Did Jesus Predict Muhammad? A Biblical Portal Between Christianity and Islam

reblogged from Huffpost Religion

By Ian Mevorach Theologian, minister, ethicist, and activist; co-founder of Common Street Spiritual Center (www.commonstreet.org)

Part 1:

The time has come for Christians and Muslims to make peace between our communities. Christians and Muslims already make up more than half of the global population, and these numbers are expected to grow in the coming decades; according to the Pew Research Center, by 2050, two thirds of humanity, some 5.7 billion people, will be either Christian or Muslim.

Our planet simply cannot afford another century of misunderstanding and violence between these two communities. The challenges we face as a global human family are profound: ongoing warfare and nuclear proliferation, global poverty and economic inequality, climate change and ecological degradation. How will humanity handle these crises and others if our two largest religious communities are embroiled in constant conflict, if misunderstanding defines our relationship? As contemporary theologian Hans Kung has argued for decades, there will be no peace between our nations without peace between our religions. Now is the time to transform the way Christians and Muslims see and relate to each other.

In an earlier blog on the Huffington Post about the problem of Christian Islamophobia, I argue that Christians have the opportunity to transform the way we see Islam and Muslims by accepting Muhammad as “Spirit of Truth.”

Historically, most Christian theologians—including John of Damascus, Thomas Aquinas, Dante, Nicholas of Cusa, and Martin Luther—have seen Muhammad not as a “Spirit of Truth” but as a “Spirit of Error,” a false prophet or heretic. There are many Christians today who respect the Islamic tradition and would never make such an offensive statement about Muhammad.

However, the majority of Christians still maintain a fundamentally Islamophobic position on Muhammad. So I believe that the time has come for peacemaking Christians to contradict this position directly. Changing our view of Muhammad—so that we recognize him as a true prophet rather than discredit him as a false prophet—would effectively inoculate Christians against Islamophobia and would help to establish a new paradigm of cooperative Christian-Muslim relations.

In Jesus’ farewell discourse in the Gospel of John (chapters 14 to 16), Jesus speaks about the coming of the “Spirit of Truth” or “Advocate” (in Greek, parakletos). For centuries Muslim interpreters have seen Muhammad as this “Advocate,” based on Qur’an 61:6, a verse in which Jesus predicts the coming of a future prophet named Ahmad: “O Children of Israel! Truly I am the Messenger of God unto you, confirming that which came before me in the Torah and bearing glad tidings of a Messenger to come after me whose name is Ahmad” (61:6, The Study Quran). Ahmad, which is another name for Muhammad, is very close etymologically to the Greek word, parakletos, so it is likely that the Qur’an is claiming that Jesus’ farewell discourse in the Gospel of John predicts Muhammad. The major objection to applying these predictions to Muhammad or any other prophet is that Christians normally read them as part and parcel of Jesus’ promise of the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Jesus’s promise of the Holy Spirit is an essential part of the Christian faith and my interpretation of Muhammad as Spirit of Truth affirms this. John 14:16-17 and 14:26 are clearly about the promise of the Holy Spirit: in John 14:16-17, the Advocate or Spirit of Truth is spoken of as an everlasting, invisible, abiding, inner presence; in most manuscripts, this Advocate is even directly called “the Holy Spirit” in John 14:26. But as Jesus’ farewell discourse proceeds these titles become multivalent and, in John 15:26-27 and 16:7-15, they begin to refer more to a future prophet than to the Holy Spirit. Some Muslim interpreters who identify Muhammad with the Advocate argue that this title does not refer to the Holy Spirit at all—and that the text of John has been corrupted so as to obfuscate its direct link to Muhammad. But I believe that the titles Spirit of Truth and Advocate are used in the Gospel of John, first of all, to speak about the promise of the Holy Spirit—and I do not believe that the text has been changed to hide anything. This interpretation of John opens us up to Muhammad as Spirit of Truth in a way that affirms the integrity of the Christian tradition. But before I explain the fine details of my exegesis I want to speak briefly to the big picture of why the Gospel of John, in particular, tells us that Jesus predicts a future prophet.

Part 2:

The Gospel of John is the latest canonical version of the Gospel—it was written at least a generation after the synoptic gospels and probably two generations or more after Paul’s letters. The author of the Gospel of John, often called the beloved disciple, claims to be the last living witness to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. In a passage at the end of the Gospel he tells a story about an encounter with the risen Jesus that made him and others believe that he would live to see Jesus’ second coming.

Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; he was the one who had reclined next to Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?” When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about him?” Jesus said to him, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!” So the rumor spread in the community that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?” This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true. (John 21:20-24, NRSV)

This passage shows us that the author of the Gospel of John is in a different paradigm than earlier New Testament authors insofar as he no longer expects Jesus’ imminent second coming. Paul, for example, who wrote in the decades immediately following Jesus’ death and resurrection, believed that Jesus would return while most of the people he was preaching to were still alive. The author of the Gospel of John looks for new meaning in Jesus’ promise of the Spirit of Truth or Advocate because he realizes he will die before Jesus returns. When his Gospel was published he was likely already dead and his community was looking forward into a longer and more complicated future than originally expected.

The Gospel of John plays a similar role for the New Testament as Deuteronomy does for the Torah. Deuteronomy is the latest text of the Torah—it reiterates the Law of Moses as told in the four earlier books—and like the Gospel of John it predicts a future prophet:

I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their own people; I will put my words in the mouth of the prophet, who shall speak to them everything that I command.(Deut 18:18-19, NRSV)

Both Deuteronomy and the Gospel of John are reflections on specific revelations—the Torah and Gospel—and both indicate that there is more revelation to come. The Gospel of John’s language for the Spirit of Truth or Advocate is strikingly similar to Deuteronomy’s: “he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come” (John 16:13, NRSV).

Like Deuteronomy, the Gospel of John opens up an expectation for future revelation. John’s prophecy is not so specific that it must apply to Muhammad and only Muhammad. But insofar as the Qur’an makes the claim that Muhammad is the Spirit of Truth or Advocate that Jesus foretold, a strong interpretive option emerges for Christians to receive Muhammad as a prophet that Jesus predicts when he says:

I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of Truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, because he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine. For this reason I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you. (John 16:12-15, NRSV)

In this passage, the description of the Advocate or Spirit of Truth is qualitatively different than earlier mentions. Here we see the Spirit of Truth speaking not through the disciples but to them. Earlier, in John 14:17, Jesus says that this Spirit of Truth will abide with his followers and be in them; throughout the Gospel of John the Holy Spirit is spoken of as an abiding, inner presence. Again, in 14:26, Jesus says that the Advocate will “remind you of all that I have said to you.” In these passages, Jesus is talking about the Holy Spirit who helps his followers understand what he has said. Essentially, this would have been the experience of the beloved disciple, the author of the Gospel of John, who was guided by the presence of the Spirit in remembering and interpreting Jesus’ words and deeds (which he does spiritually rather than literally). However, in John 16:12-15, Jesus is talking about a Spirit of Truth who will bring forth new revelations, who will say the “many things” that Jesus does not say because his followers “cannot bear them now.”

The clear distinction is that the Spirit of Truth in John 16 is predicted to declare new revelations not merely remind Jesus’ disciples of what he already said, as in John 14. The idea that he will “declare to you the things that are to come” is especially important because it acknowledges the uncertainty about the future that Jesus’ followers faced, given the fact that he had not returned as soon as expected. Jesus asserts that this future prophet will glorify him by declaring a new revelation that will come from the same source as his message: God. This discourse is designed to open the minds of Christians to receive a future revelation not as something that competes with or diminishes the Gospel, but rather as something that glorifies Jesus. Unfortunately, these words in the Gospel of John have been totally missed by Christians who reject and belittle the Qur’an; we have for the most part completely ignored the unity of the Gospel and the Qur’an in terms of their common revelatory source. However, if we take Jesus’ words seriously, we have the opportunity to receive the Word of God in the Qur’an in accordance with Jesus’ promise that the Spirit of Truth “will take what is mine and declare it to you.” We can accept the Qur’an as a revelation, not in opposition to the Gospel, but in unity with the Gospel and the will of Jesus.

Part 3:

In the First Letter of John, which was written after the Gospel of John and is very similar to it, we find a continuation of the Gospel of John’s multivalent way of speaking about the Spirit as applying to the Holy Spirit as well as to prophets inspired by the Spirit. In 1 John 3:24 and 1 John 4:13, the author speaks about the gift of the Holy Spirit and how it abides in Jesus’ followers. But in 1 John 4:1-6, in between these mentions of the Holy Spirit, the author speaks at length about testing the spirits. In these verses the word “Spirit” is used to talk about prophets and how to tell whether they are true or false:

By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. (1 John 4:2, NRSV)

The author contrasts “the Spirit of God” with the “Spirit of Anti-Christ,” those who are “from God” with those who are “from the world,” and “the Spirit of Truth” with “the Spirit of Error.” This discourse, again, is strikingly similar to the discourse in Deuteronomy about future prophets that I quoted above.

In Deuteronomy 18:20-22, after the promise of a future prophet in 18:18 and the commandment to listen to that prophet in 18:19, criteria are laid out to distinguish a true from a false prophet. Deuteronomy threatens that a prophet who speaks for another god or who falsely speaks on God’s behalf “shall die” (18:20). It also advises the Israelites to ignore prophets who prophecy falsely:

If a prophet speaks in the name of the Eternal but the thing does not take place or prove true, it is a word that the Eternal has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; do not be frightened by it. (18:22, NRSV)

In the same way, but using different criteria, the author of 1 John defines true prophets and false prophets relative to their allegiance to Jesus, God, and the early followers of Jesus. Part of the dynamic of the early community of Jesus’ followers was that many claimed the inspiration of the Spirit and prophesied. The author of 1 John is especially worried about Docetic versions of Christianity that had developed denying that Jesus “came in the flesh”; in these versions of Christianity Jesus was not an actual human being but rather an angelic being that only appeared to be human. Such a version of Christianity, obviously, would have been quite disconnected from the actual teachings and values of Jesus of Nazareth and his earliest followers, who knew him as a real human being. It is worth noting that Muhammad meets these criteria insofar as the Qur’an affirms that Jesus is the Messiah and that he “came in the flesh.”

In the history of Christianity, all of the negative terms in 1 John 4:1-6 have been used against Muhammad. He has been identified with “the Spirit of Anti-Christ” and the “Spirit of Error.” However, the time has come for Christians to recognize how wrong we have been in these assessments and to correct the record by affirmatively identifying Muhammad with “the Spirit of Truth.”

When we look at Islam as a world religion, and see that 1.6 billion people and growing are following in the way of Muhammad, the time has surely come to recognize him as a prophet. If Muhammad is not a prophet, who is? It is understandable, really, that so many Christians have been defensive and have reacted negatively to Islam. That kind of group-ego, fear-based response is part of human nature. However, it is absurd for us to continue to see Muhammad as a heretical Christian or false prophet given that Islam has lasted for nearly 1,400 years, has supported monumental cultural, spiritual, artistic, political, moral, and intellectual achievements, and has a tremendous and vibrant global following.

There is no better candidate than Muhammad, no one in fact that comes even close, in terms of fulfilling Jesus’s promise of the Spirit of Truth who would bring forth a new revelation from God. I do not have space in this article to explore the many Qur’anic verses directly addressed to Christians, but if we were to receive them our religion would be transformed for the better and would come into balance with Judaism and Islam.

