Christians, the Bible, and why Jews reject Jesus as Messiah

Bart Ehrman has just posted this on his Facebook page. The title above and the bold highlights below are mine. For the complete article visit Facebook.   

Bart-Ehrman

In my previous post I started to explain why, based on the testimony of Paul, it appears that most Jews (the vast majority) rejected the Christian claim that Jesus was the messiah. I have to say, that among my Christian students today (most of them from the South, most of them from conservative Christian backgrounds), this continues to be a real puzzle. They genuinely can’t figure it out.

In their view, the Old Testament makes a number of predictions about the messiah: he would be born in Bethlehem, his mother would be a virgin, he would be a miracle worker, he would be killed for the sins of others, he would be raised from the dead. These are all things that happened to Jesus! How much more obvious could it be? Why in the world don’t those Jews see it? Are they simply hard-headed and rebellious against God? Can’t they *read*? Are they stupid???

What is very hard to get my students to see (in most cases I’m, frankly, completely unsuccessful) is that the authors of the New Testament who portrayed Jesus as the messiah are the ones who quoted the Old Testament in order to prove it, and that they were influenced by the Old Testament in what they decided to say about Jesus, and that their views of Jesus affected how they read the Old Testament.

The reality is that the so-called “messianic prophecies” that are said to point to Jesus were never taken to be messianic prophecies by Jews prior to the Christians who saw Jesus as the messiah. The Old Testament in fact never says that the messiah will be born of a virgin, that he will be executed by his enemies, and that he will be raised from the dead.

My students often don’t believe me when I say this, and they point to passages like Isaiah 7:14 (virgin birth) and Isaiah 53 (execution and resurrection). Then I urge them to read the passages carefully and find where there is any reference in them to a messiah. That’s one of the problems (not the only one). These passages are not talking about the messiah. The messiah is never mentioned in them. Anyone who thinks they *are* talking about the messiah, has to import the messiah into the passages, because he simply isn’t there. I should stress that no one prior to Christianity took these passages to refer to a future messiah.

Then why are they read (by Christians) as if referring to the messiah? What happened is this: ancient Christians (within a couple of decades of Jesus’ death) who believed that Jesus *was* the messiah necessarily believed that Jesus fulfilled Scripture. They therefore began to read passages of the Old Testament as predictions of Jesus. And so the interpretation of these passages was changed so that they were now seen as foretelling the birth, life, and death of Jesus.

Once those passages are read that way, it is very hard indeed to read them the way they had been read before. When Christians read Isaiah 53, they simply can’t *help* but read it as a prediction of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. But for those who read the passage just for what it has to say, it does not appear to be about the messiah. (You’ll note that the term “messiah” never occurs in it.)

So that is one problem with Christians using the Old Testament to “prove” that Jesus is the messiah. They are appealing to passages that do not appear to be about the messiah. The other is the flip side of the coin. Christians who think that Jesus fulfilled predictions of the Old Testament base their views, in no small measure, on what the Gospels say about Jesus’ life: He was born in Bethlehem. His mother was a virgin. He healed many people. He was rejected by his own people. He was silent at his trial. And so on – there are lots of these “facts” from Jesus’ life, it is thought, that fulfilled Scripture. But how do we know that these are facts from Jesus’ life?

The only way we know is (or think we know it) is because authors of the New Testament Gospels claim that these are the facts. But are they? How do we know that Jesus was actually born in Bethlehem? That his mother was actually a virgin? That he was actually silent at his trial? And so forth and so on? We only know because the Gospels indicate so. But the authors of the Gospels were themselves influenced in their telling of Jesus’ story by the passages of Scripture that they took to be messianic predictions, and they told their stories in the light of those passages.



Categories: Bible, Biblical scholarship, Judaism

224 replies

  1. Other issues, like there is no “virgin birth” in Isaiah. Mistranslations abound. The Jewish messiah is just a human being, not Divine who reigns during the age in which the messianic prophecies unfold. Peace.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. All Praise belongs to God.

    Salam, I have to add something, and I do not say this to insult christian belief or Christians, I want to help them for the sake of God. After all, isn’t our life made for God?

    Christians try to use this verse in Micah to prove that the Messiah is God (subhanahu wa ta’ala)

    “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
    though you are small among the clans[b] of Judah,
    out of you will come for me
    one who will be ruler over Israel,
    whose origins are from of old,
    from ancient times.”:

    This is responded to, by showing that this word (that is supposed to refer to eternity) is used in the Bible (according to Rabbi Micheal Scobac) to mean a long time ago, still a finite amount of time however.

    But what’s more important is that we can clearly see that God (Glory be to He, the Most High!), is clearly different from this figure in the following verses in fact.

    “He will stand and shepherd his flock
    in the strength of the Lord,
    in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God.
    And they will live securely, for then his greatness
    will reach to the ends of the earth.”

    What does ‘in the strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God’ imply?

    Like

  3. So, why did Jews translate alma / עלמה in Isaiah 7:14 as “the virgin” he parthenos = ‘η παρθενος, 150-200 years before Christ?

    And, Psalm 2:1-12 (Messiah and Son and King are all there) is clearly Messianic (as the high priest admitted, in Mark 14:60-64 where he calls the Messiah, “the son of the blessed one” = son of God) and asks Jesus if He is the Messiah, the son of the Blessed One.

    as is Daniel 9:24-27 about the Messiah and atonement and the temple being destroyed after the Messiah is cut off. The Hebrew word, Messiah is clearly there twice, and the context is sacrifice and atonement for the sins of Israel; and the temple is destroyed after the Messiah is cut off – a direct prophesy of Jesus in 30 AD and then the temple being destroyed in 70 AD)

    Like

  4. Jews have multiple passages scattered in the Bible that refer to the messiah. In the environment they were living in at the time of Jesus they chose to focus more on the militant ones where the messiah would overthrow the oppressive Roman government. Since Jesus did not fulfill those passages they rejected him as messiah. Yet some Jews believe many messianic prophecies speak of not a warrior messiah but a “Leper Scholar” who will be peaceful and heal the diseases of many etc.

    Don’t know if that has any relevance but yeah, Jews aren’t entirely consistent with their passages of the Messiah and will most probably always deny anything that is similar to what Jesus supposedly did or fulfilled in his lifetime. In some ways then we probably won’t truly know whether or not Jesus fulfilled these prophecies.

    Like

  5. General

    But the NT in Revelation clearly said the messiah will be militant and blood thirsty. So the Jews are right according to Revelations.

    Islam corrected the Jews that, the messiah is Jesus Christ and that he will come back and establish God’s law on earth. So, if the Quran is copying from Jews and Prophet Mohammed wants support and favour from Jews, the Quran will not deny their rejection of Jesus as the messiah.

    If the Quran wants favour from Christians, it would not have rejected Jesus as God. The Quran has its unique message from God, that does not conform with either Christians or Jews and therefore did not copy from anyone.

    Thanks.

    Like

  6. Jews do not believe in the NT so that comment was silly. And for Jesus to establish God’s law on Earth will not exactly be a peaceful one would it? According to Islamic sources themselves, Jesus will break the cross, kill the pigs and kill anyone who rejects Islam so yeah still seems quite militant and bloodthirsty to me.

    And did I say anything about the Quran copying from Jews or Christians?

    Like

  7. You said;
    Jews do not believe in the NT so that comment was silly. And for Jesus to establish God’s law on Earth will not exactly be a peaceful one would it? According to Islamic sources themselves, Jesus will break the cross, kill the pigs and kill anyone who rejects Islam so yeah still seems quite militant and bloodthirsty to me.

    I say;
    The Jews of course do not believe in the NT but they believed their messiah will be militant according to you and not me and they chose the militant messiah and rejected the peaceful Jesus according to you, so my comment is not silly.

    You said;
    And for Jesus to establish God’s law on Earth will not exactly be a peaceful one would it? According to Islamic sources themselves, Jesus will break the cross, kill the pigs and kill anyone who rejects Islam so yeah still seems quite militant and bloodthirsty to me.

    I say;
    If Jesus is God and God is Love itself according to Christians He(Jesus) should not kill those who do not agree with him according to Revelations and say bring my enemy in front of me and kill them.

    Imagine if Mohammed said this. Robert Spenser and Pamela Geller, David Wood and the rest would have written a book on that. Jesus said those words and not Mohammed.

    Thanks.

    Like

  8. Oh well, I’m not a Jew or Christian so I couldn’t care less. You’re asking the wrong guy.

    And also Muhammad said those words about Jesus in hadiths such as breaking the cross (whatever that means), killing pigs and killing those who reject Islam. He said even more absurd things such as Jesus reigning for 7 years and dying at 40 (since he is believed to be in a static state of 33 in heaven), and that Jesus will also marry and have kids. On top of that Muslims have already prepared a nice grave for Jesus to be buried next to Muhammad when he returns… And here I thought the biblical narrative was bad.

    Like

  9. General

    Jesus did not say he is in a static state of 33 in heaven. Jesus never said that. It is a believe. Muslims believe of the Hadith is also a believe. Some Muslims do pick and choose Hadith but will always use the Quran first before Hadith. It is general belief among Muslims that Jesus will return and will eventually die. You cannot say your believe is the right one and I cannot say my believe is the right one but we all agree 3 persons are 3 beings and worshiping 3 different persons is equal to worshiping 3 different beings and also God died and God did not die is a big contradiction and not a believe any more but illogicality.

    Thanks

    Liked by 2 people

  10. Yep I agree you can’t claim your belief is more right than someone else’s but why do you always bring Christianity back into the conversation when I’ve said before that I am not Christian? You seem to be specifically fixated on Trinitarianism too. What would you say to a Christian who believes Jesus was a human being (and not God) and therefore died by crucifixion (which by the way is the most accurate piece of info we have about this guy’s existence, which Bart Ehrman himself believes too)?

    Oh wait I already know, the entire world other than Muslims are in doubt and merely follow a very accurate historical conjecture, for a certainty he did not die.

    In reality the Quran is not clear about this, because in chapter 4:157 it is clear that Jesus certainly did not die yet elsewhere (can’t remember or be bothered to cite) the Quran says that Allah will cause Jesus to die then be raised to life. Because of this there are actually many Muslims who do not believe Jesus will return because he’s already dead. It is not entirely clear cut in Islamic belief. Once again the Quran is not as clear as it claims to be, and it’s supposed to come from God… Hmmm

    Like

  11. Umm General, it’s actually quite amazingly clear, I dont know what you’re talking about.

    Like

  12. General

    You said;
    You seem to be specifically fixated on Trinitarianism.

    I say;
    Yes, it is very true that I am fixated on Trinitarianism because it is a believe as well as illogicality, irrational, and untrue, even some Christians like the Arians, Ebionites etc. and now Unitarian Christians and Jehovah Witness and Jews are more against it than Muslims.

    I remembered last year some Unitarian Christians united with Muslims here on this blog against Trinitarianism and the comments back then clearly shows the Unitarian Christians despises Trinitarianism than Muslims because how can God the uncreated become man the created? How can 3 persons who are 3 beings be 1 being at the same time? This is not a believe but illogicality. We know 3 persons are not 1 being so it is not believe in the unseen anymore as Muslims believe in the unseen. 3 persons are obviously 3 beings and worshiping them is worshiping multiple beings.

    I do not have much against Jews or Unitarians because we all worship the same God, but the Unitarians believe a man died for their sins is their problem. They will repent when they sin and so that mans death did not help to prevent and to wipe their sins.

    Thanks.

    Like

  13. General

    You said;
    What would you say to a Christian who believes Jesus was a human being (and not God) and therefore died by crucifixion (which by the way is the most accurate piece of info we have about this guy’s existence, which Bart Ehrman himself believes too)?

    Oh wait I already know, the entire world other than Muslims are in doubt and merely follow a very accurate historical conjecture, for a certainty he did not die.

    I say;
    Was Bart Ehrman there when Jesus was crucified? No. So he or any scholar cannot say Jesus death is accurate piece of info. Bart Erhman said the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ depends on which gospel you read and that they gospels differs on that.

    We do not rely on something that differs and a document that the writers did not provide their first and last names, their home town, their date of birth, when and where the documents were written, which language was the documents written, the relationship they had with Jesus Christ etc. to verify the authenticity and origin of it(the document NT).

    In view of the above the NT is not a reliable document to prove Prophet Jesus death.

    Thanks.

    Like

  14. Erhman is wrong. There were non-Christian Jews who believed that the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 was the Messiah. See the Talmud – Sanhedrin 98b, which reads: “The Messiah –what is his name?…The Rabbis say, The Leper Scholar, as it is said, `surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God and afflicted…”

    Like

    • Royal Son it is YOU who are wrong.

      Bart wrote ‘I should stress that no one prior to Christianity took these passages to refer to a future messiah.’

      Fact: the passage does not refer to a messiah.

      Fact: The Talmud has two components: the Mishnah complied c. 200 AD, and the Gemara compiled about 500 AD.

      Like

  15. Intellect was Muhammad there when Jesus was crucified? No, yet he speaks about it 6 centuries later in such a vague way that has lead to confusion and division between 2 big faiths. But fair enough, we can’t truly know for sure whether Jesus died or was crucified but when overwhelming evidence points to one historical event you generally believe the account which has more evidence, particularly when it is closer to the source or timing of the event. For the Quran to arrive 6 centuries later and come up with an alternative response to the event would require a huge amount of evidence or explanation from its part but the best the Quran has is “you are in doubt if you believe it”. But oh well, it’s your belief not mine.

    “Umm General, it’s actually quite amazingly clear, I dont know what you’re talking about.”
    Hey muslimtheology, so tell me is the passage in the Quran about Dhul Qarnayn travelling all the way west until he saw the setting of the sun in a muddy spring and all the way East until he saw the rising of the sun supposed to be taken literally or allegorically? (Hint: many early Muslim scholars and tafsirs believed it to be literal for a couple hundred years until it was a well established global fact that the earth was not flat, i.e you can’t travel all the way East or west because the earth is spherical)

    Like

    • General, why do you believe Muhammad wrote the Quran? The Book denies he wrote it. Muhammad denied writing it.

      re ‘the setting of the sun in a muddy spring’ – dude have you never heard of a figure of speech?

      Like

  16. Paul Williams, because I do not believe it comes from God. Just because someone denies writing or doing something it does not automatically mean that they are out of the question. If it did not come from Muhammad then someone else wrote it. I generally believe it was him since some parts deal with his own trivial personal affairs which is kind of strange to find included in a religious text.

    Also I do know what a figure of speech is, but the question here is, is that what the passage intended itself to be? As I mentioned in the hint, many early Muslim scholars took this to be literal rather than a figure of speech. The passage itself is about Allah relaying the truth about this ancient story. If it was intended to be symbolic then Dhul Qarnayn would not have found people at the end of his journey because you cannot travel all the way East or west in a spherical world.

    Like

  17. Thanks much for posting this Paul.

    Bart has a nice way to distill it in clear english.

    So part of the problem is that there was a lot of eisegesis (I see Jesus) in the few decades following the ministry of Jesus.

    And then the problem that the Gospel writers were themselves trying to demonstrate this.

    So seems like eisegesis (pronounced like I see Jesus as stated by one of your readers before) and agenda (of Gospel writers).

    Liked by 1 person

  18. This begs a question though: would someone reading this and many other passages in the Quran always know whether they are literal or figure of speeches? If not, then like I said it is not as clear as it says it is.

    Another obvious example is surah 4:34. Are you supposed to beat your wife if you fear she is disobedient or simply tap her on the shoulder with your hand or a toothbrush? Not very clear, which is what has lead to numerous debates and revisions about the text.

    Like

  19. For a book that’s meant to be so clear I didn’t think you’d have to. How do Quran-only people deal with these things?
    Ah never mind I’ll leave it at that.

    Like

  20. General

    You said;
    Intellect was Muhammad there when Jesus was crucified? No, yet he speaks about it 6 centuries later in such a vague way that has lead to confusion and division between 2 big faiths. But fair enough, we can’t truly know for sure whether Jesus died or was crucified but when overwhelming evidence points to one historical event you generally believe the account which has more evidence, particularly when it is closer to the source or timing of the event.

    I say;
    There was confusion about Jesus death in the gospels themselves and there was divisions between Christians themselves with regards to Jesus, so it is not true that the Quran brought any confusion at all. Mohammed was not there when Jesus was crucified, but the author of the Quran claimed He is God and was there, at the time of the alleged crucifixion and that Jesus was not crucified.

    The creator of the world is true because no one can provide evidence of the crucifixion and no one was there but some people believed it. Believe is not evidence.

    The Quran was not vague on the crucifixion but clear that Jesus was not crucified and killed by his enemies.
    Dr. James White said on that basis Allah created Christianity. No. The Bible said a man must not be worshiped and that God is One. So if Christians go against this clear statement from the Bible, it is their problem and not Allah or Jesus crucified or not.

    Before Jesus alleged crucifixion, people to worship men, stones and other objects. Will they blame God for created stones? man? and objects?

    God will say why do you worship man and 3 persons as a Christian.

    Dr. James White or David Wood answered; Because you created Christianity by saving Jesus from crucifixion and making it appear so.

    God will say. I saved my prophet from his enemies like I did for other prophets but I said no creations or objects must be worshiped and people do worship those objects including men before I saved Jesus Christ from crucifixion so it has no bearing for worshiping man and persons.

    Thanks.

    Like

  21. In the Name of God, All Praise is due to God.

    Firstly, the Qur’an is clear. Why is it clear? Because anyone who reads it knows the Message of Islam. Worship the One and Only, believe in the Angels, the Messengers, the Books, the Day of Judgment (and prepare for it) and decree. It quite clearly shows all of these. This isn’t something anyone can reject. But what about the tiny verse, the Qur’an says (interpretation of the meaning) it contains verses that are ambiguous, it’s actually mentioned in Ayah 3:7.

    I’m sorry General but anyone who claims the Prophet (saw) wrote the Qur’an because it talks about his private life clearly has a bias, they do not mention that the Qur’an rebukes the Prophet (peace be upon him) when he faults, they do not mention that the Qur’an tells the Prophet (saw) to pray six obligatory prayers while everyone else has five, they also fail to mention that verses weren’t revealed to him straight away which would actually leave him depressed at times (only to then write them himself, does that make any sense?). I personally don’t find it at all strange for God (Exalted be He) to reward His Messenger (peace be upon him), especially since he was the only one to worship him while he was surrounded by people who worshipped stones instead, you know that the Prophet (saw) used to pray until his feet were edematous or swollen? And so it’s quite clear that he didn’t write it.

    Salam.

    Liked by 2 people

  22. With the name of Allah the Gracious the Merciful

    General, regarding Qur’anic position on Jesus (p) death, while I agree overwhelming evidence points to this historical event and the Qur’an never disputes this how can we establish evidence that it was Jesus who died?

    Do we have some sort of  post mortal evidence for Jesus death? Also are there any historical evidence for his alleged resurrection ? No we dont

    There are several opinion among muslims scholars based on highly ambiguous verse Q 4:157 :

    1. That Jesus did not die on a cross but that God made someone else look like Jesus. Then God miraculously took Jesus body and soul into the heavens.
    2. That Jesus actually survived the cross and lived like the other men (Gistas & Dismas) crucified alongside with him (some historian record these men survived the cross)
    3. a few even  goes further thas Jesus (p) ‘died’ but as the Qur’an says do not think that those who are killed in the way of God they are dead, they are alive but they perceive it not like in  1 Corinthians 15:31. “I die every day”.

    Whichever the opinions muslim theologian dont not  put much emphasis on the detail surrounding how Jesus died or will die but unanimous  that he will  just needs to die in some way but not that Jesus was crucified to death and resurrected .and Jesus (p) will come back to earth again to fight the army of Satan and break the pagan symbol cross in the end of time according to some hadiths.

    Liked by 2 people

  23. muslimtheology

    Thanks brother. You did not insult anyone. If anything those who said God died, God had a Son who is not metaphorical son but literal Son, God the creator became man the created and that God is 3 persons(beings) in 1 being including some Trinitarians who say God is 3 like Rastafarians with Emperor Haile Selaissie are those who insulted God.

    God said in the Quran He is not happy about that and as if the earth is going to crush when they said that. The Bible also echoed God anger about those believe by saying God of the Bible is a jealous God and there is nothing comparable to Him and He does not change and He is not a man.

    Unitarian Christians have lesser problems. They do have problems but not like the Trinitarian Christians. I do not have much to argue with the Unitarian Christians and Jews but Trinitarians including the Rastafarian Trinitarians are saying God is 3 and they must stop, it is better for them according to the Quran.

    Thanks.

    Like

  24. What’s your proof Allah will say that, or do you mean metaphorically?

    Liked by 1 person

  25. If someone came 600 years after Muhammad, say 1200 AD, in Germany in Europe, and wrote, in another language, that Muhammad really did not do what the Hadith and Qur’an says he did, it just appeared to others that he did them and said them, would they have a good historical basis for such?

    That is what Surah 4:157 is like.

    Like

  26. So, why did Jews translate alma / עלמה (maiden, a young unmarried woman) in Isaiah 7:14 as “the virgin” he parthenos = ‘η παρθενος, 150-200 years before Christ?

    And, Psalm 2:1-12 (Messiah and Son and King are all there) is clearly Messianic (as the high priest admitted, in Mark 14:60-64 where he calls the Messiah, “the son of the blessed one” = son of God) and asks Jesus if He is the Messiah, the son of the Blessed One.

    as is Daniel 9:24-27 about the Messiah and atonement and the temple being destroyed after the Messiah is cut off. The Hebrew word, Messiah is clearly there twice, and the context is sacrifice and atonement for the sins of Israel; and the temple is destroyed after the Messiah is cut off – a direct prophesy of Jesus in 30 AD and then the temple being destroyed in 70 AD)

    Like

  27. Ken Temple

    If that person talks of worshiping one God of Abraham and warning the Rastafarian Trinitarians and all Trinitarians to not say 3 persons/beings as 1 God(being(divine being)) and the person brings a scripture like the Quran which claims it is from God and memorized by millions of followers and worships only one God of Abraham, then it will be a challenge to Islam and Muslims.

    The Quran itself challenges you Ken, bring something like that. For so many thousand of years no one was able to bring something like Islam, the Quran and Muslims.

    Thanks.

    Like

  28. “That is what Surah 4:157 is like.” Not.

    Like

  29. Genesis 24:16 clearly says that Rebekah was a virgin. (Hebrew: Betulah = בְּתוּלָה )

    “The girl was very beautiful, a virgin, and no man had had relations with her; and she went down to the spring and filled her jar and came up.”

    and then later, the same author in the same chapter calls her “the maiden”- ha-almah – הָֽ -עַלְמָה
    ה – ha – in Hebrew is the definite article, “the”.

    Abraham’s servant is praying:

    Genesis 24:43
    “behold, I am standing by the spring, and may it be that the maiden who comes out to draw, and to whom I say, “Please let me drink a little water from your jar”

    Like

  30. Daniel 9:24-27 for sure does say that the Messiah will be cut off (same parallel concept as in Isaiah 53:8 = killed, though not the same word), and that it would be for atonement and finishing of iniquity –

    “to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity,. . . ” (Daniel 9:24)

    ” . . . until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress. 26 Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. ”
    Daniel 9:25-26

    the city and sanctuary (temple) was destroyed about 40 years later. Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled that.

