“One day, several months after our return, when he and his brother were with some lambs of ours behind our tents, his brother came running to us and said: ‘That Qurayshite brother of mine! Two men clothed in white have taken him and have laid him down and opened his breast and they are stirring it with their hands.’ So I and his father went to him and we found him standing, but his face was very pale. We drew him to us and said: ‘What aileth thee, my son?’ He said: ‘ Two men clothed in white came to me and laid me down and opened my breast and searched it for I know not what.”[1]
Halīmah and Hārith her husband looked this way and that, but there was no sign of the men, nor was there any blood or any or any wound to bear out what the two boys had said, No amount of questioning would make them take back their words or modify them in any respect. Yet there was not even the trace of a scar on the breast of their foster-child nor any blemish on his perfect little body. The only unusual feature was in the middle of his back between the shoulders: a small but distinct oval mark where the flesh was slightly raised, as it were from the impress of a cupping glass; but that had been there at birth.
In after-years he was able to describe the event more fully: “There came unto me two men, clothed in white, with a gold basin full of snow. Then they laid hold of me, and splitting open my breast the brought forth my heart. This likewise they split open and took from it a black clot which they cast away. Then they washed my heart and my breast with the snow.”[2] He also said: “Satan toucheth every son of Adam the day his mother beareth him, save only Mary and her son.”[3]
Notes: [1] Sīrat Rasūl Allāh; [2] Kitāb at-Tabaqāt-Kabīr; [3] Sahih al-Bukhārī, LX.54.
I discern some theological implications from the above narratives that echo certain themes from the Bible. From Job we read:
What is man, that he should be clean? And he that is born of a woman, that he should be righteous? (5:14 – ASV)
From the Psalms:
Purify me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. Make me to hear joy and gladness, That the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice. Hide thy face from my sins, And blot out all mine iniquities. Create in me a clean heart, O God; And renew a right spirit within me. (51:7-10 – ASV)
And in the epistle of 1 John we read:
And ye know that he was manifested to take away sins; and in him is no sin. (3:5 – ASV; see also 2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15, 7:26; 1 Peter 2:22)
Grace and peace,
David
With the name of God, Peace be unto you David.
ReplyDeleteFirst I want to say thank you for the most excellent book it has arrived today. Mash'Allah my wife joked that the parcel service should hire you as you sure know how to wrap a book.
Al hamdulillah I am very greatful to the gift. I also wanted to apologise if it seems that Ken and I hijack the threads or get carried away in the comments section under post that have nothing to do with our immediate comments.
I apologise for it. However, I guess when we look on the news, the blogs and the papers Islam and Christianity their similiarties and differences seem to be a hot topic.
The thing is David you write so well and with such clarity. Your post are actually quite deep theologically. You write things that make both Muslim and Christian (the thoughtful among us) to say hmmmm.
This post for example is amazing. I never looked at those text like that. Thank you and please do not stop using your amazing gift to keep people talking to each other.
Peace be with you my friend and thank you once again.
Volume 6, Book 60, Number 71:
ReplyDeleteThis Hadith is Sahih Al Bukhari, Volume 6, book 60, number 71
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/060.sbt.html
Narrated Said bin Al-Musaiyab:
Abu Huraira said, "The Prophet said, 'No child is born but that, Satan touches it when it is born where upon it starts crying loudly because of being touched by Satan, except Mary and her Son." Abu Huraira then said, "Recite, it you wish: "And I seek Refuge with You (Allah) for her and her offspring from Satan, the outcast." (3.36)
Why does your reference say only LX (60); 54 ?
What about the doctrine of Fitra/Fitrat - that humans are born with "an upright nature" فطرت ? Doesn’t that contradict the traditions that all humans are “touched by Satan” at birth except for Jesus and His mother?