Jesus knew it would be difficult for us to accept his guidance from another source. But he did not want our fear of the apparent otherness of the Prophet Muhammad and the Qur’an to separate us from the Way, the Truth, and the Life; that is, the Word of God. This is why he spoke to the disciples reassuringly about the Spirit of Truth, saying, “he will glorify me”; and, for the same reason, he emphasized the unity of his teaching with the revelations to come, twice repeating the promise, “he will take what is mine and declare it to you” (John 16:14-15, NRSV). Based on the promises of Jesus, Christians can encounter the Qur’an without fear, knowing that it is a revelation which glorifies Jesus and, in a spiritual sense, is from him.

What we have in the Gospel of John is a biblical portal between Christianity and Islam. If we choose to walk through it in faith we will discover that our religions issue from the same divine source; we will discover that we are siblings in faith, meant to bear witness to the truth side by side (John 15:26-27) and collaborate in manifesting God’s will on Earth as it is in Heaven. I invite Christians everywhere to look carefully at our scriptures, search our souls, consider our history, and seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit in answering this question: “Has the time come for Christians to see Muhammad as Spirit of Truth?”



Categories: Bible, Christianity, God, Islam

132 replies

  1. It seems that when Christians use the Gospel of John to defend the deity of Christ, you tell us that we’re not allowed to because its the latest Gospel and not reflective of the teachings of Jesus. I must ask, do you think the words of Jesus in John 14-16 are historical?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Allan,

      It is not at all unreasonable for Muslims to refer to parts of the Gospel of John. There is no reason for anyone to adopt an “all or nothing” perspective.

      The Gospel of John is very different from the Synoptic gospels. It’s theology is bizarre, reflecting a possible Gnostic origin. However, that does not mean that it is completely worthless. Interspersed between the bizarre theology are possible snippets of the original message of Jesus (pbuh). For example, the Gospel of John, more than the other gospels, presents a deified Jesus, but then in other places, it presents a Jesus who is clearly human and not “coequal” to God (“I am ascending to my father and you father, to my God and your God…”). Due to the contradictory nature of the Gospel of John, it is therefore not at all unreasonable to pick certain parts and reject others.

      The passage that is referred to in John 16 is very interesting. But there is an even more interesting passage in John 1, where it is indicated that the Jews were expecting a prophet who would be a separate individual from the Messiah:

      “19 Now this was John’s testimony when the Jewish leaders[c] in Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was. 20 He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, “I am not the Messiah.”

      21 They asked him, “Then who are you? Are you Elijah?”

      He said, “I am not.”

      “Are you the Prophet?”

      He answered, “No.”

      22 Finally they said, “Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?”

      23 John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet, “I am the voice of one calling in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way for the Lord.’”[d]

      24 Now the Pharisees who had been sent 25 questioned him, “Why then do you baptize if you are not the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?”” (John 1:19-25).

      Now I ask you: who is this “Prophet”? Who can it be if it was not John the Baptist (pbuh), nor Jesus (since he was the Messiah)?

      Like

    • Great points Faiz. You make a lot of sense.

      Like

  2. You’re putting a lot of stock in the Jewish leaders. The same Jewish leadership that would reject Jesus whom muslims believe is the messiah. There were many views of what the messiah was to do. Basically, almost every muslim I dialogue with who’s into apologetics has the view that the Bible is good enough to prove Islam but not good enough to falsify it.

    For example, in the very chapter you quoted, John 1, you would reject the entire prologue(verses 1-18) and even the words of John the Baptist in verse 29 where he says: “The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” At the same time you’ll take a couple of verses which state that some Jews were looking for a prophet and conclude that Muhammad was foretold in the text.

    In other words, the Gospel of John can only be used to prove Islam and anything in the Gospel that disagrees with Islam and promotes Christianity(at least where Christianity and Islam differ) is discarded.

    I don’t want to sound harsh but I just want you to see where I’m coming from.

    Like

    • Allan,

      Did you not read what I wrote? It seems perfectly reasonable to me that Muslims would accept some parts of the Bible and reject others. If the Bible was uniform in its theology and teachings, then one could argue that it is wrong to pick and choose which parts to believe or emphasize. But since the Bible is clearly self-contradictory (the Gospel of John is no different, as I showed), it is not at all unreasonable to sift through the contradictions.

      You didn’t really answer my question. How do you explain the Jews’ expectations? And if they were wrong in their expectations, then why didn’t John the Baptist (pbuh) correct them? Who is the “Prophet”? Who can it be if it was not John the Baptist (pbuh), nor Jesus (since he was the Messiah)?

      Like

  3. I must say that it is irrelevant what the Jews believed. John the Baptist gives one word answers but doesn’t qualify them so we don’t know what he’s thinking. The Jews probably believed that the prophet of Deuteronomy 18 was separate from the Messiah but they were in fact the same person. They were wrong but John the Baptist doesn’t bother correcting them. It’s true, he’s not the Messiah or the prophet. It doesn’t mean that he didn’t know the truth about both. It just means that he didn’t feel that he needed to explain it to the Jews.

    The Christian belief is that Jesus is both prophet and Messiah. We see this in Acts 3 where the disciples apply the prophecy of Deuteronomy 18 to Jesus.

    Like

    • What makes you think that it was the apostles who got it wrong? And why on earth did John not correct the Jews if they were wrong? Why would he let them persist in their folly? It seems to me that Christians have to make assumptions. But your assumptions don’t make any sense and lack evidence.

      Where in the Tanakh does it say that the Messiah and the Prophet are the same person? Since you think the Jews were wrong, do you believe they were misinterpreting the Tanakh? How exactly is Deuteronomy 18 referring to Jesus?

      Like

  4. “What makes you think that it was the apostles who got it wrong? ” I don’t know what you’re talking about.

    Why didn’t he correct the Jews? Not sure. I’ve never talked to him about it. It doesn’t bother me because if God didn’t want us to know about it, he would have stated it.

    “Where in the Tanakh does it say that the Messiah and the Prophet are the same person?”

    I’m not sure that it does but its not a problem since it doesn’t contradict anything I believe. They are the same person and the text doesn’t say they aren’t. The Messiah is also the prophet of Deuteronomy 18.

    Do I think the Jews misinterpret the Tanakh? Absolutely. Most Jews I dialogue with actually have quite a shallow knowledge of the Tanakh. A good example is Rabbi Michael Skobac of Jews for Judaism. There is a reason he doesn’t debate Christian apologists and he has been challenged.

    “How exactly is Deuteronomy 18 referring to Jesus?”

    Well, I could give you a long answer but its actually Peter who connects the Deuteronomy 18 Prophet to Peter in Acts 3:22-23.

    I should also point out that Surah 3:52 refers to Christ’s disciples as muslims so its not me who’s giving this interpretation to you. It’s the muslim disciple(Peter) of the muslim prophet(Jesus) who is connecting the Deuteronomy 18 Prophet to Christ.

    Like

    • Allan, you said:

      “” I don’t know what you’re talking about.”

      What do you mean? I asked a very simple question. What makes you think the apostles were the ones who misinterpreted the Tanakh? Where does Deuteronomy 18 mention that the Prophet will be the Messiah?

      The rest of your response is basically you saying “I don’t know, but that’s what I believe.” You seem like a decent fellow, but your evasive attitude is typical of Christian apologists. You said:

      “Why didn’t he correct the Jews? Not sure. I’ve never talked to him about it. It doesn’t bother me because if God didn’t want us to know about it, he would have stated it.”

      So basically, your response is “I don’t know, but it’s not important”. Of course, it’s important! Your dismissive attitude does not solve the problem nor answer the question. Why would God not correct the Jews’ misinterpretation? Was He deliberately leading them astray?

      You said:

      “I’m not sure that it does but its not a problem since it doesn’t contradict anything I believe. They are the same person and the text doesn’t say they aren’t. The Messiah is also the prophet of Deuteronomy 18.”

      Again, your response is “I don’t know but it doesn’t matter”. Your entire premise is one large circular argument. If that’s the best you can do, then I don’t know what the point of your responses to this thread is.

      You said:

      “Do I think the Jews misinterpret the Tanakh? Absolutely. Most Jews I dialogue with actually have quite a shallow knowledge of the Tanakh. A good example is Rabbi Michael Skobac of Jews for Judaism. There is a reason he doesn’t debate Christian apologists and he has been challenged.”

      Actually, I would say that it’s the Christians who have “a shallow knowledge of the Tanakh”. Moreover, it’s the Christians who try to insert their own extrapolations into the Tanakh when it suits their purpose. Case in point: the whole nonsense about the trinity concept being in the Tanakh. No such concept exists.

      You said:

      “Well, I could give you a long answer but its actually Peter who connects the Deuteronomy 18 Prophet to Peter in Acts 3:22-23.”

      Is this the same Peter who said to baptize in the name of Jesus, even though the Gospels say that baptism should be done in the name of the father, the son and the holy spirit? This is another example of the contradictions within the New Testament.

      And as for the book of Acts, it is quite possible that the author simply got it wrong. The Book of Acts is well known for some basic mistakes. For example, in the description of Stephen’s trial, the author makes historical and scriptural mistakes that severely damage his credibility. I discussed this in one of my blog articles:

      “cts 7 describes the trial and stoning of Stephen by the Sanhedrin, as well as Stephen’s impassioned speech before his death. In previous articles, we have noted the Bible’s erroneous usage of the Egyptian title “Pharaoh”, which had not been used to refer to the king of Egypt before the reign of Tuthmose III, who reigned from 1504 – 1492 BCE.[12] The Bible, however, uses the word consistently to refer to the rulers of Egypt even during the time of Abraham (peace be upon him), even though it would not have been used in that sense.[13] And the author of Acts 7 has Stephen repeat the erroneous passage from the book of Genesis, obviously not realizing that it was an anachronism. Yet if the Holy Spirit is supposed to be “all-knowing”, then surely it should have been able to inspire Stephen to correct this anachronism, which it did not. Therefore, we must conclude that Stephen, if he actually did give his famous speech before the Sanhedrin,[14] was not being guided by the Holy Spirit, and thus, the prophecy from the Gospel of Mark is false. It is also possible that the entire event was made-up by the author of Acts.”

      ” However, scholars generally accept that Stephen’s speech is most likely the invention of the author of the Book of Acts (who was probably Luke) and also has other errors, in addition to the incorrect usage of the word “Pharaoh”. As Reza Aslan states:

      “The speech, which is obviously Luke’s creation, is riddled with the most basic errors: it misidentifies the burial site of the great patriarch Jacob, and it inexplicably claims that an angel gave the law to Moses when even the most uneducated Jew in Palestine would have known it was God himself who gave Moses the law” (Aslan, op. cit., p. 168).”

      http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2015/01/prophecies-in-holy-scriptures-word-of_15.html

      You said:

      “I should also point out that Surah 3:52 refers to Christ’s disciples as muslims so its not me who’s giving this interpretation to you. It’s the muslim disciple(Peter) of the muslim prophet(Jesus) who is connecting the Deuteronomy 18 Prophet to Christ.”

      The Quran also says that Jesus (pbuh) told the disciples that another Prophet would come after him whose name would be “Ahmad”:

      “And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: “O Children of Israel! I am the messenger of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad.” But when he came to them with Clear Signs, they said, “this is evident sorcery!” (61:6).