    Like

    • Ken is that a serious argument?
      Scholars are agreed that the notion of a messiah sacrificed for sin is not found in the Jewish scriptures. It is Christian invention.
      Your bizarre, strained and dishonest reading of the OT non withstanding.
      Also virtually all Old Testament scholars date the so-called book of Daniel to centuries after the prophet Daniel – even the most conservative evangelical OT experts like FF Bruce agree.

      Like

  31. By oppression and judgment He was taken away;
    And as for His generation, who considered
    That He was cut off out of the land of the living
    For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due?

    Isaiah 53:8

    “Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, . . . ”
    Daniel 9:26

    Like

  32. K you are conflating the reason we believe in these events in the Quran. I don’t believe them because they came 600 years later and that’s closer to the Prophet Jesus (as) than us, I believe them because using my intellect I understand by God’s Will that The Quran is from Him, so everything in there will be accurate.

    Liked by 1 person

  33. “behold, I am standing by the spring, and may it be that the maiden who comes out to draw, and to whom I say, “Please let me drink a little water from your jar” Lol

    Like

  34. Ken Temple

    You said;
    If someone came 600 years after Muhammad, say 1200 AD, in Germany in Europe, and wrote, in another language, that Muhammad really did not do what the Hadith and Qur’an says he did, it just appeared to others that he did them and said them, would they have a good historical basis for such?

    That is what Surah 4:157 is like.

    I say;
    It does not matter 600 years or 10,000 years, God allowed the Pagan Romans and the Greeks to Rule for hundreds of years before Jesus came to correct them. Prophet Abraham and Prophet Mohammed were born among idol worshipers who worshiped their idols for thousands of years before these prophets corrected them. To you 600 years is long but to God it is not long and He knows best.

    Because Christianity deviated from the original God’s word, it is incumbent on God to bring another religion of Islam to correct it from the wrong part back to the original message and Dr. James White admits Islam has made a U-Turn back to the Jewish believe of One God who is Alone and Only.

    If Islam is wrong, Ken I agree with you another prophet should come from Germany or Nicaragua to bring a scripture that claim the author is God and has billions of followers who worship only one God of Abraham because that is the accepted God in the Jewish scripture.

    That prophet must have millions and thousands of his followers memorised his scripture and worship only the God of Abraham and warn against any worship of persons including Trinitarian Rastafarians who worship Emperor Haile Selaissie and all Trinitarians and all forms of idol worship. That person could be challenge to Muslims like how Muslims are a big challenge to Christians and all Christians including Dr. White admits Islam is a challenge to Christians.

    The Quran itself challenges you Ken, bring such a person. We are waiting for you. For thousand of years no one was able to bring Islam, the Quran and Muslims.

    Muslims worship God not because of 600 years but because it is the True God of Abraham who is One, Only and Alone.

    If anyone can bring a scripture like the Quran and followers like Muslims who talks of One, God Alone of Abraham to be worshiped and his scripture memorised by thousand’s and millions of people and condemns all forms of idol worship, then he is worth listening to.

    Until that happens we have to stick to Prophet Mohammed and his scripture from God and worship one, only and alone God of Abraham and condemn any worship of persons/beings.

    Thanks.

    Like

  35. Ken Temple

    When the Prophet brought the message of worshiping only one and alone God of Abraham to his idol worshiping people, they said; “Who are you to bring a new religion to us, when we are worshiping the God of our forefathers?”

    That is what you are doing here. It is not a matter of 600 years or thousand years but the truth. We do accept the truth of the Quran, because it corrects any form of Christianity, Judaism, idol worship and any social vices and stick to the worship of only one God of Abraham. So we believe anything the God of Mohammed said.

    The Quran warns of those who have seen the truth in Islam and say, the will stick to the religion of their forefathers like the Meccan Pagans.

    Thanks.

    Like

  36. Good point Muslim Theology.

    Yes, we don’t believe in 4:157 because we think Muhammad, son of Abdullah is an apt historian.

    But we believe in all what is said in the Qur’an because through a fair reading of the Qur’an, we can see that it has been revealed to him as he claimed thus he is a prophet of God, (may God bless him and all the prophets).

    Liked by 2 people

  37. KT://“Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, . . . ”
    Daniel 9:26//

    I reread Daniel 9 again I honestly dont see if the word משיח  Mashiach  has anything to do with sacrificing him to atone for other people sins. And also there is no reference that this Mashiach  will be  divine  being who will be later kill himself.

    Btw you are dishonest to translate Dan 9:26 as the Messiah there is no definite article (Hey ~ ה) there.

    Like

  38. Those are just claims that you believe; Muhammad was just a man who made a claim in history. You believe in the claim, but you cannot prove he was a prophet or had inspiration from God.

    We also believe the Bible because it is inspired (God-breathed – θεοπνευστος – 2 Tim. 3:16-17) the writers of Scripture were guided by the Holy Spirit – 2 Peter 1:20-21. The Holy Spirit led the disciples into all the truth and wrote it all down in the 27 books of the New Testament, the true Injeel. (John chapters 14,15, & 16)

    You use double standards, because you use the arguments of liberals who are non-supernaturalists, and use their naturalistic presuppositions as the foundation of all their arguments – you ( & Paul Williams, Shabir Ally, others) use their liberal theories and scholarship to attack the Bible, but don’t allow it (historical reality) for the Qur’an, and say that the Qur’an is inspired, therefore true.

    Well, the bible is both inspired(God-breathed) and corroborates with real history, so it is more true. The Qur’an is just a claim by one man who wrote stuff, and said, “this is from God”. Woe to those who do that. Surah 2:79

    The fact that 4:157 contradicts history is proof that it is not from God.

    Like

  39. Time to join in the discussion I guess. My silence appears to be hurting me.
    I do hate to tell fellow men they haven’t done a good job. Today however, my mind could think of no other phrase. Mr Temple, your points failed to make the grade. You’d get an F if I were your examiner.
    In his debate with James White (in seattle) , Bro Shabir Ally found himself accused of double standards. The scholar wouldn’t take things low and forced a re-examination. Mr White of course could not survive it. In minutes, he was already defending a double standard.
    Your points are exactly the same as that of Mr White. Think you should watch the debate. It might help in silencing you forever.
    A review of it is available here.
    http://www.shabirally.com/rejoinder_to_james.php

    Like

  40. In the meantime,I have observed that your points are always hardly any different from the one above. Just months ago, I followed an interesting discussion between yourself, Robert Wells, Sam Shamoun, Paul Williams, Intellect and Eric Bn Kisam. Although I did not participate ,I did discuss the points raised with an official of my ex church. In five minutes, I forced him to commit three heresies namely (nestorianism, theopastichism and patrissipanism). Interestingly however, he somehow wiggled his way out telling me I have lost my holy spirit hence can’t understand an explanation. ‘You will get more confused’ he had said (and hastened off) .
    (Only a single christian till today has attempted to on my reasons for leaving Christianity. Although she wasn’t successful, her courage to face what even seasoned apologists (such as Shamoun) run away from has earned her my respect).
    The more friends attempt taking me back to Christ, the more I find myself drifting away. Keep it up Temple. Its fun reading your articles.

    Liked by 1 person

  41. Omer, you wrote:

    “But we believe in all what is said in the Qur’an because through a fair reading of the Qur’an, we can see that it has been revealed to him as he claimed thus he is a prophet of God, (may God bless him and all the prophets).”

    Saying that the Qur’an, despite being a seventh-century source, is the Word of God, and/or that it is to be trusted on historical matters (no matter what the actual first-century sources say) is rather easy. But can you demonstrate this? Otherwise your position basically becomes fideism.

    Like

  42. WIth the name of Allah the Gracious the Merciful

    Salam Chocoboy,

    I really admire your quest to truth.

    Yes I share your frustration with missionary argument like Mr. Temple.  Of course muslim has their own presuppositional belief to approach the Qur’an but it does not mean muslims are unable to deal with  materials which are critical of Islam and never carefully evaluating both sides of the evidences before arriving at own conviction.

    Surah 4:157 is one of the flawed reasoning people like Temple, accusing muslims using  non-supernaturalist  presuppositions by so called liberal theory.  Far from contradicting  history Q  4:157 confirm there was a crufixion event in history and the rest of the Qur;an confirms  there was a historical figure named Isa , a jewish messiah and teacher and miracle worker.

    What the Qur’an denies is that Isa was not crucified to death on the cross and that he was resurrected after his death on the cross. it made it   appear so. 

    Most muslims believe God saved Isa from the torment of the cross. He was miraculously taken up from this method of crucifixion. It is  very much a supernaturalist  presupposition. And much more elegant that christians supernaturalist  presupposition that he died and rose again. Neither of this position can be  validated solely by using historian methods. 

    Like

  43. “Mark, it is obvious to those with a pure heart that the Quran is the Word of the Almighty”

    So you’re accusing me of not having a pure heart? By the way, how is it obvious to them? What reasons do “those with a pure heart” have?

    Like

  44. Mark “What reasons do “those with a pure heart” have?”
    Truth stands out clearly from falsehood.

    Liked by 1 person

  45. I do not mean to insult, but this starts to feel as though I’m talking to a wall.

    “What we see in the Holy Quran is what our heart brings to the Book. If we are evil we will only see evil.”

    I do not only see evil in the Quran (nor do I only see good in it). But when I read the Qur’an it seems to me that it’s nothing more than the product of a seventh-century author (or authors).
    I’m trying to understand what convinces you that it is the Word of God. Now of course I know that throughout the centuries certain arguments have been raised (such as inimitability and the so-called “scientific miracles”) but so far these have failed to convince me.

    Like

    • You are unconvinced because spiritual truth is spiritually discerned. It is not the Quran that needs to prove itself. Pray to God to give you the eyes to see His Word.

      In my case I had already been schooled in the Truth as a Christian having been deeply moved by the teaching of Christ in the synoptic gospels.

      Consequently, I knew the Truth when I saw it in the Holy Quran.

      Like

  46. Mr. Williams, I’m asking you if you have any evidence to offer that the Qur’an is from God. If you don’t have that, how will you convince others that it is the Word of God? And what do you do when you’re presented with evidence that it’s not the Word of God (according to the standards the Qur’an sets for itself)?

    By the way, Jesus in the synoptic Gospels prophecies his own death and resurrection and says that he has come “to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45; Matthew 20:28). But saying that you believe in what Jesus taught is rather vacuous when one can us a seventh-century source (far removed from the historical events) to determine what Jesus did and did not say, regardless of what the evidence indicates.

    Like

    • The Quran is not far removed from any historical event whatsoever because God exists outside of time and space and has perfect knowledge of all things (unlike Jesus who did not).

      The evidence is plain as day to all those who have eyes to see. Unbelievers reject the Quran because they are blind and deaf to the Truth just as unbelievers rejected the teaching of Jesus because their hearts were hard. They went away to their perdition .

      I have not come across any evidence that contradicts the Quran – which is impossible anyway.

      Liked by 1 person

  47. Mark: “By the way, Jesus in the synoptic Gospels prophecies his own death and resurrection and says that he has come “to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45; Matthew 20:28).”

    Bart Ehrman: “But the authors of the Gospels were themselves influenced in their telling of Jesus’ story by the passages of Scripture that they took to be messianic predictions, and they told their stories in the light of those passages.”

    Like

  48. With the name of Allah

    Mark, if you ask a  believer any evidence that the Qur’an is from God, I think it can be very subjective , if you ask me especially I am always fascinated by the ability of the Qur’an to be memorised by heart, even some muslim are able commit the whole Qur;panic text to the memory. This is to me one of the reason what makes it from God which I witness it daily.

    Because he keeps his promise and people can continue to witness this phenomena to this very day.

    وَلَقَدْ يَسَّرْنَا الْقُرْآنَ لِلذِّكْرِ فَهَلْ مِن مُّدَّكِرٍ

    “And We have certainly made the Qur’an easy for remembrance, so is there any who will remember?” [Q  54:17]

    This literally makes it impossible for the Qur’an to become corrupted. You can read more about the perfect preservation of the Qur’an here.

    By contrast the gospel has no such tradition of mass memorisation. The fact is that the gospel is not a practical Scripture for memorisation, for it lacks the rhythm and poetic style of the Qur’an as a whole and is much longer by comparison, thus making the task of its memorisation difficult. If God wanted us to memorise the gospel, wouldn’t He have made it easy for us to do so?

    I am myself a non-Arab muslim who are very very moved by the rhythm and poetic style of the Qur’an everytime I read and memorized it ( I memorised approximately about 1/10 of the Qur’an now)

    Like

  49. “The Quran is not far removed from any historical event whatsoever because God exists outside of time and space and has perfect knowledge of all things (unlike Jesus who did not).”

    Your argument here is baseless unless you demonstrate that the Qur’an comes from God.

    “The evidence is plain as day to all those who have eyes to see. Unbelievers reject the Quran because they are blind and deaf to the Truth just as unbelievers rejected the teaching of Jesus because their hearts were hard. They went away to their perdition.”

    If the evidence is so “plain as day”, then why don’t you tell me what it is? Just saying that I reject the Qur’an because I’m “blind and deaf to the Truth” is not a good argument.

    “I have not come across any evidence that contradicts the Quran – which is impossible anyway.”

    When the Qur’an makes numeral historical errors (Dhu’l Qarnayn, Abraham being rescued from the fire etc.), how do you defend the Qur’an against this? Saying that they are not historical errors because the Qur’an comes from God (and God knows what really happened)? But then you have to demonstrate that the Qur’an comes from God in order for that argument to work. And how about textual emendations to the Qur’an, where one can change words without making it inferior to the original?

    Like

    • Mark you remind me of those unbelieving Jews who demanded Jesus prove to them he was sent from God. They were not really sincere.
      Their hearts were hard and they would not see the Truth.
      The Quran itself refers to unbelievers who would not be convinced of the prophethood of Muhammad even if miracles were done in their midst.
      To repeat one last time: the evidence of the Divine origin of the Quran is clear and obvious if you have an open heart. Like the created order proclaiming the glory of God through the Signs of Gods creative power, wisdom and majesty, so too His Word is a Sign of His Wisdom, Compassion and Eternal Power over all things.
      If you cannot see this I cannot help you.

      Spiritual truth is spiritually discerned.

      Like

  50. What I do not understand why God made it appear so and Muhammed came 600 years after to tell us that Jesus was not crucified?

    Like

    • Mr Nerd. God rescued Jesus from certain death and raised him to heaven. The religion which we call Christianity (based on the alleged death and resurrection of Jesus) is fundamentally different from the gospel proclaimed by Jesus

      As to the timing of God’s revelation in the Quran, all I can say is that it is in accordance with His Wisdom and perfect Will.

      Like

  51. Dear Eric,

    Thank you for your kind response. I agree that the memorisation of the Qur’an by Muslims (and non-Muslims?) can be quite fascinating. But I don’t think that it’s good evidence that it comes from God. Certainly human beings can write works that are quite easy to memorise. And of course, many Muslim children are taught to memorise the Qur’an from an early age, making it rather unremarkable that they then actually do memorise it. There are quite some people who memorise the digits of pi (I have a friend who had at one time memorised 200), and this is probably harder to do then to memorise the Qur’an.

    “This literally makes it impossible for the Qur’an to become corrupted. You can read more about the perfect preservation of the Qur’an here.”

    I think that when it comes to the supposed “perfect preservation” of the Qur’an much work still has to be done (for instance, by the Corpus Coranicum project). Even if the Qur’an were perfectly preserved, I don’t think this would mean that it comes from God (see dr. Bart Ehrman on this: https://bloggingtheology.net/2015/07/25/comparing-the-quranic-and-new-testament-manuscripts/).
    By the way, it seems that you’re were trying to post a link, but unfortunately something appears to have gone wrong.

    “By contrast the gospel has no such tradition of mass memorisation. The fact is that the gospel is not a practical Scripture for memorisation, for it lacks the rhythm and poetic style of the Qur’an as a whole and is much longer by comparison, thus making the task of its memorisation difficult. If God wanted us to memorise the gospel, wouldn’t He have made it easy for us to do so?”

    But what is your evidence that God wanted us to memorise the gospel? You could of course say that God wanted us to follow the gospels. But (1) one doesn’t need to memorise the gospels to do this and (2) many Muslims will say that God wanted us to follow the example of Muhammad as portrayed by the Hadith literature, but I don’t think the Hadith literature is easy to memorise.

    “I am myself a non-Arab muslim who are very very moved by the rhythm and poetic style of the Qur’an everytime I read and memorized it ( I memorised approximately about 1/10 of the Qur’an now)”

    I agree with you (as a non-Arab non-muslim) that the style of the Qur’an can be quite moving sometimes. But there are a lot of passages that I don’t find moving or well-written at all.

    Liked by 1 person

  52. Nerd, God did not “make it appear so” … It appeared to the Jewish enemies of Jesus, it looked like they had succeeded in finishing him off … They thought they had killed him, crucified him for good, finished him off. Well it looked like it, didn’t it?
    But it was not so, no, God raised Jesus to Himself.

    I really can’t understand what the fuss is about. Quran does not contradict history. Quran contradicts erroneous beliefs. Being raised to God does not make you God.

    Like

  53. For 600 years people were believing a lie that Jesus was crucified and God was okay with it, WOW!!!!!

    Burhan,Quran did contradict history as Mark pointed out in his comment, I post the relevant part “When the Qur’an makes numeral historical errors (Dhu’l Qarnayn, Abraham being rescued from the fire etc.), how do you defend the Qur’an against this? “

    Like

    • Nerd, your brief allusion to alleged historical errors in the Quran makes no sense to me.

      The crucifixion is of little importance as it was not the way to salvation for Jews or anyone else, as Jesus’ authentic teaching suggests.

      God revealed the truth about the matter in His own good (perfect) time.

      The much more serious issue is your (and other Christians) persistence in worshiping a messenger of God despite over 1,400 years of warnings.

      Repent of your idolatry while you have time!

      Like

  54. Nerd, if you want to deny reality, I can’t help you. If you make claims, bring your proof.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Nerd is big on claims and weak on proof.

      Like

    • I see Bart Erhman has just posted this on Facebook:

      I have been talking about the early Christian understandings of Jesus as the messiah – not just the messiah, but the “crucified messiah,” a concept that would have seemed not just unusual or bizarre to most Jewish ears in the first century, but absolutely mind-boggling and self-contradictory. I’ve been arguing that it was precisely the contradictory nature of the claim that led almost all Jews to reject the Christian claims about Jesus.

      Like

    • He continues..,

      Several readers have asked me whether I think Jesus understood himself to be the messiah. Probably those who know a *little* bit about my work and my general views of things would think that my answer would be Absolutely Not. But those who know a *lot* about my views will know that the answer is Yes Indeed.

      I think Jesus did consider himself the messiah. But not the to-be-crucified-messiah. The key to understanding Jesus’ view of himself is to recognize what he *meant* by considering himself the messiah. I will get to that in a later post. For now I want to give the evidence that Jesus thought that in *some* sense (a sense distinctive to Jesus) he thought he was the messiah. There are two highly compelling lines of argument. These arguments are *so* compelling that I wish I had thought of them myself. But alas, as with most good arguments, they are the work of others.

      Liked by 1 person

  55. Johny the Nerd

    You said;
    For 600 years people were believing a lie that Jesus was crucified and God was okay with it, WOW!!!!!

    I say;
    For more than 600 years people did not believe Jesus is the messiah, God corrected them and made it clear that Jesus is indeed the messiah. It the Quran was copied and wants favor from Jews why did the Quran not follow them.

    For thousand’s of years the Romans and the Greeks believed God had literal Son and that God has other lesser Gods added to Him(God) and Jesus himself could not correct them when he came but added to their confusing and people say he Jesus is the Son of God and people added their persons to God including Rastafarians who worship Emperor Haile Selaissie as God incarnate and part of the Trinity.

    The Quran corrected all Trinitarians by cleverly saying do not say 3 without defining a particular Trinity but correcting all Trinitarians as false.

    The Quran categorically denied any literal sonship of God except metaphorical.

    Prophet Abraham’s people worshiped idols for thousands of years and believing in idols as Gods for thousand of years before Abraham came to correct them. May be you have issue on that as well.

    What is Dhu’l Qarnayn? You have to be an Islamic scholar and know Arabic and Quran exegesis before you can explain what it means and you are not. There is no any numerical errors in the Quran but figment of your imagination.

    Thanks.

    Liked by 1 person

  56. Paul Williams, idolatry? I don’t worship the cubic box nor do I kiss the stone that has been kissed by billions of people, not so hygienic. No offence.

    Like

  57. Eric bin Kisam wrote:
    What the Qur’an denies is that Isa was not crucified to death on the cross and that he was resurrected after his death on the cross. it made it appear so.

    That is what makes the Qur’an completely discredited.

    There is just too much emphasis on and details on that event in whole chapters of all four gospels, the predictions of His trials, crucifixion, and resurrection by Jesus ( Isa, عیسی المسیح ) Himself, etc. Whole chapters of the details of the trials and crucifixion, and resurrection – Mark 14-15 – 16:1-8; Matthew 26-28; Luke 22-24; John 18-21.

    He did indeed see Himself as the suffering Messiah servant of Isaiah 53 when He said,
    “The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve and to give His life a ransom for many” Mark 10:45; Matthew 20:28)

    and

    “this is the blood of the new covenant for the forgiveness of sins” (Matthew 26; Mark 14; Luke 22)

    Like

  58. When Jesus said that He came to serve and give His life a ransom for many, He is saying He is the suffering servant of Isaiah 52:13-15 to Isaiah 53:1-12.

    Like

  59. And the Qur’an could not help but affirm the ransom concept of substitutionary atonement, when God supplied a ram to replace Abraham’s son. The Qur’an affirms this in Surah 37:107

    “We have ransomed him with a mighty sacrifice.”
    وفديناه بذبح عظيم

    Like

  60. Jesus was not a mere mortal like us or muhammad, He was unique even your holy book acknowledges that.

    Like

  61. Johny the Nerd

    You said;
    Paul Williams, idolatry? I don’t worship the cubic box nor do I kiss the stone that has been kissed by billions of people, not so hygienic. No offence

    I say;
    For your information, there is no where in our religion that say we should kiss a stone. Kissing is not worshiping. A Muslim scholar asks Christians, “Don’t you kiss your wives?”.

    Jews do Kiss stone at the Western Wall in Jerusalem. It is only ignorant person who will say Jews and Muslims worship stone.

    The name of the first Mosque to worship God only is called Kaaba and that is were Muslim congregate every year to pay honor to Prophet Abraham for bringing monontheism in the worship of One, Only and Alone God who is not 3 persons in Rastafarian Trinity and any Trinity.

    Muslim do not Mention Kaaba during prayers or any devotion and so Kaaba is just a first Mosque and people kiss what Prophet Abraham used his hand to build for admiration and nothing else.

    Thanks

    Liked by 1 person

  62. Nerd, Jesus (as) was a unique mortal like us. He had a God. His God was not a three-person being.

    Liked by 1 person

  63. Luke did not eliminate it. You are reading motives and thoughts back into an argument from silence. Just because the verse is not in Luke, does not mean he “eliminated it”. Luke 22:19-20 and the whole chapter of Luke 23 (56 verses !! ) 24:46-47 teaches substitutionary atonement also.

    Each writer of the 4 gospels were inspired by the Holy Spirit, God to write what they wrote (John 14:16-17, 14:25-26; 15:26-27; 16:12-15; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20-21); so it is absolute truth that demolishes anything that comes from a human making a claim 600 years later in another language in another country thousands of miles away.

