‘What must I do to be saved?’
Compare these two different answers to the question concerning how one may be saved:
1) A man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, ‘Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments: “You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; You shall not defraud; Honour your father and mother.” ’ He said to him, ‘Teacher, I have kept all these since my youth.’ Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, ‘You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.’ (Mark 10:17-22)
2) [The jailer in Philippi] said, ‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’ And they said, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.’ (Acts 16.30f.)
Blogging Theology 
by the way, the Bible has NOTHING contradictory in it. You have to keep reading the Mark passage from Mark 10:23-27 in order to understand it. Jesus is testing the man because the man does not realize that his idol in his heart is his money, and that was a violation of the 1st and 2nd commandment, but he was blind to his own sinfulness. Because he was unwilling to part with his money, he was guilty of idolatry; and therefore did not see himself as a sinner; and therefore cannot be saved. He also lied because he boasted that he kept the law; and yet no one can keep the law perfectly.
LikeLike
The Bible has “NOTHING” contradictory in it? Really? Are you deliberately lying or just plain ignorant? How is this for a contradiction?
David was first introduced to Saul when the latter sorely needed relief from an evil spirit that was tormenting him. David was at this time a relatively unknown sheep herder, but his skill at playing a lyre allowed him to serve Saul and alleviate his torment. This is the story as recounted in 1 Samuel 16. However, this account is directly contradicted in the very next chapter, when Saul’s army was facing off against the Philistines. It was during this encounter that David slew Goliath. However, despite already having met David and having him in his service, Saul was apparently unaware of who David even was:
“As Saul watched David going out to meet the Philistine, he said to Abner, commander of the army, “Abner, whose son is that young man?” Abner replied, “As surely as you live, Your Majesty, I don’t know.” The king said, “Find out whose son this young man is.” As soon as David returned from killing the Philistine, Abner took him and brought him before Saul, with David still holding the Philistine’s head. “Whose son are you, young man?” Saul asked him. David said, “I am the son of your servant Jesse of Bethlehem”” (1 Samuel 17:55-58).
The contradictory nature of David’s introduction to Saul is obvious. As Thomas Paine stated:
“These two accounts belie each other, because each of them supposes Saul and David not to have known each other before” (The Age of Reason, Edited by Moncure Daniel Conway. San Bernardino: Wildside Press LLC., 2014, p. 116.).
LikeLike
The text doesn’t actually say that Saul did not know David. It says that he did not know his father’s name, or he had forgotten his father’s name, at the time of the battle. This is quite possible in the nature of things.
LikeLike
There is also a time difference between 1 Sam 16 and 1 Sam 17 to take in to account. We don’t know how big this is. At this time David was still apparently a sheepherder who intermittently visited Saul to play music for him. It doesn’t surprise me that Saul had forgotten the name of David’s father.
LikeLike
Since the Bible is supposedly a linear historical account, it follows that the events in 1 Samuel 17 occurred after the events of 1 Samuel 16. Yet, we find that in 1 Samuel 17, Saul has no idea who David is, despite the fact that he was supposedly playing the lyre to alleviate Saul’s torment.
LikeLike
Madmanna,
That is still a problem because 1 Samuel 16 clearly states that Saul knew who David’s father was. The claim that he simply “forgot” is simply a cop-out. Do you mean to tell me that Saul’s court was so incompetent as to not know who was serving in his court? In any case, here is what 1 Samuel 16 states:
“Then Saul sent messengers to Jesse and said, “Send me your son David, who is with the sheep.” 20 So Jesse took a donkey loaded with bread, a skin of wine and a young goat and sent them with his son David to Saul.
21 David came to Saul and entered his service. Saul liked him very much, and David became one of his armor-bearers. 22 Then Saul sent word to Jesse, saying, “Allow David to remain in my service, for I am pleased with him.””
So, there is no way Saul did not know who David was. He “liked him very much”, so he would have known him.
LikeLike
Ken your comment are totally off topic.
LikeLike
Ken your first comment was not only totally off topic, but was an anti-Islamic rant. So I’ve removed it from this thread hoping you will learn how this blog operates – keep comments on topic and relevant.
You have your own blog for propaganda purposes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No it was not “an anti-Islamic rant” t; I used all material from Jonathan Brown and Yasir Qadhi’s lectures.