      Your entire premise is based on a circular argument. This is typical of Christian apologetics.

      Like

    • Hey Faiz, I may respond to this later, but in 20 minutes Dr. James White is going to go on the Dividing Line and try to refute my blog post on him. I recommend you give it a listen.

      Here’s the blog post

      http://allanruhl.com/james-white-is-extremely-dishonest-and-should-not-be-taken-seriously/

      Like

    • Allan,

      I don’t follow James White’s debates nor have I read any of his articles or watches any of this shows. I do agree with you that he, like many Christian apologists, use double standards. This is especially the case when it comes to Islam.

      Like

  5. Muslims trying to see Muhammad in John 14-16 is the weakest of all their arguments.

    John chapters 14, 15, and 16 – the comforter, the paraklatos, the one called alongside to help, the helper, the advocate. Because of Surah 61:6 and the claim that “Ahmad” is in the gospel, Muslims try to find that “Ahmad” ( احمد – meaning, “praised one”, another form of Muhammad (محمد) in these passages by claiming that the “Paraclete” / paraklatos / παρακλητος (the helper, comforter, counselor) was originally “periklutos” (praised one).

    John 14:16;

    John 14:26;

    John 15:26;

    John 16:7

    There is no evidence of any textual change from Periklutos to Paraklatos. Muslims have to claim that originally the text said, “periklytos”, but that someone later changed it. However, there is no textual variant that would point to any evidence of periclutos in those texts in john 14 or 16.

    παρακλητος – the helper, the comforter, the one called alongside to help

    περικλυτος – “praised one” – big difference.

    And there is no textual evidence in any manuscript that backs up “periklutos” (praised one). None. zero. nada. zilch. sephr. Dr. White makes an excellent point about the vowels in Greek being part of the word. The Holy Spirit comes after Jesus ascends to the Father (Acts 2:33-36), not 600 years later.

    John 13-17 is a consistent whole. It is Trinitarian in structure; describes the different roles of Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and how they relate to one another. How they relate to one another in speaking to one another, communicating, etc. speaks of personal relationship and person-hood. that is why “person” describes the three-ness of the Trinity, and nature/substance describes the Oneness of the Trinity.

    another comforter of the same kind, Greek: allos / αλλος will be with believers forever (John 14:16)

    The Holy Spirit will be in the disciples; in believers in Christ as Savior and Lord. (John 14:17)

    This verse alone defeats the Muslim’s arguments for the John 14 and 16 and Ahmad argument, because Muhammad cannot be “in” the disciples nor any Christian in the future.

    The world cannot see the Holy Spirit, but the world, the people knew Muhammad as a man – Muslims who accepted him as a prophet and the Quryaish pagans who rejected him and fought battles and wars and caravan raids against him. They saw him. His life was “of this world”, physical, and in the context of much war. “Spirit” is not human, He is Spirit (John 14:17; 14:26; 16:13) dwells within believers – John 14:17 – “He abides with you and will be in you.” That alone makes it impossible for the paraclete to be Muhammad of Arabia. The paraclete is called, “the Holy Spirit”, and “the Spirit of Truth”. He is a spirit, not a man, like Muhammad. The Holy Spirit will bring to remembrance all things (John 14:26) that Jesus taught, yet there is nothing much in the Qur’an from Jesus’ teaching or the NT. There is no quote from the New Testatment. The Qur’an knows nothing from NT – no new info. No quotes; only phrases like: Jesus is the Messiah, virgin born, prophet, the Word, a spirit from Allah. John 15:26 – proceeds from the Father. This is Deity language – proceeding out from the Father. Paraclete is sent by Jesus (John 15:26 – “I will send to you from the Father”) Testifies to Jesus (John 15:27) and glorifies Jesus. (John 16:14) if Mohammad is sent by Jesus then Jesus is God; since only God sends prophets. Guides the disciples into all the truth, not people 600 years later.

    Like

    • I completely disagree when you say: “Muslims trying to see Muhammad in John 14-16 is the weakest of all their arguments.”

      I disagree because I think its the third weakest. What are the top two? It’s a debate between the “science” in the Quran and the Quran codes aka supposed numerological patterns in the Quran. I’m still trying to decide which one is worse.

      Like

    • ok, the number 19 thingy is pretty dumb and is probably the goofiest argument of all Muslim apologetics.

      Like

    • I have actually never looked into the whole number 19 theory in detail. It’s actually propagated by the “Quran-only” group, not mainstream Muslims.

      It’s funny because many Bible-thumpers have referred to an alleged “Bible code” for years. In the words of the goofball Ken, the Bible-code “thingy is pretty dumb and is probably the goofiest of all Christian/Jewish apologetics”! 😉

      You know what else is pretty dumb and goofy? The whole Christian nonsense about the trinity being taught in the Tanakh (that one is pretty funny), the nonsense about Jesus being predicted in the Tanakh etc. Other nonsense is how the Bible refers to a flat earth and an earth that is only 6,000 years old (this shows the irreconcilable conflict between science and the Bible).

      Like

    • Shabir Ally has promoted the Qur’an code 19 thingy.

      Like

    • If he has, then what is your response to him? Instead of acting like a child and saying things like “thingy”, why not make a formal response?

      And what is your response to all the nonsense “thingies” in the Bible?

      Like

    • the Qur’an code 19 thingy is too goofy to waist time on.

      There is nothing nonsense in the Bible.

      Like

    • LOL, your response is simply “goofy”. Thank you for proving that you are goofball, nothing more.

      Like

    • So Ken, the Bible doesn’t refer to a flat earth? It doesn’t say the earth is 6,000 years old?

      Like

    • Hmm, well I’m not going to take your word for it, since Christians like to make things up. 😉

      Flat earth in the Bible –

      What about Matthew 4:8, which claims:

      “Again, the devil took [Jesus] to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.”

      This is perhaps the clearest example of a flat Earth in the Bible, for if the devil had to take Jesus to a “very high mountain” in order to show him “all the kingdoms of the world”, it implies the author’s belief that the Earth was flat. Why else did Satan take Jesus to the mountain? The text also suggests that these “kingdoms” were clearly visible.

      6,000-year old earth –

      Since the Bible provides a detailed genealogy starting from Adam (Genesis 5 and 11), it becomes clear that from the first day of Creation to the present day, only about 6,000 years have gone by. In other words, according to the Bible, the Earth is only about 6,000 years old.

      For more Biblical nonsense, see my article: http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2014/03/science-in-bible-and-quran.html

      Like

    • The guy that started the number 19 thing. wrote his own quran and took out the last to ayia’s of Surah 9 to get it to work. Funny there is a interview he did with some Muslim radio station and the host was gushing all over him as he explained the number 19. This went on for over an hour and then he tells he host “Oh the last two aya’s in surah 9 should not be in the Quran, I had to remove them”.

      The host lost it and through him off the show. A short time later the number 19 guy was murdered in AZ for his heresy. I think his murderer a Muslim NOT AN ISLAMOPHOBE was just brought to justice.

      Liked by 1 person

    • You are referring to Rashad Khalifa. Yes, he was murdered, but then again, the Bible calls for murdering false prophets too! If it wasn’t for secularism in Christian countries, they would still be burning witches and killing false prophets!

      Khalifa should not have been killed. He was a heretic, but it would have been better to refute his claims and expose him, rather than killing him and turning him into a martyr for his followers.

      Like

    • god in the bible write law for blasphemer, then god came down and blasphemed in the flesh and was put away according to his own law.

      haleeluyah praise thee lord!

      Like

    • Faiz wrote…
      “Khalifa should not have been killed. He was a heretic, but it would have been better to refute his claims and expose him, rather than killing him and turning him into a martyr for his followers.

      My response: Thats your opinion but what does allah’s perfect law say? BTW he’s not just a heretic he re wrote the Quran in his own and said its from allah. I think that falls in the line of Blasphemy.

      So what does allah say should be done to him?

      Like

    • LOL, JAC. You still haven’t answered my questions on the other thread, and now you want to ask me questions on this thread?

      Muslims are not allowed to take the law into their own hands. Khalifa was living in Arizona when he was killed by an over-zealous Muslim. If he was living in a Muslim state, then yes, he would have been tried and found guilty of heresy and probably put to death as an apostate who challenges the Muslim state.

      The same law is found in the Bible and had it not been for the secular laws in western countries, false prophets like Khalifa would have been put to death there as well.

      Like

    • Faiz wrote…

      “. If he was living in a Muslim state, then yes, he would have been tried and found guilty of heresy and probably put to death as an apostate who challenges the Muslim state. ”

      My response: Promoting ISIS ideology, thats just what ISIS is doing in the ISLAMIC STATE. Now you will respond “Thats not an Islamic state” which is funny to rational people because they are doing what you just said would be done in an Islamic State.

      But hey even if they are not an Islamic state doing what you said would be done in an Islamic state, it just means you want another Islamic state to do what you just said would be done in an Islamic state. So either way you promote what ISIS is doing. you just pushed it out to when ever an Islamic state comes up that meets your arbitrary approval.

      So the only difference between you and ISIS Muslims is that ISIS Muslims are doing what you dream that will be done someday. Your a Oppress and Kill you later Muslim, where as ISIS is a Oppress and Kill you NOW kind of Muslim.

      Like

    • LOL, JAC. Interesting how you ignored the phrase “challenges the Muslim state”. In other words, it is treason. Treason is punishable by death in many countries. Nothing wrong about it. People can believe what they want as long they do not challenge the authority of Islam in a Muslim state. It would have been for Rashad Khalifa to call himself a “messenger” and not challenge the authority of Islam.

      It’s also interesting how you ignored the fact that the same law is found in the Bible and Christians had been burning heretics at the stake for centuries! Only with the coming of secularism did their power get reduced. One can only imagine the horrors that would be unleashed if Christians gained that power again.

      Like

    • JAC, since Ken is silent, perhaps you can respond to my post about Biblical nonsense (i.e. flat earth, 6000 year old earth etc.).

      Like

    • Sorry not a young earthier and the bible unlike the Quran does not say the earth is flat or that the sun sets in a muddy spring, or shooting stars are to chase jinn away or any of the other such scientific miracles that are found in the Quran.

      Liked by 1 person

    • LOL, it doesn’t matter if you are not a “young earther”. Many Christians are not because science has set them straight. But that doesn’t change the fact that the Bible clearly refers to a flat, 6,000-year old earth.

      Flat earth in the Bible –

      What about Matthew 4:8, which claims:

      “Again, the devil took [Jesus] to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.”

      This is perhaps the clearest example of a flat Earth in the Bible, for if the devil had to take Jesus to a “very high mountain” in order to show him “all the kingdoms of the world”, it implies the author’s belief that the Earth was flat. Why else did Satan take Jesus to the mountain? The text also suggests that these “kingdoms” were clearly visible.

      6,000-year old earth –

      Since the Bible provides a detailed genealogy starting from Adam (Genesis 5 and 11), it becomes clear that from the first day of Creation to the present day, only about 6,000 years have gone by. In other words, according to the Bible, the Earth is only about 6,000 years old.

      For more Biblical nonsense, see my article: http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2014/03/science-in-bible-and-quran.html

      Will you answer or are you a coward who will run away like Ken? 😉

      Like

    • LOL yah ok man… and shooting stars chase jinn away, sperm comes from between the rib and the backbone and the sun sets in a pool of muddy water lol

      Liked by 1 person

    • Fiaz so how old does Islam say the world is?