    Like

  64. Paul,
    You use double standards on your arguments about the gospels.
    When citing a verse from John, you say, “scholars say John comes last, wasn’t written by John, etc. so we go with the earliest gospel, Mark”

    then, we quote from Mark, Mark 10:45

    then you say, “Luke (who comes a little later), eliminated Mark 10:45 and Matthew 20:28”

    In one instance, the earliest gospels are your argument; in another instance, the later gospel is your argument;

    this is inconsistent and the sign of a bad argument.

    Like

  65. Why did Matthew include it in Matthew 20:28?

    But, no, you don’t know that Luke “eliminated” it.

    Luke could get his material that is in Mark from his interviews with the eyewitnesses (Luke 1:1-4) and he was also guided by the Holy Spirit to write what he wrote, as all four of them were. It is all “God-breathed” – 2 Tim. 3:16.

    Like

    • Luke does not claim to be inspired by the ‘spirit’. He just says it seemed like a “good idea” to write his account.

      You do not understand the synoptic problem and why Luke used Mark. That’s your problem not mine.

      If you studied the bible academically yo would know about all this.

      Like

  66. “The crucifixion is of little importance as it was not the way to salvation for Jews or anyone else, as Jesus’ authentic teaching suggests.”

    Again we come back to the supposed “authentic teaching” of Jesus. And again I have to ask why you don’t think Jesus’ predictions of his own death and resurrection are not authentic. Or why Jesus’ institution of the Last Supper commemorating his death (multiply attested by both the synoptic Gospels and Paul) is not authentic.

    “Nerd is big on claims and weak on proof.”

    Oh, the irony.

    “Mark 10:45 was eliminated by Luke in his gospel because he rejected such an idea.”

    Any evidence that Luke did this because he rejected the idea of Jesus giving his life for the forgiveness of sins? Luke 22:15-20 suggests otherwise, and of course Jesus predicts his own death in Luke 13:32-33.

    Liked by 1 person

  67. “The evidence is plain as day to all those who have eyes to see. Unbelievers reject the Quran because they are blind and deaf to the Truth just as unbelievers rejected the teaching of Jesus because their hearts were hard. They went away to their perdition.”

    Suppose I would pray that God would open my heart while reading the Qur’an, and yet when reading the Qur’an I would still find it to be the product of a seventh-century author. Would you say that in that case I would be justified in rejecting the Qur’an as coming from God? Or would I have to try again and again until I became convinced?

    Like

  68. Temple “this is inconsistent and the sign of a bad argument.” Lol. Arguing in a circle, as you do, is not arguing at all. Lol.

    Liked by 1 person

  69. “seemed good to me” does not mean it was not inspired by the Holy Spirit – as he says, “in order that you may know the exact truth (or certainty) about what you have been taught” (1:4) from eyewitnesses and servants of the word (word of God), and Luke’s emphasis on the Holy Spirit in the book of Acts – the Scriptures of Luke-Acts certainly testifies that it is Spirit inspired Scripture – Acts 1:1-5 (even if Luke does not consciously know that or explicitly say that) – “all that Jesus began to do and teach” – he is writing what the Jesus is continuing to do through the Spirit in the apostles in the book of Acts. The Truth and the Spirit go together.

    I fully understand and have studied it academically and spiritually, the synoptic “problem” – it is you who don’t know the Lord of the Scriptures and don’t know the spiritual meaning of it and need your mind opened to understand it – Luke 24:45; Acts 16:14.

    To treat the Scriptures as ONLY an academic exercise is to miss the spiritual truth of them, which is what you do – you must know the Lord of the Scriptures, not just paper and ink and liberal’s theories.

    Like

  70. The Qur’an is discredited because of 4:157; and other things, like 4:34 – that husbands can beat their wives, and 9:29-30 – all out war against the Christians and Jews and the verses that say Muslims can have sex with the captives of war – “whom your right hand possesses” – these things and more, like using apocryphal gospels and Gnostic gospels and legends (the legend of the seven sleepers in the cave) – and the sun setting in muddy waters, etc. – discredits the Qur’an.

    Like

  71. “If you studied the bible academically yo would know about all this.”

    I for one try to study both the Bible and the Qur’an by using academic sources. In the case of the Qur’an however, the academic sources actually bring evidence against the Qur’an’s own claims. And of course, no scholar on the planet would regard the Qur’an legendary stories about for example Dhu’l Qarnayn and Abraham to be historical.

    Like

  72. Intellect, you wrote the following:

    “What is Dhu’l Qarnayn? You have to be an Islamic scholar and know Arabic and Quran exegesis before you can explain what it means and you are not. There is no any numerical errors in the Quran but figment of your imagination.”

    Is Tafsir al-Jalalayn good enough? See: http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=18&tAyahNo=83&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2
    Or perhaps a modern Islamicist? According to Carl W. Ernst (How to Read the Qur’an, p. 133) most modern scholars actually think that Dhu’l Qarnayn is Alexander the Great.

    Like

  73. In one instance, the earliest gospels are your argument; in another instance, the later gospel is your argument;

    this is inconsistent and the sign of a bad argument.

    Like

  74. “So will you sincerely pray to God to reveal the truth in the Quran?”

    I don’t have any problem with asking God, if there is any truth in the Qur’an, to reveal it to me. But let me just say that so far Muslims have failed to convince me that the Qur’an is the Word of God, and modern academic studies actually push me in the direction of seeing the Qur’an as the work of one or multiple human authors.

    Like

    • You seem to think that the Quran must prove itself worthy of your belief. In fact it is the other way round.

      Your hubris and distain cut you off from seeing the Truth with your heart.

      Like

    • The Qur’an is like a bride – Rumi

      Although you pull the veil away from her face,
      she does not show herself to you.
      When you investigate the Qur’an,
      but receive no joy or mystical unveiling,
      it is because your pulling at the veil
      has caused you to be rejected.
      The Qur’an has deceived you
      and shown itself as ugly.

      It says,
      “I am not a beautiful bride.”
      It is able to show itself in any form it desires.
      But if you stop pulling at its veil and seek its good pleasure;
      if you water its field, serve it from afar
      and strive in that which pleases it,
      then it will show you its face
      without any need for you to draw aside its veil.

      – Rumi, translated by William C. Chittick

      Like

  75. “Thy Word is Truth” (John 17:17)

    “I write this” . . . “in order that you may know the exact truth about what you have been taught” (Luke 1:1-4)

    “if you abide in My word . . . you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:31-32)

    Like

  76. “all that Jesus began to do and teach” (Acts 1:1) through the Holy Spirit baptizing and filling the apostles and believers and the gospel going from Jerusalem to Rome (Acts chapters 22-28) are records of divine activity in history. Fully God-breathed. 2 Tim. 3:16

    Like

  77. Temple “Fully God-breathed. 2 Tim. 3:16” Lol. Temple, you sound like a “Bible commercial”. Actually its not funny, waking up one day realizing you spent your life in Bible commercial …

    Like

  78. I can read original Rumi in his Farsi.

    The problem is lots of references are not documented very well. (name of Poem, chapter and verse)

    He said lots of things that doctrinal Muslims don’t consider right. Sometimes he was really dirty ( I have read some of him in English and Farsi)

    In fact, the Turkish tour guide at his shrine in Konya, Turkey, when I visited there in 1987, said to me, “Rumi is not true Islam, he is what you Christians consider cultic in your judgements of Mormons, etc. “

    Like

  79. Burhanuddin1

    “waking up in a bible-commercial” – LOL

    Yet, 600 years later, Muhammad considered the Injeel the “God-breathed” written word – Surah 5:47; 10:94; 29:46; 2:136; 5:68

    and the 27 books of the NT were discerned/established as that canon for 200 to 300-400 years before Muhammad. They were “canon” (standard, criterion) when they written by 96 AD, but it took a while, because they were under persecution and each book or letter was written to specific places in individual scrolls, to get all under one book cover by all areas.

    Justin Martyr (executed in 155 AD) cites all the gospels as “memoirs of the apostles” and the book of Revelation, and even has allusions to Romans, 1-2 Cor.; Gal, Eph. 1-2 Thess.

    Irenaeus and Tertullian clearly write about most of the 27 books as “God-breathed Scripture” – 180-220 AD. They mention all of them except for little ones like 2-3 John, 2 Peter, Philemon, James. Ireneaus cites 2 John, but Tertullian does not.

    Origen – 250 AD
    Athanasius – 367 AD
    Provincial Councils of Hippo and Carthage under Augustine – 380s-400 AD.

    Like

  80. These listed all the 27 books of the NT as canonical, “standard”, “criterion”. This proves NT is true.

    Origen – 250 AD
    Athanasius – 367 AD
    Provincial Councils of Hippo and Carthage under Augustine – 380s-400 AD.

    Like

  81. Paul Williams you said, I make only claims. I already told you I don’t know much about Islam and I am just asking the questions which I have, I don’t know what setting you off? I am trying to be as polite and as nice as I can.

    Like

  82. “You seem to think that the Quran must prove itself worthy of your belief. In fact it is the other way round.”

    No, I think that, since the Qur’an claims to be from God, one should ask whether or not there is evidence for that.

    “Your hubris and distain cut you off from seeing the Truth with your heart.”

    It’s really necessary to insult me?

    But let us go back to the actual issue. The Qur’an claims to be from God. When I ask you for evidence that it is from God, you say that I will be convinced when I read the Qur’an with a pure heart. But what actually happens when I do this and I’m not convinced? Would you say that in that case my heart is not ‘pure’ enough? How do I know that my heart is pure enough? When I read the Qur’an and actually become convinced that it is the Word of God? In that case, your argument would be circular.

    Like

  83. Mark

    You said;
    “If you studied the bible academically yo would know about all this.”

    I for one try to study both the Bible and the Qur’an by using academic sources. In the case of the Qur’an however, the academic sources actually bring evidence against the Qur’an’s own claims. And of course, no scholar on the planet would regard the Qur’an legendary stories about for example Dhu’l Qarnayn and Abraham to be historical.

    I say;
    Scholars on the planet do not believe stories of Moses in the Bible to historical. Some scholars have written articles to discredit Moses parting of the Red Sea but a believer believes Moses did parted the red sea.

    Stories of Prophet Abraham is similar to his stories found in the Bible and if that makes it not historical then the stories in the Bible are not historical as well.

    Dhu’l Qarnayn is not Alexander the great. If some Muslim scholars believe so, it does not make it so.

    There are so many legendary stories in the Bible and if you are sincere, then you must reject the Bible as historical as well.

    Historians and scholars cannot know everything my dear Mark. It is only God who knows everything and He tells us what we do not know in scripture. The difference between the Bible and the Quran is that, God in the Quran said He is the author of the Quran and is telling us something that we do not know, but the Bible has human writers who do not know everything like us.

    We believe in the Quran because it has made a U-Turn according to Dr. James White to bring the pagan concept of worshiping man, multiple persons and idol worshiping back to the original message of God of One, Only and Alone God of Abraham.

    I told Ken that if a man is to come from Germany, Papua New Guinea, Seychelles or any where in the planet with a book in his language to talk about worshiping only God of Abraham Alone because that is a standard measurement for the God of Abraham.

    This person has billions of followers who pray to the Only God of Abraham Alone and warn against any worship of anything except the God of Abraham and was able to carefully warn against any Trinitarian permutations including the Rastafarians Trinitarians and so many so many man worship. The scripture he brought has rhymes and spiritual uplifting etc. then that person will be worth listening to.

    The Quran challenges any one to bring a person and a book like that and a religion like that and no one was able to bring the Quran, Islam and Muslims.

    For now lets stick to the original Message of Moses, Abraham, Jesus, Mohamed and the rest and get away from anything that resembles pagan worship until another person comes to prove he is from the God of Abraham and with scripture to claim it is from God and prove it is the truth.

    Thanks

    Liked by 1 person

  84. I don’t really understand why many Muslims try so hard to disprove the claims found in the Bible when the Quran calls Muslims to respect and believe in all the previous scriptures. The Quran never claims to be a replacement for the Bible (although it may claim to be a criterion over it – Surah 5:48), instead it tells people that there is much guidance and wisdom still to be found in it. On top of that, it confirmed the scriptures which were with the current Jews and Christians during Muhammad’s day. (Surah 57:25, 5:43-47, 7:157, 3:3, 5:68, 6:114. Read Surah 5:43-47 and 5:68 very carefully as it shows that Jews and Christians should continue to believe and obey what is found in their holy books).

    This is an interesting post to share Paul, because if Bart Ehrman’s analysis were to be true then both Islam and Christianity are proved to be false religions. It’s funny to see Muslims quote or share links from people who hold a non-religious view of these texts. How would it disprove Islam as well as Christianity? Because the Quran itself calls Jesus the messiah on multiple occasions, a title that is unique to him alone amongst all the prophets in Islam. You’re really shooting yourself in the foot if you are a Muslim and you agree with what Bart Ehrman says. What is the relevance of the term messiah in Islam anyway? It is only something that is naturally understood by the Jews, and the only place they will look is in their own scriptures. If there is no evidence of Jesus being the messiah in Jewish scriptures then how can you ever expect a Jew to believe Jesus is the messiah in Islam?

    The good thing is there is evidence that Jesus is the messiah in the Hebrew Scriptures. Just because a passage may not directly use the term “messiah” it does not mean it cannot be talking about one. A Muslim will have to agree with me because the Quran claims Muhammad is mentioned in both Jewish and Christian scriptures (Surah 7:157, 61:6). Does this mean that Muhammad is mentioned directly by name in the Bible or that a particular passage may be referring to Muhammad? Likewise, Jesus or “Messiah” may not be directly mentioned by name but can be referred to in the Hebrew scriptures.
    An obvious example is Micah 5:2 (or 5:1 in some Hebrew bibles), which reads “And you, Bethlehem Ephrathah-you should have been the lowest of the clans of Judah-from you [he] shall emerge for Me, to be a ruler over Israel; and his origin is from of old, from days of yore.”
    One of the most popular and well known Jewish commentaries on the Bible comes from a scholar by the name of Rashi who had this to say about the verse – From you shall emerge for Me: the Messiah, son of David, and so Scripture says (Ps. 118:22): “The stone the builders had rejected became a cornerstone.” (http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16191/jewish/Chapter-5.htm#showrashi=true)

    So one sure prophecy about the Messiah that even Jews agree upon is that he will be born in Bethlehem. Did Matthew and Luke just make that up or is it true? If it is not true, then Jesus cannot be the messiah, and therefore the Quran is false for calling him Al-Masih.
    Rashi references Psalm 118:22 in his commentary, which indicates that the messiah may perhaps be rejected or that the Jews may fail to notice him when he is around them. In Matthew 21:42 Jesus also uses this verse – “Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: “‘The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes’?” And later on in Acts 4:11, Peter confirms that the passage was about Jesus – “Jesus is “‘the stone you builders rejected, which has become the cornerstone.’”

    “Ken you have conflated two quite different passages. Isaiah is not about a messiah but Israel. So it cannot be used in support of your ideology. ”
    Not quite so. In Isaiah 49:6 we read “He[God] says: “It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.”
    In verse 5, one of the servant’s mission is to bring back Israel. How does the nation of Israel bring back Israel? Did the nation of Israel successfully become a light to the gentile nations?
    Isaiah 49:1-6 and 52:13-53 both make part of the servant songs, which also includes Isaiah 42:1-4 and 50:4-9. If you have a good read of these passages you can clearly see it is not talking about the nation of Israel as a whole because can we really agree that Israel was not rebellious or ever turned away from God (Isaiah 50:5) or that the nation of Israel “bore the sin of many” (Isaiah 53:12)?. Besides it is actually possible to see these servant songs as referring to both a group and an individual at the same time. For example it could be referring to a group of people in the nation of Israel (like the remnant that God will save) or to an individual who represents the group as a whole, which is like a king or leader representing their nation. In the same way if you were to read a passage in the Quran which was directly for Muhammad, you could also apply it to your own life, for example Surah 94:5.

    But anyway, continue to strive in what you’re doing, it will only make your position as a Muslim more difficult. If you’re against believing much of what the bible says (apart from the monotheistic statements) then you’re only disrespecting and discrediting the very faith in which you claim to believe in. How are you ever going to find Muhammad in the scripture in which he claimed to be found in if it is mostly just nonsense and made up stories from made up authors? This is one of many Islamic dilemmas.

    Liked by 1 person

  85. @Ken Temple:

    “These listed all the 27 books of the NT as canonical, “standard”, “criterion”. This proves NT is true.

    Origen – 250 AD
    Athanasius – 367 AD
    Provincial Councils of Hippo and Carthage under Augustine – 380s-400 AD.”

    These are some 220 years minimum after Christ. Even then they still debated over The Apocalypse of John, the Epistles of Peter, the Epistle of James, and other books. The fact is, your scripture was not scripture during the formative years of Christianity and was later developed to serve theological purposes. You may accept them now and use them as proof of your beliefs, but what did the earliest of Christians use to explain their beliefs? Nothing. At the very least, Paul may have quoted Jesus once in the entirety of the 6 works attributed to him. What then, did they use to preach Christianity, and why can’t you use that today?

    I would dare say, today’s Proto-Orthodox Biblical Trinitarian Graeco-Roman Post-Hasmonaean Jewish Syncretic Protestant “Christians” would be complete strangers and heretics to the disciples. Don’t even get me started on dispensationalism!

    Liked by 1 person

  86. Ijaz Ahmad wrote:
    These are some 220 years minimum after Christ. Even then they still debated over The Apocalypse of John, the Epistles of Peter, the Epistle of James, and other books.

    Thanks for your comment. Even so, that is still 400 years before Muhammad and Muhammad approved of the true Injeel. (Surah 5:47, 10:94; 5:68; 2:136; 29:46; etc. above – the people of the book and gospel were using all 27 books for 400 years or more; and before that, using them separately as individual scrolls.

    But they were all written by 96 AD, if Revelation and John’s writings were written 80-96 AD and everything else was pre-70 AD, except maybe Jude, around 80 AD. They were “God-breathed” as soon as the ink dried.

    We don’t have many writings before Justin Martyr (was executed by the Romans in 165 AD) and Ireneaus (writing 180-202 AD) and Tertullian (writing from 180-220 AD).

    The ones we have, like these below, quote and refer to some of the NT canonical books, especially Paul’s epistles and the gospels, but they are too small to have comments on every NT book. 1 Clement and Pseudo-Barnabas have allusions to 2 Peter and Hebrews.

    The Didache (70-120 AD)
    1 Clement (96 AD)
    Ignatius (107-117 AD – fed to lions by the Romans)
    the Shepherd of Hermas (135 AD)
    Polycarp (martyred by the Romans in 155 AD)
    Psuedo-Barnabas (100-135 AD)
    Mathetes to Diognetes 100-135 AD)

    are all short and small in the second century before Justin Martyr of 165 AD.

    Plus, there was no such thing as a codex for flat sheets tied together until 200 or 250 AD – they were originally all individual scrolls rolled up and sent separately to different churches and areas in the Greco-Roman world. So, there was no vehicle to bring them together under one “book cover”; in fact, most scholars believe it was the Christians and this need to combine them under one “book cover” that created the codex form and then that later developed into what we now use as a “book” with a binding.

    Like

  87. How are you ever going to find Muhammad in the scripture in which he claimed to be found in if it is mostly just nonsense and made up stories from made up authors? This is one of many Islamic dilemmas.

    Great point, Marvin Henry!

    Like

  88. No matter how hard humans try to distort the God’s scriptures, important things remain intact. For instance, there is only one God and also the Qur’an is a Furqan just as you admit we can decipher using the Qur’an what is the truth and what is not in the Bible.

    Like

  89. @Ken,

    Injeel is a revelation given to Jesus, not literature from the Graeco-Roman Post-Hasmonaean era by various authors from differing areas of many beliefs. The Injeel is not the New Testament, otherwise known as Majmu ul Kutub or Kitab al Muqqadas. This is a false equivalency.

    Secondly we do not know what the Syro-Arabian ‘Christians’ believed in, since nothing survives from them. In fact, we can’t even point to a canon for them. They were outside of what is commonly considered Graeco-Roman domains and primarily from Near East Asia. For instance the Tribe of Banu Taghlib accepted Islam wholly. Whatever scripture they possessed, agreed with the Qur’an and the message of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Similarly, the scholars such as Abdullah ibn Salam and Salman al Farsi also accepted Islam and were widely considered by the Persians and Roman Christians to be authorities in their respective faiths.

    The problem here is symptomatic of proto-orthodox Christians whitewashing history. Yes major codices were written at that time, but these were inaccessible to the common folk who could not read, most of these codices ended up being lost and forgotten to time, being the only copies some cities ever knew! It is the arrogance of modern Christians to think all Christians believed in or used the proto-orthodox canon, or that only the surviving books are what the entirety of Christendom utilized as scripture.

    It is silly to say that the Qur’an is 400 years later thus it must be ahistorical. How many thousands of years is the Torah after the creation of the world, Abraham and Noah? Yet it recounts the genesis of the universe as a historical event, the lives of two major patriarchs as well. Using your logic, you should throw your Bible in the trash. Why is it that Christians lack thinking of depth, and consistency? Revelation is not limited by time.

    In other words you have really bad arguments and it honestly makes Christianity look weak and desperate. It is arguments like these that allow me to apostate Christians almost daily through my website and Facebook.

    Regards,

    Liked by 2 people

  90. Injeel is a revelation given to Jesus, not literature from the Graeco-Roman Post-Hasmonaean era by various authors from differing areas of many beliefs. The Injeel is not the New Testament, otherwise known as Majmu ul Kutub or Kitab al Muqqadas. This is a false equivalency.

    That is yours and Islam’s claim, after it conquered the Byzantine Empire by aggressive and unjust force (Omar Ibn Al Khattab onward), after it discovered it totally contradicted the book / the gospel. Since the Qur’an says “if you have any doubt, go ask the people who are reading the book before you” – the book = Al Kitab الکتاب – Surah 10:94 (it means Scripture, writings; cognate with the Hebrew Ketuvim = כתובים and it says that the Injeel of Muhammad’s day is fully inspired and trustworthy (Surah 5:47; 5:68; 2:136; 29:46, and others) then it is obvious that the author (s) of the Qur’an at the time thought the Injeel was written Scripture, not only the revelation revealed to Jesus. It certainly includes the revelation that came down, but it also includes the written Scriptures, and the only Injeel / Gospel message are the 27 NT books.

    The problem here is symptomatic of proto-orthodox Christians whitewashing history.

    Nope. All the NT writers were Jewish Christians except for Luke. All were Jews except for Luke, and most of the first century believers in Jesus as Messiah crucified and risen from the dead were Jews. It is you who is whitewashing history; and even denying history – Surah 4:157 denies history outright.

    It is silly to say that the Qur’an is 400 years later thus it must be ahistorical

    600 years later; totally contradictory to many things already established by the NT and quotes from legends and apocryphal gospels and says husbands can beat their wives and that captured women can be their sex slaves – ‘those whom your right hand possesses”, etc.

    It is you who are silly to believe in a book that is so contrary to logic and history and morality.

    Not really an awesome reply at all. Anachronistic for the sake of your own polemics.

    Like

  91. In other words you have really bad arguments and it honestly makes Islam look weak and desperate.

    Like

  92. Muhammad was ignorant of what the true Injeel was; he just heard a few things, and thought that the Trinity was God, the Son, and the Mother (Surah 5:116; 6:101; 5:72-75) and was assuming that he and the Injeel agreed completely, but it did not. He thought Christians were saying God had sex with Mary ( 6:101; 112) because he was ignorant of the Scriptures and the theology that had been developed for 600 years.

