe you directed me to the following site for more extra biblical information on the historical 'fact' that 'Jesus died on the cross'.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jesusref.html

However, when I was looking at what this 'Think Tank' of Christians came up with there some are things that seemed a bit odd.

"Of the Jewish resources--Josephus and the Rabbinical writings (e.g. Talmud, Midrash)--BOTH make clear references to the existence of Jesus (even though the details reported may be odd). So ALL the Jewish sources refer to Him."

and at the bottom

Talmudic References( written after 300 CE, but some refs probably go back to eyewitnesses)

As you recommended this site to me could you maybe help me in finding these "clear references to Jesus" that they are talking about in the Talmud?

I assume that we are talking about the same Jesus the one you called me to accept as my Lord and saviour in one of your last comments is that correct?

Maybe it could help us in our search for truth since the compilers of this web site also put the following:

"Tacitus (Annals, c.115-120) [The best current discussion on this passage is in my friend JP Holding's site]"

So maybe this will help me put things in perspective as I weigh the arguments put forth by a "Christian Think Tank".

Thank you.

Peace be unto you.

Ken said...

Grandverbalizer19:

Peace to you, you posted over at Turretinfan's blog recently - (On the question of whether Ergun Caner was a devout Muslim or not):


"@ Turretinfan now that I think about of course the Prophet (saw) said, "Every child is born into a state of fitrah (Or Islam) and it is the parents that make one a Jew, a Christian or an Idolater."


Interesting Hadith quote - can you give us the reference?

Yes, this is what official Islam teaches, and I have heard this a lot from Muslims in my 26 years of talking to Muslims, that all people are originally innocent (fitrah - born with an upright nature) - based on Surah 30:30 - and that all children are really Muslims, but the parents and culture and environment lead them astray.

If children have an upright nature, (fitrah - meaning, "nature", temperament, constitution, disposition, natural make up), why do children need to be taught "don't do that", etc. when they naturally act selfish from the beginning?

If you don't teach them right from wrong, they will degenerate into a spoiled brat and have behavioral problems. Most juvenile delinquency comes from lacking a father and relationship and teaching right from wrong with discipline and correction and moral principles of right vs. wrong.

If they are naturally good, it seems their nature should automatically develop into goodness.

But even with moral training, external rules cannot cleanse the heart of pride, lust, anger, jealousy, hatred, hypocrisy, deception, self-pity, greed, deep attitudes of bitterness, grudge, revenge, etc.

This is the great problem that Islam cannot answer - the internal and hidden sins of the heart and mind, of pride, lust, anger, jealousy, selfishness, greed, hatred, deception, hypocrisy, etc.

Matthew 5:21-30
Mark 7:20-23

Islam seems to only deal mostly with external rules and "dos and don'ts", not primarily with motives or attitudes.

There is some talk of the motives and attitudes of the heart, but it is not a main emphasis in Islam.

Genesis 6:5
Jeremiah 17:9-10

As for the other stuff,about the Bible history, reliability of the Scriptures (Gospels and NT writings), my point it that we don't depend on Josephus nor Tacitus or any other secular writer for historical basis for Christianity, but the evidence from them is clear, and extra.

There is no good evidence against the NT as true historical documents, and exactly what they claim to be, the inspired word of God. Take away the few textual variants, like Mark 16:9ff and John 8:1-11, etc.; you still have all of orthodox, doctrinal, historic Christianity.

The four gospels are the Word of God - Kalam Allah کلام الله

You are obligated to believe them and follow them. The Qur'an proves that they were not corrupted at the time of Muhammad and the word of God. Surah 5:46-48; Surah 10:94; 2:136, and many others.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God, Peace be unto you all.

@ Ken. Ken as I have mentioned to some of the people who are in "DR" White's camp before I am really not much of a dancer.

If you are asking me to dance I'll have to respecfully decline.

I question the historical 'fact' that Jesus was 'crucified to death on the cross'. I than ask for the exhaustive list of extra biblical information.

I'm given three links.

In ancitipation that this may not be satisfactory an appeal to the Bible is made.

Incase I find fault with this another issue is brought forth, "You should believe everything it says, hook line and sinker because the Qur'an" demands it.

As I said Ken I am honestly not much of a dancer.

Let's assume for the sake of argument I looked up those references in the Qur'an and voila I am now convinced all along I have been lied to by fellow Muslims and now I am looking back at what the Jews and Christians believe.

But blast it Ken the Qur'an dissapoints again as it doesn't actually tell me which Jews or Christians!

For example if we asked about Jesus being God. What would rabbinical Judaism say? If we asked the Kara-rites about hell fire and an afterlife in the Torah what would their understanding be? If we asked rabbinical Judaism about John the Baptist what would be the response? What about the followers of Zoroastrianism? They are also 'those who have been reading the Book from before thee'.

Than I have those Christians who do not accept James, Jude, Revelation 1st and 2nd Peter and ask them what's going on.

And while we are at it Ken let's be consistent I mean after all the Qur'an has Christian theology completely wrong correct? So than I'm going to go and ask those Christians who believe that Mary is part of the Trinity about how I get salvation isn't it?

I guess I'll just have to weigh all the evidences and start from scratch. So in the process of doing that I'll be seeing my friend Ken defer me to a web site that says,

"Of the Jewish resources--Josephus and the Rabbinical writings (e.g. Talmud, Midrash)--BOTH make clear references to the existence of Jesus (even though the details reported may be odd). So ALL the Jewish sources refer to Him."

and at the bottom

Talmudic References( written after 300 CE, but some refs probably go back to eyewitnesses)

Than I see that my friend Ken has made another post which he reaffirms,

"my point it that we don't depend on Josephus nor Tacitus or any other secular writer for historical basis for Christianity, but the evidence from them is clear, and extra."

And than as a sincere truth seeker a person who's faith in the Qur'an has been completely destroyed I look up to my brother heart burning for the truth and ask him,

Since the evidence for THEM is CLEAR and the Talmud makes CLEAR references to Jesus (the one I'm being called to accept as saviour) I reach out from the darkness and ask....

May I see these CLEAR references of Jesus Christ the son of God, the Messiah the living word (John 1:1), the God incarnate (Colossians 2:9) in the Talmud?

Than if my friend Ken is not able to do this I'll have to assume he is asking me to be a dancer.

This will be the parting of ways between us because you see this is not about you and I and how well we can tango it's about the TRUTH.

Peace be unto you.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Okay, lets see where Christians and Moslems have common ground pertaining to Jesus.

Both believe that Jesus existed.
Both believe He was punished on the cross.

The difference lies in whether He actually died on the cross or not. Christians believe He died on the cross because of the testimony of New Testament witnesses. Extrabiblical sources such as Josephus and Tacitus also mention Him in passing, but the greatest testimonies are found in the Bible.

GrandVerb, overall, it eventually boils down to faith and how much faith one has in the Bible. Do you believe the Bible is a reliable, and truthful source of informaton? Or do you believe the Bible is man's work riddled with errors? In matters of spirituality, the 'facts' can only take you so far. The next step is whether you believe the 'facts' or not, and that takes faith!

Peace.

David Waltz said...

Hi Hillary,

IMHO, not only does the Bible testify to the death of Jesus, but so does the Qur’an; see THIS THREAD for the pertinent verses from the Qur’an, and a link to a book that does an excellent job of demonstrating that not only does the Qur’an speak of Jesus death, but so do some important Muslim theologians.