      Like

    • LOL!!

      It proves advanced science in the bible. Obviously the high mountain was on another planet in our solar system and satan and jesus were looking through a very powerful telescope at all the kingdoms of the earth as it rotated. Clear evidence that the bible is divine – how else could these first century jews known about telescope technology and that the earth rotated?

      Don’t let the irony get lost on you.

      As for the topic – how do you explain the satanic verses? Why didn’t this “prophet of god” know the difference between the word of his god and the word of satan? And why would jesus claim such a man as a prophet? None of the other prophets had this problem.

      Like

    • So there are different kinds / forms of the 19 goofy Qur’an code thingy ?

      Which kind is the kind that Shabir holds to?

      Surely he does not agree with the guy who took 2 Ayahs out of Surah 9. (Rashad Kalifa)

      Like

    • Goofy Ken,

      Are you still clinging to this “thingy”? Why don’t you deal with the nonsensical thingies in the Bible, as I showed above? 😉

      Like

    • Ken Shabir uses Kalipha’s methodology, I believe the difference is he only uses it for some surah’s and not others.

      Like

    • This is incorrect.

      The #19 patterns work even with the last two verses of Chapter 9. Rashad Khalifa became obsessed and thus wanted to maximize the #19 pattern.

      However, for the vast majority of innumerable patterns in the Qur’an, they exist with or without the last two verses.

      I spent quite a bit of time on this.

      Liked by 1 person

    • You haven’t read the article, have you?

      Like

  6. Paul,

    Thanks much for posting this beautiful article.

    The Qur’an is amazing no matter how you view it….it is a miracles on top of miracles…multifaceted miracles.

    Whether you view it from the number 19 or science or linguistically or rhetorically or with its prophecies or its historical accuracies or the prophecies in scriptures in the Bible (with only a small sample discussed in this article), or its phonetic beauty with its rhyme, rhythm, assonance, cadence, etc, or its comprehensiveness or its legal wisdom, or its consistency despite 23 years of tumultuous experiences of this Prophet, the Spirit of Truth, etc., etc.

    It is impossible that some person in 7th century of any country, let alone uncivilized Arabia can compose this…sheer impossibility.

    Like

  7. Since there are gaps in the genealogies, it may be that mankind going back to Adam is 10,000 years old ( ? maybe more ?), but the earth could be much older than than, since we don’t know how God is measuring time in Genesis 1 before the sun is created in our solar system.

    There are 3-4 major views on the age of the earth without ascribing to Darwinian Evolution.
    1. Young Earth view – 24 hour day literal view
    2. Old earth view = days of Genesis 1 can be epochs
    3. Gap theory between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2
    4. John Sailhamer’s view, which is similar to # 3 – in his book, “Genesis Unbound”.

    Like

    • I already dealt with the “gaps” theory in my article. There are no “gaps” in the genealogies. That is an invention of modern-day Christians who are embarrassed by the Bible’s contradiction with science.

      Nothing in the Bible suggests that the “days” are “epochs”. They are literal 24-hour periods. Boom!

      Like

  8. I agree with you Faiz. I think theistic evolution is a heresy. I even wrote a critique of Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin promoting these types of view. At the same time, the Quran affirms(Surah 61:6) that the Torah that we have today(or in the days of Jesus which is what we have today) is correct so the Muslims must join the Christians in combating evolution.

    Like

    • I agree that Theistic Evolution is a heresy.

      Like

    • Allan,

      I think you are in the wrong thread. But, while evolution is certainly flawed, I disagree with you that the Quran affirms the “Torah”. By “Torah”, I assume you mean the current “Old Testament”. The Quran does not affirm this. It affirms the true “Torah”, which has been altered over the centuries.

      Like

    • No, the Quran affirms the Torah, read Surah 61:6 and about five other passages I don’t feel like naming here. Jesus affirmed the Torah of his day. We have the Dead Sea Scrolls so we know what the Torah of Christ’s day was.

      Like

    • No, it doesn’t. But this is off topic anyway. I am waiting for you response to my post above.

      Like

  9. LOL!! So far, Ken and JAC are avoiding the scientific challenges to the Bible and instead try to change subjects! What are you so afraid of guys? Can’t answer a simple challenge?

    Well at least D tried, even though his answer is beyond asinine and stupid. Let’s see D if your ridiculous claim can stand the weight of scrutiny. You claimed that Satan and Jesus went to another planet. Wow! That’s quite a stretch given the language of the passage which clearly states that they were still on Earth! Christian lies strike again! Here is what the Gospel of Matthew states:

    “Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted[a] by the devil. 2 After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3 The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”

    4 Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’[b]”

    5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6 “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written:

    “‘He will command his angels concerning you,
    and they will lift you up in their hands,
    so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’[c]”

    7 Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’[d]”

    8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9 “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”

    10 Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’[e]”

    11 Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.”

    So, Jesus was in the “wilderness” on Earth. The devil came to him and tempted him. First, he took him to Jerusalem (the holy city), and then he took him to “a very high mountain”. Notice that verse 7 states that “AGAIN, the devil took him…” In other words, they were still on earth, unless you want to claim that the “holy city” was on Mars or something. No where does it state that they left earth. LOL!!

    D, this is truly one of the stupidest claims I have heard from a Christian, and I have heard some whoppers! You should be ashamed and embarrassed at making such a childish claim!

    Moreover, even if they went to another planet, they would only be able to see one side of the earth at any one time! For example, here is an image of the earth from the moon, courtesy of NASA:

    Thank you for exposing your ignorance of astronomy and also showing how low Christian apologists will go to save their so-called “divine” book. HA! “Divine” indeed!

    Like

    • I should also add that the ancients already knew there were other planets. The Greeks and Romans had great knowledge of astronomy and they had observed other planets because you do not need a telescope to see them. Most of the planets are visible from earth with the naked eye. So your “divine” Bible (haha hehe) would not be so so “divine” at all! The pagan Greeks and Romans would have already known about other planets. LOL!!

      Like

    • Faiz/Fail

      FAIL! LOL!

      Like

    • The Bible teaches that the earth is flat. Any intelligent responses from the Christian loons? NOPE! FAIL! LOL!!

      Like

    • Only a Muslim who believes that shooting stars drive away jins, and the sun sets in a muddy pound, and sperm comes from the rib and the backbone, would think that the bible teaches the earth is flat.

      But you never answer me how old is the earth according to Islam?

      Like

    • Radio silence from JAC on the issue of the Matthew’s flat earth…I can hear the crickets! LOL!

      When will you stop being a coward, Crazy Hippy? Will you answer my question and stop changing the topic?

      Like

    • The only one who is smoking anything is you. Stop smoking that Tahweed man it rots your brain. I did answer you a few times. You just don’t like the answer.

      But hey you havent answered me how old is the earth according to Islam?

      Like

    • Lol, you didn’t answer anything. You just said you were not a young earther and didn’t ecen deal with Matthew 4. Too much pot, I guess!

      So, we can see that 3 Christians have run away from dealing with Matthew 4. The 3 Stooges have avoided discussing the issue like its the plague! Lol!

      The Bible teaches that the earth is flat, as per Matthew 4. Any intelligent responses to this fact? Anyone out there in Christian Land? 🙂

      Like

    • Ok dude sure does lol. Now can you answer me how old is the earth according to Islam?

      Like

    • With the name of Allah,

      Unlike the human tampered Bible which puts the creation of Earth on day one; making the age of Earth equal to the age of the universe…which is wrong… and then give wrong data which make the age of the universe six thousand years,  On the other hand the Holy Qur’an  dont say about age but mention a factor of God’s ‘Arsy /Throne time of Earth creation of  2 age factor  while the Heavens, Earth and everything in between are 6 age old (1/3 factor).  This fits the calculation of modern science that the universe 13.7 billion years old while Earth  4.57 bln years ago = 1/3.

      Like

    • LOL, still not providing any reasonable answers? Why do I get the feeling that you are not actually admitting the Bible teaches a flat-earth model? 😉

      I will answer your question after you respond to my charge against the Bible. Matthew 4: do you agree or disagree that it refers to a flat-earth and why?

      Like

    • JAC, see brother Eric’s post below. It answers your question.

      Now, will you please answer my question and respond to the curious case of Matthew 4?

      Like

    • Eric\Fiaz
      LOL You mean to tell me that allah didn’t know? All those scientific miracles in the Quran, like sperm coming from between the ribs and the backbone, shooting starts being missile to chase away the jinn, the sun setting in a muddy pound, and allah couldn’t tell Muslims how old the earth was? Did he forget? Or maybe its in one of the many missing surahs.

      Like

    • /With the name of Allah

      /You mean to tell me that allah didn’t know? All those scientific miracles in the Quran, like sperm coming from between the ribs and the backbone, shooting starts being missile to chase away the jinn, the sun setting in a muddy pound, and allah couldn’t tell Muslims how old the earth was? //

      Can you write in a more intelligent manner and not zig zaging and throwing rubbish in a conversation? I will be happy to discuss things with you if you are sincere to seek truth and be more respectful.

      Like

    • Radio silence from JAC on the Bible’s flat earth! All we get from this pathetic loon are silly posts. LOL!!

      Liked by 2 people

    • Eric wrote…

      “Can you write in a more intelligent manner and not zig zaging and throwing rubbish in a conversation?”

      My response: So your saying my words are just as eloquent as allahs words in the qruan? So I guess I wrote a surah like it on this blog. All Ham do to allah

      Like

    • Dude show some respect. You disagree with Islam. Fine. But no need to be offensive.

      Like

    • Also, one would not need to go to a “very high mountain” on another planet to see earth. You could see it just by standing on level ground, just like we can see the moon and other planets without having to go to a “very high mountain”. Christian logic fails again! LOL!!

      Like

    • LOL!!!

      I knew the irony would be lost on you! Let’s see how long it takes for you to get it. LOL!

      So, what is your take on the satanic verses – should we follow someone who can’t tell good from evil? Is it reasonable to presume that even if jesus was a mere prophet that he would call on people to follow someone whom god knew would preach the devil’s word?

      Also, the quran calls your god the greatest schemer – is this an attribute or his essence?

      Like

    • LOL, D! If you cannot provide a reasonable, intelligent response, then just say so! 🙂

      Stop trying to change the subject to the inauthentic story of the so-called “Satanic verses” and answer the question. Does Matthew 4 refer to a flat earth? How do you respond to my charge? Ken and JAC have run away. Will you follow in their footsteps with your tail between your legs? 😉

      Like

    • Still didn’t get the irony? LOL!! Keep trying.

      Matthew 4 says nothing about a flat earth – where do the words “flat earth” show up? Are you saying that two supernatural beings are beholden to the laws of physics such that all the kingdoms of the earth could not be seen? When did you suddenly become a materialist?

      The satanic verses are hugely significant for this topic – why would the incarnate god prophesy someone who could nit tell the difference between good and evil? And, if your god is a schemer, then that would make the revelations of your prophet suspect – another reason not to trust the claim that he was endorsed by new testament prophesy.

      Like

    • LOL, D!! You’re getting stupider and stupider by the minute!