You don’t have a comment box at the lecture by Dr. Jonathan Brown, “The Message of Peace; Spread by the Sword?”
Why not? It was very information and useful.
LikeLike
it certainly was a crude propaganda rant against Muslims and Islam. Classic bigoted stuff we have come to expect from American Christians these days – all that stuff about Muslims supporting Hitler and other silliness.
As i said: keep comments on topic and relevant. You have your own blog for propaganda purposes.
LikeLiked by 2 people
then you didn’t listen to Jonathan Brown’s lecture – he admitted that the Bosnian troops (and Mufti Hosseini of Jerusalem) supported Hitler.
LikeLike
yawn… and all those Christians who supported Hitler in Germany and Mussolini in Italy.
LikeLike
LOL, Ken. And somehow, these bad apples become representatives of Muslims in general? You’re beginning to sound more and more like the classic Christian Islamophobes we have all become accustomed to.
LikeLiked by 2 people
He is an Islamophobe it’s part of his nature as an American evangelical. Notorious the world over.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sadly, it appears so. I actually thought that he was a little more reasonable. I guess I was just being naive.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No; the content was all from Dr. Brown and Yasir Qadhi’s lectures. I know for sure I have no irrational fear of Muslims as people; they are generally wonderful hospitable people and I have 33 years of experience of friendships with Muslims. I have many Muslim friends; and learned one Middle Eastern language and love Iranian culture and have friends who are Turks and Arabs – so you are wrong.
It is sad that any constructive criticism is responded with “you are an Islamophobe”. That method is just meant to shut down discussion, like the homosexuals who cry “homophobe” when we say what they do is wrong, sin, and marriage is only between one man and one woman.
It is the lack of a comment box at Paul’s article that may indicate an irrational fear of debate on the issues that Dr. Brown raised. Also, the constant attacks on Christianity and the Bible could indicate being a “Christ o phobe”. Why allow comments at some posts and not that one?
LikeLike
Um…”constructive criticism”? I think you’re a little confused as to what that is. If you had said that some Muslims have done bad things, like allying with Hitler, that is one thing. But your comment just shows the typical behavior of many Christians, who equate the actions of some Muslims to Islam. Did you bother to do any research on how Muslims saved Jews? Or how Muslims fought with the allies agaist Hitler? No. I wonder why?
LikeLiked by 2 people
indeed. And Ken is a big follower of that arch anti Semite Martin Luther who inspired many Nazis to persecute the Jews.
From Wiki:
Luther denounced the Jewish people and urged for their harsh persecution and destruction. In a paragraph from his On the Jews and Their Lies he deplores Christendom’s failure to expel them.Moreover, he proposed “What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews”:
“First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools … This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians …”
“Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed.”
“Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them.”
“Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb …”
“Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside …”
“Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them …”
“Seventh, I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow … But if we are afraid that they might harm us or our wives, children, servants, cattle, etc., … then let us emulate the common sense of other nations such as France, Spain, Bohemia, etc., … then eject them forever from the country …”
LikeLike
Hmmm, maybe the Mufti had a political reason for supporting Hitler? Maybe things were a little more complicated than people like you make it out to be?
The Mufti and the Germans had a common enemy: the British empire. Therefore, it follows that he would want to ally himself with a nation that could help him get rid of the hated British. Even the Jews in Palestine hated the British, and Jewish terrorist groups like the Irgun were responsible for many bombings targeting British forces up until the founding of Israel in 1948.
See? It’s more complicated than you think. It doesn’t make it right, but we can at least try to understand historical events in their proper historical context.
LikeLike
Ken is a big follower of that arch anti Semite Martin Luther who inspired many Nazis to persecute the Jews.
From Wiki:
Luther denounced the Jewish people and urged for their harsh persecution and destruction. In a paragraph from his On the Jews and Their Lies he deplores Christendom’s failure to expel them. Moreover, he proposed “What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews”:
“First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools … This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians …”
“Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed.”
“Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them.”
“Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb …”
“Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside …”
“Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them …”
“Seventh, I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow … But if we are afraid that they might harm us or our wives, children, servants, cattle, etc., … then let us emulate the common sense of other nations such as France, Spain, Bohemia, etc., … then eject them forever from the country …”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_and_antisemitism
LikeLike
Luther was wrong on that and sinned greatly. I totally condemn that booklet of Luther’s. It indeed was used to great harm later. He wrote that against the Jews at the end of his life – he was getting crusty and old. He wrote that awful booklet against the Jews around 1543 and he died in 1546. Earlier, he wrote well of the Jews and said Christians needed to treat them kindly and seek to share Christ with them.
People came centuries later and used that writing, yes. It is one of the very bad sins of history.
Some Muslims also like those words and also have Hadith that say: “the trees and rocks will cry out: there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. . . .fighting and killing the Jews will not stop until the day of resurrection.
Those are Sahih Hadith. Here is some of them.
Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) as saying:
The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.
حَدَّثَنَا قُتَيْبَةُ بْنُ سَعِيدٍ، حَدَّثَنَا يَعْقُوبُ، – يَعْنِي ابْنَ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ – عَنْ سُهَيْلٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ “ لاَ تَقُومُ السَّاعَةُ حَتَّى يُقَاتِلَ الْمُسْلِمُونَ الْيَهُودَ فَيَقْتُلُهُمُ الْمُسْلِمُونَ حَتَّى يَخْتَبِئَ الْيَهُودِيُّ مِنْ وَرَاءِ الْحَجَرِ وَالشَّجَرِ فَيَقُولُ الْحَجَرُ أَوِ الشَّجَرُ يَا مُسْلِمُ يَا عَبْدَ اللَّهِ هَذَا يَهُودِيٌّ خَلْفِي فَتَعَالَ فَاقْتُلْهُ . إِلاَّ الْغَرْقَدَ فَإِنَّهُ مِنْ شَجَرِ الْيَهُودِ ” .
Reference : Sahih Muslim 2922
In-book reference : Book 54, Hadith 105
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Book 41, Hadith 6985
Sahih Muslim 41:6985, see also Sahih Muslim 41:6981, Sahih Muslim 41:6982, Sahih Muslim 41:6983, Sahih Muslim 41:6984, and Sahih Bukhari 4:56:791
But again, my comments were in the context of what Dr. Jonathan Brown and Yasir Qadhi said about the early wars that Muslims made for the first 100 + years – “from the death of the prophet to the battle of Talas in 751” – Brown admitted that was a war-like period.
Someone in the audience asked about the Bosnian brigades that joined with Hitler during WW 2 and Dr. Brown agreed.
But the British were there because the Ottoman Turks sided with Germany in WW I, and they were wrong. Germany and the Ottomans were wrong and they were justly punished. The Ottoman Empire was broken up justly and they were punished for siding with Germany, who was the main evil empire and aggressors of WW I. The Arabs also wanted the Ottoman Turks out.
LikeLike
Ken can you explain: how can a revered Spirit filled born again Christian leader be so evil?
Was he filled with God and the devil at the same time?
If we shall know the true followers of God by their fruits then surely Luther (who you admire and follow) was really an agent of Satan?
Certainly looks that way to me.
LikeLike
People are not infallible. Christians are not infallible. We can judge Luther’s writings and accept the good points (95 theses, justification by faith alone against the Roman Catholic Church; and sola Scriptura, priesthood of the believer, etc.) and we can judge what was wrong. (his booklet against the Jews)
But you have a bigger problem because that Anti-Jew character is built into the Hadith in those Sahih Hadith; and many Qur’an verses also.
LikeLike
So you say a man can be demonic and evil and be a born again spirit filled Christian at the same time?
LikeLike
Typical Christian nonsense and hypocrisy.
“You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies” (John 8:44).
Hmmm…now isn’t that interesting? Your so-called “infallible scripture” refers to Jews as being of the devil!
Of course, in other places in your contradictory scripture, Jews are elevated while Gentiles are denigrated. See the story about the Canaanite woman and Jesus.
So, it would seem that the “infallible” Bible could not make up its mind on whether the Jews were evil or good. LOL!
LikeLike
btw it is not difficult to keep the Law (the 613 commandments of the Torah) – you are quite wrong about that. God told Israel it is easy to keep. Paul boasts that he kept the law “blamelessly”.
Luke 1:6 also tells us says:
‘Zechariah and Elizabeth were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly.’
LikeLike
But the rich young ruler could not keep the law perfectly in that context -cause he was unwilling to surrender his possessions; they were an idol in the heart.
Zechariah and Elizabeth were righteous because they were first believers and awaiting the Messiah; their obedience and good works were the results of and based on faith/trust in God and His promise of Messiah first. (you have to read and study the whole chapters of Luke 1 and 2, not just quote one verse).
Jesus Al Masih said is was impossible for man to keep the law perfectly. (Mark 10:27 – “with man it is impossible”)
You yourself admitted that even the external disciplines of Islam were too hard for you to keep, when you left Islam for a few days. You then came back to Islam a few days later, ok.
But the NT says the heart is the issue – Mark 7:20-23 (arrogance, greed, coveting, deceit, foolishness, malice, jealousy, sensuality, evil thoughts – internal sins; along with others)
Matthew 5:21-26 – anger and hatred in the heart is the root of murder.
Matthew 5:27-30 – sexual lusts and fantasies are the roots of adultery.
LikeLike
Luke 1:6 says that Zechariah and Elizabeth were righteous in the sight of God, because they observed all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly.
Who is “Jesus Al Masih”? I’m English so could you translate foreign terms (I thought you were English speaking American?)
The rich man in Mark 10 could have given away his wealth by the grace of God (as Zacchaeus indeed does in a smilier story in Luke 19). You omitted that bit from your comments Ken. Not very honest of you! God makes it clear in the Jewish Scriptures that it is NOT difficult to obey the Law (contrary to Paul who disagreed with God). See Deuteronomy 30:11ff
Jesus said to the young man that he lacked just one thing to get into paradise: to give his wealth to the poor. A far cry from Acts 16.30f.
LikeLike
Actually it is not very honest of you to leave out Mark 10:23-27. You leave it out every time you make this point.
The word “grace” is not used there, but I think you are right; but “the grace of God” in the NT means when the Spirit of God opens the heart to repent and believe. (see Ephesians 2:1-9) The rich young ruler was not given grace.
LikeLike
he was given grace but chose not to use it – if he had he would have gained eternal life as Jesus promised him upon just ONE condition, which you always ignore Ken.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Listen to Yasir Qadhi’s lecture on you tube; he uses Arabic all the time and does not translate – I can recognize many things, but most English speakers/westerners would not have the foggiest idea what he is talking about. But you know . . .
LikeLike
I never hear Muslims say “Jesus Al Masih” just you Ken.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But you know what I mean. Isa Al Masih عیسی المسیح = Jesus the Messiah
LikeLike
very few Westerners would Ken. They might think you are a secret Muslim – like Obama.
LikeLike
Rick Warren, there seems to be a difference between “sign” and “verse” in your religion.
Not so in Islam. God’s “verses” are His “signs”. Alhamdulillah.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rick Warren, for some Christians there are two “God’s Word”.
Jesus is “God’s Word”.
The Bible is “God’s Word”.
Is God the author of confusion?
LikeLike
Interesting dialogue – whose god makes the least amount of sense in his communication with humans.
LikeLike
“One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me. 22And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.”
You leave out one important part of his being saved which is to take up the cross and follow Jesus.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Actually Jesus said the man lacked ONE THING – to have eternal life in heaven: give his money to the poor.
You ignore this teaching because it contracts your religious beliefs.
LikeLike
Also there is no mention of ‘taking up a cross’ in Mark 10. That is not in the passage.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No one would have understood “take up the cross”??? … What is he talking about?
LikeLike
Mark 8 v 34:
New International Version
Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.
Burhanuddin1 : “No one would have understood “take up the cross”???”
That was the point of becoming a disciple. To learn what it meant.
LikeLike
Madman that is not in Mark 10 and does not feature in the conversation Jesus had.
LikeLiked by 1 person
At that point in time it was unintelligible. A “God” teaching his creation about the most important things in meaningless ways? That saying is not historical. It’s a later theological reflection by the author.
LikeLike
The readers of the gospel of Mark would have understood – the book was meant to be read from start to finish.
Madmanna was right – taking up your cross and giving up your possessions are two different ways of saying “you must completely surrender your life to Christ; submit to Him” – see we believe in submission to God also.
Jesus was testing the man’s heart. His money was his idol. He broke the first and second commandment and also lied, was deceived, and broke the 9th commandment against lying and deception.
Paul W. always leaves out Mark 10:23-27 and has done so for years on this passage.
LikeLike
Not the readers of the gospel, the persons Jesus was allegedly giving that lecture to – the young rich man, the disciples, everyone who allegedly heard it – no one had a clue what “take up the cross” meant
LikeLike
Jesus said to the man all he needs to be saved was to obey the law, and in his particular case, give away his wealth – the ONE THING he lacked according to Jesus.
I have refuted you over and over Ken on this passage Ken, only your spiritual pride keeps you from acknowledging the truth. And turning to God.
LikeLike
No you have not refuted me because you have no glue what the passage means and you leave out the context of the rest of the pericope from Mark 10:23-27. I have refuted you every time.
It means total surrender to Christ – just like in Luke 14:27-33
27 Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple.
. . .
33 So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple.
“renounce all that he has” (ESV) = “give up all his possessions” in NASB translation.
so, Mark and Luke are unified and there is no contradiction; and no contradiction with Acts or Romans either.
Faith = total surrender and trust (to Christ as Lord and Savior)
No contradiction.
LikeLike
no clue
sorry for typo of “no glue”. 😀
LikeLike
Ken you run away from the plain teaching of Jesus to follow your vain desires and man-made religion. I pray you will come to your senses before it is too late.
LikeLike
No, you ran away from the plain teaching of Jesus and are following a man-made religion. You are an apostate and the book of Hebrews warns you in Hebrews chapters 3, 6, 10, and 12.
“Take care, lest there be in you an evil unbelieving heart, in falling away from the Living God.” Hebrews 3:12
That’s you.
LikeLike
Ken I have given solid proofs you follow the gospel of Paul not the gospel of Jesus. You are not a follower of Jesus. Committing idolatry is a terrible sin in God’s sight. I do not need to list all the warnings in the Bible about such as you.
Repent of your sin before it is too late!
LikeLike
Paul Williams is on the right path because he worships the only, one and alone God of Abraham according the Bible and the oldest scripture. So Williams is following the earliest scripture of God which clearly states in numerous passages and CLEARLY AND UNAMBIOUS that God is 1, Only and Alone.
Ken Temple on the other hand is worshiping a creature who is a hybrid God-Man and not God but worships the man part as well as the God part. It is against the earliest scripture of God that said NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING on this world can not be compared to God. Again, Ken Temple worships 3 Persons 1 God and “3 Persons 1 God” can never be found in the whole scriptures of God. Not once.
Thanks
LikeLiked by 1 person
You follow a man-made religion too – but the christians are unlikely to blow me up. Who needs to come to their senses?
LikeLike
silly comment.
Muslims are ‘unlikely to blow you up either’, except in your paranoid fantasies
LikeLike
Given the tens of thousands of islam inspired jihadist terrorist attacks since 9/11, I would say that you are the one living in a fantasy world. How many terrorist attacks have been committed by non-muslims this year compared to attacks by muslims? I can’t think of any.
But your religion is the invention of human beings.
LikeLike
You can’t think of any because you’re are pig ignorant James.
Buddhists in the far east have been launching attacks on innocent Muslims on a vast scale – still ongoing.
Hindus have been and still are persecuting and killing Muslims in India.
Christian terrorists are killing people all over the globe.
Jews are still committing terrorist acts against Palestinians every day. etc etc
For recent Christian terrorism see the evidence here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#Contemporary
LikeLike
That’s your defence of Islamic extremism? A wikipedia article that doesn’t even mention any non-muslim terror attacks this year? You forgot to mention that muslims are blowing the living crap out of each other far more effectively and with greater frequency than any of these other groups.
With the exception of the “JEWS” who may have some scriptural motive for their actions in Israel, I can’T really see how the man-made beliefs or scriptures of these other groups provide motive for these alleged terrorist incidents in the same way that your man-made holy book does for muslim terror.
LikeLike
atheists like you are sad people living meaningless lives full of hate towards believers as all your comments make clear.
LikeLike
James
You are an idiot if you do not know that all the problems of the world is caused by evangelical Christianity and Zionism. Also freedom of religion was forced on Christians after they were defeated. Muslims were not killing each other until the Christians mess their lands. If there is lawlessness, no job, no security etc. which the Christians caused in Iraq, it will be easier for one to attack another.
Jews are persecuting Jews. Christians are persecuting Christians and you a pig for not knowing that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIT9sLz29iQ
Thanks.
LikeLike
http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/01/08/3609796/islamist-terrorism-europe/
” in the last five years, less than 2 percent of all terrorist attacks in the E.U. have been “religiously motivated.”
In 2013, there were 152 terrorist attacks in the EU. Two of them were “religiously motivated.” In 2012, there were 219 terrorist attacks in EU countries, six of them were “religiously motivated.”
In 2011, not one of the 174 terrorist attacks in EU countries in 2011 were “affiliated or inspired” by terrorist organizations. 2010, 249 terrorist attacks, three of them were considered by Europol to be “Islamist.” In 2009, of 294 terrorist attacks, only one was related to Islamist militancy – though Europol added the caveat, “Islamist terrorists still aim to cause mass casualties.””
Also, there are groups like the NLFT in India that have killed hundreds of people. The NLFT is a Christian terrorist group, but most people in the west have never heard of it,
LikeLike
Paul – I actually have a very meaningful life. A life that I value more than some of your co-religionists value theirs.
LikeLike
Intellect wrote:
Muslims were not killing each other until the Christians mess their lands.
Intellect,
You are wrong. Right when Muhammad died, the Muslims started killing each other. Omar was killed; Uthman was hacked to death; Ali was killed by the Khaurejites, and Hassan was poisoned by his wife, and Hossein was killed (ambushed and hacked up) by Yazeed and Moawiya (Founders of the Umayid Caliphate). Sunnis and Shiites killing each other ever since that time for centuries; and Sunnis killing Ahmadiyye and Sufis for a long time. They executed the Sufi – Ana Al-Haqq (Mansur Al Hallaj) in 922 AD. (he was a Persian mystic/Sufi)
It was the Muslims who attacked Christian lands first, and aggressively made war on the Persians and the Byzantine Empire and they had no right to do that and it was pure evil, and it was an application of Surah 9:29 followed by Umar Ibn Al-Khattab and all other Caliphs after him until they were stopped. Even Dr. Jonathan Brown admitted this in the lecture that Paul Williams won’t allow any comments on.
Muslims were the ones who started all this their unjust attacks on Byzantine Empire and Persian Empire and the Shiites and Sunnis been killing each other for centuries long before the 2003 USA invasion of Iraq.
LikeLike
a very one sided and biased account of history.
Fortunately, a more balanced account with detailed historical references it available in this article:
https://bloggingtheology.net/2016/04/21/12811/
LikeLike
It was the Muslims who first “messed with other people’s lands” by attacking Persia and Byzantine Empire, conquering N. Africa, Levant, Persian Empire, Spain, etc. It was all unjust and evil and following Surah 9:29.
LikeLike
these were conquests that liberated the oppressed Christian populations.
See the historical evidence here:
https://bloggingtheology.net/2016/04/21/12811/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken
You do not know history or you do not worship your lord Jesus Christ who said twisted the truth the lies is a big sin.
Yes, just like any human beings, Muslims fought wars, among themselves and to others. It is all human problem not Muslims alone. Christians fighting and killing everyone including themselves except those with the same believe is the most evil thing for Christians to do than any human groups in this world. They are still doing it by voting for war in Muslims lands to pave way for them to “save” people by preaching the gospels in refugee camps full of women, children and the needy.
That is an evil way to convert people. Convert people where there is no war. Have you ever seen any Muslim taking the advantage of war trying to convert people by force or trick in a refugee camp full of women and Children? Except Christianity which started by killing those who reject the deity of Christ. Later they keep killing each other until freedom of religion was forced on them.
Muslims on the other hand fought to liberate people and any Jew whether Zionist Jew or non Zionist Jew will thank Muslims for saving them.
THE USA WHICH WAS FULL OF CHRISTIANS REJECTED THE SHIP LOADS OF JEWS RUNNING AWAY FROM THE PERSECUTIONS BY CHRISTIANS FROM EUROPE. THE SHIP WAS TURNED BACK TO EUROPE AND SOME OF THE JEWS IN THAT SHIP ENDED UP IN HITLERS HOLOCAUST.
IT IS A FACT, THE HEAD OF MUSLIMS CHARTED A SHIP TO GO TO EUROPE AND CONVEY ALL THE PERSECUTED JEWS BY CHRISTIANS TO HIS MUSLIM LANDS AND THEY ARE THERE TILL TODAY AND PRESIDENT BUSH SENIOUR WILL THANK MUSLIMS FOR THAT.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dg2XgUpISJc
KEN YOU DO NOT KNOW SURAH 9:29 BETTER THAN MUSLIMS AND YOU DO NOT NO SURAH 9:29 BETTER THAN CALIPH OMAR WHO ALLOWED JEWS AND CHRISTIANS TO PRACTICE THEIR RELIGION FREELY.
You do not know surah 9:29 better than Salahuddin who allowed Jews and Christians to practice their religion freely. You do not know surah 9:29 than the Muslims who ruled Spain and do not kill the Jews and Christians and the Jews became more richer than Muslims despite paying tax(Jizy-non Muslim tax). It is fact that the Jews in Spain at that time were much richer than Muslims.
It is theological bankruptcy, intellectual dishonest and morally disingenuous to say Jews or Christians were converting to Islam to become rich when there were poor Muslims at that time and there was not magical wand or any proof that when one converts to Islam he automatically becomes rich.
The prophet would have been the richest person like Bill Gates at his time. Do you have any proof that the prophet of Islam was rich?
Go to youtube you will see countless of Jews both Zionist and non Zionists thanking Muslims for saving them. Ken to twist this good Muslims history as bad makes you a disingenuous fellow.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Correction:
You do not know history or you do not worship your lord Jesus Christ who said twisting the truth to lies is a big sin.
LikeLike
Frankly Ken, you are now officially an idiot in my mind. You have made ridiculous posts, one after another, and they are riddled with inaccuracies.
The Byzantine empire started the war with the Muslims when they attacked them at Mutah. Moreover, the Muslim army at Mutah had been sent to punish a Byzantine vassal who had killed a Muslim ambassador.
The Persian empire was also imperialistic and had controlled Arab lands for centuries (in Iraq for example). Not only that, but have you forgotten the long and destructive war it fought with the Byzantines? The Persians captured Jerusalem in 615 and even captured the so-called “true cross”!
Both of these corrupt and brutal empires met their end at the hands of the Muslims. Alhamdulillah! You should be thanking the Muslims for liberating your Coptic brethren in Egypt from Byzantine persecution! 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Still wondering why Paul did not allow comments at the Jonathan Brown lecture about the early conquering of Islam.
The aggressive wars against Byzantine and Persia were unjust, even with the Muslim explanation of reporting on the reason for the battle of Mu’ta (that the Ghassanid’s killed an agent who was sent there to preach Islam – what is the original source for that ? reference ?) -and the expedition of Tabuk. That little battle (Mu’ta) and Tabuk (which was just an expedition, not really a battle since the Byzantines were not there.) did not justify seeking to conquer to the whole world in order to establish Sharia law.
The aggressive attacks by the Muslims, after Muhammad died were continued, based on Surah 9:29 and
Abu Bakr (and later Umar) based his decisions to let Muthanna and Khalid do raids up into Syria and Iraq was because of the example of the prophet in attacking new territory at Mu’ta in 629:
“The suggestion (to invade Persia) had been made by Muthanna, the Beni Bekr (Bani Bakr) chief, who had obtained the khalif’s consent to some raiding. The Quraish (leaders of the Muslims newly unified by Muhammad at the end of his life in 632 AD, and in charge of the Muslim’s policy) . . . were much more interested in Syria. . . . But perhaps the most important factor in Abu Bekr’s (Bakr) opinion was that the prophet himself had send the force which had been defeated by the Byzantines at Mota (Mu’ta). To follow the example of the Apostle of God could not be wrong.”
“Accordingly, early in 633, the Khalif Abu Bekr (Bakr) organized three columns to invade Byzantine territory.” (Sir John Glubb, A Short History of the Arab Peoples, Stein and Day Publishers, page 46)
[ Note: Glubb transliterates Arabic words differently than we do today. For example Abu Bekr for Abu Bakr and Beni for Bani; Mota for Mu’ta. ]
Soon after that, the Muslims under the commander Khalid invaded further in Byzantine territory and the famous battles of Yarmouk took place in 634 and 636 AD and soon Damascus and all of Syria and the Levant was conquered. Jerusalem in 636-637 AD.