Qur’an Surah Romans, 30 (30:30)
http://www.oneummah.net/quran/book/30.html
(30) So set thou thy face steadily and truly to the Faith: (establish) Allah´s handiwork according to the pattern on which He has made mankind: no change (let there be) in the work (wrought) by Allah: that is the standard Religion: but most among mankind understand not.
فَأَقِمْ وَجْهَكَ لِلدِّينِ حَنِيفًا ۚ فِطْرَتَ اللَّهِ الَّتِي فَطَرَ النَّاسَ عَلَيْهَا ۚ لَا تَبْدِيلَ لِخَلْقِ اللَّهِ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ الدِّينُ الْقَيِّمُ وَلَٰكِنَّ أَكْثَرَ النَّاسِ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ
2 more English translations of 30:30 –
Pickthall So set thy purpose (O Muhammad) for religion as a man by nature upright - the nature (framed) of Allah, in which He hath created man. There is no altering (the laws of) Allah's creation. That is the right religion, but most men know not –
Hilali-Khan So set you (O Muhammad SAW) your face towards the religion of pure Islamic Monotheism Hanifa (worship none but Allah Alone) Allah's Fitrah (i.e. Allah's Islamic Monotheism), with which He has created mankind. No change let there be in Khalqillah (i.e. the Religion of Allah Islamic Monotheism), that is the straight religion, but most of men know not. [Tafsir AtTabari, Vol 21, Page 41]
Are the traditions about Muhammad having his chest opened and washed in snow (the first two cited by Lings); are they Sahih (correct), Hosn (good), or Zaif (weak) ?
The English of Yusuf Ali's translation seems a lot different than Pickthall's and the other one.
Grandverb -
ReplyDeleteDavid has quoted verses that teach the key issue - the sinless eternal Son of God, word of God (Kalimat'allah - کلمت الله)
becoming flesh and becoming the eternal sacrifice for sin and ransoming us. (Qur'an 37:107 - "we have ransomed you with a mighty sacrifice" - fedieh فدیه
"The son of man did not come to be served but to serve and give His life a ransom (Greek: lutron; Arabic and Farsi فدیه ) for many."
Mark 10:45
David quoted -
And ye know that he was manifested to take away sins; and in him is no sin. (I John 3:5 – ASV; see also 2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15, 7:26; 1 Peter 2:22)
Christ was sinless, as even the Qur'an says (19:19); and He took away sin on the cross; He became the sin-offering, taking on the punishment for sin for us; becoming a "curse" (a judgment of the law against sin) for us. Galatians 3:10-13
"He Himself bore our sins in His body on the wood, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness, for by His wounds you were healed."
I Peter 2:24
a man did not become God, estaqrf'allah; استغفر الله ! rather God humbled Himself and became a man - beautiful.
Isaiah 57:15
With the name of God, Peace be unto you.
ReplyDeleteKen I call you to reject the Trinity and to sumbit to the One and Only God who has no partners. I call upon you to worship what Jesus worshipped.
I reject Galatians 3:13 right out because as you pointed out Jesus was sinless.
Why is everyone cursed who hangs upon a tree? Have you ever thought about it?
Galatians 3:10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse, for it is written, ‘Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.’
'Cursed be he who accepts payment for slaying an innocent man!' And all the people shall answer, 'Amen!' Deuteronomy 27:25
Ken I encourage you not to pray to the Holy Spirit, or to the Trinity or to Jesus. Pray only to God.
Hi GrandVerb,
ReplyDeleteWas really hoping that you would see this new thread, and participate; you posted:
>>First I want to say thank you for the most excellent book it has arrived today. Mash'Allah my wife joked that the parcel service should hire you as you sure know how to wrap a book.>>
Me: You are so very welcome GV, hope you enjoy the book. As for the wrapping, as you know, I am an incurable bibliophile, and wanted to made SURE that the book arrived in a pristine condition.
>>I also wanted to apologise if it seems that Ken and I hijack the threads or get carried away in the comments section under post that have nothing to do with our immediate comments.