      It doesn’t have to literally say “flat earth” in the text. The belief in a flat earth was very wide spread, so the author was simply influenced by such a belief and assumed the earth was flat. So, while it doesn’t actually say “flat earth”, it is IMPLIED. Get it?

      If it was a vision, as you seem to be implying, then why the need to go a “very high mountain”? The “two supernatural beings” could have seen “all the kingdoms of the earth” just as easily from the ground, don’t you think? Better yet, they were already at a “high” place at the top of the temple. The devil could have just shown Jesus the vision from there as well. But no. Matthew tells us that only after going to a “very high mountain” did the “two supernatural beings” see the kingdoms. That implies a flat earth.

      Your laughable attempts to steer the topic away to the “Satanic verses” myth is simply an attempt to divert from the embarrassing problems in the Bible. But if you are sincerely interested in learning why it is an inauthentic story, I suggest you see the following:

      http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Polemics/sverses.html

      Like

    • Faiz

      “It doesn’t have to literally say “flat earth” in the text. The belief in a flat earth was very wide spread, so the author was simply influenced by such a belief and assumed the earth was flat. So, while it doesn’t actually say “flat earth”, it is IMPLIED. Get it?”

      The greek speaking world knew that the earth wasn’t flat since 500-600 years before jesus – 1st century palestine was part of the greek speaking world and it’s jewish theologians were heavily influenced by greek philosophy and culture. So it’s unlikely that new testament writers thought the earth was flat – your faith in your man-made religion must be weak for you to make these desperate claims. There is no gotcha moment here, no one is even remotely moved to doubt by your bizarre claims. We’re laughing. LOL!!

      the event was supernatural, involving supernatural beings – there’s no attempt here to make scientific claims, nor to describe topography. And the irony of my first comment still eludes you. FAIL!!

      On the other hand mohammed blasted off into space and split the moon in two – an event that would have been empirically verifiable. Unsurprisingly, no other group of people noticed this cataclysmic event – even worse, there is no record of him gluing the moon back together again so it should still be split. Then he argued with your god and came back, telling people not to obey god’s commands to pray 3 times a day. A real prophet – like moses – would have had such a terrifying divine glow on his face from beholding god that no mortal would have been able to look at him.

      That Islamic awareness article was interesting – what are the earliest manuscripts that islam possesses? I would argue that much of the history of islam’s beginnings is historically dubious – no more or less than the satanic verses – since there just are not much early hadtih manuscripts. That makes most of what you have not written nor transmitted by eye-witnesses. They all heard from someone who heard from someone else.

      Like

    • D, you said:

      “The greek speaking world knew that the earth wasn’t flat since 500-600 years before jesus – 1st century palestine was part of the greek speaking world and it’s jewish theologians were heavily influenced by greek philosophy and culture. So it’s unlikely that new testament writers thought the earth was flat – your faith in your man-made religion must be weak for you to make these desperate claims. There is no gotcha moment here, no one is even remotely moved to doubt by your bizarre claims. We’re laughing. LOL!!”

      LOL!! Yes, the pagan Greeks knew the earth was spherical, yet why would think that the majority of Jews, who were largely uneducated, would also believe that? Perhaps the learned rabbis would have thought that, but the uneducated masses, most of whom could not even read, would not have. The flat earth view persisted for hundreds of years even after the advancements made by the Greeks and Romans.

      But, in actuality, even the learned rabbis were known to believe in a flat earth. See the following: http://www.daatemet.org/articles/article.cfm?article_id=16

      It states:

      “Earth’s spherical shape was clear and known to the Greeks, as we stated above, but to our rabbis these matters were not at all clear and unambiguous, as we will show. […]

      The Gemara explicitly states that Earth is flat, for the first man laid prone from “the end of the world” in the east to “the end of the world” in the west. Thus is written in the Shvut Ya’akov responsa (by R’ Jacob Reischer, born c. 1670), part 3, paragraph 20: “The words [of the Greek astronomers] are based on the notion of Earth as a sphere, in contradiction to what the discussion of this topic in our Talmud (Chagiga 12a) implies.” According to the Shvut Ya’akov we find that Rav Judah, who lived in the third century CE (that is, 900 years after Pythagoras!) still thought the Earth to be flat.

      Epic fail, D! LOL!!

      By the way, I am not surprised at all that you idiots would accept the evidence. I don’t have any delusions that you brain-washed Christians will accept that the Bible is full of nonsense. But your refusal to see the facts is what makes the rest of us laugh! LOL!!

      You said:

      “the event was supernatural, involving supernatural beings – there’s no attempt here to make scientific claims, nor to describe topography. And the irony of my first comment still eludes you. FAIL!!”

      Your “irony” aside (I could care less 😉 ), I never claimed that the Bible was making “scientific claims”, so nice try with the straw man. I said that the passage from Matthew 4 implies a flat earth. So far, neither you nor the other Christian apologists have offered anything concrete to refute this claim. If it was a “supernatural” event, then why the need to go to a “very high mountain”? You still haven’t answered that question! FAIL!!

      You said:

      “That Islamic awareness article was interesting – what are the earliest manuscripts that islam possesses? I would argue that much of the history of islam’s beginnings is historically dubious – no more or less than the satanic verses – since there just are not much early hadtih manuscripts. That makes most of what you have not written nor transmitted by eye-witnesses. They all heard from someone who heard from someone else.”

      LOL, yeah you would argue that Islam’s “beginnings is [sic[ historically dubious”, wouldn’t you? Most ignoramuses would.

      But the fact is that there are MANY manuscripts from the early years of Islam. There are many Quranic manuscripts from the 1st century, and there are also ahadith documents from the 1st century as well. There are also many inscriptions and other archaeological evidence that document the history of early Islam. See the following:

      http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/earlyislam.html
      http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/
      http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/hadith.html

      I wonder if the “irony” is lost on you that you, a Christian, whose entire religion is based on dubious historical evidence, is claiming that Islam’s history is “dubious”! FAIL!!

      Like

    • I did not run away; I just don’t time to constantly be here all the time. I have work and family responsibilities, so sometimes it make take a day or two to come back in on the discussion. But sometimes thread can become too long and too difficult to jump back in, after one is away for a while.

      Liked by 1 person

    • This is a dramatic speculation of how the devil showed Jesus the kingdom’s of the world, but I think it makes sense. You cannot read into “took Him up on a high mountain” to mean “flat earth”.

      Luke 4:1-12 is worded a little different. Jesus the Son and God the Father allowed Satan to take Jesus up on the edge of the temple to tempt Him to throw Himself off the roof of the temple, so it is reasonable to assume that Satan had the power to show Jesus the splendor and glory of the political kingdom’s of the world and their wealth, power, military might etc.

      Like

    • Ken Temple

      You said;

      Ken Temple

      April 30, 2016 • 3:00 pm

      This is a dramatic speculation of how the devil showed Jesus the kingdom’s of the world, but I think it makes sense. You cannot read into “took Him up on a high mountain” to mean “flat earth”.

      Luke 4:1-12 is worded a little different. Jesus the Son and God the Father allowed Satan to take Jesus up on the edge of the temple to tempt Him to throw Himself off the roof of the temple, so it is reasonable to assume that Satan had the power to show Jesus the splendor and glory of the political kingdom’s of the world and their wealth, power, military might etc

      I say;
      Christians are you not ashamed? to say Satan tempted God? You said Jesus is God and heal the leper and raise the dead on earth but for Satan to tempt him the God on earth? OK. He is 2 persons, God and Man.

      Where is the God part to help him so that Satan will not take him and show him glory or throw him off the roof.

      Is Jesus not God to know the splendor and glory of the political kingdom’s of the world and their wealth, power, military might etc.? At least the God part of Jesus must know and tell the other person who is the man part.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • Allah allows Satan to exist and to do things, right?

      Like

    • to be tempted is not sin; to give into the temptation is sin.

      Jesus in His human nature, was tempted, but He had no sin nature and no sinful desires, so the temptation did not work on Him. He models for us what to do when tempted – “It is written . . . ” “No, Satan, be gone!”

      Jesus is the best example for life, not Muhammad.

      Hebrews 4:15

      For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.

      James 1:13-15

      13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. 15 Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.

      Like

    • Ken Temple

      You said;
      to be tempted is not sin; to give into the temptation is sin.

      Jesus in His human nature, was tempted, but He had no sin nature and no sinful desires, so the temptation did not work on Him. He models for us what to do when tempted – “It is written . . . ” “No, Satan, be gone!”

      I say;
      Our problem is Jesus as God tempted which is a blaspheme and if not repented by saying Jesus is God one will be punished by God in hell fire.

      But you said we are born sinners? You said our sinful thought needs a blood of Jesus which is like detergent to clean it. If you are not a sinner when tempted(sinful thought), then how can the blood of Jesus as a detergent cleans sinful thought(temptation by Satan) which is not a sin?

      Thanks.

      Like

    • I am not arguing that Satan did not have the power to show Jesus the kingdoms of the earth. I am asking why it was necessary for them to go a “very high mountain” (Luke says it was a “high place”) in order to have this vision? They could have just as easily have the vision from the ground or even from the top of the temple. Why did they need to go to a mountain? That is the key phrase. If the text did not mention the mountain, then it would not be reasonable to say that a flat earth was implied.

      Like

  10. It could be a miraculous vision. The devil seems to be given power to work miracles sometimes.

    Also in Revelation we have what appears to be a similar phenomenon taking place:

    Revelation 1 v 7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Or, more likely, it could be that the author thought that the earth was flat. Hence, it would make sense to him that going to a “very high mountain” would allow a person to see all the kingdoms of the earth. Otherwise, if it was “a miraculous vision”, then why didn’t Satan just show Jesus the vision while they were in the wilderness?

      Thanks for pointing to Revelation 1:7. It also suggests a flat earth since “every eye shall see him” would only be possible with a flat earth.

      Like

    • yes, a miraculous vision, like a modern video scene.

      Like

    • Anachronistic. Better explanation that the writer thought earth was flat. Natural reading of the text.

      Like

    • Visions are not anachronistic – there are many visions in the Bible that God revealed to prophets – see book of Daniel, Ezekiel chapters 40-48 – “visions of God”, Ezekiel 1, “visions of God”.

      God gave Peter a vision in Acts 10-11.

      Many others.

      So, it is not anachronistic.

      Like

    • Exactly. Why did they need to go to a mountain to have this “vision”?

      Liked by 1 person

    • No, it was not a vision. The text states that they first went to a high mountain and THEN saw the kingdoms of the earth. That implies a literal flat earth, and not a vision.

      Like

    • Rev 21 v 10 “And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, ”

      Here the great and high mountain seems to be part of the vision.

      Another assumption seems to be that the devil showed Jesus each and every kingdom of the world at the same time. That is not necessarily the case. He could have shown him one kingdom after another by means of a vision. In this case there would be no need for a flat earth.

      I think also that only the kingdoms that possessed splendor and glory would be have been put on display. The others were hardly likely to constitute any kind of temptation. These could have been concentrated at that time in a smaller area that could possibly have been seen from a high mountain.

      If you still want to ask why the need for a high mountain I could ask why Mohammed needed a horse for the night journey when a carpet would have done the same job? Or he could have stayed in his bed for the night and still got the job done?

      Liked by 1 person

    • “Here the great and high mountain seems to be part of the vision.”

      Of course it is, because it specifically says “he carried me away in the spirit…” The entire Book of Revelation.