    Like

  93. How many thousands of years is the Torah after the creation of the world, Abraham and Noah? Yet it recounts the genesis of the universe as a historical event, the lives of two major patriarchs as well.

    That’s an ok point except that revelation stopped after the NT was finished – Jude 3 – “the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints”

    John 14:16-17, 14:26; 16:12-14 – when the Spirit of Truth comes, He will be in you . . . and He will lead you into all the truth, all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have taught you.”

    Hebrews 1:1-3 – Jesus, the Son, is the final revelation – and the apostles wrote it all down.

    Rev. 22:18 – “do not add to this book.” (Yes, I realize that specifically is about adding to the book of Revelation itself, but taken together with the other verses and principles above, it follows that it points to the completion of all revelation.

    Besides, the OT was all Jewish, and the NT writers were all Jews, except for Luke, and Luke was affirming Paul (Saul of Tarsus the Jew) and his revelation, and ministry. For God to reveal Himself in Arabic in Arabia does not follow the line of the prophets and apostles. They were all Jews.

    Like

  94. @Ken, I appreciate that you’re replying, but I’m afraid you’re just going in circles.

    1. How can you propose they copied from the Bible and then claim that they discovered its contents later?
    2. How do you know which sects in Syro-Arabia had which literature, when even the scholars do not know?
    3. How do you account for entire tribes, like Banu Taghlib being practising Christians and wholly entering Islam?
    4. How do you account for Jews and scholars like Salman al Farsi and Abdullah ibn Salam knowing their respective faiths well and accepting Islam?

    You don’t answer any of these questions. Instead you do a very bad copy paste job. In regard to what you posted. No the Injeel is defined in the Qur’an as something given to Jesus, you do not believe the New Testament was given to Jesus, you even argue it was differing authors, thus your entire argument is self-defeating and practically self-contradictory.

    Yes the Qur’an says the Injeel is inspired, but it does not say the New Testament. If you assume Injeel means Gospel, then it is singular, but then you change the meaning to Gospel message and not just ‘a Gospel’, thus by the very definition of the word, the New Testament is not the Injeel. The citations you provided actually prove my argument, they refer to specific laws like Rajm which those Christians accepted as an active part of their law, something proto-orthodox Christians reject, thus again those Christians were not Pauline and this would indicate a different scripture since I don’t recall Jesus acknowledging the law of Rajm in the New Testament. I’m not sure why you tacked this on in the end:

    ” It certainly includes the revelation that came down, but it also includes the written Scriptures, and the only Injeel / Gospel message are the 27 NT books.”

    Certainly based on what? That Injeel should mean Gospel? That’s already been addressed above. Either way, just because a word sounds familiar does not mean it relates to the same thing. This is the fallacy of false equivalency. It’s also a straw man, you say the Injeel must be the NT and then say the Qur’an is wrong about the NT. You can’t have it both ways, either you accept the Injeel is the NT and that it does not get it wrong, or that it is not the New Testament and it has no relation to a ‘bios’ and Pastoral epistles that contradict each other, much less the Injeel itself. Regarding 10:94, this again works against you. The Qur’an refers to the People of the Book, surely then, this sect it refers to are not yours, since the beliefs of these people were meant to coincide with the Qur’an. Since Christians and Jews in Syro-Arabia did accept Islam, then it stands to reason that it was not your proto-orthodox sect, this is simply fantasy on your part and the fallacy of confirmation bias.

    Like

  95. @Ken,

    I honestly find it ironic that someone can call us believers in a silly book, when you believe in a suffering, dead God, practically human sacrifice. A human sacrifice worshiper, is telling me I’m silly. Are you taking the piss?

    Let’s be real here. You are just repeating yourself. First it was 400 years later, now it’s 600 years later. Even you can’t get your silly arguments right within the space of two comments. That goes to show how hopeless those claims are. Again, you’d notice you never addressed my arguments about your consistency and your logic. Revelation is atemporal, this is why Moses could write about the creation of the universe, Abraham and Noah, without knowing, meeting, living within their life times, and yet still be considered “historical”. Again, if you stand by your standards, you’d reject the Torah.

    You say it’s silly for the Qur’an to deny history, given 4:157. Give me physical proof of Christ’s death. Oh wait, there is none. Give me contemporary proof. Oh wait there is none. What you have are baseless traditions written after the fact, that became popular and part of social-history. That’s it. People worshiping a man does not make the man a God. People recording in history that people worshiped a man does not make that claim true. There have been countless human Gods. Yours is just another to add to the pile of pagan folklore and myths.

    I am surprised you find the crucifiction to be undeniable history, when by historical standards we need to accept supernatural absent evidence for your claim. Zombies coming back to life, eh? Yet here comes the Qur’an denying Christian myths, like Romans about their men-Gods and Hindus about their murtis. It says God is unlike us, and has the power to forgive and provide justice. Yes, I suppose I am silly for believing in a God that has a soteriological plan that works. I guess I should give that up for one who realises he messed up and needed to kill an innocent man for it, ya?

    None of those verses say that the Trinity consists of the Son and Mary, they’re chapters apart. This is called cherry picking. One verse says they worshiped both Mary and Jesus – which some Catholics admit to, and which was a known heresy of Collyridianism. So proof by historical contradiction.

    Liked by 1 person

  96. @Ken,

    You’re repeating yourself and I’m not sure why I’m even bothering to reply to someone who doesn’t have the decency to think about what he says before posting it. In essence you’re saying:

    My scripture is scripture, because my scripture says so.

    That’s pure circular reasoning. You yourself posted that 220 years after Jesus that these books began to be seen as scripture. I didn’t post that evidence, you did. So just on that basis, you’ve conveniently refuted yourself. Let’s be honest though, since you accept the NT was a later development, then on what basis can you say it is the Injeel given to Jesus? You’re arguing for two mutually exclusive ideas, thus it is apparent that you have serious cognitive dissonance.

    We also need to be honest.

    1. We do not know who the authors of the NT are. Every student of TC knows that when we refer to Mark or Luke, we don’t refer to a singular historical person, but a body of authors over centuries, that collectively formed and shaped the NT literature of today. See Burton Mack’s Who Wrote the NT which explains this important point.

    2. We do not know when the Gospels were written. In fact the one evidence that has been used was recently found to be a flawed analysis by a 1934 study that did not use the proper comparanda and errors were made in orthographic comparison. Thus, by all scientific and historical standards, the normative guessworked timeline of written in the 1st century us contrived trash with no evidence towards this ‘previously accepted fact’. In fact EP Sanders notes that it is guesswork on their part. So there ya go. Two scholars, laying it out for ya.

    Lastly, taking my comment, and flipping it on me is childish. If you want to do a tu quoque, do it with someone who has patience for trolls. You clearly don’t see that literally all of your arguments are based on Christians cherry picking verses of the Qur’an, creating beliefs about them, then saying those beliefs contradict your sect and your scripture. It’s all contrived and useless. The begotten argument, the Mary & Jesus Gods argument, the 4:157 argument, they’re all over-done, desperate and practically useless.

    You can keep drawing on those outdated, facetious, pase, inane arguments. I rather deal with honest, intellectual persons who know the limits of exegesis and epistemology, which you certainly aren’t, given your crass, insipid, copy-pasted, parroted claims.

    Like

  97. 1. How can you propose they copied from the Bible and then claim that they discovered its contents later?

    The author of the Qur’an knew the Christians had a book (Injeel and Al Kitab) – I never said they copied from canonical scripture; Muhammed is hearing stuff (that Jesus is Al Masih, Ibn Maryam, did miracles, taught, was virgin born, taught the Injeel), and probably heard the material from the apocryphal gospels and legends also – this would account for why Muhammad jumbles and mixed things up and changed the details of the Jewish stories, which he got from hearing the Jews talk of things in the Talmud, Midrash, and Mishna.

    the Qur’anic narratives contain elements of Biblical truths confounded with folklore and fables extracted from the Talmud, Midrash, and Mishna and in some cases (such as the story of Abraham and the idols which we shall presently consider) the sources are entirely Midrashic/Haggadic and are accordingly purely fictitious.

    They discovered the mistake later after Omar unjustly attacked the Byzantine Empire and conquered it; and the others who followed him.

    2. How do you know which sects in Syro-Arabia had which literature, when even the scholars do not know?

    We know that Gnostic sects and heretics were exiled to the out-skirts of the Byzantine Empire and desert (today’s Jordan and N. Arabia), and Epiphanius (320-403 AD) in his “Panarion” tells us of some of those heresies (the Collyridians who worshipped Mary who were exiled to what is today Jordan and N. Arabia) and Irenaeus also, and they are both in the Gnostic Gospels and in the Qur’an; therefore Muhammad got the info from the heretics and Gnostics.

    3. How do you account for entire tribes, like Banu Taghlib being practising Christians and wholly entering Islam?

    Don’t know much about them, but it is like the Berbers of North Africa from Libya to Morocco – because they fell away from orthodox doctrine from after 430-600 AD – they adopted Arianism from the Arian Vandals who invaded N. Africa in the 400s-600s. Only the Coptic Church in Egypt survived and held onto the Trinity because they were not Arianized. Others were forced by the force of Islam – Surah 9:29-30 – the Ghassanids (originally from Yemen, later went to Syria and today’s Jordan) and Lakhmids (southern Iraq, northern Arabia) were slowly worn down by Jaziyeh, and the Najran and Yemeni Christians were exiled by Umar (Hadith: “I heard the prophet say that no two religions will be allowed to exist in Arabia”) forced and eventually worn down by the Jaziyeh slowly in history, as in other places.

    4. How do you account for Jews and scholars like Salman al Farsi and Abdullah ibn Salam knowing their respective faiths well and accepting Islam?

    Salam Al Farsi was Zoroastrian according to Persians / Iranians. Don’t know much about Abdullah ibn Salam. But if he was like Warqa Ibn Naufal, cousin of Khadija – he was not very orthodox; a mix of heretical views and so heretical and unstable that he encouraged Muhammad that Muhammad had a message from God. Muhammad doubted it until he talked to Warqa Ibn Naufal, if the tradition about him is historical.

    Like

  98. 1. We do not know who the authors of the NT are.

    Yes we do – Matthew and John – disciples, apostles of Jesus, eyewitnesses to Jesus’ ministry and death and resurrection.
    Mark – wrote Peter’s sermons and memories of Jesus’ ministry.
    Luke – interviews eyewitnesses, especially Mary in first 2 chapters, and the other disciples and Paul for the rest of the details – was a physician/doctor, and traveled with the apostle Paul.

    Like

  99. 2. We do not know when the Gospels were written.

    yes we do;
    Mark around 45-60 AD
    Matthew 50-55 AD
    Luke 61-62 AD
    John – either 68 AD or 80-90 AD

    Like

    • Ken you said:

      ‘citing those people who converted to Islam could be like anyone else in modern times, who claimed to be a Christian, but later turned to Islam, like Paul Bilal Williams, Yusef Estes, etc.

      But it proves that they were never really Christians in the first place.

      “Depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness, I NEVER KNEW you.” Jesus, in Matthew 7:21-23’

      Pure slander Ken. This is the ugly side of your religion. Twisting Jesus’s words. Converts to Islam from your religion are not lawless. We still revere Jesus as a great prophet of God.

      Liked by 2 people

  100. citing those people who converted to Islam could be like anyone else in modern times, who claimed to be a Christian, but later turned to Islam, like Paul Bilal Williams, Yusef Estes, etc.

    But it proves that they were never really Christians in the first place.

    “Depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness, I NEVER KNEW you.” Jesus, in Matthew 7:21-23

    Like

  101. @Ken,

    1. In one place you claim the statements of the Qur’an are wrong about Christians, then you go on to say that they represent authentic traditions from and about other Christian sects. So the argument before us is quite obvious. The Qur’an is not addressing one group of Christians and it certainly isn’t addressing a sect that emerged hundreds of years after and then splintered into many different sects. In other words, you’re claiming that the Qur’an is a masterpiece that addresses many strands of Christianity, that you simply disagree with, thus that does

    NOTE: Br. Ijaz began writing this reply before being rushed to hospital. He asked that his reply be posted before the night was over. Insha Allah he will be okay.

    Liked by 1 person

  102. Ijaz,
    This idea that Christians living in Syro-Arabian regions had their own versions of a bible that matched the Quran has no real basis. Many Arians and Ebionites who would have had doctrines close to Islam were found in the same regions as those who held orthodox views too. Apart from those groups, the other ones were mostly, if not all Gnostics and as Ken Temple pointed out, they were exiled to regions close to where Muhammad would have been. And clearly not all Jews and Christians in those regions converted to Islam, you’re just saying that to make it convenient for your point. The Quran confirms the scriptures that were with the Jews and Christians of Muhammad’s day. The NT canon was determined centuries before Islam (even if you begin with the 4th century, that’s still 3 centuries i.e 300 years before Islam) and we already have full complete bibles that date to those times. So if Christians were reading different biblical texts in this so called Syro-Arabian region during Muhammad’s time, I wonder why or how it just managed to conveniently disappear in or just after the 7th century. If the Quran confirmed and talked about these lost texts rather than the present ones, that means the author of the Quran was ignorant of the distribution of the widely published canonical texts which were also already translated into different languages by that time. That would make sense if the author of the Quran had never stepped out of Arabia before, just as Muhammad never did either. It’s interesting though that many gnostic ideas and stories have crept into the Quran which shows that the author of the Quran was using information about the knowledge available in his region rather than universal knowledge. Jesus appearing to be crucified (substituted by either Simon of Cyrene, Judas, or simply being a phantom body), Jesus creating clay birds and speaking in his cradle are all stories found in gnostic and apocryphal texts which may have been more readily available or discussed in Muhammad’s region.

    Also there’s nothing special about citing Christians and Jews who converted to Islam. We could also name Muslims knowing their faiths well and converting to other religions. There are in fact Muslims who converted to Christianity whilst Muhammad was still preaching Islam, some of them his own previous companions. Also many of the hanifs remained in their own respective faiths despite living during Muhammad’s time. There’s also another reason why this Syro-Arabian NT hypothesis doesn’t work; Muhammad’s uncle Waraqa. Islamic traditions say that Waraqa had his own personal bible in Hebrew and Arabic and was taught by Jews and Christians. Despite being the one who apparently spotted Muhammad in the Bible and encouraged him that his experience was real, he never converted to Islam. I wonder if he had a canonical Bible or a Syro-Arabian one?

    There are other examples too such as one of Muhammad’s companions who fled to Abyssinia during the persecution and actually converted to Christianity from Islam. His wife however, remained a Muslim and eventually married Muhammad when she returned. The man’s name was Ubayd-Allah ibn Jahsh. Maybe he read the Syro-Arabian NT properly for the first time and concluded that Muhammad was not found in those scriptures, therefore converting to Christianity.

    Besides this, Medina (or Yathrib as the Jews called it) had a large Jewish community. If what you say is true then it’s strange that the Jews did not convert to Islam. Only a few did, and we find evidence of this with the Quran’s frustration with the Jews in many of the Medinan Surah’s. The majority of them were killed in battles against Muhammad’s forces.

    It’s true that revelation is not limited by time but the issue with the Quranic one for Jesus’ crucifixion is that it arrives centuries after the event with a contradictory version of an already well established historical fact which also happens to be found in a religious text that it comes to confirm. This is not the same as the Torah mentioning things about Noah and Abraham because it is the first place in which we hear about these patriarchs. If we were to discover some ancient texts older than the bible that mention Noah and Abraham contradictory to what is found in the bible then we would have a similar issue with the Quran. So what you said doesn’t work.

    Like

  103. I sincerely pray that he is ok and that God will heal him and give him health and peace.
    Ken Temple

    Like

  104. Ijaz Ahmad

    May the Almighty Allah grant you speedy recovery. You relived me a lot by replying to Ken Temple otherwise we have to continue replying him over and over about 1. The Quran did not understand Trinity 2. The Quran accepts the NT i.e. Mathew, Mark, Luke and the rest 3. the Quran copied from gnostic gospels 4. the Quran is wrong about 7 sleepers or whatever his figment of imagination 4. Umar RA attacked the Persians and these are his modus operandi against Islam and did really refuted him completely.

    Thanks and get well soon.

    Like

  105. Mr. Henry

    You said;
    It’s true that revelation is not limited by time but the issue with the Quranic one for Jesus’ crucifixion is that it arrives centuries after the event with a contradictory version of an already well established historical fact which also happens to be found in a religious text that it comes to confirm. This is not the same as the Torah mentioning things about Noah and Abraham because it is the first place in which we hear about these patriarchs. If we were to discover some ancient texts older than the bible that mention Noah and Abraham contradictory to what is found in the bible then we would have a similar issue with the Quran. So what you said doesn’t work.

    I say;
    There are similar stories that the Bible(Torah) borrowed from older and ancient stories than it(Bible) but they differs. Ghost’s appeared from their graves in one of the gospels and went to town and appeared to so many people. Is that historical? Why did the other gospel writers not write that story?

    Mansoor told Jay Smith that the stories about the Noah’s flood was borrowed from a story earlier than the Torah and the Torah has some differences in it so according to your standard, the Torah is not reliable.

    1.

    2.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88y1dWIek3c

    Thanks.

    Like

  106. Mr. Henry

    You said;
    Ijaz,
    This idea that Christians living in Syro-Arabian regions had their own versions of a bible that matched the Quran has no real basis. Many Arians and Ebionites who would have had doctrines close to Islam were found in the same regions as those who held orthodox views too. Apart from those groups, the other ones were mostly, if not all Gnostics and as Ken Temple pointed out, they were exiled to regions close to where Muhammad would have been. And clearly not all Jews and Christians in those regions converted to Islam, you’re just saying that to make it convenient for your point. The Quran confirms the scriptures that were with the Jews and Christians of Muhammad’s day. The NT canon was determined centuries before Islam (even if you begin with the 4th century, that’s still 3 centuries i.e 300 years before Islam) and we already have full complete bibles that date to those times. So if Christians were reading different biblical texts in this so called Syro-Arabian region during Muhammad’s time, I wonder why or how it just managed to conveniently disappear in or just after the 7th century. If the Quran confirmed and talked about these lost texts rather than the present ones, that means the author of the Quran was ignorant of the distribution of the widely published canonical texts which were also already translated into different languages by that time.

    I say;
    A story closer to an event does not necessarily makes it true and reliable. A story much later than an event does not necessarily makes it untrue. What is true is verification, authentication and examination and the gospel writers has nothing to authenticate and verify them and no examination about Jesus death but the Quran also talked about people saying they crucified Jesus but they did not.

    You cannot prove Jesus died by any post mortem result and I cannot prove Jesus did not die by bringing Jesus body. We all believe what our scripture say without proof, so you cannot prove the Quran wrong. In the ancient time people can believe a story but that story will turn our to false or untrue. That is why you have so many gospels and the Church Fathers have to choose among them.

    You have shorter and longer Mark verses that deals with snakes and some Christian scholars will not preach them in their Church and the verses is encapsulated to the very important doctrine of Christians. Is that historical? Mr. Henry.

    Arians, Ebionites, Gnostics etc. were/are Christians and they have their gospels which you do not believe but the Quran addresses the Christians sometimes who are closer to Prophet Mohammed and they do not have the NT with them because NT was translated to Arabic very late. Whatever the gospel they have we do not know and some have started surfacing like the gospel of Thomas, gospel of Mary, gospel of Judas and some gospel may surface in the near future.

    There are bizarre stories about Jesus and God in the gnostic gospel but they did not find their way into the Quran if we take your arguments that the Quran copied from the gnostic gospels. Why did the Quran not copy those inaccurate stories but selected a good one like making clay birds. If that is the case, the gnostic will also accuse the Quran for copying from the Canonical gospels with regards to the virgin birth but left out the worshiping of a man Jesus and something close to Trinity.

    In all, the Quran did a good job whether it copied or not by not adding the worship of a man, persons, and warning strongly against such practice. That is what makes us Muslims but not copying and no one can prove the Quran copied from anyone.

    Mark, If Christians can change the word “begotten” from the Bible and later add it and also add the and remove the Trinity formula from the Bible before and after prophet Mohammed, then their scripture are not reliable as want us to believe for any proof.

    If we have King James only Christians after prophet Mohammed and Christians themselves like the Jehovah witness saying there are so many errors in the Bible, then you cannot prove the gospel the Quran is talking about is the NT.

    Thanks.

    Like

  107. Mr. Henry

    You said;
    It’s interesting though that many gnostic ideas and stories have crept into the Quran which shows that the author of the Quran was using information about the knowledge available in his region rather than universal knowledge

    I say;
    Gnostics are Christians and it does not mean their ideas are not true but that of the canonical gospel are true because that is what you believe. The gnostic gospels can have their idea true but the canonical gospels have their ideas untrue. NT scholars believed some ideas in the canonical gospels are untrue and some conservative scholars like Dr. James White will not teach some ideas in the canonical gospels in his Church. So do not vilify the gnostic gospels as Elain Pagels will say. Quran consider both the gnostic and the canonical as the same with half truths stories and the Quran has corrected them by presenting what is in there that are true and left out the others that are not true.

    We can accuse the NT as well for borrowing from Pagan Greeks and Romans from the sun emanating rays to achieve the concept of God the Father and God the Son and 25th December as the pagan idol birth day and that is not good concept for an Abrahamic faith. At least when it come to copying, the Quran did not copy any bad concept from anyone and Quran concept is in conformity of the worshiping of only one and alone God of Abraham but the Christian concept of God the Son and God the Father was derived from the Greek concept of sun generating rays and so the Son is was generated by the Father, which means the Father created the son and we have Son(created God).

    Thanks.

    Like

  108. Ken wrote:

    “2. We do not know when the Gospels were written.

    yes we do;
    Mark around 45-60 AD
    Matthew 50-55 AD
    Luke 61-62 AD
    John – either 68 AD or 80-90 AD”

    Those who know anything about the academic scholarly reading of the gospels would laugh at these claims.

    Liked by 2 people

  109. Temple: “These listed all the 27 books of the NT as canonical, “standard”, “criterion”. This proves NT is true.” No it doesn’t prove it. Not at all. OMG

    For modern secular advertising/media there is an “Advertising Standards Authority” at least, I wish there was a “Christian Fundamentalist Missionary Standards Authority”

    Liked by 1 person

  110. “But it proves that they were never really Christians in the first place.”
    Another case for the CFMSA!

    Liked by 1 person

  111. “Those who know anything about the academic scholarly reading of the gospels would laugh at these claims.”

    In general, I’m more inclined to use the ‘later’ dates (Mark ca. 70 AD; Matthew and Luke ca. 80-90 AD), but implying that Mr. Temple knows nothing about the scholarly debate regarding the dating of the Gospels is simply inane. May I note, for instance, that James G. Crossley (an atheist) dates the Gospel of Mark to ca. 40 CE. I’m not saying that dr. Crossley is right (or that his arguments are good) since I have not read his book, but please try to remain fair.

    Liked by 1 person

  112. Intellect you don’t get my point. There are many ancient creation and flood stories in different cultures but they do not use the same names as people found in the Bible. So even if there are differences we can’t exactly be sure which is more accurate unless we look at archaeological and historical evidence. Therefore like I said, Noah and Abraham are first mentioned in the Bible. The point I was getting at is the Bible and Quran are 2 religious texts who mention the same people by name yet have contradictory accounts of the same historical people, most notably Jesus.