I apologise for it. However, I guess when we look on the news, the blogs and the papers Islam and Christianity their similiarties and differences seem to be a hot topic.>>
Me: I don’t think that you and Ken are hijacking the threads at all; I sincerely appreciate the dialogue.
>>The thing is David you write so well and with such clarity. Your post are actually quite deep theologically. You write things that make both Muslim and Christian (the thoughtful among us) to say hmmmm.
This post for example is amazing. I never looked at those text like that. Thank you and please do not stop using your amazing gift to keep people talking to each other.>>
Me: You are much too kind, but thank you GV. It is good to hear that my efforts are being appreciated.
Let me know what you think about the book after you have finished it.
God bless,
David
Hello Ken,
ReplyDeleteI am equally happy that you too have noticed this thread; you asked:
>>Why does your reference say only LX (60); 54 ?>>
Me: That was Dr. Lings reference which I am pretty sure means book 60, chapter 54 in the Arabic only edition. I own the Arabic-English 9 volume edition, and as you mentioned, the reference appears in volume 6, and is hadith #71 (interestingly enough, this hadith is on page 54).
>>Are the traditions about Muhammad having his chest opened and washed in snow (the first two cited by Lings); are they Sahih (correct), Hosn (good), or Zaif (weak) ?>>
Me: Ibn Ishāq’s Sīrat Rasūl Allāhis the oldest extant history of Muhammad, and is considered by Islamic scholars I have read to be very reliable. Ibn Sa'd's Kitāb at-Tabaqāt-Kabīr is, I am pretty sure without checking (I am in a bit of a hurry, heading out with my visiting daughter to play tourist), the second oldest extant history of Muhammad. (BTW, I have English translations of both.)
Have more to say, but I really need to be heading out; maybe this evening I will have some time to devote to further comments.
Grace and peace,
David
Thanks David,
ReplyDeleteYes, I realize that Islamic scholars accept the Sirat of Ibn Ishaq as "very reliable"; but that is not my question.
Isn't it true that individual traditions must each be judged by the ulema / fiq, etc. whether they are Sahih صحیح or hosn حسن or zaif ضعیف ?
So, even though, as a whole, the Sirat of Ibn Ishaq is reliable, that doesn't necessarily mean that each story/instance/tradition in it is sahih / correct, right?
I am specifically asking about the heart washing in snow story; is that specific one considered Sahih?
Grandverb - feel free to tell us what you know about this.
Salam Grandverbalizer19 -
ReplyDeleteJesus the Messiah was still sinless Himself on the cross, but willingly took on the punishment for sin; the guilt was transferred to a sinless man; the God-man.
He was willing to pay for our sins, becoming the ransom for us in our place - Mark 10:45; I Timothy 2:5-6
ransom
I already pray to God alone, because Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God and the Father is God. One God; one substance/nature/essence
Words for substance, nature, essence in Farsi, some come from Arabic:
طبعیت، اساس، ذات، ماهیت، فطرت، جوهر
Allah wahed = "God is one"
الله واحد
khoda vahed ast = "God is one" (Farsi)
خدا واحد است
Another thing; the Qur'an in 30:30 does not actually say "upright nature"; just "nature", "temperament" (فطرت)
"Fitra" or "Fitrat"
The other translations seem to say that the natural religion is Islam, arising from nature, creation; it does not seem to really teach that human beings have an "upright nature" or "sinless nature" or are "pure" or innocent.
What do you say to this?
Hello Ken,
ReplyDeleteIt is raining here right now, so I have some time to respond to the following you posted:
>>Yes, I realize that Islamic scholars accept the Sirat of Ibn Ishaq as "very reliable"; but that is not my question.
Isn't it true that individual traditions must each be judged by the ulema / fiq, etc. whether they are Sahih صحیح or hosn حسن or zaif ضعیف ?>>
Me: I think you are referring to ‘hadith science’ which was developed after the early sira (e.g. Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Sa’d, etc.). I believe you have correctly identified the three MAJOR categories of hadith (sahih, hasan, daif - correct/sound, good, weak); a fourth is sometimes added: maudu - fabricated/forged.