The bottom line is that they saw no problem with raiding = attacking. They unjustly attacked and raided into other’s territories and it was unjust and wrong.
LikeLike
you can wonder all you like Ken, time you accepted my blog like a mature adult and cease wining.
The wars against Byzantine and Persia were completely justified. They liberated Christians and Jews from oppression and terror. If you bothered to read the article I linked to about this you might learn something about history.
Here it is again.
Read. Digest. Learn. Only then comment.
https://bloggingtheology.net/2016/04/21/12811/
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, no. The bottom line is that you are a shabby researcher who peddles ridiculous versions of history. Here is what Hugh Kennedy states regarding the Muslims in Egypt, which was captured from the Byzantines:
““The pious biographer [John of Nikiu]…presents us with the striking image of the [Coptic] patriarch praying for the success of the Muslim commander against the (Christian) inhabitants of the Cyrenaica”” (“The Great Arab Conquests: How the Spread of Islam Changed the World We Live In,” p. 165).
Also, the Muslims didn’t even plan on invading Egypt initially. Once they conquered Syria, they stopped and made a treaty with Heraclius. But when Heraclius refused to pay any more tribute, the invasion of Egypt began. The Muslims were content with receiving tribute from the Byzantines in exchange for a non-aggression pact. Hugh Kennedy states that it was Heraclius’ refusal to provide anymore tribute that was probably “the immediate trigger of the Muslim invasion” (p.146).
Also, Kennedy mentions the siege of Pelusium, which was also described by Glubb. But Kennedy makes no mention of any violence, as Glubb claimed in his account.
So Ken, the bottom line is that you have officially crossed the line between reality and idiocy.
LikeLike
The “Treaty of Misr (Egypt)” gives us an interesting look into the reality of the Muslim conquest. According to Kennedy, the “Treaty of Misr (Egypt)” stipulated that the Egyptians:
“…would be obliged to pay the jizya (tribute) every year when the rise of Nile…was over. If the river failed to rise properly, payment would be reduced in proportion. If anyone did not agree to it, he would not pay the tribute but he would not receive protection. Romans and Nubians who wanted to enjoy the same terms might do so and those who did not were free to leave. […]
This treaty is just one of a number of slightly differing accounts which we have of the terms that were made with the people of Egypt. In many of them the tax to be paid was assessed at 2 dinars per male except for the poor” (p. 154).
LikeLike
Of course, for Ken and other hypocritical Christians to be criticizing the Muslim conquest in the first place is laughable given the Bible’s reports of wanton destruction in Canaan. Let’s do a quick comparison of the two scenarios. Whereas the Muslims allowed the conquered people the freedom to retain their religion and properties, in exchange for payment of a tax, the indigenous people of Palestine (we are told) were given no such bargains. As Professor Wes Morriston of Colorado University puts it:
“…scriptures say that on various occasions Yahweh ordered His people to practice genocide. The biblical expression is “devoted to destruction,” [ Joshua 6:18, 1 Sam 15:21, 1 Kings 20:42] but the meaning is clear. Men, women, children, and sometimes even their animals, are to be put to death. Their culture is to be stamped out. (1 Samuel 15 is only one of many examples of this.)
The principal biblical rationale for genocide is the danger that God’s people will be infected (by intermarriage, for example) by the religious practices of the people who surround them. They are to be a holy people – i.e., a people kept apart, separated from their idolatrous neighbors. Sometimes, the only sure means of accomplishing this is to destroy the neighbors.
In the case of the Amalekites, there is the additional motive of revenge. Some four hundred years before, they had made war on the Hebrews as they approached the Promised Land.”
LikeLike
Islam early war helped christian of middle east to grow against greek and latin christians. Overwhelming number of them then saw the truth of Islam as the true legacy of nabi Isa Al Masih and become muslims.
LikeLike
lol “it was the muslims…”
both jews and christians were doing each other in arabia and middle east before islam came.
your religion has physical and textual wars with your opponents.
LikeLike
till this day jews and christians hate each other.
LikeLike
So what. Who cares what anyone believes. After all we are just evolved dirt on a meaningless planet. What makes your atheist “nonsense” more meaningful?
LikeLiked by 1 person
James is finding his comments being deleted as they are a waste of space on this blog.
LikeLiked by 1 person