      But, there is no such qualifier in Matthew 4. It simply says that the devil took Jesus to different spots. Moreover, we know it was not a vision because one of the places the devil took Jesus to was the top of the temple. That was not a vision because what would be the purpose of tempting Jesus in a vision? The logical conclusion is that neither the visit to the temple nor the visit to the “very high mountain” was a “vision”.

      “Another assumption seems to be that the devil showed Jesus each and every kingdom of the world at the same time. That is not necessarily the case. He could have shown him one kingdom after another by means of a vision. In this case there would be no need for a flat earth.”

      Actually, we do know that he was showing Jesus “each and every kingdom” because the verse specifically says:

      “Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all [Greek – pasas] the kingdoms of the world [Greek – kosmou] and their splendor” (http://biblehub.com/text/matthew/4-8.htm).

      It’s also interesting that the word “kosmou” is used several times in Matthew and it always implies the entire world (see Matthew 5:14, 13:35 etc.)

      “I think also that only the kingdoms that possessed splendor and glory would be have been put on display. The others were hardly likely to constitute any kind of temptation. These could have been concentrated at that time in a smaller area that could possibly have been seen from a high mountain.”

      Which “kingdoms” do you think would have been “concentrated at that time in a smaller area”? The Roman empire itself was massive and it would not have been possible to see all of its territories from any mountain:

      I also highly doubt that the devil could have shown the Parthian empire in Iraq, the Kushan empire in south Asia or the Han dynasty in China in a “smaller area”.

      “If you still want to ask why the need for a high mountain I could ask why Mohammed needed a horse for the night journey when a carpet would have done the same job? Or he could have stayed in his bed for the night and still got the job done?”

      Um, because it was not a vision. It was a literal ascension. What difference does it make that he went on a horse instead of a carpet? He went on some sort of transportation, did he not? So what difference does it as to what kind? How is the same as saying that the devil and Jesus went to a “very high mountain” to have an alleged “vision” of the world when he could just as easily have done it from the ground or even from the top of the temple?

      Surely you see that there was a reason for going to a different place each time. Obviously, the devil could not tempt Jesus to jump off a high place without first taking him to a high place! Hence, he took him to the top of the temple (I also wonder why no one seemed to notice the two of them standing up there!). But when Jesus wasn’t tempted, the devil took it up a notch (way up!). To the author, it would have made sense to take Jesus to a high mountain if he believed that the earth was flat. There is no other explanation.

      Like

  11. Eric bin kisam

    “On the other hand the Holy Qur’an dont say about age but mention a factor of God’s ‘Arsy /Throne time of Earth creation of 2 age factor while the Heavens,”

    Your god created his throne before anything else and then placed it over the “water” which he had not created yet. Try sciencing that up.

    Plus, why do muslims believe that your god cannot have a son when he states EXPLICITLY that he CAN have a son by picking anything (presumably he’s prefer offspring with humans) from his creation?

    Like

    • With the name of Allah.

      //Your god created his throne before anything else and then placed it over the “water” which he had not created yet. Try sciencing that up.//

      Where this  “before anything else” and “placed” it over the water come from??

      The Qur’an says:

      وَهُوَ الَّذِي خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ فِي سِتَّةِ أَيَّامٍ وَكَانَ عَرْشُهُ عَلَى الْمَاءِ

      Nowhere it says what you wrote. when it says وَكَانَ عَرْشُهُ عَلَى الْمَاءِ  literally:  The Throne was above the water  It does not tell us that the water was there before the throne nor it was placed. You simply lied.

      This may seems the verse implies that God’s Throne was upon the water  referring to absurdity in  the Bible (cf Genesis 1: 2, עַל־פְּנֵ֥י הַמָּֽיִם ‘al-paney hamayim on the face of water) which clearly teaches that water existed before the creation of the heavens and the earth was taking place, …. but no muslims believe that this  indicate physical space, since God’s Throne could not be physically on the water if the heavens and the earth had not yet come into being.

      The way muslims understand this verse is Scriptura Scripturae interpres :  God’s Throne was above the water in the manner in which the heavens came about without any physical support below them in Q 13: 2:

      اللَّهُ الَّذِي رَفَعَ السَّمَاوَاتِ بِغَيْرِ عَمَدٍ تَرَوْنَهَا ۖ ثُمَّ اسْتَوَىٰ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ

      God it is Who raised the heavens without pillars that you see, then mounted the Throne.

      Unlike in the bible the creation of the universe  happened in a continuous process and had a beginning, not just at instantly.

       

      يَوْمَ نَطْوِي السَّمَاءَ كَطَيِّ السِّجِلِّ لِلْكُتُبِ ۚ كَمَا بَدَأْنَا أَوَّلَ خَلْقٍ نُّعِيدُهُ ۚ وَعْدًا عَلَيْنَا ۚ إِنَّا كُنَّا فَاعِلِينَ

      The Day when We will fold the heaven like the folding of a [written] sheet for the records. As We began the first creation, We will repeat it. [That is] a promise binding upon Us. Indeed, We will do it.

      The key word in this verse is “began” (بَدَأْ), which tells us clearly that creation happened in a continuous process and had a beginning, not just at instantly.

      And also, unlike in the bible which wrongly assumed that the Universe originated from water, then we would be in grave scientific error.  The Qur’an indicates that the Universe originated from Hot Smoke or Hot Gas (cf Q 41:11) which also conform with modern sciences.

      ثُمَّ اسْتَوَىٰ إِلَى السَّمَاءِ وَهِيَ دُخَانٌ

      Then He directed Himself to the heaven while it was smoke

      Liked by 1 person

    • Eric

      “Where this “before anything else” and “placed” it over the water come from??”

      That’s a bigger problem – is his throne uncreated? Or was it created after the creation of creation? It doesn’t say that his throne was created so it must have been there before creation.And if your god didn’T place it over the water, who did? Does his throne have it’s own will? Is it just there because it wants to be?

      There is actually a hypothesis that the early universe just after the big bang resembled a liquid and not a gas – but it doesn’t matter. God’s word should not have to rely on dubious and vague sciencey wowsers that usually don’t pan out as a means to verify their truth. His wisdom, revelation of his person and purpose for us, should be enough.

      Like

    • With the name of Allah

      It is a problem for those who embrace trinitarianism and polytheism only, In Islam Allah is the only creator (Khaliq) everything else is just His creation (makhluq)

      ذَالِكُمُ اللهُ رَبُّكُمْ لآَإِلَهَ إِلاَّ هُوَ خَالِقُ كُلِّ شَىْءٍ فَاعْبُدُوهُ وَهُوَ عَلَى كُلِّ شَىْءٍ وَكِيلٌ

      That is Allah , your Lord; there is no deity except Him, the Creator of all things, so worship Him. And He is Disposer of all things.[Al-An’am/6:102]

       

      اللهُ لآإِلَهَ إِلاَّهُوَ رَبُّ الْعَرْشِ الْعَظِيمِ

      Allah – there is no deity except Him, Lord of the Great Throne /Arsyil Adhim . [An-Naml/27:26]

      Like

    • But the Qur’an also says several times that God created every thing in 6 days,

      Sura 7:54, 10:3, 11:7, and 25:59 clearly say that God created “the heavens and the earth” in six days. But then there is also the following passage:

      2 Say: Is it that ye deny Him Who created the earth in TWO Days
      And do ye join equals with Him? He is the Lord of (all) the Worlds.
      +
      He set on the (earth), mountains standing firm, high above it,
      and bestowed blessings on the earth, and measured therein all things
      4 to give them nourishment in due proportion, in FOUR Days
      in accordance with (the needs of) those who seek (Sustenance).

      Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky,
      and it had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth:
      “Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly.”
      They said: “We do come (together), in willing obedience.”
      +
      2 So He completed them as seven firmaments in TWO Days,
      and He assigned to each heaven its duty and command.
      And We adorned the lower heaven with lights,
      and (provided it) with guard.
      Such is the Decree of (Him) the Exalted in Might, Full of Knowledge.
      — Sura 41:9-12 (Yusuf Ali)

      = 8 altogether these are EIGHT Days.

      Like

    • With the name of Allah.

      No, Those six days in [Quran 7.54] are on the Throne; so the frame of reference for creation is the Throne, not Earth.

      [Quran 41.9] Say: “Is it that you deny Him [Allah] who created the Earth in two period? And you claim others to be equal to Him? He is the Lord of (all) the Worlds.”

      [Quran 50.38] And we have created the Heavens and Earth and EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN in six  periods and We were not touched by fatigue.

      All those days are relative to the frame of reference for creation ie  the Throne. When Allah says that He created the Heavens, Earth and EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN  in six period this means that He is referring to total  period of existence.  Earth was still in smoke state in the first four days). After that God ordered Earth to form which take two periods. Also in the last two period God created the seven superimposed heavens and revealed their orders.

      Like

    • Nice responses brother Eric!

      Liked by 1 person

  12. D

    If any being PICKS A SON that He did have sex and give birth to, then that Son/son is metaphorical or adopted Son/son and can not be co-equal to Him.

    Was Jesus a metaphorical Son/son do God like the other Sons/sons of God in the Bible who are not co-equal to God? or did God have sex with Mary to give birth to Jesus?

    I can either be one way or the other. I cannot be both as Christians try to confuse us.

    Do not blame any one as Dr. James White losing his intellectual integrity by blaming the Quran about what Son/son or begotten means.

    Dr. James White, you are confusing your fellow Christians because they trust you and repeat your arguments. BEGOTTEN MEANS TO HAVE SEX AND PRODUCE A SON. A SON IS PRODUCED BY HAVING SEX AND CONCEIVING A BABY.

    The meanings of begotten can be metaphorical and will disqualify Jesus as being the only metaphorical Son/son of God.

    Which ever it is my dear Doctor, God cannot BE A BEGOTTEN SON TO ANYONE. That is what the Quran is saying and it is 100% right. It is only an idol worshiper who will not agree with the Quran on this one.

    On the Throne, God can create His throne and create water and place it on it. What is wrong about that? In Islam when God says “BE” and it is, something is created. God can say “BE” to create something and say “BE” to create another thing or to create anything He wants.

    Thanks.

    Like

  13. Intellect

    “If any being PICKS A SON that He did have sex and give birth to, then that Son/son is metaphorical or adopted Son/son and can not be co-equal to Him.”

    That is not what the text says. It says that your god can have offspring – a son, but maybe not a daughter, who knows? LOL!

    And he can have this offspring from anything in his creation – humans, angels, goats, ants, anything. It’s a major contradiction and hugely problematic since it is one of the absolutely most clear verses in the quran, yet it contradicts two of the most fundamental doctrines of islam, that your god cannot personally operate in the universe he created, and that he is above having offspring.

    “Was Jesus a metaphorical Son/son do God like the other Sons/sons of God in the Bible who are not co-equal to God? or did God have sex with Mary to give birth to Jesus?

    I can either be one way or the other. I cannot be both as Christians try to confuse us.”

    You don;t need christians to confuse you, my friend, your own holy book does that well enough. The quran thinks christian believe that god had sex with mary because it says that your god does not have a consort or partner – a baby momma in modern terms – but that just shows the ignorance of whoever wrote the quran.

    The son according to christianity is god’s word incarnate into human flesh – and not into processed tree matter like the quran – with no indication that this was achieved through sex.