And let us not forget that GrandVerb himself has acknowledged that the death of Jesus on the cross is a possible interpretation for a faithful adherent of Islam—this raises an interesting question for me: Who speaks for Islam?


Grace and peace,

David

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God, Peace be unto you all.

I'm honestly starting to feel a bit taken advantage of at this point.

David, when I made my comments about the Holy Spirit and the feminine divine I was remarking how I thought it would fit beautifully within a Christian paradigm not an Islamic one.

But I felt the question was given to by you as if there was one.

Also it's useful that you gave the link, because if you say
"The Bible testifies to the death of Jesus, but so does the Qur'an;"

It would give a seemingly deceptive impression that the Qur'an testifies to Jesus dying on the cross.

When I acknowledge possible interpretations we should have a look again at the post that I gave on the matter.
I mention there are four possible ways to look at this, and than I mentioned the flaw behind the first three. Infact the only person in my 16 years as a Muslim even 'remotely feel could be possible' was no.3 and this was very charitable of Shabir Ally. However, he did not put a stamp of approval on this interpretation. I don't know of any Muslim in the history of Islam, Sunni or Shi'a that states no.4 I only mentioned it in passing.

1) Swoon theory
2) Substituion theory
3) Physical but not Spiritual death
4) Denial that the event even took place at all.

No.2 is such an incredible imbellishment that I find it really amazing that one could accept it on a reading of the Arabic text alone.

1 and 3 are huge embellishments based upon the reading of the Arabic text alone. Becuase it quite clearly states wa ma qataluhu (and killed him they did not)

As I mentioned in my article "The Greatest Cover Up In Christian History" Many Muslims need to pause as do Christian apologist and wonder why would it say 'They didn't kill nor did they kill him' that just seems a bit repetious.

They didn't kill him is general (this does not allow for Jesus to be a substutionary atonement for the sins of mankind) no matter how one may like to slice it.

Nor did they put him to death on the cross (this COULD mean he was on the cross but didn't die, he could mean by an exegetical stretch that he was not a cross but on a T structure or even a living Tree)

But it was made to appear to them so (This could mean that someone was made to look like him, or that they suffered from mass delusion < which to me is a stretch, or that again he was on a T or Cross or Tree like structure but did not die upon it).


However, after the closing of 4:157 we get for certain they did not kill him.

So any passages that a Christian or Muslim brings to say that Jesus died 'past tense' I would like to see how these passages when taken into isolation in any way shape or form say that Jesus died on a cross. It just simply doesn't exist.

Now going back to my position no.4 I should have re worded that as to say it's a Denial as if it did happen and I'm just denying it. I should have said that the burden of proof is upon the Christian.

continued..

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God,

continued from above...

And look what happens! How can I trust you people? I would like to know please how is it unfair of me to ask Ken or anyone of you for that matter to bring for the evidence from the Talmud that states Jesus died on the Cross. I was given a link to a cite that clearly states these matters.

Than I have Daughter of Wisdom (God bless her) giving me a response and I see the word 'facts' in inverted commas.

How do I respond to this? How do I try and interact with you when it seems when I try to answer something it just gets completely brushed off.

So soo far I have to respond to Ken asking about the Qur'an in relationship to Abraham's 'mighty ransom'. I have to answer his question about the Hadith reference.

I have to respond to the link given about Tacitus.

Not only that but now I have to deal with the Christian polemic of 'Well the Qur'an says the Bible is true' that Ken is now bringing up.

And than the issue that David brings up that the verses that could be understood that jesus died and rather or not they can be connected with Jesus dying on a cross.

Subhan'Allah do you people have any shame?


I came in peace and now I leave in peace.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Hi GrandVerb,

I must apologize but I did not mean to mislead when I wrote 'facts' in quotes. I did that because what may be deemed as facts by one person is deemed as error by another. If one genuinely does not believe that Jesus died, and rose from the dead, then no amount of evidence or documentation can convince them. They will find some way to reject the evidence as erroneous. Yes, the Truth is out there, but everyone has their own opinion of what is truth, and it is only by the grace of God and His divine revelation that we can come to a full understanding of Truth.

Peace.

Irene said...

Hi Grand Verbalizer,

This has been an exceptional thread in my opinion. I know that David has for many years held the position that the Qu'ran permits the understanding of the Crucifixion in a way compatible with traditional Christianity. This comes from a diverse background that includes serious interaction with knowledgable Bahais, which whatever you may think about it, attempts a synthesis with Christianity and Islam (and other beliefs too).

It seems to me that rather than suspecting deception or other dishonorable intentions, you could do him a service by explaining why his Christian understanding of the Crucifixion is impossible for the Qu'ran. Assuredly, all of us are happy in our respective faiths and would be pleased to see another of us embrace our own distinctive beliefs. Surely you understood this. It is not detached academic curiosity that motivates my internet discussions. I assume that potential conversion is the unspoken rule for why all but the most simple inquirers ever ask a question or give an answer.

If Dave's questions, or the others for that matter, have been leading questions, intent on a direction you would not wish to go, then by all means, answer with a refutation. But you would do yourself a disservice, in my opinion, to leave thinking you have been mistreated.

I think you explained well the four interpretations and clarified that in your opinion, at least three were impossible. That refutes David's overly optimistic evaluation of your own view of the situation regarding the Qu'ran and the Crucifixion of Christ.

I do not have an opinion of my own. I am sometimes influenced by Dave so I am naturally acquainted with his own theories. But I am not invested in this issue. If it would not be too much trouble, I would be pleased to see you disabuse David of his honest, but perhaps uninformed opinion about the teaching of your Holy Book with regards to the death of Him we consider to be God Incarnate.

I have skimmed most of this long thread. I have closely read and enjoyed some of your articulate posts to this point. But I fear you are being a little rash in your apparent negative conclusion regarding our host's deportment in this matter.

Sincerely,

Rory (on the google account of Irene...whose name was given her by me, and refers to the peace which I would extend to all here) faith.)

Ken said...

Happy Resurrection Sunday!

2 good articles for the evidence of the Resurrection:

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/03/evidence-of-the-resurrection-part-1-internal-evidence/

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/04/evidence-for-the-resurrection-part-2-external-evidence/

David Waltz said...

Dear GranVerb,

It sincerely pains me to hear you say that: “I'm honestly starting to feel a bit taken advantage of at this point.” For me, I know for sure that was not, is not, and would never be my intent. I cannot read the minds and hearts of anyone else, but personally, I am of the opinion that Chris, Hillary, Jennie, Ken, Rory, and Shahiroz are just as shocked as I am…

With that said, I am truly saddened, and hope you reconsider departure. In your last two posts you wrote:

>>David, when I made my comments about the Holy Spirit and the feminine divine I was remarking how I thought it would fit beautifully within a Christian paradigm not an Islamic one.

But I felt the question was given to by you as if there was one.>>

Me: I am confused at this point and ask for clarification: how does the above pertain to whether or not Jesus died?

>>Also it's useful that you gave the link, because if you say
"The Bible testifies to the death of Jesus, but so does the Qur'an;"

It would give a seemingly deceptive impression that the Qur'an testifies to Jesus dying on the cross.>>

Me: Once again, I am confused, for I discern no deception at all on my part—could you explain why/what gives you this impression?

>>When I acknowledge possible interpretations we should have a look again at the post that I gave on the matter.
I mention there are four possible ways to look at this, and than I mentioned the flaw behind the first three. Infact the only person in my 16 years as a Muslim even 'remotely feel could be possible' was no.3 and this was very charitable of Shabir Ally. However, he did not put a stamp of approval on this interpretation. I don't know of any Muslim in the history of Islam, Sunni or Shi'a that states no.4 I only mentioned it in passing.

1) Swoon theory
2) Substituion theory
3) Physical but not Spiritual death
4) Denial that the event even took place at all.>>

Me: The above that you reproduced was the context for my last post.

>>No.2 is such an incredible imbellishment that I find it really amazing that one could accept it on a reading of the Arabic text alone.>>

Me: An interesting point for sure. Lawson, in his examination of all the extant pre-Tabari tasfirs states:

“All of the exegetes who broach the problem agree that someone was crucified, but few agree on the victim, except that it was not Jesus.” (The Crucifixion and the Qur’an, p. 66.)

continued…

David Waltz said...

continued…

>>1 and 3 are huge embellishments based upon the reading of the Arabic text alone. Becuase it quite clearly states wa ma qataluhu (and killed him they did not)

As I mentioned in my article "The Greatest Cover Up In Christian History" Many Muslims need to pause as do Christian apologist and wonder why would it say 'They didn't kill nor did they kill him' that just seems a bit repetious.

They didn't kill him is general (this does not allow for Jesus to be a substutionary atonement for the sins of mankind) no matter how one may like to slice it.

Nor did they put him to death on the cross (this COULD mean he was on the cross but didn't die, he could mean by an exegetical stretch that he was not a cross but on a T structure or even a living Tree)

But it was made to appear to them so (This could mean that someone was made to look like him, or that they suffered from mass delusion < which to me is a stretch, or that again he was on a T or Cross or Tree like structure but did not die upon it).


However, after the closing of 4:157 we get for certain they did not kill him.

So any passages that a Christian or Muslim brings to say that Jesus died 'past tense' I would like to see how these passages when taken into isolation in any way shape or form say that Jesus died on a cross. It just simply doesn't exist.>>

Me: The context of the verse pertains to the Jews—the Jews neither killed, nor crucified Jesus, the Romans did.

As for #3 of your list, I personally do not dismiss it as easily as you (and others). I do not wish to lecture you on the Qur’an, for I am sure your knowledge of the book exceeds mine (I have read the Qur’an cover-to-cover only twice), but still, I cannot help but mention the following verse>

And say not of those who are slain in the way of Allah: ‘They are dead.’ Nay, they are living, though ye perceive (it) not.” (2.154 – Yusif Ali trans.)

>>Now going back to my position no.4 I should have re worded that as to say it's a Denial as if it did happen and I'm just denying it. I should have said that the burden of proof is upon the Christian.>>

Me: Since I do not believe that Qur’an either denies the death, nor the crucifixion of Jesus, I, with all due respect, just do not feel pressured to present the Biblical and historical evidences.

That is MY position on the matter; the fact that some Muslims agree with me on this (i.e. that Jesus was crucified, and his physical body died on the cross/tree/stake), pretty much ends the argument for ME. It is not my goal here to convince ANYONE ELSE that MY position MUST be the correct one, my only real goal was/is to inform others that it is a valid option for both Christians and Muslims.

May God bless,

David

Ken said...

David (and Grandverbalizer19):

I too am surprised at the sudden turn that GV19 took and said things like,

"How can I trust you people?"

and

"Do you people have any shame?"



I did not understand his argumentation as to why he felt taken advantage of.

Is it because no one answered the Talmud question?

and because we defend the Christian faith as true?

David, why did he feel "taken advantage of" ? I don't get it.

I finally had time to think about that question; I confess I knew the least about the Talmud question, that is why I addressed Josephus and Tacitus first.

It seems that the Talmud is completely silent on Jesus of Nazareth, whom Christians believe is the Messiah, crucified, buried, and rose from the dead miraculously.

The article below shows that none of the references to a "Yeshu" in the Talmud can be about Jesus of Nazareth.

http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesusnarr.html

Another article says this:

"The name Yeshu (alt: Jeshu, Yeishu, Heb: יש"ו) appears in various works of classical Jewish rabbinic literature including the Babylonian Talmud (redacted roughly before 600 CE) and the classical midrash literature written between 250 CE and 700 CE. Scholars have debated the meaning of the name, which has been used as an acronym for the Hebrew expression ימח שמו וזכרו (yemach shemo vezichro – "May his name and memory be obliterated"). The word is similar to, and may be a wordplay on, Yeshua, believed by many to be the original Aramaic or Hebrew name of Jesus."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism%27s_view_of_Jesus

The simplest explanation is that the Jewish people wanted Jesus' memory to be forgotten and eventually, they did; and ignore Him when confronted with His claims.

Maimonides believed that Jesus existed and died and wrote several times, "may his bones be crushed into dust".

Maimonides confesses that the Jewish leaders gave him the ultimate punishment. This does not contradict the NT gospels, Acts, or epistles - the Jewish leaders forced Pilate and the Romans to do the deed - crucifixion. The way they manipulated the situation fits with the historical data we have on Pilate and his relationship with Caesar Tiberius.

"The sages, of blessed memory, having become aware of his plans before his reputation spread among our people, meted out fitting punishment to him."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism%27s_view_of_Jesus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maimonides

Also, the Babylonian Talmud in its present form is from around 600 AD; so it seems difficult for this to be a reliable source for the crucifixion and trial of Jesus in the first century Judaism.

Plus, the Jewish leaders, after 70 AD had to reinterpret the Bible, because there were no more temple sacrifices.

But Daniel 9:24-27 is clear (on the main things) - the Messiah will be cut off first; and then the temple would be destroyed. (died, killed, Isaiah 53:8 - as a substitute for sin and for the sins of the people -Isaiah 53:1-12, a guilt offering. Isaiah 52:13 - "My servant will act wisely, prospering; He will be high, and lifted up and greatly exalted" - resurrection, ascension to heaven, and sitting down (session) at the right hand of the Father.

70 AD - destruction of the temple - prophesied by Jesus and came true just as He said - Matthew 23:36-24:15 - and Jesus says that this was spoken of by the prophet Daniel.

Ken said...

Even Bart Ehrman knows that Jesus was crucified:

http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/thompson/bart_ehrman_hero.html#fnr_2


"In any event, Tacitus's report confirms what we know from other sources, that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate."2

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God, Peace be unto you all....

Irene said,

"This has been an exceptional thread in my opinion."

It is an exceptional thread Irene because there are exceptional people like you and daughter of wisdom and David and even people like Ken :)

I did e-mail David and let my thoughts be known to him on the matter. The reason I felt taken advantage of is because I felt that Ken was not answering questions about web links that he gave to me.

When I said you people have no shame I will admit that to a degree I still hold to that. If there was a Muslim who was not answering a person's question I would atleast ask him to say the following:

1) I need more time to look into the matter.
2) I honestly don't have an answer or response.
3) Give a response.

It seemed that there was little neutrality from anyone from my view point atleast.

So with that said I seek forgivenes from Allah for my wrongs to anyone and ask Allah forgives any of you wrongs to me.

I have been away compiling information. Recently I have been having an interesting exchange with Pastor McElhaney on Isaiah 53 and rather or not it is a prophecy about a dead and rising messiah.

I think we have about exausted the subject so I'll wait until his next response to see if we have anything else more to pursue.

So let me try and respond to some points here...

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God,

continued from above...

David said,
Me: The context of the verse pertains to the Jews—the Jews neither killed, nor crucified Jesus, the Romans did.

My comment: This is a good point. The context can be considered ambiguous. However, since it does not state the Jews or the Romans one would have to go back to the 'historical' and biblical records to find out who was behind it all.

For some of the Jews killed the prophets, and some even killed the Lord Jesus. Now they have persecuted us, too. They fail to please God and work against all humanity 1 Thessalonians 2:15 (New Living Translation)

“And say not of those who are slain in the way of Allah: ‘They are dead.’ Nay, they are living, though ye perceive (it) not.” (2.154 – Yusif Ali trans.)

'And they killed him not' and 'they did for of a certainty they did not kill him'.

My argument is that this addresses both the Jews and the Romans...

They killed him not (The Jews) stoning to death and putting Jesus in a Tree.

Nor crucified him to death (The Romans)

However, let us say that 4:157 does refer to the Jews and not the Romans. The Romans who ended up crucifying Jesus. The whole context shows that who ever did it did not kill him.

So do we deal with those verses that suggest Jesus has already died. It can be shown that they can all be future tense and Allah-willing I will write a post about this in the future.

However, the interesting thing about all the places talking about Jesus 'death' they are not connected with the crucifixion event.

Me: Since I do not believe that Qur’an either denies the death, nor the crucifixion of Jesus, I, with all due respect, just do not feel pressured to present the Biblical and historical evidences.

My response: I respect that I just don't see where there is a connection between the death of Jesus and the crucifixion established in the Qur'an.

Peace be unto you.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God, Peace be unto you.

@ Ken I must now also offer an apology to you as well. Since you have come forth in your honesty and have stated,

"It seems that the Talmud is completely silent on Jesus of Nazareth, whom Christians believe is the Messiah, crucified, buried, and rose from the dead miraculously."

You even ventured further to say,

"Also, the Babylonian Talmud in its present form is from around 600 AD; so it seems difficult for this to be a reliable source for the crucifixion and trial of Jesus in the first century Judaism."

What I understand from this is that in it's present form is from around 600 CE. However, it could have actually stated something about Jesus. It 'could' have.

As far as Tacitus you gave me a link
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/tacitus.html

I have responded to that here:
http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2010/04/is-there-historical-evidence-that-jesus.html

Something that really stands out is the following,

“The passage is in perfect Tacitean style; it appears in every known copy of the Annals (although there are very few copies of it, and none dates earlier than the 11th century), and the anti-Christian tone is so strong that it is extremely unlikely that a Christian could have written it.”

So if we are to use consistent standards and we do not use the Talmud due to the fact that it is 600 years removed from the event, we are now also looking at a document that is 1100 years removed from the event.

I also do apologise but what Maimonides says about Jesus does not help about in our discussion about the 'historical fact' that Jesus died on the cross.

Now I am happy that we have agreed that we can put the Talmud back on the shelf. I have given a response to the information about Tacitus.

If you feel you would like to make another point about Tactius I'm more than happy to look at it.


As far as Bart Ehrman is concerned he is on the record for saying that 'Historians cannot prove what did happen they can only show what probably did happen that is the job of the historian'.

I do not think that Christians put their salvation upon a 'probably'.

You can see that here:
http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2010/04/ehrman-licona-debate-can-historians.html

Again unless you want to mention more about Tacitus, or now Jospehus , Pliny the younger and Seutonious are brought up we should probably move on.

I'm under the impression that I have still yet to answer three questions or points rased by you Ken.
1) The issue of Ibrahim and his son and ransom in the Qur'an.
2) The source for the hadith that I quoted.
3) Whether or not the Qur'an confirms the Bible.

If there are also any other points that you or any other brothers and sisters feel that I did not respond to please let me know.

I'll make one more shocking remark but I hope this time no one takes it personally or that I do not offend.

I personally think that people like Bart Ehrman and even Christopher Hitchens may convert to Christianity or in Ehrmans case 'go back' to it.

The reason I say this is because they know that people want and have a hunger for spirituality. They will probably rethink their strategy in the face of Islams growth in the United States and England.

Maybe people like Ehrman say that Jesus died on the cross as a historical fact to give Christianity some wiggle room, and not leave the door wide open for a clean sweep by the forces of Islam.

Only Allah alone knows.

Peace be unto you all.

Ken said...

Grandverbalizer19 -
Salaam - peace to you!

Thanks for those last 3 posts - very nice indeed.

I didn't mean to avoid answering the Talmud question, I just did not know much about it at the time; but I apologize for not saying sooner, "I don't know, but I will try to do some research on the Talmud question to have at least some kind of an answer. I don't know enough about the Talmud to answer at this time."

Forgive me for not saying that sooner.

I guess the issue of Tacitus (and the earliest copy that we have of it is centuries later) vs. the Talmud (being around 600 AD) is a valid point you have in a general way; - however, the very nature of Judaism and the destruction of all their writings and records and city of Jerusalem in 70 AD. (about 1 million, 500 thousand Jews were slaughtered in the 7 year war of the Jews vs. Romans from 66 AD - 70, - 73 AD - the mass suicide at Masada -

This fact, along with the whole nature of Judaism changed because the Jews that became Christians fled Jerusalem and Judea and went to Pella; and most of the people left in Palestine (Judea and Samaria) were Christian Jews and Roman pagans -

Obviously the Jewish survivors had to come up with an explanation for why the living God allowed the destruction of the temple - no more sacrifices!
see background:
Genesis 22
Exodus 12-14
Leviticus 1-7; 16-17
1 Kings 8
etc.

The council/conference of Jamnia met in 90 AD - the Jews had to decide how to respond to so many Jews becoming Christians, and no more temple, and which OT books were "canonical".

The Bar Kokhba rebellion in 135 AD seems to the point where even more of the remaining Jews from 70 AD were killed and scattered all over the world.

So, the records of their writings from 100-600 AD are going to be far different than the Roman historians and Tacitus. The Tacitus account and Romans have no agenda to try to make to forget the history; whereas the Jews who survived and rejected Jesus as Messiah had to develop their interpretations of the OT, but explain how the temple and land are no longer.

Can you see the problem with comparing the Talmud evidence with the Tacitus evidence?

Also, Bart Ehrman believes the Tacitus account is historical.

Anyway, I admit I don't know all of the details (to your satisfaction), but if I need to; I could probably find more; but it would take lots of time.

The rest of your arguments are based on silence and pure speculations.

Again, the Qur'an proves that the Bible was not corrupted because it says, "go and ask the people of the book" ( Surah 10:94) and "let the people of the Scripture judge by what Allah has revealed therein" (Surah 5:47). Since we have many copies of the Scriptures that date from 120 AD to 600 AD, and they agree essentially with our Bible's today ( except for the Mark 16:9-20 issue and John 7:53-8:11 and I John 5:7-8, "The Comma Yohannian" issue)- there is no evidence that the rest of the Scriptures were corrupted or changed; (except very minor scribal errors; spelling errors, word order, copying, falling asleep, eyes seeing a different line and being mis-copied, etc.) Since we have so many copies, we can have all the essential doctrines of Christianity.

Ken said...