    “We all believe what our scripture say without proof”
    That is a really wrong statement. The Bible is backed by a lot of historical and archaeological evidence for many of its claims and stories. Perhaps the further back you go in time the harder it will be to find that evidence and not everything correlates perfectly but there is a lot of evidence and reason to believe what is find in it. And I would assume for someone to believe in something, accurate and verified evidence should play a big part in it rather than just claims that it is from God.

    And also changes in the Bible translations aren’t found in all of the manuscripts, that’s how we can know if it was truly written as that or not. If “begotten” was added in one manuscript it doesn’t mean it was present in all of them. That’s the same as finding differences in Quran manuscripts. The main difference is that the Islamic empires cleared out differences found in the Quran before distributing one copy whereas that didn’t happen in Christianity. But we still find old Quran manuscripts today with slight differences from the main text.

    Also the NT didn’t borrow anything pagan sources, Bart Ehrman would be the first to acknowledge that. Any sort of pagan tradition found in Christianity would be culturally rather than from scripture. One obvious example contrary to what you said is Christmas. December 25th is not a date found in the Bible, therefore it does not come from the NT, rather from tradition or culture.

    Either way, the Quran tells Jews and Christians to continue to stand by their scriptures (read Syrah 5:43-48 and others mentioned above by me and Ken) so if the author of the Quran wants us to continue to do that despite being aware that it is corrupted or false, then he is either a deceiver responsible for allowing the corruption or he just wasn’t really aware that there were contradictions between what he said and what was in those texts. I’d go for the latter but who knows.

    Anyway I don’t want to start going off topic, I prefer to stick with my first comment in regards to Jesus being the messiah and why it is necessary for him to be found in the Hebrew Scriptures in order for Christianity and Islam to be true. If Jesus did not fulfil at least one messianic prophecy in the Bible then he is not the messiah.
    I have shown that Jews believe Micah 5:2 (5:1 in some Hebrew bibles) is a messianic prophecy, i.e the messiah will be born in Bethlehem. For Jesus to be the messiah, this would have to be true and we find that in Matthew and Luke, regardless of whether there are conflicting accounts of his birth or not.
    Secondly, another necessary prophecy would be about the messiah being born of a virgin. It’s necessary not only for Christianity but Islam also because the Quran upholds the truth that Jesus was born whilst Mary was a virgin. The only passage in the Hebrew bible which may have any indication of the messiah being born of a virgin is Isaiah 7:14. I believe Ken has already shown how the Hebrew word “Alma” could be used interchangeably for young woman/maiden and virgin. Therefore a Muslim would have to believe that passage is about the messiah also. Otherwise, for Allah to have caused Jesus to be born from a virgin in the Quran would be a useless miracle. It would have just been much easier and less problematic for all the faiths is Jesus was born like any other human being if that was the case, and we know God does not allow miracles to occur for no absolute reason. So there must be a deeper reason as to why Jesus was born from a virgin, and the only argument I can find is that because it was a biblical prophecy about the messiah. If that is not true, then the author of the Quran simply carried on a false tradition created by Christians but was unaware that it isn’t true.

    Like

    • Mark, you say

      ‘And I would assume for someone to believe in something, accurate and verified evidence should play a big part in it rather than just claims that it is from God.’

      You may not be aware but there is absolutely no historical evidence for the Exodus, zero evidence for the life of Abraham and nothing for Moses.

      Yet you believe they existed.

      Like

  113. “Mark, you say”

    I assume that’s a typo, since this was said by Mr. Henry.

    Liked by 1 person

  114. Mr. Henry

    You said;
    Intellect you don’t get my point. There are many ancient creation and flood stories in different cultures but they do not use the same names as people found in the Bible. So even if there are differences we can’t exactly be sure which is more accurate unless we look at archaeological and historical evidence. Therefore like I said, Noah and Abraham are first mentioned in the Bible. The point I was getting at is the Bible and Quran are 2 religious texts who mention the same people by name yet have contradictory accounts of the same historical people, most notably Jesus.

    I say;
    I argued that when there are two stories, it does not necessarily means, the older story which is similar to the later is the correct one and the later story wrong considering the fact that it involves men who are prone to mistakes.

    We do not know who wrote the Torah and there is notable disagreement about who wrote Torah and the Jewish document and NT and so you cannot use it as a criteria to disprove the Quran.

    I keep saying everyday, if the whole Bible writers as human beings as claimed by Christians were to write their details like their first and last names, their hometowns, their date of births, when and where they wrote their scriptures, who inspired them etc. and all was verified to be true, then it could be a challenge to Quran but not a properly documented document like the Bible that has god Church Fathers select some gospels and reject others and the ones they rejected got lost and some are surfacing now cannot be used against the Quran.

    There are archaeological and historical evidence for the Quran as well and I am not against archaeological and historical evidence of the Bible because I believed some stories in the Bible as well.

    BUT THERE IS NOT ARCHAELOGICAL EVIDENCE JESUS DIED ON THE CROSS. NO POST MORTEM OR CORONER’S REPORT ABOUT JESUS DEATH.

    The Quran added some pieces of information about the same prophets in the Bible but absent from the Bible. For example, the Quran said, the pharaoh of Moses time was drowned and confessed to shahada at the time of Moses(Moses name was used in the shahada as a prophet at that time) but God rejected that insincere repentance and promised to keep the body of that pharaoh for the future generation to see as a sign/witness but the Quran warns that people will be heedless about that.

    Well, the body of one of the pharaohs in Egypt was examined and it appears it is the body of the Moses time pharaoh which is in good shape than all of the pharaohs bodies in Egypt and was flown to most cities of the world for people to see.

    Again, the Quran used King and Pharoah to accurately narrate the stories of ancient Egyptian dynasty as the historians said the different dynasties did not use Pharoah but the Quran is accurate than the Bible which used Pharoah for all the Egyptian dynasties.

    It is only God Almighty who knows what a drowning man said but gospel writers cannot know what Pharoah said at the time of drowning but the Author of the Quran know and He mentioned to us and He claimed to be God Almighty and the Author of the Quran and knows everything.

    Thanks

    Liked by 1 person

  115. Mr. Henry

    You said;
    Also the NT didn’t borrow anything pagan sources, Bart Ehrman would be the first to acknowledge that. Any sort of pagan tradition found in Christianity would be culturally rather than from scripture. One obvious example contrary to what you said is Christmas. December 25th is not a date found in the Bible, therefore it does not come from the NT, rather from tradition or culture

    I say;
    Ken Temple told me that the concept of Jesus as the Son of God and God at the same time was borrowed from a Greek philosopher who wrote that the sun generates ray and they sun and its rays are the same. I and Paul Williams reminded Ken that, “generates” means “to create” so his God is a created God and how can God be created? I further told Ken that ray is not sun and so Jesus is not God. You can ask him for explanation for he confirmed the criticism to Christians that their God or NT is influenced by Greeko-Roman Gods.

    Bart Ehrman did acknowledge Christianity evolved from pagan sources in most of his lectures he will say at the foundation of Christianity, people believed Gods came down to earth and produce god men with humans and was widely believed and so, that concept could easily crept into Christianity. I can provide the video for you upon request.

    You said;
    Either way, the Quran tells Jews and Christians to continue to stand by their scriptures (read Syrah 5:43-48 and others mentioned above by me and Ken) so if the author of the Quran wants us to continue to do that despite being aware that it is corrupted or false, then he is either a deceiver responsible for allowing the corruption or he just wasn’t really aware that there were contradictions between what he said and what was in those texts. I’d go for the latter but who knows.

    I say;
    No. the Quran did not say that but asks them to tell the truth from their scriptures and it tells them what the truths are and this is example. And when the Quran says people of scripture, the gnostic gospels and all those who were exiled to where Prophet Mohammed could have been like the gospel of Thomas, Judas, Mary and any thing about Jesus which was not selected by the Church Fathers and got lost are included and including any scripture about Jesus but not you alone.

    “O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion, and do not say anything concerning Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers . . .” (Quran 4:171; see also 66:12)

    “Allah is only One God. Far is it removed from His transcendent majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Defender.” (Quran 4:171)

    God says: “Lo! the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam. He created him from dust, then he said unto him: Be! and he is.” (3:59)

    I have a lot example where Christians and Jews were corrected by the Quran and it means it does not want them to continue to stand by their scriptures but politely asks them to correct the errors and if possible embrace Islam.

    So, yes the Quran said the are earlier scriptures from God and Jews and Christians have those scriptures but the Quran corrects them and so it is up to them to take the corrections or turn to Islam. If I confirm someone is my daughter, that does not mean she could not be bad. She could be bad but still my daughter and the best thing for me to do is to try to correct her back to good ways by setting example but not to reject her as not my daughter. Rejecting my daughter as not my daughter because she is a bad girl may God forbids is not the best thing to do but to correct her.

    Yes, the Quran confirms God’s scriptures are with the Jews and Christians but clearly asks them not to exaggerate and tell them were they should be corrected and if possible embrace Islam. It is better than to say as David Wood will like “the scriptures are corrupt don’t go near it’. It says it is corrupted anyway.

    Surah 5:43-48 is accusing the Jews who will come to the Prophet Mohammed for judgement but they refuse to accept Islam and it means they know Islam is true and it is in their scripture that is why they need judgement from the prophet or they are hypocrites.

    Thanks.

    Like

  116. Marvin Henry: “There are many ancient creation and flood stories in different cultures but they do not use the same names as people found in the Bible. So even if there are differences we can’t exactly be sure which is more accurate unless we look at archaeological and historical evidence.”

    In light of archaeological and historical evidence the global flood found in the Bible is a mega fail.

    Liked by 1 person

  117. Marvin Henry “Also the NT didn’t borrow anything pagan sources, …”
    The “logos” is a pagan philosophical concept

    Liked by 1 person

  118. With the name of Allah the Gracious the Merciful

    Hi Mark, 

    You said

    When the Qur’an makes numeral historical errors (Dhu’l Qarnayn, Abraham being rescued from the fire etc.), how do you defend the Qur’an against this? Saying that they are not historical errors because the Qur’an comes from God (and God knows what really happened)? But then you have to demonstrate that the Qur’an comes from God in order for that argument to work. And how about textual emendations to the Qur’an, where one can change words without making it inferior to the original?

    What make you think the Qur’an is in err when it refers to Dhulqarnayn ذوالقرنين‎ ? 

    Who exactly he was, is not that important and it does not make muslims in dilemma in questioning this. The Qur’an never articulate who  he was  therefore we muslim tend to not questioning what the Qur’an does not say.

    The real message of the story is ethical, he could be a metaphorical figure, good vs bad (The Qur’an: An Encyclopedia , Oliver Leaman p 266)

    Also wrt Abraham rescued from fire? why you think make muslim have to defend this? Do you not believe in Miracle?

    I think that when it comes to the supposed “perfect preservation” of the Qur’an much work still has to be done (for instance, by the Corpus Coranicum project). Even if the Qur’an were perfectly preserved, I don’t think this would mean that it comes from God

    I watch enthusiastically  every development on the Qur’an studies including  Corpus Coranicum project. There Muslims and non-Muslims scholars  working side by side on this project supported  by institutions in the Arab and Islamic world. I am also a member of International Qur’anic Studies Association, a scholarly community interested in Quranic studies. 

    I dont think muslims have problem if the  Quran are studied in a serious, scientific manner by unbiased scholar.

    We have problem rather to those  polemical works done by work of islamophobes demagogues or evangelical pseudo-scholars whose motive is hating Islam and trying to discredit it and market their ideology.

    And of course, many Muslim children are taught to memorise the Qur’an from an early age, making it rather unremarkable that they then actually do memorise it. There are quite some people who memorise the digits of pi (I have a friend who had at one time memorised 200), and this is probably harder to do then to memorise the Qur’an.

    No Mark, believe me, this unique ability of the Qur’an to be memorised is unlike anything like the  human brain ability. This phenomenon exist in regardless of ages, social status, cultural background, intelligence etc.

    All you have to do (in my own experience) is abstaining from sins and be sincere , then try to memorise it in Arabic (you don’t need to understand it) then  once you memorised its like being imprint into your memory. You can not forget it , unless you subsequently and deliberately commit sins (small or big) and you dont repent or make amend there the memorisation can fade away.

    It is a living miracle

    I agree with you (as a non-Arab non-muslim) that the style of the Qur’an can be quite moving sometimes. But there are a lot of passages that I don’t find moving or well-written at all.

    I can understand if you fail to appreciate some passages of the Qur’an in translation, even for arabs themselves the Qur’an is not like ordinary piece of literature reading them in original Arabic. You have to master Arabic language in classical form. It took me 10 years to learn classical Arabic and I am way to go to even consider myself eloquence in classical arabic.

    It was the original Arabs at the time of the prophet who  were truly at the peak of eloquence of Arabic, even they were astonished with what they heard:

    “upon hearing it, were lost for words in trying to classify it: ‘is it poetry?’ ‘is it magic?’ ‘is it soothsaying?’ they could not find a literary form to which the Qur’an corresponded”
    (Vasalou, Sophia (2002). “The Miraculous Eloquence of the Qur’an: General Trajectories and Individual Approaches”. Journal of Qur’anic Studies 4 (2): 23–53)

    Liked by 2 people

  119. I wrote:
    But it proves that they were never really Christians in the first place.

    “Depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness, I NEVER KNEW you.” Jesus, in Matthew 7:21-23’

    Paul Williams responded:
    Pure slander Ken. This is the ugly side of your religion. Twisting Jesus’s words. Converts to Islam from your religion are not lawless. We still revere Jesus as a great prophet of God.

    My main point is that if you sincerely believe that Islam is truth from Almighty God; then that means that there is no such thing in your theology for the Holy Spirit. If you were a true Christian, you would have been born again by the Holy Spirit. Since you don’t believe in the Holy Spirit, the 3rd person of the Trinity; then if your religion is true; you were not a true Christian. You just had some kind of religious, emotional experience.

    Of course the Holy Spirit is true and real and a true Christian is born again and changed by Him living inside that person and giving that person power to live holy and persevere. (John 3:1-21; Romans chapter 8, I Cor. 6:19-20; Titus 3:3-5; John 7:37-39)

    So, for you to maintain you were a true Christian, you have to believe that one can truly have the Holy Spirit and then by apostasy loose Him (Arminian and Roman Catholic position); or you were actually never really converted in the first place. (the Calvinist and moderate Calvinist position). I believe the Calvinist position, that a person who leaves the faith proves they never had a true spiritual conversion of being born again by God’s Spirit in the first place. But for you to hold that position contradicts Islam itself, because you don’t even believe a Holy Spirit exists.

    So you have to believe that you just traded one religious experience for another.

    Matthew 7:23 – my purpose and emphasis is using that verse is Jesus’ words that “I never knew you” – it is possible to think one has a relationship with God the Father and Jesus (and the Holy Spirit), yet, not really have had that spiritual relationship.

    My focus is not on the issue of “lawlessness”. I am not trying to figure out what level that would mean for you or others. In the bible though, one act of disobedience is “lawlessness” – Matthew 5:21-30;

    James 2:10 – “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.”

    I could use 1 John 2:19 also:
    “they went out from among us; that it may be shown that they were never really one of us.”

    Like

  120. The Arminian position is the correct biblical one so you are simply wrong Ken.

    ok, but that does not work for you either, because as a Muslim, you are obligated to NOT believe in any kind of Holy Spirit – the 3rd person of the Trinity; and you don’t believe He exists in the way that the Bible describes Him – as being in and with the believers, sanctifier, guide, one who changes hearts and minds, etc.

    Those who know anything about the academic scholarly reading of the gospels would laugh at these claims.

    Better:

    Those who know anything about the Jesus-Seminar group that has dominated NT scholarship (John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg and others – they share the same general approach that Bart Ehrman has) – the Unbelieving, agnostic, skeptic, anti-supernaturalistic presuppositional academic scholarly reading of the gospels would laugh at these claims.

    But John A. T. Robinson, an unbeliever also, made a classic case for the early dating of the NT books: (same basic dates that I gave.)

    http://www.amazon.com/Redating-Testament-John-A-T-Robinson/dp/1579105270

    and John Wenham, a believing scholar, has a great book arguing for the early dating similar to the ones I gave.

    http://www.amazon.com/Redating-Matthew-Mark-Luke-Synoptic/dp/0830817603/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1447340981&sr=1-1&keywords=John+Wenham+redating&pebp=1447315501789&perid=17H1543K1AJ8FCYR6X8J

    Like

    • Yawn. Your favourite straw men will not impress anyone on this blog. Jesus seminar? When have I ever cited them??

      Then you cherry pick your scholars just because they appear to support your biblical fundamentalism.

      Liked by 1 person

  121. Ken, does your “holy” spirit being in and with you tell you to worship a 1st century Jewish peasant from Galilee?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Ken you don’t get it. Yes I believed the trinity, that Jesus was God, that the Bible was the Word of God, that I was filled with the Holy Spirit – when I was a Christian.

      But then God guided me to the truth about Jesus: he was a man. No more. Just as he is quoted as saying very clearly.

      Liked by 1 person

  122. The really bad news is that if you persist in worshiping a mere man (Jesus) God will vomit you out on the Day of Judgement as an idolater, but by then it I’ll be too late so save your soul from hell fire.

    Jesus is not just a mere man. He is Lord; God in the flesh, the eternal Son of God, God the Son, and He calls you to repent before it is too late. He commands you to repent, but since you already knew (at least intellectually) the way of truth and then later, turned from it, your situation is much worse.

    2 Peter 2:20-22

    For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. 21 For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them. 22 It has happened to them according to the true proverb, “A dog returns to its own vomit,” and, “A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire.”

    None of us is promised we will live till tomorrow.

    True. I have peace and assurance with God – Jesus has promised me.

    Romans 5:1-5
    Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God. 3 And not only this, but we also exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance; 4 and perseverance, proven character; and proven character, hope; 5 and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.

    John 14:27 – Jesus said:
    “Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; not the kind of peace as the world gives do I give to you; Let not your heart be troubled, nor let it be afraid.”

    Matthew 11:28-30 – Jesus said:
    28 “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.
    29 Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
    30 For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.”

    I John 5:13
    “These things I write to you who believe in the Son of God, in order that you may know that you have eternal life.”

    You don’t have that assurance of eternal life/heaven/paradise. Because you have to depend on your heart’s sincerity or goodness or obedience. But Allah never gives you any complete assurance of heaven/eternal life.

    Like

  123. Ken you don’t get it. Yes I believed the trinity, that Jesus was God, and that the Bible was in the Word of God, that I was filled with the Homy Spirit – when I was a Christian.

    But now that you are Muslim and looking back on that, you could not have been filled with the “Homy Spirit” [sic] -the Holy Spirit, since now you don’t think that a Holy Spirit or Trinity even exists, right?

    How can that be a reality, given your beliefs now?

    Believing in the Trinity and the Holy Spirit does not make it true, given Islamic doctrine and thought. so what was it?

    What kind of experience was it?

    Like

  124. Ken quoting great chunks of the bible at me is worse than useless.

    You may be right about that. I feel sorry for you.

    Like

  125. I believed all that you do – sincerely and passionately. For years.

    How many years would you say you were a Christian?

    just curious

    But that (believing sincerely and passionately) does not make them true, given what you believe now, right?

    Like

  126. Ken Temple, Jesus the man commands you to “love God with all your mind” – the first, most important commandment! How on earth are you going to accomplish it?

    Liked by 3 people

  127. You cannot count the years? Please tell. I remember your original “testimony” at your old blog; it could not have been very many years, given what you shared.

    Like

  128. Ken Temple

    You said;
    Of course the Holy Spirit is true and real and a true Christian is born again and changed by Him living inside that person and giving that person power to live holy and persevere. (John 3:1-21; Romans chapter 8, I Cor. 6:19-20; Titus 3:3-5; John 7:37-39)

    I say;
    If what you said above is true, then the Holy Spirit have failed in a big time because Christians continue to sin just like anyone else and you admit, the born again Christians must repent if they do sin, so where is the Holy Spirit if Christians continue to sin like everyone?

    Church fathers are the worse offenders today when it comes to child molestation and immoral acts. Pastors of mega Churches are caught red handed for promiscuity and that is the sample population of the Christians congregations.

    Christians persecuted other religious opponents including themselves and still helping others to persecute innocent stone throwing people who have seen their lands being encroached. Where is the Holy Spirit here to tell them(Christians) the truth?

    Thank.

    Liked by 3 people

  129. Temple, seriously, your God is a mortal human 1st century Jewish peasant from Galilee.
    This same God tells you in your holy book as the most important thing that you should “love God with all your mind” – how are going to do that?

    Like

  130. Paul, you missed when I said:
    “Perhaps the further back you go in time the harder it will be to find that evidence and not everything correlates perfectly but there is a lot of evidence and reason to believe what is find in it.”
    I meant to put “found” rather than find.

    Anyway, other stories that follow should give us reasons to believe that the previous ones are true. For example, God promising Abraham in Genesis that he would have as many descendants as the stars, that they will become a great nation and that the world will be blessed through Abraham’s name. Even though there aren’t historical records of Abraham right now, looking back at how things took place in history we can see that those statements in Genesis are true. The Abrahamic faiths collectively make up the majority of the people in the world today and have done so for centuries. This shows that God’s promise in the Bible was true and therefore gives reason to believe that Abraham was a real historical person. We can apply the same logic with Exodus too, plus there were real plagues in Egypt and many of them parallel the ones found in the Bible, it’s just a matter of historians judging the timing of the plagues.

    Intellect I don’t want to go in circles it’s a waste of time. I said what I had to say on the matter and would prefer to focus on the topic which is on Jesus being the messiah.

    But seriously though, I cannot believe you still think that so called preservation of Pharaoh’s body prophecy is true. First of all, none of the Islamic commentaries saw it as a prophecy because the sign was supposed to be for the children of Israel who were still afraid and didn’t believe pharaoh was dead so Allah raised up his body from the water. Secondly, this so called miracle really gained popularity because of Maurice Bucaille who made many ridiculous statements about the Quran to show how much better it was than the Bible. His book “The Bible, The Quran and Science” has been thoroughly refuted and ridiculed by scientists and even some Muslim theologians alike. Thirdly, many Muslims don’t even know which pharaoh’s body the Quran claims to preserve. Some say Merneptah others say Rameses II, and even today historians still dispute which pharaoh was leader during Moses’ time. Finally, it’s an outdated and inaccurate claim, for your own good stop using it.

    Next, your claim that the Quran rightly distinguishes between the use of the word King and Pharaoh and the Bible gets it wrong is once again really outdated and inaccurate. Stop using it; it will only make you look silly. The argument supposedly worked temporarily because the person who first spotted this was simply reading an English translation of the Bible. Some English translations use the word Pharaoh instead of king to translate the Hebrew word “Melek” which means king because it is a term that people will be familiar with when they read the text in Genesis about the Egyptian leaders. But the original Hebrew retains the distinction between king and pharaoh, which became more commonly used by Moses’ time, whereas in Joseph’s time the word “Melek” is used, which is where the Arabic phrase “Malik” comes from. So there is no Biblical error there. I could easily make an article about how one translation of the Quran says something which is different to another one, but that would be silly because it’s simply a translation.

    Intellect, you still don’t understand the distinction between something being in the NT text and beliefs coming from the culture. Here is what Bart Ehrman says about the Jesus of the NT:
    “The alleged parallels between Jesus and the “pagan” savior-gods in most instances reside in the modern imagination: We do not have accounts of others who were born to virgin mothers and who died as an atonement for sin and then were raised from the dead (despite what the sensationalists claim ad nauseum in their propagandized versions).
    Moreover, aspects of the Jesus story simply would not have been invented by anyone wanting to make up a new Savior.” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/did-jesus-exist_b_1349544.html)
    Bart Ehrman acknowledges that any pagan traditions that may have crept into Christianity would have been from the culture of the people rather than from the NT. I don’t even need to defend Christian traditions anyway, we could once again go in circles and I could easily talk about all those pagan traditions which not only crept into Islam later but were already present at the start such as the Hajj rituals which are clearly of pagan origin yet mentioned in the Quran (Surah 2:125, 22:29)

    Intellect, you didn’t read the passage of your scripture properly:
    Surah 5:47 – And let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient.
    Surah 5:68 – Say, “O People of the Scripture, you are [standing] on nothing until you uphold [the law of] the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to you from your Lord.”

    Burhan, like I told Paul you missed where I said it would be harder to find evidence the further back we go in time and that not everything correlates perfectly. Also, “Logos” is a Greek term that could be understood in different layers. The philosophical concept and the Greek word “logos” to mean “word” or “speech” are 2 different fields. In light of much archaeological and historical evidence, plenty of Quranic stories are myths and legends retold as true historical events. We could go in circles arguing like this.

    But anyway, back to my main point, and back to the topic… Jesus is the Messiah both in Christianity and Islam and would therefore have to have fulfilled the messianic prophecies in the Hebrew Bible. 2 major prophecies about the Messiah are that he will be born in Bethlehem and according to the NT and Quran, he will be born of a virgin. Not only that, the major belief in Christianity and Islam is that Jesus will return and so any unfulfilled prophecies may be fulfilled upon his return. If this is not true, then Jesus is not the Messiah and Islam and Christianity are proved to be false for calling him as such.

    Like

  131. Church fathers are the worse offenders today when it comes to child molestation and immoral acts.

    You mean Roman Catholic priests. “church fathers” usually means the ancient leaders of the church from 70 AD to around 600 AD.

    It is a bad problem for sure. I seriously doubt any of those guys are Christians, which means they do not have the Holy Spirit. For them to act that way, in secret, etc. proves that they are not even Christians, so they don’t have the Holy Spirit. Besides that, the Roman Catholic Church has been a false church since the Council of Trent in 1545-1563, when it condemned the teaching of Luther and Calvin of “justification by faith alone, but true faith does not stay alone, but results in good works”.

    Pastors of mega Churches are caught red handed for promiscuity and that is the sample population of the Christians congregations.

    Most are heretics of the Word of Faith movement (Prosperity and Health and Wealth automatically bestowed if you just believe hard enough and say the right verbal formulas – total heresy and not Christianity at all. The ones like Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, the late Kenneth Hagin, Creflo Dollar, Eddie Long, Joel Osteen, Paula White, the late Paul Crouch of TBN, etc. – these people are not Christians because of the heresies and false doctrines that they proclaim. The are what 2 Peter chapter 2 describes as false teachers who have hearts trained in greed. They don’t believe in suffering or trials or sickness or poverty; they deny the sovereignty of God. They say if you just believe and claim your money and healing, you can speak to your wallet and make it grow. Total heresy.

    Most mega churches are unhealthy and do not follow the Biblical pattern of accountability to elders. Each church is supposed to have a council of elders, the pastor -teacher is just one of the elders. He should be accountable to the elders.

    Most Mega-church pastors don’t have any accountability structure.

    When someone commits a major ongoing sin like secret adultery, etc. the Bible gives no comfort that they have the Holy Spirit. Lots of people claim they are Christians and that they have the Holy Spirit, but the real test is “is there any fruit or good works, consistency, and character, holiness in their life?”

    The Bible says:
    “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, humility, faithfulness and self-control, against which there is no law. Galatians 5:22-23 The “fruit of the Spirit” means “the evidence that the Holy Spirit is in your life.”

    Before that, in Galatians 5:19-21, it says that if a person is constantly behaving in a bad way continuously, they are not in the kingdom and will not inherit the kingdom of God.

    19 “Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality,
    20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions,
    21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

    Like

  132. Ken Temple, Jesus the man commands you to “love God with all your mind” – the first, most important commandment! How on earth are you going to accomplish it?

    By the grace of God and the power of the Holy Spirit, always seeking Him in prayer and meditation in reading the Scriptures and seeking humility and holiness of thoughts; by trusting God and abiding (continuously dwelling and remaining) in Jesus, the true vine.

    Jesus Al Masih said:

    “I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.
    2 Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit.
    3 You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.
    4 Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me.
    5 I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.
    6 If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.
    7 If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.
    8 My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be My disciples.

    John 15:1-8

    Like

  133. Ken Temple

    Thanks Ken, I appreciate it but I hope you the pure Christians spend a lot of money to come out to speak against those unholy Christians because they are spoiling your name(Christianity) and they seem to be the to be most of the Christians.

    You need to spend a lot of money with TV station to combat these unholy Christians otherwise they will continue to spoil the name of holy Christians like you.

    I do see them as Christians until you distinguished them from me and they seem to have lot of Christians in their Churches especially Joel Olsteen and Eddie Lee long who was caught last two years in relationship with 2 of his Church members.

    Thanks.

    Like

  134. corrections

    until you distinguished them for me…………….

    and they seem to be most Christians out there………..

    Thanks

    Like

  135. Mr. Henry

    You said;
    But seriously though, I cannot believe you still think that so called preservation of Pharaoh’s body prophecy is true. First of all, none of the Islamic commentaries saw it as a prophecy because the sign was supposed to be for the children of Israel who were still afraid and didn’t believe pharaoh was dead so Allah raised up his body from the water. Secondly, this so called miracle really gained popularity because of Maurice Bucaille who made many ridiculous statements about the Quran to show how much better it was than the Bible. His book “The Bible, The Quran and Science” has been thoroughly refuted and ridiculed by scientists and even some Muslim theologians alike. Thirdly, many Muslims don’t even know which pharaoh’s body the Quran claims to preserve. Some say Merneptah others say Rameses II, and even today historians still dispute which pharaoh was leader during Moses’ time. Finally, it’s an outdated and inaccurate claim, for your own good stop using it.

    Next, your claim that the Quran rightly distinguishes between the use of the word King and Pharaoh and the Bible gets it wrong is once again really outdated and inaccurate. Stop using it; it will only make you look silly

    I say;
    You made serious allegations about Islam which needs to be addressed and refuted. You were not on topic when you heaped all sorts of allegations against Islam like Ken Temple who always summarises all his allegations against Islam in one or two paragraphs.

    All need to be refuted again and again so that I will not be used again. What I normally do with Christians is that I quote clear verses from the Bible that says God is One, only and not a man and never change to refute any man worship and or persons worshiping as Trinity just the Rastafarian Trinity and any other Trinity.

    You said;
    But the original Hebrew retains the distinction between king and pharaoh, which became more commonly used by Moses’ time, whereas in Joseph’s time the word “Melek” is used, which is where the Arabic phrase “Malik” comes from. So there is no Biblical error there.

    I say;
    I do not think I am silly on this one because I do research before putting my arguments here. Here is a Hebrew and English Translation of Pharoah on Genesis Genesis 12:10-20. This is the time of Abraham.

    1.
    http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0112.htm

    You can select all English translations here and they say Pharoah instead of King at Abrahams time

    2.
    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+12%3A10-20&version=ESVUK

    Joseph’s Pharoah in the Bible

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+41&version=ESVUK

    By the time of Moses, the Egyptian dynasties uses Pharoah. So, I provided evidence to back my claim that the Quran is right and the Bible is wrong when it comes to correctly mentioning the title of Egyptians dynasties.

    With regards to the preservation of Pharoah’s body. A mummy was identified as Moses time Pharoah and is taken around the world for anyone to see.

    Quran said so and the Bible did not say that. So the Quran is right and the Bible is wrong, as simple as that and one cannot say the Quran copied from the Bible because the Quran contains extra information that cannot be found in the Bible.

    Thanks

    Liked by 1 person

  136. Intellect,
    If you’re going to go so low as to say paedophilic priests and other Christian leaders are Christians then that is like one of us non-Muslims calling all terrorists Muslims and representing real Islam. But I know many Muslims will turn and say “no they don’t represent the true teachings of Islam”. Likewise, many of these people who claim to be Christians do not represent the true teachings of Christianity.

    The Bible already speaks about people who will speak or act in Jesus’ in name but will not be his true followers.
    Luke 6:46 – “Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?
    Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

    There is corruption found in organisations across the world including Muslim ones. There are many paedophilic imams who molest children, corrupt Muslim leaders who pretend to preach a nice message but in their private sessions will be quick to demonise and say evil things about non-Muslims, real Muslims going to help ISIS and more. Just because we hear more about the so called Christian ones it doesn’t mean that it is not happening elsewhere in the world. The people who do these things do them in secret, obviously because they don’t want to get caught.
    Open your mind a little and think, anything you find these “Christian” people doing, there will also be Muslim ones doing the same thing in private.

    Ecclesiastes 1:9 – What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.

    It’s not anyone’s job to distinguish these things for you. You have a brain and can do research and investigations and can come up to conclusions yourself, but if you choose to see things in that way, then it is only you who is living in ignorance.

    Like

  137. I have written 9 articles on the dangers of the Prosperity Health and Wealth Gospel, the “Word of Faith” movement – unfortunately, because of these and the other Pentecostals and Charismatics make up most of the TV Christianity; these and other Mega Churches are what most people see, along with the Roman Catholics because of the Pope and the statues of Mary.

    Most Biblical churches are small and quiet and not flamboyant.

    https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/category/word-of-faith-heresies/

    Like

  138. Mr. Henry

    You said;
    It’s not anyone’s job to distinguish these things for you. You have a brain and can do research and investigations and can come up to conclusions yourself, but if you choose to see things in that way, then it is only you who is living in ignorance.

    I say;
    I am not saying all Christians are bad or do wrong things. No. I do not mean that I swear. So do not get me wrong. What I am trying to put across is that, Christians claim the Holy Spirit is in them and they are pure but we see a lot of Christians behaving as if the Holy Spirit is not in them, hence my examples. I have to unfortunately provide the examples of more Christians who we can see no Holy Spirit in them for the sake of argument and understanding.

    In Islam, and most religion we do not have that we are something is in us and we are pure but we have to strive(Jihad) to get Holy.

    So, by being a Muslim, you cannot say something will prevent you from sin but you yourself have to strive and develop yourself through your devotion to God to get the Holy that you desire and all people are different with their level of spiritual journey.

    A sinner today could be Holy tomorrow, so no one can judge any one except to say some people are committing sin and outside the boundaries or understanding of our religion.

    If someone tells me Christians a pure because Holy Spirit is in them, then I just look around the Christians I see but Islam does not have any Holy Spirit but depends on the individuals choice and there are bad and child molesting Muslims and as far as they pray and obey Islamic rules I will not say they are not Muslims but will say what they do is against Islam.

    I hope you get the difference and I know not all Christians are bad within my heart and I have Christian families and friends we get on well. I am just on this blog saying thing for arguments sake.

    I have my upbringing with Christians and so are most commenters on this blog, but bad Muslims like Isis and bad Jews and Christians like the Zionist and the rest and terrorists must be fought with the combined forces of God fearing people of all faiths instead of supporting others.

    I will b happy to see most Christians with Holy Spirit in them to be pure and I might become Christian myself but now the Holy Spirit is not seen much in Christianity and that is my point.

    Thanks.

    .

    Like

  139. Intellect the Bible does make a distinction such as in Genesis 39:20 and other passages.
    Also, as I mentioned before the terms Pharaoh and King were used interchangeably because someone reading those passages would be familiar with the fact the term is about an Egyptian leader.

    And hang on a minute, why are we even discussing such a trivial issue when the Quran calls people by different names and titles? Potiphar who was one of the captains in Egypt is called Al-Aziz in the Quran (see Surah 12) even though Potiphar is an Egyptian name and Al-Aziz is an Arab one. Are we going to say the Quran got his name historically wrong or that the Arabic term is used so that the audience or reader will be more familiar with the meaning?
    On top of that, it is well documented in the Bible and cultural traditions that Abraham’s father was called Terah yet the Quran calls him Azar (Surah 6:74). Even Arabic genealogists used the Arabic form Tarah, so much so that commentaries of the Quran acknowledge this and suggest that Azar may have been Abraham’s uncle or father-in-law, which is not what the Quran says. Ibn Kathir confirms that Abraham’s father was known as Terah in his book “Stories of the Prophets”, and he also says that the majority of genealogists agree with that too.

    Please stop bringing trivial matters into this discussion. I don’t want to be breaking down points one by one especially when it has nothing to do with the topic. I was actually on topic when I made my first comment on this post so I don’t know what you’re talking about. Simply scroll up and read what I first said here.

    Like

  140. Thanks Mr. Henry. I appreciate it.

    Like

  141. Alright Intellect, I see your point about people claiming to have the Holy Spirit and why you used those examples.
    Thanks for clarifying.

    Like

  142. With the name of Allah the Gracious the Merciful

    Marvin you write:

    The NT canon was determined centuries before Islam (even if you begin with the 4th century, that’s still 3 centuries i.e 300 years before Islam) and we already have full complete bibles that date to those times. So if Christians were reading different biblical texts in this so called Syro-Arabian region during Muhammad’s time, I wonder why or how it just managed to conveniently disappear in or just after the 7th century. If the Quran confirmed and talked about these lost texts rather than the present ones, that means the author of the Quran was ignorant of the distribution of the widely published canonical texts which were also already translated into different languages by that time. That would make sense if the author of the Quran had never stepped out of Arabia before, just as Muhammad never did either. It’s interesting though that many gnostic ideas and stories have crept into the Quran which shows that the author of the Quran was using information about the knowledge available in his region rather than universal knowledge. Jesus appearing to be crucified (substituted by either Simon of Cyrene, Judas, or simply being a phantom body), Jesus creating clay birds and speaking in his cradle are all stories found in gnostic and apocryphal texts which may have been more readily available or discussed in Muhammad’s region.

    You make an interesting comments here, I would like to reply on salient point you bring regarding the “Syro-Arabian” bible during Muhammad’s time.

    The view that the Qur’an has mistakenly understood orthodox christian belief belief because of little knowledge of christian scripture have become somewhat outdated view and not mainstream view. 

    Scholarly approach have now taken a direction that the Qur’an milieu had a established common understanding of christianity specifically through the Aramaic sphere , this is the original “syro-arabian” source the Qur’an having conversation with. Many of Qur’anic terms find parallel with current gospels preserved in christian Palestinian aramaic dialects thus a dogmatic re-articulation as well as responses to audiences familiar with aramaic tradition in the arabian peninsula  (see Sidney Griffith and Emran El -Badawi works on this topic).

    This makes a perfect sense to me, It is scholarly consensus that Jesus (p) and his disciples native language was Aramaic, the common language of Judea in the first century AD.

    The question is where the original aramaic gospel jesus?

    Philological evidence for an underlying original aramaic gospel dating to the time of Jesus (p) ministry were everywhere although only a few and scattered.The earliest Diatessaron of Tatian (d 180 CE) found only in fragments and Greek 4 gospels contains only a few  utterances in aramaic. Current corpus of aramaic peshitta are greek translation. 

    It is a matter of scholarly debate, but generally it is believed this original utterance of Jesus (p) (or the Injil as the Qur’an refer to) is lost.

    This situation make me convince why the Qur’an is needed as final reminder for spreading Abrahamic monotheism through Ishmael line to whom Abraham had been promised to be blessed . The Qur’an challenged and re-appropriate dogmas intended for jewish, christian and pagan audiences familiar with the late antiquity lingua franca of the near east – Aramaic- It re-affirm the One-ness of God in this context, not to Greek, Byzantine, Rome tradition.

    Like

  143. Henry: “But anyway, back to my main point, and back to the topic… Jesus is the Messiah both in Christianity and Islam and would therefore have to have fulfilled the messianic prophecies in the Hebrew Bible”

    Non-sequitur. Jesus (as) being Messiah is not dependent on biblical “prophecies” in Islam.

    Liked by 1 person

  144. Marvin Henry “2 major prophecies about the Messiah are that he will be born in Bethlehem and according to the NT and Quran, he will be born of a virgin.”

    Regarding the OT, these are not “major” prophecies about the Messiah, they are weak and heavily disputed.

    But the biblical Jesus fails to fulfill truly major undisputed OT prophecies concerning the messianic age (bringing universal peace, end of all sin,… etc).
    That’s why he has to come again. The major problem is that there is absolutely nothing in the OT about the Messiah coming twice.

    Liked by 1 person

  145. Marvin Henry “Not only that, the major belief in Christianity and Islam is that Jesus will return and so any unfulfilled prophecies may be fulfilled upon his return.”

    No, not at all, Isa (as) will not return to fulfill “unfulfilled” biblical “prophecies”. He will return to confirm and establish universal Islam.

    Liked by 1 person

  146. Dear Eric,

    “What make you think the Qur’an is in err when it refers to Dhulqarnayn ذوالقرنين‎ ?
    Who exactly he was, is not that important and it does not make muslims in dilemma in questioning this. The Qur’an never articulate who he was therefore we muslim tend to not questioning what the Qur’an does not say. ”

    Most modern scholars would say that the Qur’an here uses legendary stories surrounding Alexander the Great. I have no problem with the Qur’an using a metaphorical figure, but I’ll leave it to the individual Muslim to decide if his faith is compatible with this. And I hope you will understand that from my perspective this is just another case where the cultural milieu of the Qur’an has left its traces on the text.

    “Also wrt Abraham rescued from fire? why you think make muslim have to defend this? Do you not believe in Miracle?”

    I was thinking more of the fact that this story is not found in Genesis (our earliest source about Abraham) but is found in later Jewish and Christian writings. The same could of course be said about many stories in the Qur’an.

    “I watch enthusiastically every development on the Qur’an studies including Corpus Coranicum project. There Muslims and non-Muslims scholars working side by side on this project supported by institutions in the Arab and Islamic world. I am also a member of International Qur’anic Studies Association, a scholarly community interested in Quranic studies.”

    I’m not a member of IQSA, but I regularly check out the blog of this great organisation (https://iqsaweb.wordpress.com/blog/) and I’m also quite interested in the results of Corpus Coranicum. Maybe I will financially support IQSA when I have finished university and found a job.

    “I dont think muslims have problem if the Quran are studied in a serious, scientific manner by unbiased scholar.
    We have problem rather to those polemical works done by work of islamophobes demagogues or evangelical pseudo-scholars whose motive is hating Islam and trying to discredit it and market their ideology.”

    Could you give me any examples of the people you regard as “islamophobes demagogues or evangelical pseudo-scholars”? I try to base my research on genuine scholarship (one of my favourite scholars in Qur’anic studies is dr. Gabriel Said Reynolds from the University of Notre Dame).

    “No Mark, believe me, this unique ability of the Qur’an to be memorised is unlike anything like the human brain ability. This phenomenon exist in regardless of ages, social status, cultural background, intelligence etc.”

    I do not mean to insult you but I have no real reason to see this as a miracle, especially in light of the fact that many Muslims are taught to memorise the Qur’an from an early age. Besides that, the Hadith literature would suggest that even the early Muslims sometimes forgot whole passages of the Qur’an (Sahih Muslim 1050, see here: http://sunnah.com/muslim/12/156).

    “I can understand if you fail to appreciate some passages of the Qur’an in translation, even for arabs themselves the Qur’an is not like ordinary piece of literature reading them in original Arabic. You have to master Arabic language in classical form. It took me 10 years to learn classical Arabic and I am way to go to even consider myself eloquence in classical arabic.”

    But if I master Classical Arab to appreciate the beauty of the Qur’an, how would that make the supposed eloquence of the Qur’an a miracle? And there have been people who knew Classical Arabic and yet rejected the idea that the (entire) Qur’an was eloquent. On a side note, using the research of dr. James Bellamy and dr. Devin J. Stewart, I’m currently looking if there are any ways to change the words in the Qur’an without making the text inferior to the original.

    “It was the original Arabs at the time of the prophet who were truly at the peak of eloquence of Arabic, even they were astonished with what they heard:”

    First of all, it is widely recognised that the early Meccan Surahs are written in saj’, the rhymed prose that was used by the pre-Islamic soothsayers.
    But even if the Qur’an does not fit into any of the literary forms of Arabic, that does not make it a miracle. In fact, at least some of Muhammads listeners were not quite impressed with the Qur’an. They called it “muddled dreams” (Surah 21:5) and accused Muhammad of copying the “fables of the ancients”.

    Thanks for the article! I will probably read it next week. By the way, would you be so kind to recommend me some books or articles by Muslim authors about the Qur’an, especially those who touch upon the subject of Qur’anic stories such as Jesus making birds from clay or Abraham being saved from the fire? I would be quite interested to see what orthodox Muslim scholars have to say about this.

    Like

  147. So my next question is this, which I believe I put forth already somewhere above:
    Why is Jesus called the messiah in Islam, and what does the term messiah mean in Islam? (I don’t mean definition here because that’s easy, I mean the significance of that term)

    I’m hoping to find a response with good substance here. I’ve already come across replies like, “all the prophets have unique titles”, or “Jesus may have been born with naturally anointed hair from his mothers womb”, “Jesus was always called messiah so the Quran uses the term to better identify him” and other such responses which provide unsatisfactory explanations.
    To me this means even in Islam, the term Al-Masih is not very well understood amongst Muslims and of course the Quran itself is very vague about it. But, I may be wrong so I’m looking forward to some responses.

    Like

  148. “Otherwise, for Allah to have caused Jesus to be born from a virgin in the Quran would be a useless miracle. It would have just been much easier and less problematic for all the faiths is Jesus was born like any other human being”

    Quality point made. Indeed this miracle alone has caused all sorts of confusion within Christianity itself, has lead to a huge division in understanding particularly between Islam and Christianity, and millions of deaths worldwide between both faiths and denominations within Christianity itself.

    As much as I try to respect people’s beliefs and appreciate good moral lessons found in all religious texts, it is no wonder so many people say religion causes division.
    Forget about who the messengers are, have you guys got the message? If so, stop the bitter arguing and practise what your religion teaches you. Good morals and good behaviour is taught in all these religions, what are you fighting for – the truth? That’s something that can’t even be known for sure. If it was, no one would be debating here as someone would have discovered it and explained it plainly to the rest of us. Is there not truth found in both scriptures according to you guys anyway? (Mostly to the Muslims who believe in parts of the bible)

    Like

  149. @ Paul Williams

    I’m disappointed that you deleted the video of William Lane Craig dismantling Ehrman’s scholarship that I posted earlier – I thought it would stimulate discussion.

    I’ve only recently started following the Christian/Muslim debates on the internet and am interested particularly in the testimony of converts to Islam – I have a sister and an aunt who both converted decades ago.

    So far, I have found the arguments of Muslim apologists unpersuasive – intellectually simplistic and, frankly, often childish, and theologically unsophisticated.

    Anyways, I posted the video in good faith – hope you have a change of heart and re-post it.

    Like

  150. Mr. Henry

    You said;
    So my next question is this, which I believe I put forth already somewhere above:
    Why is Jesus called the messiah in Islam, and what does the term messiah mean in Islam? (I don’t mean definition here because that’s easy, I mean the significance of that term)

    I’m hoping to find a response with good substance here. I’ve already come across replies like, “all the prophets have unique titles”, or “Jesus may have been born with naturally anointed hair from his mothers womb”, “Jesus was always called messiah so the Quran uses the term to better identify him” and other such responses which provide unsatisfactory explanations.

    I say;
    Well, you can find the meaning and the term of messiah in the Jewish scripture, literature and religion. They knew it best than all of us. They do not take the messiah to be God or dead God or literal Son of God or part of 3 persons God or the messiah will become God or will die for any one’s sins.

    Almost all Jews and all Rabbi from the ancient time till today will agree with this Rabbi

    1.

    This is SOME(Most) Muslims views on the messiah

    2.

    The Jews believe significance of their messiah will be to establish God Kingdom on earth and will not be killed or crucified by anyone and so the crucifixion disqualified Jesus as their messiah. Fortunately for them the Quran said Jesus is their messiah but never killed or crucified by anyone.

    Thanks

    Like

  151. General

    You said;
    “Otherwise, for Allah to have caused Jesus to be born from a virgin in the Quran would be a useless miracle. It would have just been much easier and less problematic for all the faiths is Jesus was born like any other human being”

    Quality point made. Indeed this miracle alone has caused all sorts of confusion within Christianity itself, has lead to a huge division in understanding particularly between Islam and Christianity, and millions of deaths worldwide between both faiths and denominations within Christianity itself.

    I say;
    Before Jesus Christ’s miraculous birth, human beings persecuted each other and had confusion who God is and the dominant polytheistic and pagan idol worshiping religions persecuted the monotheistic faiths. The Jews who were the monotheists worshiped Golden calf when Moses left them for a brief period and they still demand more miracles from God.

    God is all knowing and has provided them a miraculous birth of Jesus Christ, just to believe that God is capable of doing miracles and their messiah will establish God Kingdom on earth to user the day of judgement.

    That does not mean the miraculous birth signifies Jesus is God or generated Son of God from eternity which are all not found in the Bible.

    God did a lot of miracles for humans to believe in Him(God) alone and Jesus miraculous birth is one of them and it does not mean Jesus Christ is God for God is One, Only and Alone and not a man and does not change and nothing on the face of earth is like Him(God).

    The Bible therefore disqualifies Jesus as God. The miraculous birth is one of God miracles just like the Daniel in the lions den and in whale without dying. The Christians should not have persecuted themselves and anyone else because they do not share their views. Islam and the Quran allows co-existence with others and there is a law that say non Muslims should be protected by Muslims even in war or not war.

    Thanks.

    Like

  152. “Well, you can find the meaning and the term of messiah in the Jewish scripture, literature and religion. ”

    Intellect, I’ve tried but according to Burhan, “Jesus (as) being Messiah is not dependent on biblical “prophecies” in Islam.”
    So according to Burhan I can’t find these prophecies in there. That’s why I’m asking for a Muslim perspective, and I appreciate the videos but it says nothing about the meaning of Jesus being the messiah, it discusses why Jesus is coming back in Islam. I’m already aware of that stuff.

    As a side note to Burhan – Watch the 2nd video Intellect just put up. AR Green’s statement contradicts with your one: “No, not at all, Isa (as) will not return to fulfill “unfulfilled” biblical “prophecies”. He will return to confirm and establish universal Islam.”
    According to AR Green, Jesus will return to fulfill the unfulfilled prophecies in the Jewish scriptures (around 6:30min and beyond).

    Like

  153. With the name of Allah the Gracious the Merciful

    Hi Mark,

    you wrote

    Most modern scholars would say that the Qur’an here uses legendary stories surrounding Alexander the Great.

    The Qur’an don’t use the term Alexander,  ذو القرنين so any connection with Alexander the Great remain a speculation. Even the word قرن qarn itself is ambiguous it could mean horn or centuries.

    “Also wrt Abraham rescued from fire? why you think make muslim have to defend this? Do you not believe in Miracle?”

    I was thinking more of the fact that this story is not found in Genesis (our earliest source about Abraham) but is found in later Jewish and Christian writings. The same could of course be said about many stories in the Qur’an.

    Your premise that the Bible is a reliable religious or history book and if the Qur’an narrates things which are not found in it is faulty.  I think it is an established view that  we can not rely on Biblical accuracy for History, science and archaeology. 

    Could you give me any examples of the people you regard as “islamophobes demagogues or evangelical pseudo-scholars”? I try to base my research on genuine scholarship (one of my favourite scholars in Qur’anic studies is dr. Gabriel Said Reynolds from the University of Notre Dame).

    Raymond Ibrahim, Robert Spencer, Jay Smith are among the notorious ones and also  Keith Small, Andy Bannister, Samuel Green and Spencer

    But thankfully we have real scholars like Andrew Rippin, Fred Donner, Angelika Neuwirth, Emran El Badawi, Jane Dammen McAuliffe, Tim Winter, Mehdi Azaiez, Harald Motzki , etc.

    Reading their works we can generally adduce that unbiased Quranic Scholarship recognised fact that the Quran has been genuine continuation and inheritor of judeo-christian traditon and has been preserved with utmost reliability.

    ‘….new findings of Qur’anic text fragments , moreover , can be adduced to affirm rather than call into question the traditional picture of the Qur’an as an early fixed text composed of the suras we have..’
    
(Angelika Neuwirth : The Cambridge companion to the Quran , p104)


     

    “No Mark, believe me, this unique ability of the Qur’an to be memorised is unlike anything like the human brain ability. This phenomenon exist in regardless of ages, social status, cultural background, intelligence etc.”

    I do not mean to insult you but I have no real reason to see this as a miracle, especially in light of the fact that many Muslims are taught to memorise the Qur’an from an early age. Besides that, the Hadith literature would suggest that even the early Muslims sometimes forgot whole passages of the Qur’an (Sahih Muslim 1050, see here: http://sunnah.com/muslim/12/156).

    Understandably you don’t see it as Miracle, you don’t live this tradition. I am talking not case by case but as a community as a whole, the Qur’an is easy to memorised. The memorisers or the huffaadz as we call them come from all sort of background it seems like God elect whoever become this guardian of scripture through oral recitation: man, women, young, old, rich, poor etc. black, white..

    Watch Here an example Hussein Al-Abadli a blind poor boy from Iraq has memorised the Qur’an since 5 years old by himself no family help, and he appeared in a TV show where a Syaikh tested his memory, with various recitation , but still nothing seems escaped from his memory. A proof of Quranic preservation through memorisation, a living miracle indeed.

    [embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEoF5iPw8MU[/embed]

    My Qur’an teacher every time he give sermon he quotes the Qur’anic Arabic verbatim from memory without actually open up his Qur’an, I wonder why the bible or the gospel for lesser extent can not be memorised this way? The pastors or reverends seems helpless without actually read their book reading in translations

     

    “I can understand if you fail to appreciate some passages of the Qur’an in translation, even for arabs themselves the Qur’an is not like ordinary piece of literature reading them in original Arabic. You have to master Arabic language in classical form. It took me 10 years to learn classical Arabic and I am way to go to even consider myself eloquence in classical arabic.”

    But if I master Classical Arab to appreciate the beauty of the Qur’an, how would that make the supposed eloquence of the Qur’an a miracle? And there have been people who knew Classical Arabic and yet rejected the idea that the (entire) Qur’an was eloquent. On a side note, using the research of dr. James Bellamy and dr. Devin J. Stewart, I’m currently looking if there are any ways to change the words in the Qur’an without making the text inferior to the original.

     

    If you have intention I invite you to study the Qur’an using classical Nahw Sharf sciences and study classical literature to appreciate the Quran beauty. The fact of the matter is the Arabs of prophet Muhammad’s time had acknowledged the superior quality of speech of the Qur’an. This explain why until today and continue to go on the vast majority of Arabs became muslims and acknowledged the divine quality of the Qur’an. Those who don’t, I notice, mainly because of ideological, nationalistic or religious reason.

    But even if the Qur’an does not fit into any of the literary forms of Arabic, that does not make it a miracle. In fact, at least some of Muhammads listeners were not quite impressed with the Qur’an. They called it “muddled dreams” (Surah 21:5) and accused Muhammad of copying the “fables of the ancients”.

     

    Yes those who were not impressed exactly because Allah has said it:

    وَمِنْهُم مَّن يَسْتَمِعُ إِلَيْكَ ۖ وَجَعَلْنَا عَلَىٰ قُلُوبِهِمْ أَكِنَّةً أَن يَفْقَهُوهُ وَفِي آذَانِهِمْ وَقْرًا ۚ وَإِن يَرَوْا كُلَّ آيَةٍ لَّا يُؤْمِنُوا بِهَا
    And among them are those who listen to you, but We have placed over their hearts coverings, lest they understand it, and in their ears deafness. And if they should see every sign, they will not believe in it .. (Q6:25)

    It is not a matter of eloquence it is a matter of denial rejecting the truth or Kufr.

    Liked by 2 people

  154. Intellect I’m not a Christian so that stuff about Jesus being God or son of God doesn’t concern me.
    And Islam allows co-existence with other faiths only when it has subjugated them. If that was true from the beginning of Muhammad’s revelations he never would have gone to war against the polytheists and Jews because they could have just simply “co-existed” in peace.

    Like

  155. Mr. Henry

    Messiah means anointed in Hebrew and in Judaism and that is what Islam believes. What meaning to you want again?

    Messiah does not mean God or literal Son of God but it means anointed and Jesus is anointed and that is what is means.

    Where in the OT does messiah means God? or died for people’s sin? Tell me.

    Burhan and Abdul Rahim Green and most Muslims and Jews believe the messiah will establish God Kingdom on earth and if it is a prophesy in the Jewish religion, that is good. Green thinks so bur Burhan does not think so and the Quran did not say any prophesy in the Bible is fulfilled by the return of Jesus and Burhan is perfectly right but he has the same conclusion with Green and all Jews.

    I want a prophesy that says God will die for the sins of man, the messiah is God or will be God in the Old Testament. That is the challenge by Rabbi Tovia Singer.

    The messiah will establish God’s kingdom on earth and Messiah means anointed and Burhan, Green, and the Jews agreed ant that is the ultimate.

    I want the prophesy of the messiah being God Almighty or killed for people sin. If you could help. I tried to help your question and try to help me as well.

    Thanks.

    Like

  156. General

    You said;
    Intellect I’m not a Christian so that stuff about Jesus being God or son of God doesn’t concern me.
    And Islam allows co-existence with other faiths only when it has subjugated them. If that was true from the beginning of Muhammad’s revelations he never would have gone to war against the polytheists and Jews because they could have just simply “co-existed” in peace.

    I say;
    The prophet forgave the persecutions by the pagans to Muslims when he returned to Mecca. He had to fight to defend himself when his population grew and he has strength to do that but not to spread Islam by force because Islam forbids its spread by force but to defend itself.

    Missionaries will classify any wars by Muslims as force conversion and the indigenous non Muslims found in the Muslims world like Iran, Morocco, Egypt, Yemen, Kuwait, Indonesia, Malaysia etc. refutes their allegations.

    Jews will tell you that Muslims saved them from the hands of Christians and had it not been Muslims the Jews would have been exterminated by the Christians.

    In the olden days all religion will not allow any religion to live side by side but to exterminate the weaker one but Islam allows co existence back then but it cannot do that if it is not in power. The Pagans did not allow the coexistence when they found out the message of Mohammed was threating the existence of their religion by more conversions. Some Christian countries today are alarmed by the same phenomenon but cannot do anything because of rule of law. The christians did exterminate Jews. Christians and Muslims. The Muslims never exterminate anyone but to save and protect themselves and others. They saved Christians against Christians and this blog one time had Christians and Muslims on one side against other Christians and we did appreciated those Christians and worked with them against other fundamentalist Christians.

    Muslims are teaming up with Christians against isis, book and the rest and I wish the evangelical Zionist Christians will team up with peace loving people against the Zionist who are killing and bulldozing homes and farmlands.

    Thanks.

    Like

  157. Intellect I said:
    “So my next question is this, which I believe I put forth already somewhere above:
    Why is Jesus called the messiah in Islam, and what does the term messiah mean in Islam? (I don’t mean definition here because that’s easy, I mean the significance of that term)

    I’m hoping to find a response with good substance here. I’ve already come across replies like, “all the prophets have unique titles”, or “Jesus may have been born with naturally anointed hair from his mothers womb”, “Jesus was always called messiah so the Quran uses the term to better identify him” and other such responses which provide unsatisfactory explanations.”

    I have not said anywhere that Messiah means God or son of God, I have provided my questions already.

    Also Christians believe the servant songs in Isaiah are about the messiah, or God’s chosen servant which makes sense if Jesus was “anointed” for a specific task, for example, purifying people of their sins and establishing God’s kingdom on Earth which all 3 faiths believe the messiah will do.

    The servant songs can be found in Isaiah 42:1-4, 49:1-6, 50:4-9, 52:13-53:12 and some people include 61:1-3 although that one isn’t official since it doesn’t mention the word “servant”.
    Of the 4 known servant songs, Isaiah 53 is where we find that the servant “was pained because of our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities; the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his wound we were healed.” (Isaiah 53:5) and “he bore the sin of many, and interceded for the transgressors.” (Isaiah 53:12). It is written like that in English-Hebrew versions as you can see on this site. http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1053.htm

    Daniel 9 is where we find “Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sin, and to forgive iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness” (Daniel 9:24) and “Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem unto one anointed, a prince, shall be seven weeks” (verse 25), followed by “And after the threescore and two weeks shall an anointed one be cut off, and be no more” (verse 26)
    http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt3409.htm

    If these passages are talking about the same individual, then that individual is to die for the sins of man. Yet there are other passages which talk about this individual establishing God’s kingdom on Earth, which can also be found in other chapters of Daniel such as Daniel 2 and Daniel 7:13-14 and in the other servant songs. And that is why it would be necessary for this individual to be raised to life, ascend to heaven and complete his mission when he returns because his people rejected him the first time.
    Jesus himself talks about his rejection such as when he quotes Psalm 118:22, and when he says this – Matthew 23:37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. 38 Look, your house is left to you desolate. 39 For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’

    Of course, everything I’ve just mentioned above, Jews will disagree with me which is why Rabbi Tovia Singer will not believe it. Even if some Jews believe the servant songs in Isaiah or the passage in Daniel 9 is about the messiah, they won’t believe that this messiah is Jesus. Paul says in Romans 11 that the Jewish rejection of Jesus and Christianity is for a purpose but that when he returns they will finally believe in him too, you can find out more if you read it.

    Those are my answers to your question Intellect, I hope you or anyone else can help me with mine. And I know you won’t accept this as a Muslim but that’s why Christians believe Jesus is the messiah who died on the cross and was resurrected, ascended into heaven and shall return to reign in God’s kingdom. In terms of Trinitarian Christians believing Jesus is God, that’s more of an interpretation of certain passages in both the Jewish and Christian scriptures. I don’t have much to say about that, I just want to focus on what it means for Jesus to be the messiah rather than on his divinity.

    Like

  158. Thanks Mr. Henry

    You said;
    The servant songs can be found in Isaiah 42:1-4, 49:1-6, 50:4-9, 52:13-53:12 and some people include 61:1-3 although that one isn’t official since it doesn’t mention the word “servant”.
    Of the 4 known servant songs, Isaiah 53 is where we find that the servant “was pained because of our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities; the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his wound we were healed.” (Isaiah 53:5) and “he bore the sin of many, and interceded for the transgressors.” (Isaiah 53:12). It is written like that in English-Hebrew versions as you can see on this site. http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1053.htm.

    I say;
    This is the close you can come but it did not say; “the servant will die for the sins of mankind” Ken Temple will say it should not be so. I will say it should be so because it is salvation and very important and must be clear like this important salvation messages;

    .”there is no one like Yahweh our God.” Exodus 8:10
    .”Yahweh, He is God; there is no other besides Him.” Deuteronomy 4:35
    .”Yahweh, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other.” Deuteronomy 4:39
    .”See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me” Deuteronomy 32:39
    .”Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one [echad]!” Deuteronomy 6:4
    .”You are great, O Lord God; for there is none like You, and there is no God besides You” 2 Samuel 7:22
    .”For who is God, besides Yahweh? And who is a rock, besides our God?” 2 Samuel 22:32
    .”Yahweh is God; there is no one else.” 1 Kings 8:60
    .”You are the God, You alone [bad], of all the kingdoms of the earth.” 2 Kings 19:15
    .”O Lord, there is none like You, nor is there any God besides You” 1 Chronicles 17:20

    The above are very clear that the God of Israel and Abraham is One, Only and Alone and He must be worshiped and nothing besides Him Alone.

    If there is another salvation like the messiah dying for our sins it must be clear like the above and that is what Rabbi Tovia Singer and Dr. Shabbir Ally are talking about.

    I have no problem and all will have no proble if the verse said clearly the messiah or the servant “shall die for people’s sin and I command everyone to believe that”

    “he bore the sin of many, and interceded for the transgressors.”
    “was pained because of our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities; the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his wound we were healed.”

    The above you quoted does not mean someone is going to die for someone’s sins. It could be other things and Rabbi Tovia Singer is angry about quoting these types of ambiguous text to override the clear texts of worshiping the God of Israel/Abraham alone as Abraham, Moses, Solomon and all the prophets preached.

    You said;
    In terms of Trinitarian Christians believing Jesus is God, that’s more of an interpretation of certain passages in both the Jewish and Christian scriptures.

    I say;
    Rastafarians have found their Trinity by interpreting the certain passages in both the Jewish and Christian scriptures and worship Emperor Haile Selaissie I, the conqueror of the Lion of Judah, Jah Rastafari, Ever living. It is just not there that God is 3 persons in 1 being, even in the NT but had to be forged in the NT and later removed. There are so many incarnated Gods right now and some are using the Bible with ambiguous passages.

    Rabbi Tovia Singer angrily advised us to stay on the clear texts and not to use any ambiguous passages for salvation and that is how cult starts.

    The Quran said, “Do not say 3, desist, it is better for you” to include all forms of Trinitarians and all forms of man worship when it says “Mary and Jesus ate food” and do not deserved to be worshiped.

    A Unitarian Christian must provide us with clear text that said a man will die for the sins of the world and that is salvation.

    Thanks.

    Like

  159. Mr. Henry

    I forgot to add that, the Quran said Prophet Jesus was sent as a mercy to mankind sometimes some say Jesus is mercy to mankind but it does not mean he died for people sins. We stay put to the clear message that God is one and He alone must be worshiped.

    The Quran also says Prophet Mohammed was sent as a mercy to mankind and some say Mohammed is mercy to mankind.

    All means what it means but not because they are mercy to mankind and God is merciful so they are Gods or died for peoples sins.

    All prophets are God mercy to us to tell us the truth and try to warn us from the wrong path. The passages in Isiah could be something else but not dying for anyone’s sins.

    Thanks

    Like

  160. With the name of Allah

    Hi Marvin, you wrote

    Why is Jesus called the messiah in Islam, and what does the term messiah mean in Islam? (I don’t mean definition here because that’s easy, I mean the significance of that term)

     

    I don’t have time to offer my thorough comment on this. the weather is great, I don’t want to miss my sporting routine 🙂

    But I just want to say briefly, when the Quran refer to Jesus as المسيح”Al Maseeh” or the Messiah it is less problematic than in christian setting because it is just as description and title this means the anointed from rubbing mash/oil . The Arabic word مَسْح mash simply means to sweep, to rub or to anoint.

    The Quran also does not set criteria that this Messiah was to be a descendant of King David or Solomon but important of all in sync with Hebrew Bible that the messiah is a human being, not a god or  man-god hybrid and that his purpose was to lead the jews to original salvation that is the holding on to the Oneness of God and obey His commands.

     

     

    Like

  161. Mr. Henry

    You said;
    Intellect I said:
    “So my next question is this, which I believe I put forth already somewhere above:
    Why is Jesus called the messiah in Islam, and what does the term messiah mean in Islam? (I don’t mean definition here because that’s easy, I mean the significance of that term)

    I say;
    The significance of the messiah in Islam is that he is one of the mighty prophets in Islam and he is mercy to mankind because he is God sign to mankind as the Quran puts it. He was sent to the Jews to preach the worship of one God alone. His miraculous birth like any miracle by God to prove God’s power and existence.

    He is not the only messiah or anoited but others are anoited too but Jesus was anoited by Allah and makes him one of the special prophets of God and his task is to help the Jews and probably establish God kingdom with God law on earth. He is a special prophet and was anointed by God like how the Jewish Kings are anoited.

    Muslim who does not believe in Jesus as a prophet of God is not a Muslim. There is a whole Chapter in the Quran dedicated to Jesus Mother and she is one of the pious woman among all women. The Quran did not say that about prophet Mohammed Mother or Wives.

    What do you want again for the significance of the messiah? Mr. Henry. Dying for people sin? Jesus being God? 3 persons in 1 God?

    Well, it is not clear in the Bible Jesus is what you and Paul of Tarsus and others wants him to be, because if it is salvation for a man to die for our sins it must be clear for us. God is absolutely clear that he is one, only and alone to be worshiped. His laws and command must be followed and that is clear as well. People must sincerely repent if they sin. That is clear as well. That is salvation and it is clear.

    Thanks

    Like

  162. correction.

    anointed.

    Like

  163. Dear Eric,

    I’m bit in a hurry so I hope I’ve adequatly responded to the points you’ve made.

    “The Qur’an don’t use the term Alexander, ذو القرنين so any connection with Alexander the Great remain a speculation. Even the word قرن qarn itself is ambiguous it could mean horn or centuries.”

    But a detailed analysis of the relevant passages clearly shows the influence of legendary material around Alexander the Great. I’ve never said that we can be absolutely certain, but certainly most modern Islamicists would agree with me, and I already showed that Tafsir al-Jalalayn also said that Dhu’l Qarnayn is no other than Alexander the Great.

    ———————————————————————————————————-

    “Your premise that the Bible is a reliable religious or history book and if the Qur’an narrates things which are not found in it is faulty. I think it is an established view that we can not rely on Biblical accuracy for History, science and archaeology.”

    I disagree with you on the reliability of the Bible, but my premise is actually not that the Bible is reliable for history, nor is it that anything narrated in the Qur’an but not narrated in the Bible is “faulty”. My premise is that later legendary material (not found in the Bible), which is used by the Qur’an, is not reliable. Find me any credible scholar who thinks, for instance, that the Infancy Gospel of James is historically reliable.

    ———————————————————————————————————-

    “Raymond Ibrahim, Robert Spencer, Jay Smith are among the notorious ones and also Keith Small, Andy Bannister, Samuel Green and Spencer”

    I have never relied on Ibrahim, Spencer, Smith or Green, and I can’t really comment on their work. But I disagree with you that Small and Bannister are “pseudo-scholars”. I’ve not read Bannister’s work, but I have read Small’s book, and it has been praised by some quite eminent scholars, including David Powers, Andrew Rippin and Fred Donner. I don’t think it’s perfect (see especially Fred Donner, review of Textual Criticism and Qur’an Manuscripts by Keith Small, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 73 [2014], pp. 166-169). But, as Dr. Donner wrote, dr. Small’s study is of “manifest excellence and importance” (p. 168) and “very convincing and marks a decided advance in our understanding of the text and the nature of its [the Qur’an’s] transmission,” (p. 168). Dr. Small’s book is “of crucial importance and will be required reading of everyone who deals seriously with the question of the early development of the Qur’an” (p. 169) and (among other things) “shows that the tradition of oral recitation or oral transmission of the text was insufficient to serve as a check against variant readings. Indeed, it appears that oral recitation usually followed refinements in the orthography of the written text (e.g., the addition of hamzas, diacritical dots, and unambiguous vowelings), which progressively limited the range of possible ways of reading the consonantal text.” (p.168). Dr. Donner concludes that the book “will be indispensable reading for anyone who wishes to grapple seriously with the early history of the Qur’an text.” (p. 169).