>>So, even though, as a whole, the Sirat of Ibn Ishaq is reliable, that doesn't necessarily mean that each story/instance/tradition in it is sahih / correct, right?>>
Me: Correct, and though Ibn Ishaq wrote his sira before the establishment of ‘hadith science’, he himself makes some distinctions among the traditions he provides. Clinton Bennett wrote:
“…when Ibn Ishaq was himself unconvinced by the material, he prefixed his text with the statement ‘it is alleged’ (or, sometimes, ‘only god knows the truth) which, comments Guillaume, ‘carries with it more than a hint that the statement may not be true, though on the other hand it may be sound’. Ibn Ishaq also frequently employed the phrase, ‘that only God knows whether a particular statement is true or not’…(In Search of Muhammad, p. 28.)
>>I am specifically asking about the heart washing in snow story; is that specific one considered Sahih?>>
Me: The “heart washing in snow story” that Dr. Lings relates from Ibn Sa’d in the opening post of this thread, is also in Ibn Ishaq, and is almost identical to that of Ibn Sa’d (I suspect that Sa’d relied on Ishaq), and Ishaq does not use any of the qualifiers identified by Bennett for this particular narrative; as such, I would say that this tradition is at least hasan (though I make no claim to being an expert on ‘hadith science’).
Sincerely hopes this helps…
Grace and peace,
David
P.S. The “heart washing in snow story” may be related to Surah 94:1,2; hope to develop this theme in the near future.
With the name of God, Peace be unto you.
ReplyDeleteWow! David you are really amazing!
You sure you don't want to come on over to our side? You would make an excellent Imam! hahahah :)
I didn't even think of that which is a very excellent point. There has to some commentary on that and I need to check it up.
The thing that I do find amazing is that many times Christians who are engaged with polemic with Muslims will quote from Ibn Ishaq those things that make Islam or Muslims look bad (even though they have no isnaad) but will not accept those things that make Islam or Muhammed (saw) look good.
I am no scholar so please take this with a pinch of salt. I did make some calls and could not hear anyone know of a sanad (link or chain) for this particular story.
Just a small piece about hadith grading.
Sahih, Hasan and Daif gradings did not come about until Imam Ahmad (raheemullah)
And yes there are five gradings alltogether.
Mutwattir (comes down through so many different independent chains that it is impossible for their to have been conspiracy to fabricate them)
Sahih (usually ahad or lone narrator reports). The majortity of Hadith are of this nature (lone narrator reports) one -from one-from one-.
Hasan -strong but there is weakness in the chain.
For example everyone in the chain is thiqa(trustworthy) of sound creed, met each other, but one of the narrators in the chain had an excellent memory when younger but people remained quite about him when he became advanced in years.
This does not mean anything malicious but this alone could be enough to make a hadith fall from the rank of sahih to hasan.
Daif (weak) and maudu (absolutely fabricated)- usually a faction within Islam or some one with an agenda would spin part of the story that the chain is an absolute fabrication it has little to no links many of the narrators have no biographies they are not known.
continued..
With the name of God...
ReplyDeletecontinued from above.
However, Ken I'm not trying to be mean spirited a strong case can be made for the information David put forth.
Example:
If we can accept what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15 the KERGYMA and oral tradition WITHOUT A SANAD no chain of transmission.
Than it wouldn't be too difficult to accept what David has laid out.
However, one may wish to counter the time factor.
Well Paul was not a prophet but Christians would argue he recieved inspiration. (Ilham) Not necessarily Wahyu (revelation).
I don't see why someone cannot be inspired (Ilham) to know of this event.
Again as far as I know it has no sanaad.
As one of the scholars in Islam said, "without the sanaad anyone can say what they wish".