The crucifixion is attested to by the word of God in at least 6 different documents - Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, Paul's writings, and Hebrews. Matthew and John were eyewitnesses and Luke interviewed the eyewitnesses. Mark wrote for Peter who was an eyewitness. Paul's testimony is very strong and historical. Hebrews was probably written by Barnabas (per Tertullian, he was a Levite (Acts 4:36), and “son of encouragement/exhortation – Heb. 13:22 – he leaves us a clue and calls his letter, “a brief letter of exhortation/encouragement”, also called an apostle and fellow minister with Paul. Acts 14:4; 14:14

The Qur'an is only one witness, Muhammad, a man's thoughts who did not even know real Christianity or have the Bible in his own language. He came centuries later than Christianity. He had to rely on bits of information from the Gnostics and Arians, and other heretics and nominal Christians and Nestorians and Monophysites, etc.

6 different authors, 6 different groups of writings/accounts (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Hebrews (probably Barnabas) , all much older than the Qur'an ( say 633 AD -655 ? Whenever Uthman compiled one as the standard and burned all the other copies) is much stronger than one man's claim. This shows that Surah 4:157 is just flat out wrong. Jesus was crucified by the Jews and Romans. The Jewish leaders planned it and instigated it and forced the Romans to actually do the deed of the nailing and crucifying Him. But the Jewish leaders that pre-mediated the whole thing are held more accountable.
Acts 2:22-23; 3:12-22; 4:27; I Thess. 2:14-16. Matthew 23:36- 24:34 shows that 70 AD was a judgment on that generation of Jews that rejected Messiah.

Daniel 9:24-27 shows Messiah would be killed first and then the temple would be destroyed. This proves Jesus was the Al Messiah, crucified, was dead, buried, rose from the dead (the empty tomb, the separate appearances to so many different people on different occasions) and the transformation of enemies (Saul of Tarsus to Paul), unbelievers, skeptics ( Thomas, James, Jesus' half brother) John 7:5; Gal. 1:19; I Cor. 15:1-9); the willingness of the disciples to die and the first 3 centuries of persecution and other martyrs:
Peter and Paul under Nero (67 AD)
Polycarp (around 150 AD)
Justin Martyr ( around 150 AD)
Ignatius (110 AD)
Cyprian(250 AD)
many others

All of this points to the historical reality of the crucifixion and the resurrection also.

David Waltz said...

Hi GrandVerb,

Thanks much for taking the time to respond to my musings; you posted:

>>David said,
Me: The context of the verse pertains to the Jews—the Jews neither killed, nor crucified Jesus, the Romans did.

My comment: This is a good point. The context can be considered ambiguous. However, since it does not state the Jews or the Romans one would have to go back to the 'historical' and biblical records to find out who was behind it all.

For some of the Jews killed the prophets, and some even killed the Lord Jesus. Now they have persecuted us, too. They fail to please God and work against all humanity 1 Thessalonians 2:15 (New Living Translation)>>

Me: Juridically speaking, the Jews were just as guilty as those (the Romans) who actually crucified and killed (his physical body) Jesus. Note the words of Peter:

“You that are Israelites, listen to what I have to say: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with deeds of power, wonders, and signs that God did through him among you, as you yourselves know—this man, handed over to you according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of those outside the law.” (Acts 2:22, 23 – NRS)

“The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our ancestors has glorified his servant Jesus, whom you handed over and rejected in the presence of Pilate, though he had decided to release him.” (Acts 3:13 – NRS)

Luke, via Cleopas, put it this way:

“Then one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answered him, ‘Are you the only stranger in Jerusalem who does not know the things that have taken place there in these days?’ He asked them, ‘What things?’ They replied, "The things about Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, nd how our chief priests and leaders handed him over to be condemned to death and crucified him.” (Luke 24:18-20 – NRS)

Though I believe the Qur’an is referring to actual, physical event, I do not rule out the possibility that the juridical aspect may loom in the background.

>>So do we deal with those verses that suggest Jesus has already died. It can be shown that they can all be future tense and Allah-willing I will write a post about this in the future.>>

Me: I would say that this a POSSIBLE interpretation, but not the ONLY POSSIBLE one.

>>However, the interesting thing about all the places talking about Jesus 'death' they are not connected with the crucifixion event.>>

Me: The actual event is not specifically mentioned, nor is it denied in those verses; some Muslim commentators assume the event is implicit.

>>Me: Since I do not believe that Qur’an either denies the death, nor the crucifixion of Jesus, I, with all due respect, just do not feel pressured to present the Biblical and historical evidences.

My response: I respect that I just don't see where there is a connection between the death of Jesus and the crucifixion established in the Qur'an.>>

Me: Fair enough; my only hope is that you retain in your mind the POSSIBILIY that the Romans did in fact crucify Jesus, that his physical body died, and that Allah raised his spirit to His presence.


Grace and peace,

David

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God, Peace be unto you.

David thanks for having me back on here even though I made the proverbial Donkey of myself.

In all fairness 4:157 the issue that would present the challenge to most people who do interpretations would be 'but it was made to appear to them so'.

What was made to appear?
And to whom?

You also put forth a very just question that I did not comment upon.

'Who speaks for Islam'.
'Who speaks for Christianity'.

I think one huge advantage that Christianity has in today's world and a disadvantage nonetheless is having a 'go to guy' like the Pope.

He speaks on behalf of 1.2 billion Christians and this has allot of weight.

At the same time if his image becomes tarnished (as is now with the sex scandals) it reflects badly upon the entire church. It can be a double edged sword.

My undestanding as a Sunni Muslim who follows Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah( People who hold to the sunnah and Jammah/Congregation or Consensus) is that we have a magisterium of sorts.
However, we do not believe the magisterium is infallible like the Shi'a do.


Yet, at the same time it prevents the common man or woman from interpretating the primary and secondary sources of Islam for themselves and putting themselves on an equal footing with scholars.

Example: Osama Bin Laden he is in no position in Sunni legal theory to issue fatawah or religious verdicts. No.1 he has not even completed the Qur'an to memory. This would be the least of the requirements.

Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah (Sunni Islam) consist of four legal schools that differ in their usul (methods) on how to interpret the primary and secondary sources.
It consist of 3 schools of theology
(on how the Muslims understand finer points of theology)

Anyone who holds to one of the four schools of legal theory and/or one of the three schools of theology is a Sunni Muslim and upon Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah.

There is an understanding from the scholars that there are going to be differences of opinion and shades of grade. Yet the main goal is to keep the body of believers united.

Contrary to what happens today in Mosque (which is rampant in some areas) where believers argue on finer points of jurisprudence though they have no background to do so.

So in Sunni Islam we follow the magisterium and I would be more than happy to point out the centers for the four schools, and three schools of theology.

The common man/woman can challenge the magisterium and over turn their rulings only when a person undergoes the training and reaches to the level of Mujtahid (someone who can go to the primary and secondary sources directly).

Once a person reaches the station of Mujtahid it is actually haram (not permissible) for them to rely upon the four traditional schools of legal theory.

The schools of Aqidah (theology) cannot be over turned. A person studies them in depth not to come up with novel theories about God and the universe but simply to know the intricacies on how to defend against Atheist, Rationalist, Greek Philosophy, Pan theism, and so forth.

Once upon a time you could travel from West Africa to India without going through customs or need for a passport and you could take up residence and find work where and when you like. In today's world of defined borders and nation states it's more challenging for the Muslim collective to give similiar responses to every dilema or situation that arrives.

Sorry for being long winded but I hope that helps.

Peace

Ken said...

Hey Grandverbalizer!

David W. no longer follows the Pope.

I never did. I am an Evangelical Reformed Protestant. Only the Bible is infallible and inerrant.

No human leaders are infallible.

Since Scripture is "God-breathed", it is infallible. 2 Timothy 3;16-17

God's word is truth. John 17:17

God's word cuts spiritually like a sword and exposes and judges our motives and thoughts. Hebrews 4:12

External rituals in religion cannot cleanse the evil motives and evil thoughts of the heart. Mark 7:1-23

Mark 7:20-23
And He [Jesus Al Masih] said, "What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person."

See also Genesis 6:5
Jeremiah 17:9

How can humans cleanse their evils thoughts in their hearts?

The burden of not being able to cleanse ourselves and being under the load of real guilt having offended the eternal Holy God by our sins; and being under that weight on our souls - to have that burden and weight lifted and our hearts cleansed and the guilt removed is what Jesus offers - true peace.

Matthew 11:28-30
Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Hi GrandVerb,

The Pope does not speak for me. He represents the Catholic church - not Christianity. Christianity is a movement, and thus has no one head/representative. It was formed as a community of believers with Christ as the head of the church, and our invisible Leader. Christianity will always be a movement, with diverse members, just as it was in the beginning.

That's why the Bible was written by various authors of diverse backgrounds over a period of time. No one author can claim preeminence or control. Unity in diversity.


Peace.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God, Peace be unto you all.

Ken I don't think there is anything meaningful I can add to your statements about Tacitus as such so let me try to move on to some of your questions of me.

My apologies this is long over due. I will try and post this at Turretin Fan's site as well. I have been meaning to interact with him on this issue of infant baptism and original sin. (That's for another time Allah-willing).

""Each child is born in a state of "Fitrah", then his parents make him a Jew, Christian or a Zoroastrian, It is like the way you help animals give birth. Do you find among their offspring a branded one until you brand them yourselves?

Collected by Al-Bukhari (Muhammed Muhsin Khan, Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic-English ( Beirut: Dar Al Arabia, n.d), vol. 8,pp. 389-90, no.597) and Muslim (Abdul Hamid Siddiqi, Sahih Muslim, English Trans. (Lahore: Sh. Muhammad Ashraf,1976), vol. 4, p. 13987, no. 6423.

It is important to note that there are other riwayat (chains of transmission) that stop after the word Zorastrian, some add after the word Zorastrian or a disbeliever.

I find it sad some translations into English choose to translate as Jew, Christian or Unbeliever (in place of the word Zorastrian). The people of the book are the Jews, Christians and Zorastrians.

About substition and ransom in the Qur'an passage you refered to in the post below.

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/01/so-why-did-allah-substitute-innocent.html

In your entry here there was a comment by you,

"Shabir Ally said, “there is a difference between sacrifice and ransom; they are two different things, . . . until Anselm”. He also referred to some of the early church ideas of “ransom to Satan”, which is not Biblical at all; and he seemed to imply that "ransom" in Mark 10:45 was the "payment to Satan view".


One of the people who visited this particular post had a comment you may not have noticed...

beowulf2k8 said...
"He also referred to some of the early church ideas of “ransom to Satan”, which is not Biblical at all;"

WHat's not biblical about it? A ransom is the price to buy a slave right. So, who was the slave master that Jesus was buying us from? Not the Father obviously, because then there would be no point in buying what he already had. If you don't want to go the Gnostic route of ransom to an evil Demiurge, and think yourself too high and mighty to go the route of ransom to Satan, then what you end up left with is a nonsensical circular story about God buying us from himself that has no practical use whatsoever.


What I can add to this is that it was brought to my attention in a book by an American convert to Islam Jeffery Lang 'Struggling to Surrender' Available at Amazon that this passage does not address if it was Ismail or Issac. He felt that focusing too much on whom it was would also obstruct Christian/Muslim discussion.

continued...

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God,

continued...
Ken you said,

"The Qur'an is only one witness, Muhammad, a man's thoughts who did not even know real Christianity or have the Bible in his own language. He came centuries later than Christianity. He had to rely on bits of information from the Gnostics and Arians, and other heretics and nominal Christians and Nestorians and Monophysites, etc."

My sincere advice Ken is that when you and James White stop relying upon post modern scholarship that starts out with the assumption that God does not speak, and that revelation is a fairy tell it would do you a world of good.

Infact people like James always assail Muslims for using the likes of Ehrman but they have no qualms about using post modern critics of the Qur'an.

The problem with this statement is it has soo many holes in it. Why was Muhammed (saw) so selective in what he took from the multifarious Christian groups and sects? Why didn't he present just one Christology over the other?

All the arguments put forth by post modern critics that Christians borrow whole sale have soo many loop holes in them.

If Islam is a plot of the Catholic Church (one of the most ridiculous assertions ever put forth) it sure was not well thought out because Islam will be the major faith of France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Denmark sooner rather than latter.

Here is the story of a Catholic Priest who studied in the Vatican and his journey to Islam

http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2010/01/uk-catholic-priest-idris-tawfiq.html

continued..

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God

continued...

I thought I had already published this piece but than when I re checked it was not published.

@ Ken

"Again, the Qur'an proves that the Bible was not corrupted because it says, "go and ask the people of the book" ( Surah 10:94) and "let the people of the Scripture judge by what Allah has revealed therein" (Surah 5:47). Since we have many copies of the Scriptures that date from 120 AD to 600 AD, and they agree essentially with our Bible's today ( except for the Mark 16:9-20 issue and John 7:53-8:11 and I John 5:7-8, "The Comma Yohannian" issue)- there is no evidence that the rest of the Scriptures were corrupted or changed; (except very minor scribal errors; spelling errors, word order, copying, falling asleep, eyes seeing a different line and being mis-copied, etc.) Since we have so many copies, we can have all the essential doctrines of Christianity."

Well Ken I can tell you this much the people over at Zwelmer institute for Islamic studies in Chicago have been busy little bees trying to find ways to refute islamic missionary claims.

What a clever argument to say that the Qur'an ask Muslims to believe in the 22/27 books (not sure which canon) of the New Testament. And that the Qur'an ask Muslims to believe in the 39/46 books (not sure which canon) of the Old Testament.

I can assure you now that no where does the Qur'an tell Muslims that the Hindu Vedas, Upinashids, Zen Avesta, THNC, Shepard of Hermes, New Testament or Gospel of Barnabas have been corrupted.

I have not seen that any where. But if any Muslim sister/brother reading this wishes to correct me I am open to that.

However, in the same token I have not seen the Qur'an any where tell the Muslims to accept the Gospel of Barnabbas, Shephard of Hermes, New Testament 22/27 books or Old Testament 39/46 books, Zen Avesta (after the Zorastrains too are people of the book), Upinashids, and Vedas. I have not seen where the Qur'an categorically states that these things are in fact the words of Allah.

I have a post in which I have responded to the tactics of the Zwelmer institute.

http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2010/01/does-quran-teach-bible-was-corrupted.html


On as side note * I want to say that I don't think it takes allot of courage today for Protestant Christians to attack the Catholic Christians (and yes they are Christians) when the Church is vulnerable.

To turretinfan, james swan, james white, and all of them the fact is this. If it was not for the Church of Rome mustering her forces both polemical, and military against Islam, and keeping the Turks and the Almorads at bay we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Infact it's pretty safe to say that turretinfan, swan and white would all be called 'ghazalifan, ahmed and abdul-latif and mr. white aka abdul-latif would be preparing his friday khutbah. Islam would have made a clean sweep of Europe.

I hope Protestants think about that carefully before they demonize the Catholic church.

Peace be unto you.

David Waltz said...

Hi GrandVerb,

I am currently contemplating over which of the two new threads I have been working on shall be the next to be posted here at AF, one pertains to succession within Islam after the death of Muhammad; the second concerns another passage from the Bible that I believe pertains to the religion of Islam itself. While I ponder over this, I would like to comment on the following you posted:

>>On as side note * I want to say that I don't think it takes allot of courage today for Protestant Christians to attack the Catholic Christians (and yes they are Christians) when the Church is vulnerable.>>

Me: Protestants have been attacking the Catholic Church since the 16th century, though the more informed Protestant polemists have limited their attack to the Papacy and corrupt hierarchy, less informed Prots level their attacks at the entire Catholic Church (though to their credit, they do affirm that individuals with the RCC may still be “saved”).

>>To turretinfan, james swan, james white, and all of them the fact is this. If it was not for the Church of Rome mustering her forces both polemical, and military against Islam, and keeping the Turks and the Almorads at bay we wouldn't be having this conversation.>>

Me: Indeed, and that my dear friend is but the “tip of the ice-burg” concerning much of the ‘popular’ anti-Catholic Church apologetics that permeate the web, and related literature.

>>I hope Protestants think about that carefully before they demonize the Catholic church.>>

Me: AMEN! Though I am no longer attending the RCC, I cannot intellectually, nor in good conscience, deny that it remains a valid Christian church—IMHO, you have given us all some serious ‘food-for-thought’.

Grace and peace,

David

Daughter of Wisdom said...

I hear you David and GrandVerb. That is why on my blog you will never find me demonizing the Catholic church. We live in a free country with religious freedoms, and EVERYONE is entitled to their views on religion and spirituality - NO EXCEPTIONS! What I have a problem with however, is when churches start to use the power of the state as a means of coercion to push their particular religious beliefs on the masses.

The reason why people hate the Catholic church above other churches is that the Catholic church has a history of using the power of the state to push religious dogma on the masses. They, the Catholic Church, does not respect freedom of religion, and they continue to be a major factor in government and politics , even to this day. As long as they keep their beliefs to themselves I have no problem, but when they try to use the law to push their agenda, then I have a problem.

No church or religion ought to use the power of the state to push their doctrines. That was not the method of Jesus or the apostles. Paul evangelized much of the Roman world without enacting not even one law, or use of the military power of Rome.

If it was not for the push by the Prostestants for religious freedom, none of us would be here talking today. GrandVerb, for one, you would be anathema! Thanks to religious freedom we all can worship God as our conscience allows, even if that worship may be different from yours!

Peace.

Want to go back to Catholicism where your beliefs are censored? The church is still around and all are free to join if they choose. As for me, I choose freedom.

David Waltz said...

Hi Hillary,

I really appreciated your last post—well done! Though the Catholic Church has certainly made great strides concerning religious liberty since Vatican II, there is still work to be done (IMHO). And though I can no longer in good conscience attend the Catholic mass, I sincerely believe that the RCC is a Christian church.


God bless,

David

Ken said...

Grandverbalizer19 –
I sincerely wish you peace; the peace of God that can only be found through repentance and faith in Al Masih, who died on the cross, was buried, and rose from the dead on the third day. (Romans 5:1-11; I Corinthians 15:1-9; John 14:27; Matthew 11:28-30)

Thanks for the Hadith reference.

Does the Qur’an call the Zoroastrians “the people of the book” ? I know the Muslim later included in the Zhimmi peoples as a matter of practice and policy in conquering Persia; but were they originally considered “the people of the book” in the Qur’an?

You did not really answer my question directly about the ransom (fedieh) and sacrifice (zebh) or “qorban” in Surah 37:107.

You threw in the comment from beowulf2k8 (he is either Roman Catholic or Greek Orthodox) from debate in early church history about the “ransom to Satan theory”.

What is the Qur’an trying to say there in Surah 37:107? It clearly shows some kind of understanding of a substitionary sacrifice. The ram (or lamb/sheep/goat) in put in place of the human (Abraham’s son). The human is saved from slaughter/death. The ram took the violence and slaughter in place of the human. Humans are sinful. (Mark 7:20-23; Genesis 6:5; Jeremiah 17:9; Romans 3:9-23; John 8:34; Matthew 5:22-30)

John the Baptist (In Islam, you call him, Yahya) said that Jesus was the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. John 1:29

Abraham said, “God will provide for Himself the lamb for the burnt offering (sacrifice)” (Genesis 22:8)

God Himself substituted a ram for the sacrifice. What was He teaching Abraham and the rest of the people who would read this story in Genesis 22 later?

Genesis 22:13-14 -
And Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him was a ram, caught in a thicket by his horns. And Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son. 14So Abraham called the name of that place, "The LORD will provide"; as it is said to this day, "On the mount of the LORD it shall be provided."

What is the teaching of the Passover sacrifice in Exodus chapter 12 ?

The blood from the slaughter of the innocent lambs (sheep or goats) would protect from the death angel (God’s judgment on the first born of every family in Egypt).

What is the teaching of the sacrifices in Leviticus chapters 1-5?

The guilty human brings a lamb or goat or sheep, must be male and unblemished, male, and they dedicate it the Lord, and the priest puts his hand on the head of the animal (and he confesses sins over it ).

Some are burnt offerings (chapter 1) ,peace/ fellowship offerings (chapter 3) sin offerings(chapter 4), guilt offerings (chapter 5).
Isaiah 52:13-53:1-12 expand more upon the Suffering Servant who would be the one final sacrifice – “the iniquity of us all was laid upon Him” Isaiah 53:6
The Lord was pleased to crush him, if He would offer Himself as a guilt offering. Isaiah 53:10
This is the obvious background to Jesus’ statement in Mark 10:45 (Matthew 20:28)

So, again, why did Allah substitute an innocent ram ( or lamb or sheep, etc. (In the OT) for the guilty sinful human?
How does Islam deal with the issue of sin in the hearts of people?

I am focusing on the substitution sacrifice meaning rather than which son it was, although it was obviously Isaac, Genesis 22 being much older than the Qur’an, etc. And no corruption is proved; and in fact, the Qur’an clearly says that the previous revelations were not corrupt. (Surah 2:136; 5:47; 10:94)

Ken said...

Grandverbalizer19 -
You wrote:
“My sincere advice Ken is that when you and James White stop relying upon post modern scholarship that starts out with the assumption that God does not speak, and that revelation is a fairy tell it would do you a world of good.”

Where do you get the idea from me or from Dr. White that we are relying on modern scholarship that starts with the assumption that God does not speak, etc. ?

That is actually the point that Dr. White made against Shabir Ally and other Muslim debaters. You are using his /our argument.

Your utilization of Bart Ehrman/Crossan/Jesus Seminar/Bultman type arguments to criticize the Bible and say it is corrupt comes from the liberals/skeptics/agnostic scholars who don’t believe in God or that God can speak through prophets and apostles and infallible Scriptures.

I believe God has spoken through His Son, Jesus Al Masih, the Kalimat’allah (the word of God – John 1:1-5, 14; Hebrews 1:1-3; John 18:36) He appointed apostles, some of whom would write Scripture (John 14; John 17:8; John 16:12-13; 2 Peter 1:19-21; 2 Peter 3:16; 2 Timothy 3:16).

The faith was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3) in the Scriptures of the apostles – Peter (Mark wrote for Peter), Matthew, John, Paul, Hebrews, James, Jude. (Luke was with Paul and interviewed Mary and the other apostles)

So, I believe God speaks through revelation; and He did through the law and prophets and Psalms and Injeel (The Gospel); but that does not prove that He did give supernatural revelation to Muhammad, the founder of Islam.
We are not using post-modern scholarship on Islam; we don’t have to, because if the Bible is true, and it is (John 10:35; 17:17); and it came about 600 years before Mohammad, then the NT was the last written revelation given and there is nothing to add to it. (Jude 3, Hebrews 1:1-3; John 17:8; Revelation 22:18)

Do you beleive in more books and revelation after Muhammad? No, in Islam, he is the seal of the prophets, the last.

In the same way, we believe that Jesus and the NT apostles writings were the last (seal) revelation; But God still speaks by His Spirit in accordance with the written word and through the Scriptures. (The Bible)

Regarding your other comments about the Roman Catholic Church – when did I ever “demonize it” ??

I said I disagree with the RCC, and I don’t believe that the Pope is infallible. I am glad David Waltz left the RCC. I believe that officially the RCC rejected justification by faith alone at the Council of Trent, thus they anathematized themselves (around 1545-1563).

Protestants sincerely believe that the RCC at Trent committed the sin that the apostle Paul says the Judaizers did in Galatians 1:8-9.

Your comment about the European RCC using military might to defend itself and stop Islam is a good point. I agree with you on that; on the basic idea that Europe had the right to defend herself against the aggressive and unjust attacks of Islam.
Are you saying you admit that the Muslims were warlike aggressors and that Jihad for Islam is an unjust war? Do you agree that Islam attacked first (after 632 – conquered N. Africa. ME/Palestine/Syria/Levant, Persia, Spain). The Crusades were a self defense response to the Seljuk Turks attacking the Byzantines in the east at Manzikert in 1071 AD and then the Ottoman Turks conquered Constantinople in 1453; after the Crusades. Are you agreeing that the Christian cultures and societies were just for the most part defending themselves?

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God, Peace be unto you all.

Ken,

Does the Qur’an call the Zoroastrians “the people of the book” ? I know the Muslim later included in the Zhimmi peoples as a matter of practice and policy in conquering Persia; but were they originally considered “the people of the book” in the Qur’an?

I know this can be a point of frustration for Christians who are used to hearing of a story about how God interacted for the most part with the nation of Israel. So it can be a bit frustrating to imagine God interacting with other nations and people's simultaenously.

"Those who follow the Jewish and the Sabi'een, Christians, Magians and Polytheists — Allah will judge them On the Day of Judgement:" (Holy Qur'an 22:17)

Yahya related to me from Malik from Ja'far ibn Muhammad ibn Ali from his father that Umar ibn al-Khattab mentioned the Magians and said, "I do not know what to do about them." Abd ar-Rahman ibn Awf said, "I bear witness that I heard the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, say, "Follow the same sunna with them that you follow with the People of the Book." Muwatta Book #17, Hadith #17.24.43

Infact I believe it is the Christians who have yet to clearly explain the relationship of the Magi and their connection to the birth of Jesus in a way that is meaningful.

Matthew (please read Matthew chapter 2). I mean who were these people really? What would lead them to "follow a star"? Did they have some scriptures or connections? It all seems a bit odd.

Not to mention the 'non prophecies' that 'Matthew' quotes and the surrounding fables.

Where as Muslims can consistently believe that God has spoken to other people other than Israel.

I know for Christians this seems like the epi centre of God's focus, but please do understand that God is not the God of Israel and has never been a local tribal deity.


Qur'an 4:164
And Messengers (Prophets who received revealed books) We have mentioned unto thee (Muhammad) before
And Messengers We have not mentioned unto thee;
And Allah spake directly unto Moses

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God, Peace be unto you.

Ken you state,

Where do you get the idea from me or from Dr. White that we are relying on modern scholarship that starts with the assumption that God does not speak, etc. ?

That is actually the point that Dr. White made against Shabir Ally and other Muslim debaters. You are using his /our argument.

Your utilization of Bart Ehrman/Crossan/Jesus Seminar/Bultman type arguments to criticize the Bible and say it is corrupt comes from the liberals/skeptics/agnostic scholars who don’t believe in God or that God can speak through prophets and apostles and infallible Scriptures.

Ken I think it's important to note that people like Ehrman , Price and others were people who were devout Christians. I think the difference between you and I is the following: I can believe that it is possible for a Muslim to be fully convinced of Islam and than one day have a crisis of conscious and believe Islam not to be consistent and to leave the faith.

However, Christians (Calvinist) atleast cannot allow this to happen. So if I use the argument that Price and Ehrman were Christians who left the faith quite naturally a curiosity is stirred in me.

But I find many Christians like yourself Ken using double standards. It's o.k for you to use Answering Islam's material (which has material from X Muslims now Atheist like Ibn Warraq Why I am Not a Muslim).

I am also fully aware that the Protestant reformation not only lead to the questioning of the RCC but to Christian principles and foundations in general. It seems to me that Tubingen university and higher critism came from Christians themselves when I trace it historically.


Sincere people of the cloth who were checking things out and kept up at night like soo many Christians today who can't sleep because of problems like 'Jesus being the son of David through Solomon' that you and sister daughterofwisdom tried to address.

You see Ken when someone like James White (who debates as a way of life) decides to take on Muslims he needs a good platform to start from. So what he does is read things that can show Islam in the worse possible light or to show it's 'human origins'. Rather than read what Muslims write or come on down to the Zaytuna institute and ask questions personally he would rather take the polemical approach that so many of you Protestants takes today.

The polemical approach is not a 'lets sit down and have a cup of coffee and talk about these matters and learn from each other'.

No Ken, the approach is let me get out my hammer is see how hard I can beat you down with it and lift myself up.

You see Ken today the cry is "follow the truth no matter where it leads you". But I find it amazing that today if I was to ask James White even if that means accepting Islam? He cannot answer that. He can't because his theological position will not allow him to do that.

So if you start off with the position that I am correct and am never wrong, or my theological position is correct and it's impossible to be in error one wonders the sincerity of statements such as "follow the truth no matter where it leads".

Ken in my blog entry seen here:

http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2009/11/apologist-james-white-inconsistency-and.html

I have exposed (don't know if there is a more polite way of putting it) James White and his inconsistent methods of approaching Muslims.

I don't expect you to go and read the above post just like I didn't expect you to have read my post about your repeated issue of saying the Qur'an tells us to accept your 22 books of the New Testament.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of God,

continued from above...

What happens is that one gets the feeling that a condescending tone is taken where 'the backward barbaric and heathen Muslim' must read the links given and respond; however when the 'backward , barbaric and heathen Muslim' gives links they are completely cast to the side.

I wonder Ken with due respect why many Christians don't have bothered conscious by doing this.

So Ken why don't you go and ask 'James White' who uses 'our best material' and doesn't use 'the encyclopedia britannica' about the sources he used in his debate with Shabir Ally.

Do you know why he doesn't do that Ken and please make sure you run and tell Turretinfan, Swan, Razorkiss and the gang as well...

The reason he doesn't do that is because he will have shown to employ inconsistent methods that he berates Muslims over.

I mean where did you people get the arguments from? That Muhammed (saw) got his material from non canocial sources?, The Qur'an got the Trinity wrong, and so forth?

You know where Ken? You got them from "the liberals/skeptics/agnostic scholars who don’t believe in God or that God can speak through prophets and apostles and infallible Scriptures"

Sorry to be crass but I seriously hope you don't go to bed at night thinking that White comes up with his own arguments on these matters.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 250   Newer› Newest»