    ———————————————————————————————————-

    “But thankfully we have real scholars like Andrew Rippin, Fred Donner, Angelika Neuwirth, Emran El Badawi, Jane Dammen McAuliffe, Tim Winter, Mehdi Azaiez, Harald Motzki , etc.”

    Whose works I also have read or want to read, so that I can use their research in my study of the Qur’an.
    Notice also that the first two scholars you mention have praised Small’s book.

    ———————————————————————————————————-

    “Reading their works we can generally adduce that unbiased Quranic Scholarship recognised fact that the Quran has been genuine continuation and inheritor of judeo-christian traditon and has been preserved with utmost reliability.”

    Again, on the question of the preservation of the Qur’an much works still has to be done, and you haven’t addressed my point that perfect preservation doesn’t mean that the Qur’an comes from God (https://bloggingtheology.net/2015/07/25/comparing-the-quranic-and-new-testament-manuscripts). And I don’t think that we have any evidence of a supposed “judeo-christian traditon” inherited by the Qur’an. The evidence suggests that James affirmed Paul’s preaching (Galatians 2:6-9).
    By the way, your quotation from dr. Neuwirth actually doesn’t say that the Qur’an was perfectly preserved. Rather, it talks about the composition of the Qur’an, going against the works of scholars such as Wansbrough and Crone and Cook who argue that the composition of the Qur’an didn’t take place in the middle of the seventh century (based on Muhammad’s oral communications), but later (late seventh century or even eighth or ninth century). The context makes that clear:

    “As a whole, however, the theories of the so-called sceptic or revisionist scholars who, arguing, historically, make a radical break with the transmitted picture of Islamic origins, shifting them in both time and place from the seventh to the eighth or even ninth century and from the Arabian peninsula to the Fertile Crescent, have by now been discarded, though many of their critical observations remain challenging and still call for investigation. New findings of qur’anic text fragments, moreover, can be addcued to affirm rather than call into question the traditional picture of the Qur’an as an early fixed text composed of the suras we have.” (Angelika Neuwirth, “Structural, linguistic and literary features,” in Jane Dammen McAuliffe (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Qur’an, p. 100).

    ———————————————————————————————————-

    “Understandably you don’t see it as Miracle, you don’t live this tradition. I am talking not case by case but as a community as a whole, the Qur’an is easy to memorised. The memorisers or the huffaadz as we call them come from all sort of background it seems like God elect whoever become this guardian of scripture through oral recitation: man, women, young, old, rich, poor etc. black, white..”
    “Watch Here an example Hussein Al-Abadli a blind poor boy from Iraq has memorised the Qur’an since 5 years old by himself no family help, and he appeared in a TV show where a Syaikh tested his memory, with various recitation , but still nothing seems escaped from his memory. A proof of Quranic preservation through memorisation, a living miracle indeed.
    [embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEoF5iPw8MU[/embed]
    My Qur’an teacher every time he give sermon he quotes the Qur’anic Arabic verbatim from memory without actually open up his Qur’an, I wonder why the bible or the gospel for lesser extent can not be memorised this way? The pastors or reverends seems helpless without actually read their book reading in translations”

    I don’t think I have ever denied that there are people who have memorised the Qur’an, and of course there will be people with a good memory who are able to memorise the Qur’an from an early age. By the way, I have actually seen Christians who have memorised countless passages from the Bible.
    By the way, I don’t think the Bible or gospel cannot be memorised, but there not very much Christians who actually teach their children from a young age to verbatim memorise the Gospel.
    And do you have any comments on the Hadith I mentioned ((Sahih Muslim 1050, see here: http://sunnah.com/muslim/12/156).), which suggets that apparently sertain Surahs were forgotten by the early Muslims (unless I have missed the Surah in which the verse about the son of Adam and the valleys is mentioned.)

    ———————————————————————————————————-

    “If you have intention I invite you to study the Qur’an using classical Nahw Sharf sciences and study classical literature to appreciate the Quran beauty. The fact of the matter is the Arabs of prophet Muhammad’s time had acknowledged the superior quality of speech of the Qur’an. This explain why until today and continue to go on the vast majority of Arabs became muslims and acknowledged the divine quality of the Qur’an. Those who don’t, I notice, mainly because of ideological, nationalistic or religious reason.”

    And yet I already mentioned that many Meccans rejected Muhammad’s preaching, apparently not finding the Qur’an a miracle. They called it “muddled dreams” (Q. 21:5) and “fables of the ancients”.
    And by focussing on the supposed “ideological, nationalistic or religious reason” one might have to reject the supposed beauty of the Qur’an you seem to commit an ad hominem fallacy. I could reject all Muslim scholars who say that the Qur’an is beautiful on the basis of their supposed religious bias.
    On the subject of the rejection of the Qur’an by Muhammad’s opponents in Mecca, see the following quote from F. E. Peters:

    “The Quran nonpareil? It does not seem so to us. We are, of course, nonbelievers, the Muslim would quickly point out. But so was the first audience who was asked to believe that there was nothing to equal this Recitation. It may simply be a matter of a different aesthetic, that the criteria for literary admiration were different from seventh-century Arabians and us. Although that much is self-evident, the Quran does not in fact conform closely to our best preserved examples of seventh-century Arabian literary artefacts, the poetry of the pre-Islamic Arabs, which had presumably shaped the tastes of Muhammad’s audience but whose strict metrics and prosody and even stricter conventions of form and content find no parallel in the Quran.” (F. E. Peters, Islam: A Guide for Jews and Christians, p. 116)

    And would you be so kind to recommend me some books by orthodox Muslim scholars on the Qur’an?

    ———————————————————————————————————-

    Yes those who were not impressed exactly because Allah has said it:
    وَمِنْهُم مَّن يَسْتَمِعُ إِلَيْكَ ۖ وَجَعَلْنَا عَلَىٰ قُلُوبِهِمْ أَكِنَّةً أَن يَفْقَهُوهُ وَفِي آذَانِهِمْ وَقْرًا ۚ وَإِن يَرَوْا كُلَّ آيَةٍ لَّا يُؤْمِنُوا بِهَا
    And among them are those who listen to you, but We have placed over their hearts coverings, lest they understand it, and in their ears deafness. And if they should see every sign, they will not believe in it .. (Q6:25)
    “It is not a matter of eloquence it is a matter of denial rejecting the truth or Kufr.”

    What actually do you mean here? That the Meccans actually knew that the Qur’an was a miracle, but willingly rejected Muhammad? I have no reason to reject the sincerity of the Meccans, so that argument doesn’t really make an impression.
    In my previous post, I made the point that the early Meccan surahs are written in saj, or rhymed prose. I will quote dr. Neuwirth here again:

    “The early short surās are styled in a kind of rhymed prose, labelled sajʿ, known as the medium of the ancient Arabian soothsayers (kahana, sing. kāhin). Sajʿ is a particularly succint rhythmic diction where single phrases are marked by prose-rhyme, fāṣila. Thei pattern of phonetic correspondence between the verse endings is not only looser than poetic rhyme (qāfiya) but is also more flexible, thus allowing semantically related verses to be bracketed by a rhyma of their own and clearly distinct verse-groups to be marked off. The highly sophisticate phonetic structures produced by this style have been eveluated by Michael Sells. Though the sajʿ style gave way at a later stage of qur’ānic development to a more smoothly flowing porse allowing for complex periods to form a single verse, closed by only a phonetically stereotypical rhyming syllable, th unit of the verse as the smallest compositional entity is an essential element of qur’ānic literary structure.” (Angelika Neuwirth, “Structural, linguistic and literary features,” in Jane Dammen McAuliffe (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Qur’an, p. 98).

    Like

  164. With the Name of Allah the Gracious the Merciful

    Dear Eric,

    I’m bit in a hurry so I hope I’ve adequatly responded to the points you’ve made.

    Hi Mark, I am sorry I missed this, here too a bit stretched with time.

    “The Qur’an don’t use the term Alexander, ذو القرنين so any connection with Alexander the Great remain a speculation. Even the word قرن qarn itself is ambiguous it could mean horn or centuries.”

    But a detailed analysis of the relevant passages clearly shows the influence of legendary material around Alexander the Great. I’ve never said that we can be absolutely certain, but certainly most modern Islamicists would agree with me, and I already showed that Tafsir al-Jalalayn also said that Dhu’l Qarnayn is no other than Alexander the Great.

    Muslims don’t consider The Mufassirin (Qur’anic intrepreter) as infallible, if the Qur’an don’t use the term Alexander the great, all human attempt to interpret what it really means are prone to historical inaccuracies, Im not saying ذو القرنين Dhulqarnayn can be Alexander the Great but we just don’t know it. Critics must leave it as it is.

    “Your premise that the Bible is a reliable religious or history book and if the Qur’an narrates things which are not found in it is faulty. I think it is an established view that we can not rely on Biblical accuracy for History, science and archaeology.”

    I disagree with you on the reliability of the Bible, but my premise is actually not that the Bible is reliable for history, nor is it that anything narrated in the Qur’an but not narrated in the Bible is “faulty”. My premise is that later legendary material (not found in the Bible), which is used by the Qur’an, is not reliable. Find me any credible scholar who thinks, for instance, that the Infancy Gospel of James is historically reliable.

    Muslims don’t take the position that the Holy Qur’an took materials from Gospel of James. Similarity between the Quranic account and the story in the Infancy Gospel would only be problematic for Muslims if the possibility of God’s revelation is a priori dismissed. If it is not a priori dismissed, then we have no problem. Also the Quranic narration are different in the details compared to what is written Christian records.

    The story of Jesus (p) talking from cradle is not more “sceptical” than Jesus actually walking on water , another miracle not recorded in the Qur’an.

    I haven’t done any research about modern scholars who support the reliability of gospel of james but those modern scholars who have established that the work of Gospel of James was not written by the person to whom it is attributed, they also believe the same way with other canonical gospels whom christians believe in its errancy. However this has no bearing with what muslims believe.

    “Raymond Ibrahim, Robert Spencer, Jay Smith are among the notorious ones and also Keith Small, Andy Bannister, Samuel Green and Spencer”

    I have never relied on Ibrahim, Spencer, Smith or Green, and I can’t really comment on their work. But I disagree with you that Small and Bannister are “pseudo-scholars”. I’ve not read Bannister’s work, but I have read Small’s book, and it has been praised by some quite eminent scholars, including David Powers, Andrew Rippin and Fred Donner.

    I think Donner is just being diplomatic here, do you understand the whole thesis of what Small wrote? This work is polemical.  It essentially misunderstands the qira’at literature of the qur’an and also draws upon a rather difficult to hold theory on quranic variants first introduced by goldziher. Read the following blog post which deal with the issue whether the variant readings of the Qur’an caused by the lack of dots in the Uthmanic Qur’an by brother Taha.

    It is clear that Small and Bannister join the like of Robert Spencer and Ergun Caner on the covers of books about Islam. They are Christian apologist trying to present themselves in the academic circles as a scholar. They clearly have agenda.

    I don’t think Small and Bannister know Arabic let alone classical Arabic, they might be able to use Babylon dictionaries, but for sure he is unable to read and understand classical Arabic directly from Arabic sources. Unlike scholars like Professor Jonathan AC Brown for example who I have seen him speaks and reads eloquently in Arabic, Small book on the Qur’an don’t have single Arabic sources as a reference. He only used second hand English references.

    “Reading their works we can generally adduce that unbiased Quranic Scholarship recognised fact that the Quran has been genuine continuation and inheritor of judeo-christian traditon and has been preserved with utmost reliability.”
    By the way, your quotation from dr. Neuwirth actually doesn’t say that the Qur’an was perfectly preserved. Rather, it talks about the composition of the Qur’an, going against the works of scholars such as Wansbrough and Crone and Cook who argue that the composition of the Qur’an didn’t take place in the middle of the seventh century (based on Muhammad’s oral communications), but later (late seventh century or even eighth or ninth century). The context makes that clear:

    “As a whole, however, the theories of the so-called sceptic or revisionist scholars who, arguing, historically, make a radical break with the transmitted picture of Islamic origins, shifting them in both time and place from the seventh to the eighth or even ninth century and from the Arabian peninsula to the Fertile Crescent, have by now been discarded, though many of their critical observations remain challenging and still call for investigation. New findings of qur’anic text fragments, moreover, can be addcued to affirm rather than call into question the traditional picture of the Qur’an as an early fixed text composed of the suras we have.” (Angelika Neuwirth, “Structural, linguistic and literary features,” in Jane Dammen McAuliffe (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Qur’an, p. 100).

    You obviously missed the point Neuwirth makes, she actually endorse for textual integrity of the Qur’an as has been proposed by traditional accounts , against what she call sceptic or revisionist scholars, she even added that no critical scholars have been successful in discrediting the genuineness as we have it today. Read again the whole context (emphasis added):

    The presentation of qurìa ̄nic developments in this chapter presupposes the reliability of the basic data of traditional accounts about the emergence of the Qur’an assuming the transmitted qur’anic text to be the genuine collection of the communications of the Prophet as pronounced during his activities at Mecca (about 610–22 CE), and again at Medina (1/622 until his death in 11/632). It is true that the earlier consensus of scholarly opinion on the origins of Islam has, since the publication of John Wansbrough’s Quranic studies and Patricia Crone and Michael Cook’s Hagarism, been shattered, and that various attempts at a new reconstruction of those origins have been put forward. As a whole, however, the theories of the so-called sceptic or revisionist scholars who, arguing historically, make a radical break with the transmitted picture of Islamic origins, shifting them in both time and place from the seventh to the eighth or ninth century and from the Arabian peninsula to the Fertile Crescent, have by now been discarded, though many of their critical observations remain challenging and still call for investigation. New findings of qur’anic text fragments, moreover, can be adduced to affirm rather than call into question the traditional picture of the Qur’an as an early fixed text composed of the su ̄ras we have. Nor have scholars trying to deconstruct that image through linguistic arguments succeeded in seriously discrediting the genuineness of the Qur’an as we know it.

    You wrote:

    “Understandably you don’t see it as Miracle, you don’t live this tradition. I am talking not case by case but as a community as a whole, the Qur’an is easy to memorised. The memorisers or the huffaadz as we call them come from all sort of background it seems like God elect whoever become this guardian of scripture through oral recitation: man, women, young, old, rich, poor etc. black, white..”
    “Watch Here an example Hussein Al-Abadli a blind poor boy from Iraq has memorised the Qur’an since 5 years old by himself no family help, and he appeared in a TV show where a Syaikh tested his memory, with various recitation , but still nothing seems escaped from his memory. A proof of Quranic preservation through memorisation, a living miracle indeed.
    [embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEoF5iPw8MU[/embed]
    My Qur’an teacher every time he give sermon he quotes the Qur’anic Arabic verbatim from memory without actually open up his Qur’an, I wonder why the bible or the gospel for lesser extent can not be memorised this way? The pastors or reverends seems helpless without actually read their book reading in translations”

    I don’t think I have ever denied that there are people who have memorised the Qur’an, and of course there will be people with a good memory who are able to memorise the Qur’an from an early age. By the way, I have actually seen Christians who have memorised countless passages from the Bible.
    By the way, I don’t think the Bible or gospel cannot be memorised, but there not very much Christians who actually teach their children from a young age to verbatim memorise the Gospel.
    And do you have any comments on the Hadith I mentioned ((Sahih Muslim 1050, see here: http://sunnah.com/muslim/12/156).), which suggets that apparently sertain Surahs were forgotten by the early Muslims (unless I have missed the Surah in which the verse about the son of Adam and the valleys is mentioned.)

    No, the hadith don’t talk about people forgetting some ayahs of the Qur’an.

    فَأُنْسِيتُهَا غَيْرَ أَنِّي قَدْ حَفِظْتُ مِنْهَ

    literally means

    “have I forgotten if however I may have memorised (something) from it (the Qur’an) “

    “it” here refer to a oral memorisation of a saying:

    لَوْ كَانَ لاِبْنِ آدَمَ وَادِيَانِ مِنْ مَالٍ لاَبْتَغَى وَادِيًا ثَالِثًا وَلاَ يَمْلأُ جَوْفَ ابْنِ آدَمَ إِلاَّ التُّرَابُ

    Meaning:

    ” If there were two valleys full of riches, for the son of adam, he would long for a third valley, and nothing would fill the stomach of the son of adam but dust”

    Some of the companians thought that this saying was part of the Qur’an such as Abu Musa Al-ash’aree ra like in this hadith

    and others thought it as simply being a saying of the prophet such as Anas bin Malik (ra) as is said in this hadeeth:

    قال أخبرني أَنَسُ بْنُ مَالِكٍ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ

    لَوْ أَنَّ لِابْنِ آدَمَ وَادِيًا مِنْ ذَهَبٍ أَحَبَّ أَنْ يَكُونَ لَهُ وَادِيَانِ وَلَنْ يَمْلَأَ فَاهُ إِلَّا التُّرَابُ

    وَيَتُوبُ اللَّهُ عَلَى مَنْ تَابَ

    وَقَالَ لَنَا أَبُو الْوَلِيدِ حَدَّثَنَا حَمَّادُ بْنُ سَلَمَةَ عَنْ ثَابِتٍ عَنْ أَنَسٍ عَنْ أُبَيٍّ

    قَالَ كُنَّا نَرَى هَذَا مِنْ الْقُرْآنِ حَتَّى نَزَلَتْ أَلْهَاكُمْ التَّكَاثُرُ

    My translation:

    said to me narrated Anas bin Mālik the Messenger of Allah said;

    “If the son of Adam were given a valley full of gold, he would love to have a second one; and if he were given the second one, he would love to have a third, for nothing fills the belly of Adam’s son except dust. And Allah forgives he who repents to Him.”

    and narrated to us that Abu al-Walid had narrated to us Hammad ibn Salamah affirmed by Anas for my father said, “We considered this as a saying from the Qur’an till the Sura (beginning with) أَلْهَاكُمْ التَّكَاثُرُ “Competition in [worldly] increase diverts you”.’ (Q 102:1) was revealed.”

    Source:

    http://www.al-islam.com/Page.aspx?pageid=695&BookID=24&PID=6177&SubjectID=31825

    “If you have intention I invite you to study the Qur’an using classical Nahw Sharf sciences and study classical literature to appreciate the Quran beauty. The fact of the matter is the Arabs of prophet Muhammad’s time had acknowledged the superior quality of speech of the Qur’an. This explain why until today and continue to go on the vast majority of Arabs became muslims and acknowledged the divine quality of the Qur’an. Those who don’t, I notice, mainly because of ideological, nationalistic or religious reason.”

    And yet I already mentioned that many Meccans rejected Muhammad’s preaching, apparently not finding the Qur’an a miracle. They called it “muddled dreams” (Q. 21:5) and “fables of the ancients”.

    Some are accusing it because they feel threatened by the sheer force the Qur’an had impacted on the Meccan arabs, some also claims that the Prophet was nevertheless no poet (shā’ir), i e , inspired pagan.

    But the fact remain when all Arabs became Muslims, Qur’anic Arabic replaced Aramaic as the “language of religion” in the whole arabian peninsula and the near east. This is by no chance a mere fables. See paper : Arabo-Aramaic And ʿArabiyya: From Ancient Arabic To Early Standard Arabic, 200 CE–600 CE by Ernst Axel Knauf

    The application of formula criticism in the study of Qurʾanic composition and the view that the Qur’an borrow from ancient folklore does not find much support and remain controversial this mainly have been advocated by the non-Arabist folklorist Alan Dundes and apologist like Bannister

    And would you be so kind to recommend me some books by orthodox Muslim scholars on the Qur’an?

    The following is on my list:

     

    Yes those who were not impressed exactly because Allah has said it:
    وَمِنْهُم مَّن يَسْتَمِعُ إِلَيْكَ ۖ وَجَعَلْنَا عَلَىٰ قُلُوبِهِمْ أَكِنَّةً أَن يَفْقَهُوهُ وَفِي آذَانِهِمْ وَقْرًا ۚ وَإِن يَرَوْا كُلَّ آيَةٍ لَّا يُؤْمِنُوا بِهَا
    And among them are those who listen to you, but We have placed over their hearts coverings, lest they understand it, and in their ears deafness. And if they should see every sign, they will not believe in it .. (Q6:25)
    “It is not a matter of eloquence it is a matter of denial rejecting the truth or Kufr.”

    What actually do you mean here? That the Meccans actually knew that the Qur’an was a miracle, but willingly rejected Muhammad? I have no reason to reject the sincerity of the Meccans, so that argument doesn’t really make an impression.
    In my previous post, I made the point that the early Meccan surahs are written in saj, or rhymed prose. I will quote dr. Neuwirth here again:

    “The early short surās are styled in a kind of rhymed prose, labelled sajʿ, known as the medium of the ancient Arabian soothsayers (kahana, sing. kāhin). Sajʿ is a particularly succint rhythmic diction where single phrases are marked by prose-rhyme, fāṣila. Thei pattern of phonetic correspondence between the verse endings is not only looser than poetic rhyme (qāfiya) but is also more flexible, thus allowing semantically related verses to be bracketed by a rhyma of their own and clearly distinct verse-groups to be marked off. The highly sophisticate phonetic structures produced by this style have been eveluated by Michael Sells. Though the sajʿ style gave way at a later stage of qur’ānic development to a more smoothly flowing porse allowing for complex periods to form a single verse, closed by only a phonetically stereotypical rhyming syllable, th unit of the verse as the smallest compositional entity is an essential element of qur’ānic literary structure.” (Angelika Neuwirth, “Structural, linguistic and literary features,” in Jane Dammen McAuliffe (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Qur’an, p. 98).

    Suras are composed of verses (aya, pl. ayat), varying in size from one single word to an entire, complex pericope corresponds to Syriac atha and Hebrew oth, meaning a ‘visible sign of a transcendental reality’, is first used in the Qur’an to denote markings of divine omnipotence, such as are manifest in nature or in history.

    I see no reason to object Qur’anic communication technique which employ rhymed prose, or saj, this designate a miraculous sign apt to prove the truth of the prophetic message. Even though at the of the prophet the arabs were at the peak of eloquence in this area yet as Neuwirth has succinctly put it (in her paper Structural, linguistic and literary features):

    The Qur’an has developed diverse motifs and structures not known from earlier Arabic literature.*)

    *)These have been analysed by A. Neuwirth in Studien zur Komposition der mekkanischen Suren (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1981).

    Liked by 1 person

  165. Christianity requires one to pray through an intermediary and to recognize a man as G-d. These are forms of idolatry. Idolatry cannot be merged with G-d’s Torah. Christianity is wrong. http://www.kiruvnow.com

    Liked by 2 people

Trackbacks

  1. One of the living miracle of the Qur’an: its oral preservation | Blogging Theology
  2. One of the living miracle of the Qur’an: its oral preservation - ImaanCentral.com

Leave a reply to Royal Son Cancel reply