    Your quran, however, does state explicitly that your god can have sex with anything in his creation – otherwise, why wouldn’t he simply say that he can have offspring simply by saying “BE!” instead, of specifically, suggesting that he needs partners in his creation to do so?

    We are all confused.

    Like

  14. D

    You said;
    Intellect

    “If any being PICKS A SON that He did have sex and give birth to, then that Son/son is metaphorical or adopted Son/son and can not be co-equal to Him.”

    That is not what the text says. It says that your god can have offspring – a son, but maybe not a daughter, who knows? LOL!

    I say;
    Show me Arabic word, phrase or sentence that says God can have offspring. A Son/son or Daughter/daughter with or without capital can either be metaphorical/adopted or literal with sex and that is the meaning. A metaphorical son or daughter is not an offspring but adoption.

    What ever Son or Daughter means, either metaphorical, adopted or literal offspring it does not befit God to be “BEGOTTEN” or “SON” or “DAUGHTER” to anyone. That is what the Quran wants the Christians to understand, anyone who is a Son or Daughter whatever meaning it is, that Son or Daughter is not God and so Jesus is not God.

    Doctor James White has sold his intellectual integrity by deceiving the Christians about this clear warning from the Quran to Christians to stop saying anyone who is a Son like Jesus Christ is a God.

    THE VERSE SAID GOD PICKS SON FROM HIS CREATION, HIS CREATION, HIS CREATION. It means He creates the Son and picks him as His adopted Son and so that Son cannot be co-equal to Him.

    You said;
    The son according to christianity is god’s word incarnate into human flesh – and not into processed tree matter like the quran – with no indication that this was achieved through sex.

    I say;
    Son does not mean God’s word incarnate into human flesh. If you say “her my son” to anyone he understand it to be either metaphorical/adopted or literal having sex to produce offspring but will not understand it to be that he is a “word incarnate into human flesh”.

    Son/son does not mean “God’s word incarnate into human flesh” not at all. It is a lie and it cannot be so. It does not mean so. It is pagan religion who thinks so and they think their God has come down to have sex with humans and produced half human, half God offspring like Jesus Christ.

    Jews have Sons/sons of God in their scripture but it does not mean “Word incarnate into human flesh”. Word incarnate into human flesh means “incarnation” and not Son/son.

    Son does not mean incarnation. If Son means incarnation, we will all be incarnations because we are all Sons/sons.

    WHETHER GOD HAD SEX WITH MARY AND MAY GOD FORGIVE ME, OR DID NOT HAVE SEX WITH MARY, SON MEANS TO HAVE SEX AND PRODUCE A SON OR METAPHORICAL/ADOPTION. THAT IS WHAT SON MEANS. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MARY. IT IS ABOUT THE MEANING HERE AND GOD IS NOT SON OR DAUGHTER TO ANYONE NO MATTER THE MEANING OR MARY’S INTIMACY.

    Thanks

    Like

  15. D

    Ken Temple and most Trinitarians believed that God sent his spirit in Mary’s womb to stay there for 9 months. What does He want there? to fertilise Mary’s egg to produce God-Man Jesus Christ as a hybrid being like the Pagan Graeko-Roman Gods who come down to earth and have sex with humans to produce God-Men.

    The difference here, is that there was no sex but in vitro fertilization by the Trinitarian God through his spirit to fertilize Mary’s egg. Otherwise what does God spirit needs in a woman womb to create God-Man there? If He is all powerful God He can just say “Be” and He will achieve what He wants to create Jesus without Father like how He created Adam and Eve without Father.

    Christians, Muslims, which I am, Hindus, Jews, Buddhist etc. it is not what you think or what you believe but it is what is true and what is logic and what something means.

    You will often here Christians copying Dr. James White “That is not what we believe”. But Dr. James White will call Mormons polytheist because they worship mult-persons like him(Dr. James White).

    The Mormons will tell Dr. James White “That is not what we believe”. It is not about what you believe because you can all believe in lies and illogicalities. You are all believers of multi-personal Gods and if Mormons are idol worshipers, Dr. James White you are an idol worshiper. As simple as that. Rastafarians have Emperor Haile Selaissie as a person of Trinity and so their God is unique too.

    I, as a Muslim and Jews and some Christians and other people who believe God of Abraham is only one and alone as the Bible said are worshiping one God. Muslims believe they worship the same God with anyone who believe God is One but they draw distinction if anyone start to add anything as God again and that is polytheism and idol worshiping.

    Thanks.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. D

    You cannot tell me “begotten not made”. What nonsense and lies is that? begotten is made and you cannot be changing words like that to bully us into submission.

    God is immortal but God died and is not immortal again and you are killing people from centuries till today to believe this nonsense.

    Some Bibles have removed the begotten and use unique and it makes perfect sense to do that. If you do not want the begotten why put it there. Because the Graeko-Roman Paganism has crept into Christianity? If your God are co-equal why not use something like partners, board of directors etc. who are on the same hierarchy?

    For sure Son/son is subordinate to the Father and God almighty is not subordinate to anyone.

    You keep changing things the way you like to kill people to believe that. God said He is one, you said from councils upon councils decided by men that God is 3 persons 1 God and that cannot be found in any scripture and Prophet Abraham never worshiped “3 persons 1 God”

    BEGOTTEN NOT MADE INDEED. EATING WITHOUT SWALLOWING.

    You have nothing to defend this nonsense but attacking the Quran which is here not to accuse you but to correct you back to truth.

    Thanks.

    Like

  17. You cannot tell me “begotten not made”. What nonsense and lies is that? begotten is made and you cannot be changing words like that to bully us into submission.

    Who are you to tell the early Christians (centuries before Islam started), what the Greek words and phrases meant?

    “begotten, not made” meant “eternally generated out from” (like rays from the sun – there is never a time when a sun does not also have rays or heat = the Son and the Holy Spirit are always coming out from the Father, spiritually, like light and heat.) The logos meant “the mind expressing itself in words” – the mind / word of God was always coming out from Him in communication – John 1:1-5; 1:14

    the creeds are originally in Greek, for example the Nicean (325 AD), Constantinopolitan (381 AD), and Chalcedonian Creed (451 AD) are all originally in Greek – Greek language based church of the 100s-400s AD

    You cannot read your view with Islamic problem/bias / misunderstanding of seeing Father and Son = Sex with a mother – (Surah 6:101) of 600 AD – 2016 back into what they meant in 100-400 AD.

    The Christians meant in eternity past God is ONE God, an invisible being, a unity of essence/substance, with three persons in a pure love relationship (NOT physical and NO sex); but Muslims are always reading “sex” back into the words of “begotten”, “father”, and “son”.

    It is obvious that is what Muhammad and the first Muslims thought – Surah 6:101 – so this proves the Qur’an is not from God, because no Christian ever believed that from 33 AD to 600s AD. Muhammad did not understand Christian terminology.

    Like

    • With the name of Allah.

      There is no such a thing as “eternal generation”. This is nonsense.

      In Jh 1:14, use ἐγένετο which is derived from γίνομαι (Strong’s G1096) . This suggests an act of generation or to emerge, become, transitioning from one point (realm, condition) to another. There is no way people can dodge the natural and fair meaning of this text is that there was a time when Logos had not an existence, and when it began to be, or was created.

      “eternal generation” is a nonsense.

      Like

    • No; you are confusing the incarnation ( = in + carnation = in -fleshing) the word became flesh means the eternal Word became human. John 1:14 and εγενετο is about when the Word became human in the womb of Mary (Luke 1:34-35).

      But God the Son in eternity past existed with the Father as the Word (John 1:1-5) / eternal Son (John 17:5).

      “eternal generation” is what the early church fathers wrote about, in order to describe how the Son was the Son/Word from all eternity past with the Father.

      John 1:14 is not even about “eternal generation” at all.

      Eternal generation is about the invisible Word/ Son in eternity past, not when He became human.

      Like

    • With the name of Allah

      John 17:5 use the verb εἶχον which  is in indicative mood , imperfect tense which means simply expressing a simple statement as FACT, whether this action  occurs, has occurred or will occur. It is not a strong argument as indication of eternity.

      Besides as a muslim I have no problem to accept the scenario that Allah has given his prophet Isa the glory δόξῃ prior to his emergence on Earth . In Islamic understanding everyone destiny has been recorded before time in لَوْحٍ مَحْفُوظٍ  literally the preserved tablet (as it is mentioned in the holy Qur’an). However we muslims do not fall into Satan trap by understanding the tablet as eternal created person or worst as another deity, No! We  understand this as God’s foreknowledge.  Nabi Isa could the “logos,” the “plan” of God from the beginning, and he became flesh only when he was conceived. Trinitarians committed shirk  to read an actual physical existence into verse like this rather than a God’s foreknowledge.

      Like

    • Ken Temple

      You said;
      No; you are confusing the incarnation ( = in + carnation = in -fleshing) the word became flesh means the eternal Word became human. John 1:14 and εγενετο is about when the Word became human in the womb of Mary (Luke 1:34-35).

      But God the Son in eternity past existed with the Father as the Word (John 1:1-5) / eternal Son (John 17:5).

      I say;
      If from egg you change/generate/create cake, you cannot say the cake was generated from the chicken. Do not tell me I am comparing God with anything because you said God became man. The Bible said there is nothing like God.

      Besides the word becoming womb in Mary is in vitro fertilization. Fertilization egg by putting something in a womb to fertilise the egg for 9 months to create a being. In this case it is God-Man because God’s spirit fertilized the egg of Mary to create a hybrid creature called God-Man.

      That is what Christians like Ken Temple are thinking.

      Thanks.

      Like

  18. Ken Temple

    You said;
    Who are you to tell the early Christians (centuries before Islam started), what the Greek words and phrases meant?

    “begotten, not made” meant “eternally generated out from” (like rays from the sun – there is never a time when a sun does not also have rays or heat = the Son and the Holy Spirit are always coming out from the Father, spiritually, like light and heat.) The logos meant “the mind expressing itself in words” – the mind / word of God was always coming out from Him in communication – John 1:1-5; 1:14

    the creeds are originally in Greek, for example the Nicean (325 AD), Constantinopolitan (381 AD), and Chalcedonian Creed (451 AD) are all originally in Greek – Greek language based church of the 100s-400s AD

    I say;
    Do not pull fast one on us. You know this blog will not allow you to get away with this. Now give us a Greek dictionary that says begotten means eternally generated.

    Begotten was used by Jews as you keep quoting and the Jews never understood begotten to mean eternally generated. That is why madmanna will not agree with you that God eternally generated another God. If that is what begotten means why did madmanna and so many Christians from centuries did not understand begotten to be eternally generated?

    Arians, Ebionites, Unitarian Christians, and everyone except some Trinitarians like you and Dr. James White understand begotten to be made or adopted as the Quran warned you to desist because the Quran is here to correct you but not to condemn you that is why it said we must engage in meaningful argument with you people.

    In addition, why not simple the Bible should say the Trinity are “3 persons 1 God” and one “Eternally generates” the other and drop the “begotten” as some Bibles have dropped the begotten all together and some pastors will say “begotten not made” nonsense they might have learnt from Church Fathers. Are they worshiping God from God and His scriptures or opinions of Church Fathers who are human beings and can have mistakes in their thinking?

    God said clearly He is One, Only and Alone. Why “Begotten God”? which is not in the Bible?