I also wanted to say that I am glad that the Christians (Protestants) no longer use the hadith about Mary and her Son as a proof that Jesus is a sinless divine figure where as Muhammed (saw) is not.
You know why they backed away from it? Because it says MARY AND her son.
That right there is enough for us to do a double take on the doctrine of original sin.
Ken for me I don't see a problem if people are born with a natural fitr or a state of purity and that Satan scratches them.
I would have to understand that in a metaphorical context. I mean I wouldn't think of it as Satan leaving a literal scratch upon anyone.
I also think we have to becareful as well because many a time we find that the word 'ALL' does not always mean 'All' and every does not mean every.
Or maybe Every and All means exactly every and all but it still needs further elaboration.
Like John 3:16 To me this looks like a very clear text that favours Arminian doctrine. Yet the Calvinist have their take on it do they not?
now I am off the Mosque... I'll keep you brothers in my prayers :)
Paul did not need asnad (chains of narration) because he was an apostle and got his information directly from Jesus Christ by revelation. Read the whole book of Galatians. I Corinthians 15 is pure revelation truth also. About 600 years before Islam. "there is no changing the words of Allah"; and since the Qur'an affirms the gospel (Injeel - Surah 2:136; 5:46-48; 10:94; 29:46) , and this is the gospel, then the Scriptures were not corrupted and you are commanded to believe them.
ReplyDeleteGalatians 1
1 Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead— 2 and all the brothers with me,
To the churches in Galatia:
3 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, 4who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, 5to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!
10 Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.
11 I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
Paul goes on to show that the revelation he received was the same message that the 11 disciples (12 with Mathias - Acts 1) were preaching ( Peter, James, John) and they were in full agreement with each other. Read Galatians chapters 1 and 2; then 3-6)
We have four gospels also - as I wrote before, like four witnesses on each corner of a cross road and see a car accident from four angles. Matthew and John were eyewitnesses and Mark wrote for Peter - 3 eyewitnesses; and Luke was traveling companion of Paul; interviewed Mary and the other disciples and Paul got direct revelation and they all agreed with other on the one gospel message. I Corinthians 15:1-9
With the name of God, Peace be unto you.
ReplyDeleteKen it doesn't bother you that at all that Jesus never defined the Gospel in the way that you or Paul does?
Ken I do appreciate the response but it does not bother your conscious that the story of Paul's conversion is told in Acts but an anonymous source?
That this person records three seperate conversion stores in Acts 9,22 and 26 and they seem to really clash with one another?
That the people who are said to have been his traveling companions didn't write anything about this amazing event?
What ever happened to But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' (Matthew 18:16) aren't those your standards?
That he says in Galatians 1:8-9 "Though we or an angel from heaven preach unto you a gospel other than the one which we preach let them be accursed".
That's quite a bold statement. What happens if God wants to send an angel from heaven to teach something other than what Paul taught?
You see your already biased towards Islam. You can never believe that Angel Gabriel came to Muhammed (saw) in the cave because you have someone telling you "hey even if it's an Angel from heaven never mind listen to me!"
Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit. 1 Corinthians 12:3
Well maybe he wasn't speaking by the Spirit of God when he made the following statement:
I wonder what motivated Paul to say Jesus was a curse in Galatians 3:13?
Or when he says the following...
King James Bible
But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.
He "thinks" he has the Spirit of God. That doesn't sound like someone who's too sure to me.
And this writter of Acts (from here on known as the mysterious stranger) has this interesting account for us.
After Barnabas and Paul told "about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles" (Acts 15:12)
Notice Paul didn't appeal to jack crap about what Christ Jesus said. He didn't quote scripture. He did't take the sola scriptura method. He didn't appeal to authority.
Because the authority clearly was with James!
So what did he do .... how did he try and appeal that he was LEGIT?
Hey everyone look at my SIGNS AND WONDERS...
"For false Christs and (A)false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect. (Matthew 24:24)
False Christ (claiming to be annointed or appointed) they will do SIGNS and WONDERS to decieve the very elect (the disciples) if possible.
continued
With the name of God, continued...
ReplyDeleteYeah I can imagine what happened after James was knocked off.
He replied, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. Luke 10:18
But in the journeying it came-to-pass-for him to come-near to Damascus, and suddenly a light out-from heaven lightened-as-lightning-around him (Acts 9:3)
REVELATION 12:9
"And the great dragon was cast out, That Old Serpent, Called The Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."
Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul's eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, Acts 9:18
2 Corinthians 11:12-15: "But what I am doing, I will continue to do, that I may cut off opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the matter about which they are boasting. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their deeds."
"He shall PERSECUTE the saints of The Most HIGH"
(Daniel 7:25)
"He shall speak POMPOUS WORDS AGAINST THE MOST HIGH...AND SHALL INTEND TO MAKE ALTERATIONS IN TIMES AND IN LAW"
(Daniel 7:25)
What about this dark, cryptic and gnostic statement
Galatians 2:19-20
For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
So Paul is no longer living it is Christ who lives in him. You could do allot of interesting things with such theology.
Salaam Grandverbalizer19 -
ReplyDeleteJesus certainly did define the gospel; and did the gospel; the same way Paul defined it:
Luke 24:44-49
Matthew 16:21
Matthew 17:22-23
Mark 1:1; 1:15; 8:31-35; 9:31; 10:29-34; 16:6-8; 16:15
John 1:1-18; 20:27-29; 20:30-31
All the words through Mark and Matthew and Luke and John and Paul and Peter and James and Jude and the author of Hebrews are the words of Jesus. Total harmony.
the 3 accounts in Acts - total harmony. If they were the exact words, then we would know something is wrong; but since there are a few details that are left out or included, this makes historical sense.
Look at the post below - "What was James Swan thinking?" - I answered you and asked more questions.
With the name of God, Peace be unto those who follow guidance.
ReplyDeleteI call everyone to embrace the God of Jesus. To worship what Jesus worshipped. To reject the doctrine of the Trinity. To reject the doctrine of Total depravity.
To come back to the truth and I call you to Tawheed.
Ken your people seem to have no problem with writting countless books about how Muhammed (saw) was decieved by the devil in the cave of hira. Instead of Gabriel it was Satan speaking to him.
Or that he was an epileptic. We can hear it from Franklin Graham to Jerry Vines. And we Muslims are supposed to just sit back and smile and nod our heads up and down?
Ken those days are done. It's time for you to reflect that maybe it was Paul indeed who was mislead.
You can believe that Acts 9/22 and 26 are all pefect harmonious accounts (written not by Paul but by an anonymous source) all you want.
Just as you don't believe that the Qur'an does not say the trinity is mary , Jesus and God, I also don't buy the story of "if they were the exact words, then we would know something is wrong"
For the love of God! Do you hear yourself?
I already refuted your car accident scenario go back and pick apart my refutation of your scenario. Tell me where my response to you is flawed.
Paul said Jesus was God Colossians 2:9
Jesus said he was not God Mark 13:32
Paul says everyone is a sinner Romans 3:23
Jesus says no way John 1:1-3
Paul speaks in hyperbole about Cretens being liars, or that the Jews do not please God yet we are supposed to take Romans 3:10 literally that "there is none righteous no not one"
Even though David said in Ps 14:5 "God is with the generation of the righteous"
Again it is Paul in Romans 1:8 that takes words away from scripture and stops short of quoting Moses fully in Deuteronomy 34:14
Paul says he caught people using Dolos.
But be it so, I did not burden you (with the law) But, being crafty, I caught you with deception' 1 Corinthians 12:16
Paul and Barnabas (the son of the father) how convient both say in Acts 14:3 and Acts 15:12 that they were out and about doing SIGNS AND WONDERS to show people just how full of God they were.
Even though Jesus warned us about SIGNS and WONDERS in Matthew 24:24
Muhammed (saw) did not come with SIGNS and WONDERS he simply brought the Qur'an. That's it. If you have read the Qur'an (and I am sure you have) and you are not convinced of it than Subhan'Allah I have nothing really to say to you Ken. Because with Allah alone is the final argument.
Why are you embarassed to quote Jesus and the Gospel Ken? Go and take a look at all the references you gave me just now.
The Greek word Anti does not mean against it means 'in place of' and Paul is most definitely Anti Christ. Look how much of your New Testament he wrote.
You think that Jesus would have forseen this and given us a little heads up.
He is a gnostic his teachings are filled with gnosticsm your first canon of the New Testament was made by a man seething with anti Judaism Marcion.
Marcion the Anti Jew of his age sure did love Paul's writtings didn't he.
Ken Total Depravity is a false doctrine. Your not even consistent with it. You claim to be Calvinist but than you don't baptize infants.
You believe in a 'coming of age' baptism.
continued...
With the name of God,
ReplyDeletecontinued from above.
Ken you yourself admit that Calvin made doctrinal errors.
You people need to think again about the arguments of Servetus and Arius.
Infact just take a look back at Judaism.
As far as total depravity atleast the Church of Christ has woken up to the reality of this wretched dogma.
What's worse Ken is that all this preaching you do and everything you say is to make me feel that I am not secure in my salvation but you yourself don't even know if your saved!
You don't! Tell me on what basis are you saved and going to heaven?
I think people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones Ken.
I'm making du'a for you Ken.
Ken your welcome to the falafel and the hummus.
With the name of God, Peace be unto those who follow guidance.
ReplyDeletejust a correction above.
Where I said that Jesus refutes Paul's theology that everyone sins.
I quoted John 1:1-3 it should be John 9:1-3
my apologies.
Hi GrandVerb,
ReplyDeleteI have arrived in Southern California (what a wonderful change in weather; from 50° F and rain, to 75° F and blue skies), and will down here until Monday, so my time for the internet will be very limited.
I have been taking in the discussion between you and Ken, pretty much content with the role of an observer; however, I have been moved to jump into the fray (maybe it is the fantastic weather)—you wrote:
>>I call everyone to embrace the God of Jesus. To worship what Jesus worshipped. To reject the doctrine of the Trinity. To reject the doctrine of Total depravity.>>
Me: The vast majority of early Church Fathers (all?) before the end of the 4th century were subordinationists, and recognized, as the Bible teaches, that Jesus has a God He worships. Further, the same early CFs did not teach the doctrine of total depravity.
>>Ken those days are done. It's time for you to reflect that maybe it was Paul indeed who was mislead.>>
Me: There is another option: that Paul was not MISLEAD, but rather, has been MISREAD. There is no question that the early Church Fathers who read Greek, understood the teachings of Paul much differently than modern day Evangelicals. Further, many smaller Christian sects who embrace the writings of Paul as inspired (i.e. canonical) also reject both total depravity, and the post-Nicene doctrine of the Trinity.
Grace and peace,
David
With the name of God, Peace be unto you.
ReplyDeleteMash'Allah David California dreaming...on such a winter day...erm well I guess it's spring moving into summer now.
Southern California. Well if you make your way up north please do stop by Zaytuna!
Grace to you and walakum salaam
631 Jackson St
Hayward, CA 94544
(510) 582-1979
or 2070 Allston Way, Suite 300
Berkeley, CA. 94704
Phone (510) 548.1979
Fax (510) 549.1980
By Allah if I was in S California right now I would be walking on foot to go see the teachers and sheikhs!
Also I have to submit to all of your points David. There are many Christians today who reject the post-nicene doctrine of the Trinity.
The campbellites Churches of Christ reject total depravity as well.
So those are good points. On Paul I will still have to weight it.
Enjoy your time in California! But if you go up north please stop by!