    Some Christians, even though do not believe in the Quran but agreed it is right in that “God is not begotten” nor He begets anyone. Just imagine Christians, Jews, Muslims and people of all walks of life agreed with the Quran that God begets no one and He is not begotten by anyone except Dr. James White and some few Trinitarians like you alone.

    It is you who do not understand what begotten means. Those who Christians who understands it and preach it will add not made like eating without swallowing which is nonsense.

    Thanks.

    Like

  19. Now give us a Greek dictionary that says begotten means eternally generated.

    You would have to study the early church fathers from 100-400 AD in order to see their commentaries on what they meant. It is not a simple dictionary form; rather it is what they meant when they wrote about it as they wrestled with what the Biblical texts meant. Especially John 1:1-5; Philippians 2:5-8; Hebrews 1:3, 6, 8, 10-11; John 17:5.

    Studying the early church fathers is a massive task. Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Cyprian Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius, Augustine, Jerome, Hillary, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil of Caesarea, John Chrysostom, etc.

    you can get started here:

    http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html

    Like

  20. Cyprian, Origen – two different people

    Like

    • Ken Temple

      God is not a wicked God to make who he is hard for us to depend on Church Fathers. I will not depend on Church Fathers to tell me who God said He is. God clearly said so many times in the Bible that He is One, Only and Alone. Period.

      Do the Church Fathers knows who God said He is than Moses, Abraham, Jacob etc.? You are toying with you like Ken, as A Christian.

      madmanna and most Christians and Trinitarians do not believe begotten means eternal generation and so they believe the Quran on not using begotten or Son for God except you, Dr. James White and some Trinitarians.

      Thanks.

      Liked by 1 person

  21. Madmanna,
    If you are following this thread, what is your view of the eternality of the Son? ( I forgot exactly what it was.)
    As I recall, you believe the Son/ Word is eternal and you believe in the Trinity, but reject the “eternal generation of the Son” (that the Son/Word is coming out from the Father like rays from the Sun – always there. The rays of light are always there with the star itself.) You said something like, “beyond that (that the Son always existed with the Father), it is a mystery”. correct me if I am wrong.

    Intelllect,
    If that is true, both views are acceptable – that the Son/ Word is eternal with the Father from all eternity past and that the Son/ Word is eternally generated out from the Father.

    Intellect,
    Many of the early church fathers had the “eternal generation of the Son/Word” view.

    Like

  22. “Madmanna,
    If you are following this thread, what is your view of the eternality of the Son? ( I forgot exactly what it was.)
    As I recall, you believe the Son/ Word is eternal and you believe in the Trinity, but reject the “eternal generation of the Son” (that the Son/Word is coming out from the Father like rays from the Sun – always there. The rays of light are always there with the star itself.) You said something like, “beyond that (that the Son always existed with the Father), it is a mystery”. correct me if I am wrong. ”

    Ken, yes you are correct. The Son is God who is the Word who is eternally with God who is not the Word, i.e. the Father and the Holy Spirit. John 1 v 1. The God who is the Word and the God who is not the Word are one and the same God. This is John chapter 1.

    I believe God the Word was begotten at his baptism. He is begotten in his offices as prophet, priest and king, not in his being. You can only call him the Son of God after his incarnation.

    So we all believe what we choose to believe and live happily together, at least on this blog.

    A big thanks from the bottom of my heart to Mr. Paul Bilal Williams.

    Liked by 2 people

    • “So we all believe what we choose to believe and live happily together, at least on this blog.”

      Well, at least we can agree on that!

      Liked by 1 person

    • madmanna

      But you do not believe in the eternal generation of God(The Son) from another God(The Father), so Ken is not correct on the eternal generation madmanna?

      Or you want to repent and accept the eternal generation from one God to another God? You strongly disagreed with Ken about the eternal generation and Ken want to convert you back. Have you been converted back to eternal generation? That is what we want to hear but not repeating things that we already know.

      Ken Temple question is about the eternal generation but not the Son but you seem to clarify the Son to us and said Ken is right on the Son of God and dodged the eternal generation. DO YOU BELIEVE ONE GOD GENERATES ANOTHER GOD FROM ETERNITY? As Ken Temple believed one God generates another God from eternity.

      Thanks.

      Like

  23. thanks,
    “begotten” at His baptism ? That’s a new one on me.

    What about John 17:5 – seems Jesus is saying He was the Son from all eternity, sharing in the same glory as God the Father.

    Like

  24. Radio silence from Christian Land on the flat earth of Matthew 4:8…JAC/D/Ken? What say you? Is it still a “vision”?

    Liked by 1 person

  25. “But when Jesus wasn’t tempted, the devil took it up a notch (way up!). To the author, it would have made sense to take Jesus to a high mountain if he believed that the earth was flat. There is no other explanation.”

    Another possiblility that makes sense to me is that if the devil shows the kingdoms in a large area on the ground there has to be a large distance between the viewer and the image on the ground. In this case Jesus could have a large panoramic view. A viewpoint on the top of a high mountain would make for the ideal natural open air cinema.

    Like

    • Except that even on the highest mountain, there is no way Jesus would have been able to see all the kingdoms of the world. The Han dynasty would not have been visible.

      You are simply inventing different scenarios because you don’t want to admit the obvious fact, which is that the author believed that the earth was flat, a very common belief in that time.

      Liked by 1 person

  26. “Actually, we do know that he was showing Jesus “each and every kingdom” because the verse specifically says:”

    I don’t believe the text implies that Jesus had to see every square foot of every kingdom on the eath.

    Like

    • I never said “every square foot”. I said that he would have to be able to see every kingdom and I already explained why:

      Actually, we do know that he was showing Jesus “each and every kingdom” because the verse specifically says:

      “Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all [Greek – pasas] the kingdoms of the world [Greek – kosmou] and their splendor” (http://biblehub.com/text/matthew/4-8.htm).

      It’s also interesting that the word “kosmou” is used several times in Matthew and it always implies the entire world (see Matthew 5:14, 13:35 etc.)

      In order for this to be possible, the Earth would have to:

      1. flat, and,
      2. small enough so that every kingdom would be visible.

      Like

  27. madmanna

    You said;
    Ken, yes you are correct. The Son is God who is the Word who is eternally with God who is not the Word, i.e. the Father and the Holy Spirit. John 1 v 1. The God who is the Word and the God who is not the Word are one and the same God. This is John chapter 1.

    I believe God the Word was begotten at his baptism. He is begotten in his offices as prophet, priest and king, not in his being. You can only call him the Son of God after his incarnation.

    So we all believe what we choose to believe and live happily together, at least on this blog.

    A big thanks from the bottom of my heart to Mr. Paul Bilal Williams.

    I say;
    Thanks and Paul Williams blog is a big thing Islam and Muslims have had for sometime. We all brainstorm with especially Christians to clarify things to them and they in turn clarify things to us.

    At least “Christians has ticket to heaven” nonsense was put into trash here and no sensible Christian will ever repeat this. Ayisha’s RA marriage was also clarified and so many things clarified.

    Both Muslims and Christians are grateful to Paul Williams and may he live to be 200 inshaAllah.

    madmanna, Back to what you wrote. I will not let you get away with this inconsistencies. As far as I appreciate your kind words, I will quickly point to you that we are all friends and this site is a critical thinking site with deep analysis and brainstorming to chase the truth, but what you said above is untrue.

    -“The Son is God who is the Word who is eternally with God who is not the Word” madmanna, any sensible person will count 2 Gods here.

    -“I believe God the Word was begotten at his baptism. He is begotten in his offices as prophet, priest and king, not in his being. You can only call him the Son of God after his incarnation.”

    metaphorical begotten like all of us or literal begotten like all of us? That is the meaning of begotten and the Quran said God is not begotten to anyone and no one begets God. The Quran did not condemn you as a Christian but just corrected you.

    Do not follow Dr. James White who do not understand “begotten”. The Christian who understands begotten either put “unique” or say begotten not made” like “eating without swallowing” and it is nonsense and rubbish. If you do not want the begotten why put it there. The Quran says remove the begotten there.

    If Jesus is begotten like priest, then he is not God because the begotten priests are not God. If the word was with God from eternity, the the mercy, love, grace are all with God from eternity.

    If the word can be begotten to become a God man, the love can also be begotten to become the goddess of love in the Graeko Roman world i.e. APHRODITE

    Source: https://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=YpYrV_-OLaai8weA9b8o&gws_rd=ssl#q=the+goddess+of+love

    Thanks.

    Like

  28. “In order for this to be possible, the Earth would have to:

    1. flat, and,
    2. small enough so that every kingdom would be visible.”

    My idea is that the devil projects the image of each kingdom that he wants to show on to the landscape one after another. He uses the ground as a screen on which to project the images of the kingdoms that he is showing to Jesus one after the other.

    The size of the image determines how far away the observer has to be in order to see all of it clearly. The larger the image the greater the distance required for the observer to see it all thus the higher the mountain from which he has to view it.

    In this model there is no need for a flat or small earth. The kingdoms are not seen all at once but successively one after the other and not in their entirety. All these things are not necessary in my view.

    I imagine a level plain or surface of desert would probably be the ideal background.

    Of course this is just a theory. We have no need to know and we are not told how the devil did this.

    Like

    • This theory makes no sense because the context simply does not allow it. What is obvious from the text is that the visit to the mountain was for the purpose of seeing all of the kingdoms, just like the purpose of going to the top of the temple was to make Jesus jump off. The devil could have just as easily shown the “visions” from the ground. There was no need to go to the mountain. Thus, Matthew 4 points to a flat earth.

      Like

  29. ” The devil could have just as easily shown the “visions” from the ground.”

    Assuming this is true this does not prove that he had to have done it this way.

    Like

    • No, but it explains why the author deemed it necessary. He believed it was possible to see all the kingdoms from a very high mountain. It wasn’t even a small mountain. It was a VERY HIGH mountain.

      In contrast, you want to make elaborate assumptions because the most obvious explanation is something you cannot bring yourself around to accept since it contradicts everything you have been told. I understand. It takes time. Perhaps, in the future, you will accept this and other facts, inshaAllah.

      Like

  30. If the images are on the ground the observer would have to be above it to see them, thus the need for elevation. If the images are large the distance would have to be large thus the need for a high mountain.

    Like

    • Not at all. The devil could easily have shown the visions from the ground. Did the author of “Revelation” go to a mountain to his “visions”? I think not.

      Like

  31. “No, but it explains why the author deemed it necessary.”

    Now you know the mind of the author, wow!

    Like

    • Calm down madmanna. We don’t need to know the mind of the author. We can tell from the story that he believed in a flat earth. You haven’t been able to explain why he deemed it necessary to go a very high mountain to see the kingdoms of the earth. All you can muster are bizarre assumptions.

      Like

  32. ” All you can muster are bizarre assumptions.”

    I don’t think Islam has a shortage of bizarre assumptions, many of which have been taken from the fables and legends of others before it arrived on the scene.

    You believe for example that Mohammed went on horse from Mecca to Jerusalem and from there, on the same horse? to Allah’s throne to renegotiate the number of prayers. Not bizarre? I think that is the jist of it if I am not mistaken.

    Like

    • Nice try changing the subject but it doesn’t save Matthew from the embarrassment of a flat earth. Thus far, you have failed miserably to offer a reasonable explanation for why the devil had to take Jesus to a very high mountain.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: