Categories: Abdal-Hakim Murad, Christianity, History, Islam, Wisdom
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Categories: Abdal-Hakim Murad, Christianity, History, Islam, Wisdom
Blogging Theology 
We’d be speaking German if Britain followed “turn the other cheek style teachings” and Jay Smith’s Mennonite teachings of pacifism. They may impress some dreamers but in the real world one needs to be able to defend themselves thus the platitudes and slogans from Christian preachers are not practical. The Sira gives us practical teachings and it also teachings us the concept of ijtihad (intellectual reasoning) for matters that are new thus we are confined to a specific geographical location (Arabia) and time (7th century)
LikeLiked by 5 people
Actually, we would be speaking German if christian America had not mobilized against Nazi terror.
No muslim country autonomously took up arms against the NAzis, even though the Nazis were clearly an evil presence in the world.
LikeLike
Graham, no Muslim land had a reason to autonomously get involved in the war. Geographically it didn’t really affect Muslims and I’d imagine the bulk of the Muslim population had little idea of what was going on in Dresden, London, Warsaw and Paris in the 40s.
Having said that, I must take issue with the Hollywood pro-American version of history you espouse. I believe Britain and Russian played a far greater role in stemming the Nazi forces than America or any other nation. Check out Russia’s casualty numbers – IIRC 10s of millions.
The fact that the sacrifices this end in Europe were so great that it paved the way for America to become the only superpower of the age leaving Britain and the rest of Europe playing catch-up in rebuilding (and paying off financial debt to America) is telling in terms of who put the most on the line.
I personally find the American Hollywood revisionism offensive and degrading to Europeans and Eastern colonists.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Yahya
Methinks you are trying to change the subject.
Any religious practice that claims to be about justice should have stood up to and fought the Nazis. Period. Muslim countries didn’t.
In fact, some countries like Iraq, sided with the Nazis and engaged in pogroms against the Jews….
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lyn-julius/iraqs-1941-pogrom_b_5430131.html
Historical revisionism indeed.
LikeLike
On the contrary Graham, I’m not trying to change the subject. You made a comment about American involvement, *Christian America”, being what saved Europe from the Nazis. I took exception to it.
Before I address you’re claims of Muslims and the Nazis I just want to ask you, do you think the nuclear bombing of Japan was a product of “Christian America” too?
OK, let’s discuss this Muslim-Nazi thing. I’ve written about this in the past and I have no qualms in admitting some Muslims did work alongside the Nazis. There was a context to this – it was not a case of “oh these guys hate Jews so we will team up wth this lot”. In North Africa and the Middle East it was pragmatism as those Muslims were under the occupation of Britain (IIRC I catalogued some oppression they were under too) thus for them it was a case of an enemy of my enemy (Britain) is my friend thus they worked with Germany.
It’s like how America worked with the Taliban and vice versa against the Russians.
As for the rioting against the Jews in Iraq – again that was not due to a Nazi ideal. And nor was it a systemic act – we can find a plethora of examples of Muslims helping Jews during WW2. Haj Amin al-Husseini went on record saying his problem as not with Jews.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Before I address your claims of Muslims*
Haj Amin al-Husseini went on record saying his problem was not with Jews. This is a much misunderstood an propagandized issue on the part of the right wing anti-Muslim crowd (Pamela Geller got into hot water on this issue and was corrected publicly by Daniel Pipes IIRC). *
LikeLiked by 1 person
*thus we Not are confined to a specific geographical location (Arabia) and time (7th century)
LikeLike
“Northwestern Univ. Historian Claims Christian Fundamentalism ‘Greater Threat'”
http://www.christianpost.com/news/northwestern-university-historian-claims-christian-fundamentalism-greater-threat-radical-islamic-terrorism-171182/#AEtYqfpspap1R0jP.99
LikeLike
Jesus taught to turn the other cheek if someone slaps you. Where did he say to allow heavy bombers to kill en masse?
LikeLike
Good question Graham. Thanks for asking and engaging in a polite manner.
The simple answer, he didn’t say such. The issue here is Christians deduce pacifism from that story in their exegesis.
LikeLike
And a good and noble deduction it is. The notion of loving one’s enemies resulted in the peaceful and prosperous Germany we have today.
LikeLike
There is also this, which is interesting…..
LikeLike
Taken from the following website….
http://rarehistoricalphotos.com/muslim-waffen-ss-13th-division-1943/
“Muslim members of the waffen SS”…..
LikeLike
“Jesus taught to turn the other cheek if someone slaps you”
I’m desperate to see a christian applying this teaching !
LikeLike
Why is it that muslims have to look to atheists for their greatest criticisms of christian belief? why doesn’t allah and his book of disjointed, and often incoherently plagiarized book give you the ammunition you need to make a coherent argument against christian belief without you having to turn to godlessness?
Does allah want us all to become atheist?
LikeLike
LikeLike
Don’t start crying! Answer your hypocrisy.
LikeLike
http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/hitler-muslim-brotherhood.html
LikeLike
More recently…..
LikeLike
And the sisters are doing for themselves….
LikeLike
So….you like to affirm your hypocrisy! I’m ok with that.
LikeLike
Abdullah
Your point?
LikeLike
“There is also this, which is interesting….”
This cant be Muslims prostation, something fundamentally wrong in the صف. Graham is spreading lies with no shame.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Eric
No true scotsman fallacy.
Regardless, we both know these images are real and that is a huge problem for this post.
LikeLike
Lol
LikeLike
No idea what you are muttering about, the only problem obvious is that this comment is an embarrassment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL ouch!
LikeLike
“Jesus taught to turn the other cheek if someone slaps you”
how about if a christian priest slaps some other place on the body?
for example a rapist christian priest forcefully raping a 12 year old christian girl
i am sure jesus was busy with watching the rape of jewish women because he was so looking forward to getting punished for all the sins the romans were doing .
LikeLike
Paul, what part of the sira do you have in mind?
LikeLike
Lol so we have resorted to photoshoped images in an attempt to distance Christianity from he fact that Germany (Including the Nazis) where “Christian”. I think I have seen it all now. Trying to blame the Muslims for Nazi Germany rather than the actual Nazis or Germans who were christian takes the biscuit and wins the best comedy awards 2016.
LikeLiked by 4 people
LOL
LikeLike
Christian history of the just war theory is not dependent on the Sira of Muhammad; rather is based on the teachings in the NT that the civil government has the authority to punish evil by the sword (police power, and military power for self-defense.)
That was always based on Romans 13:1-8, not on the Sira of Muhammad. (NT is about 600 years earlier than Muhammad)
“Turn the other cheek” and “love your enemies” is about one to one personal relationships and is not about government’s responsibility to protect it’s own people against evil people and attacks by other nations.
“Turn the other cheek” does not mean literally; rather it means you should kill the urge within you to take revenge personally (like sinful anger, fighting back at someone who insults you, etc. – like honor killings, which a person takes the law into their own hands and goes and kills someone. Jesus was speaking against sinful anger, violence, bitterness, and against un-forgiveness and revenge in the heart; He was not saying that a country cannot defend itself or that a Christian cannot be a policeman or soldier.
Jesus’ words are twisted and mis-understood (by the atheist comedian and foul-mouthed Bill Maher). Jesus never meant that if your wife or mother or daughter is being attacked, that you just lay back and let them molest them or rape them or hurt them, NO . . . A true man will defend his family against evil people who attack others. (see Ephesians 5:21-32)
That is one of the reasons why USA has the right to bear arms. (2nd Amendment) – the tradition of self-defense and protection and also even against a government, when the government turns evil and unjust, is a long tradition in western Christian culture. So, your title is totally wrong. Confronting Hitler was based more on Romans 13:1-8 and the Christian western tradition of just war, developed from Augustine onward. Augustine lived from 354 AD – 430 AD, a long time before Muhammad, who was born around 570 AD and preached Islam from 610-632 AD. So, it was clearly not based on the Sira of Muhammad.
LikeLike
The quote from 1933 of Adolf Hitler about Christianity was him lying and deceiving the German people, especially at that early stage (right when he came to power), because they would not have put him in power without his deceptions. But behind the scenes, he developed other plans and his real ideas were not Christian at all.
Adolf Hitler said basically, as he rejected the Christian religion of the history of Germany:
“Why couldn’t we Germans have a manly and warlike religion like Islam (he called it “Mohammadan”) or the Japanese religion – one that fights; not the wimpy and weak and meek Christianity.” (my paraphrase)
Here is his actual quote:
“It’s been our misfortune of have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammadan religion too would have been much more acceptable to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?”
page 165, “Bonhoeffer, Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy”, by Eric Metaxas
Besides Hitler admiring Islam, the chapter in Eric Metaxas’ book on “Nazi Theology” is very interesting and informative, because he tells of some of Hitler’s inner circle and Nazi leaders, such as Martin Bormann, Heinrich Himmler, Reinhard Heydrich, and Alfred Rosenberg were even more anti-Christian than Hitler was, and wanting to go all out against the church in Germany and create a new German religion based on war and the ancient pagan German gods. But, Adolf Hitler was more pragmatic; and sneaky, he used the church and used deception and told Himmler and Bormann and those guys that they had to wait until they won the war because they needed the people to think they were Christians, but they were not. Chapter 11 is very interesting. (pages 165-175)
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/10/18/hitler-admired-islam/
LikeLike
Ken millions of devout German Christians (Lutheran and Catholics) were enthusiastic supports of Hitler and his policies and they had important scriptural teaching commanding them to obey Hitler’s government eg Romans 13.
Remember the Bible nowhere supports democracy.
LikeLiked by 2 people
If Hitler was not a christians because he was anti semitic, then you have to say the same thing regarding (all) your church fathers including the authors of the gospels whom you don’t know the hick of who they were.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not true. Justin Martyr had a great honest and open discussion with a Jewish man in his book, Dialogue with Trypho. He is considered one of the great church fathers of the second century and was killed for his faith by the Roman authorities. (around 165 AD)
LikeLike
Also, Matthew, Mark, Peter, John, James, Jude, and Saul (Paul the apostle) – all Jews and we love them and their writings and there is NO anti-semitism at all. Luke was the only Gentile human author of is 2 books – Gospel according to Luke and book of Acts.
I accept that Matthew the disciple and John the disciple wrote their gospels and Mark wrote Peter’s memories, testimony, and sermons down in his gospel.
LikeLike
John and Matthew contains much nasty anti-Semiticism which led to the persecution of many Jews by the church.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No; there is not anti-semitic or meant to be racial hatred.
The statements in John are only about the Pharisees and specific Jews (some, never says “all”, etc.) that were trusting in their Jewishness to save them, rather than true heart faith.
LikeLike
I love christians quoting Roman 13! If the pagan Roman was authority from God, why do you complain about the authority of muslims over christians and jews?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Because they are unjust and don’t allow for evangelism or freedom for Muslims to investigate Christianity and freely read the Bible and think and decide for Christ and turn from Islam, etc. or building churches or many times in history did not even allow repair of old churches. Islamic government is by nature unjust to Christians.
LikeLike
That is silly Ken and you know it
LikeLiked by 2 people
Those who deny Hitler was a christian and his motive was influenced by christianty is like denying Mahatma gandhi was a hindu and his pro indepence movement nothing to do with his hinduism.
Some christians obvsiosly are trying to bury Hitler christianity to avoid embarassament.
Here are Hitler quotes from Mein Kampf and public speeches:
There are more in:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_religious_views
Hitler actions was obviosly driven to his conviction in christianity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Eric,
Nope; if you read Metaxas’ book, you would understand better. Hitler was decieving the German people in order to gain power. Those quotes are at his beginning stages, and also mixed with falsehhoods. it is amazing that anyone would think that Hitler was a true Christian. He was not.
LikeLike
But millions of Christians Catholics and Protestants supported Hitler. The anti Semitic culture that had been nurtured by your hero Martin Luther all made this possible. Christianity contributed to making the holocaust possible.
LikeLiked by 3 people
The Wikipedia article confirms what Metaxas wrote in his book on Bonhoeffer:
“You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?” Adolf Hitler to Albert Speer –
Speer, Albert (1997). Inside the Third Reich. New York: Simon and Schuster, p. 96.
“Now I feel as fresh as a colt in the pasture.”
Max Domarus, Hitler: Reden und Proklamationen (Hitler: Speeches and Proclamations) 1932–1945, kommentiert von einem deutschen Zeitgenossen, translated in Chris Wilcox and Mary Fran Gilbert (tr.), Hitler: Speeches and Proclamations, 1932–1945: The Chronicle of a Dictatorship (1992), Vol. 2, “Top Secret Steps on the Road to War—The Hossbach Minutes”, p. 959, cited to “Notes taken by the author on October 31, 1937, according to information related by the Gau Propagandaleiter Waldemar Vogt (Würzburg, later Berlin)”:
Late in October and early in November 1937, Hitler deemed it “absolutely necessary” to reveal to a small group his new religious convictions and his plans for a policy of aggression. He did this in two ‘secret speeches,’ one in Berlin before the propaganda leaders of the Party, … While speaking before the propaganda leaders, Hitler’s topics included the following: … After long and bitter mental battles, he finally had divorced himself from the religious convictions that still existed from his childhood. “Now I feel as fresh as a colt in the pasture.”
LikeLike
Except that he considered the jews as cursed people!
It seems the same love that Jesus was expressing for his beloved people when he labeled them as sons of Satan !
LikeLike
So the Pagan Romans were just!
Then thank God that they killed your guy “Justin Martyr” “For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.”
===========
You have such outrage hypocrisy that even the term hypocrisy can’t contain it .
LikeLike
“Because they are unjust and don’t allow for evangelism or freedom for Muslims to investigate Christianity and freely read the Bible and think and decide for Christ and turn from Islam, etc. or building churches or many times in history did not even allow repair of old churches. Islamic government is by nature unjust to Christians.”
Not true. People come to Islam because of its truthfulness , Islam has built in defense against closet polytheism like christiainity. The dutch has been colonializing Islamic Indonesian archipelago for 400 years , they brought with them evangelization from all sort of spectrums catholicism, protestantism they’d freely builded churches as many as they like however the result was so little conversion apart from those who were animistic and secular as well as those who were lured by materialism the church had to offer. Now 90% Indonesians remain muslim still with the fastest growth religion with many high profile conversion from christianity back to Islam.
LikeLiked by 3 people
“Because they are unjust and don’t allow for evangelism or freedom for Muslims to investigate Christianity and freely read the Bible and think and decide for Christ and turn from Islam, etc. or building churches or many times in history did not even allow repair of old churches. Islamic government is by nature unjust to Christians.”
you are a liar. seem many churches in morroco. seen morrocan christians and jews getting debunked by muslim apologists who speak berber, french, arabic and hebrew.
here is church in casablanca
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjC6MPEr4XQAhXLOBQKHX6DD9gQjRwIBw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tripadvisor.com%2FLocationPhotoDirectLink-g293732-i20179032-Casablanca_Grand_Casablanca_Region.html&psig=AFQjCNEWxvjdLYbPByE9J80mrA01VOkRdA&ust=1478014583406956
don’t like . the truth is that the christian man worship is not attractive at all.
LikeLiked by 3 people
“No; there is not anti-semitic or meant to be racial hatred.”
for 40 days, post resurrected jesus was changing his mind on the behaviour of pontius pilate?
was there nobody from the JEWISH crowds , not the sick , the healed, mark, matthew, peter who felt compassion for jesus like pontius pilate did as he is portrayed in the gospel of john, luke and matthew?
why has the butcher of jews have a thing for jesus?
what is the christian message in portraying pilate as understanding and compassionate and the jews as evil and calling for the murder of jesus?
quote:
…Luke’s penchant to paint Romans more positive toward Christianity than Jews. I recommend anyone actually READ Acts and see how many times the author blames “the Jews, the Jews, the Jews” whereas the Roman-established authorities are demonstrated as receptive to what the Christians were saying.
quote:
There is none of the pressure on Pilate in Mark’s gospel that we are
used to reading in the later gospels. No disturbing dreams, no hand-
washing, no fear of a riot, no lying blackmail, no loud shouts that
hurt his ears. The only places we read of these, along with an
explicit desire or willingness to release Jesus, are in the gospels of
Matthew, Luke and John. They are alien to Mark.
THE QUESTION IS
WHY DID THE kristANS HAVE NEED TO MAKE PILATE GO THROUGH THESE EXPERIENCES AND HAVE JEWISH CROWDS BEHAVE LIKE THEY ARE SOULESS????
LikeLike
History is history. Christians did not make up stuff about Pilate, etc. There are NO changes in the Bible – after even all the textual variants are fairly and thoroughly studied – all the confirmed words (taking into account the textual variants) of the gospels are all true and original; even analyzing textual variants, after all is said and done, we can get to the original.
LikeLike
‘the gospels are all true and original; even analyzing textual variants, after all is said and done, we can get to the original. ‘
How do you know we have the original words of Paul or Luke if we do not have access to the originals?
LikeLike
by the standards of evidence of ancient historiography, etc. History and historical research teaches us that the evidence is good and innocent until proven guilty – some other older manuscripts would have to be found written between 50-120 AD that would show a different textual tradition that what we have.
The current copies of ancient manuscripts from the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th Centuries all consistent with one another; therefore, shows original because of the tenacity of the text and the multiplicity of lines.
LikeLike
sorry Ken but you have not addressed my question: how do you know that the extant manuscripts containing the letters of Paul and the gospel of Luke (these being copies of copies of copies etc) are an absolutely accurate and faithful copy of the originals?
Remember you said very confidently: “we can get to the original”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
same way we know anything from ancient history. There is no evidence between 45 AD to the earliest manuscripts in 2nd and 3rd & 4th ( 120-300s) centuries that shows something different in meaning or message, taking into account the few textual variants.
LikeLike
“There are NO changes in the Bible ”
you honestly believe that the stories about pilate weren’t changing in the new testament? you know what? why don’t you add all the christian writings about pilate and reconcile them with the nt? you don’t see how marks crowd pleasing pilate develops in the later gospels?
LikeLike
Everything about Pilate in NT is true; yes. “God-breathed Scripture” – all 27 books are God-breathed Scripture – 2 Tim. 3:16
LikeLike
thats a lie. mark did not know about johns pilate. you cannot get johns pilate from marks version. in marks version pilate is a crowd pleaser.
LikeLike
no, it is not a lie. Just because one has more details does not mean that they are both not true. Both are true. one just has more details.
LikeLike
okay, when jesus was dying on the cross he was cursing the jews and calling them bulls and dogs. do you accept?
after “my god, my god, why have you forsaken me”
the psalmist goes on to attack his attackers. so jesus was saying this prayer.
just because mark left out jesus’ abuse on the cross does not mean that jesus did not say it.
LikeLike
Psalm 22 – all of it is “God-breathed” according to 2 Tim. 3:15-16, verse. Plus you are obligated to believe it because it is Hazrat e Davood’s Zobur. I don’t think Jesus said the whole thing, but as it is in Psalm 22, it is God’s word. Those words are describing the character of the persecutors and their actions.
LikeLike
mark is fully aware of the psalms and has his jesus depend on it. what i note is that in the gospel of mark, every time the spirits leave bodies ,they go out with WORDLESS loud cry. jesus ( 2 natures, 1 person) asks his father (another 100 % god) “why have you forsaken me”
when jesus gives up the ghost he goes out, like the evil spirits, with a loud cry which is wordless . this clearly implies that mark did not know anything about luke and john’s version. when we look at details from marks pilate who seems to be a crowd pleaser and when we look into johns , matthews version we see a guy who is pressured and reluctant to crucify. but in marks version he wants to make the crowd happy.
“i don’t think jesus said the whole thing”
neither did he say the words attributed to him in john, matthew and luke.
quote:
And so Pilate, willing to content the people, released Barabbas unto
them, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified.
quote:
The only places we read of these, along with an
explicit desire or willingness to release Jesus, are in the gospels of
Matthew, Luke and John.
quote:
Mark’s gospel, in fact, defiantly stands in opposition to those who
build on it when it explicitly says that Pilate’s desire was not to
release Jesus but to please the mob
quote:
In Matthew’s gospel
Pilate washes his hands to publicly declare his innocence and to make
clear that the blood of Jesus is entirely the responsibility of the
Jews:
quote:
It might be noteworthy, furthermore, that Pilate did not act until
after the crowd insisted that they alone took the responsibility of
the blood of Jesus upon themselves and their future generations,
completely (in their own minds at least) exonerating Pilate.
LikeLike
Mark 10:45
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/10/21/so-why-did-allah-substitute-an-innocent-animal-in-the-place-of-abrahams-son/
LikeLike
“we can get to the original”.
how is that possible when all you have is interpolations, deletions, word substitutions and harmonisation?
scholars gave up on original long time ago and now try to RECONSTRUCT what they think probably went back to late 2nd century
LikeLike
there is no evidence for any of that – the textual variants are a different issue. Those that you say -“interpolations, deletions, word substitutions and harmonisation” are liberal theories, but there is no evidence for that – there is nothing extant that actually shows what those accusations are. All four are innocent until proven guilty. You would have to have extant evidence.
All the textual variants are dealt with and none affect any major doctrine, since other verses that don’t have textual variants teach the main doctrines. John 18 fragmant (120 AD) is the same as what we have in Bible’s today and other manuscripts from 3rd, 4th, 5th Centuries.
LikeLike
but how are you so sure that the copies of the copies of the coipes etc have not been corrupted deliberately or by mistake?
LikeLiked by 1 person
that is Ehrman’s hyper-skepticism.
The One True Creator God’s message is proved by the Perfect Character of Jesus and His testimony in the NT.
There is no need for that kind of skepticism – even Ehrman admitted that Galatians and everything else in NT is what they originally wrote.
LikeLike
there is a great deal of hard evidence for the deliberate corruption of the NT manuscripts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But the subject of the post is about where did England and USA and allies get just war theory and practice to fight Hitler? – it came from Romans 13 and Christian theology, not Sira of Muhammad of Islam.
LikeLike
a theory of what happened between original and extant copies that we have is not hard evidence. All conjecture. like Ijaz’s video, which you criticized.
LikeLike
its a theory yes but based on observing how humans make mistakes when they copy things. So you agree errors can creep in?
LikeLike
“For practical reasons, New Testament scholars proceed as if we do actually know what Mark wrote, or Paul, or the author of 1 Peter. And if I had to guess, my guess would be that in most cases we can probably get close to what the author wrote. But the dim reality is that we really don’t have any way to know for sure.” Bart Ehrman
Quoted at Daniel Wallace’s blog:
https://danielbwallace.com/2012/05/01/the-bart-ehrman-blog-and-the-reliability-of-the-new-testament-text/
Dan Wallace:
“It is significant that Bart subtly shifts the ground of our discussion. I have never said in our debates that we are absolutely certain of the wording of the text of the New Testament. So, I would agree with him that “we really don’t have any way to know for sure.” But that’s a far cry from saying that we don’t have probability on our side. And for him not to divulge how scholars go about raising their level of confidence regarding the original wording, while simultaneously speaking in generalities about what we can’t know for sure, is disingenuous. Bart himself has been one who has worked diligently to recover the wording of the originals, and with most of his decisions I agree. All who work in New Testament textual criticism owe him a debt of gratitude for his incredible efforts over the span of three decades in this regard. Consequently, I’m sure he wouldn’t like the suggestion that it’s up for grabs whether the story of the woman caught in adultery was part of the original text of John.”
Dan Wallace
LikeLike
Wallace says ‘I would agree with him that “we really don’t have any way to know for sure.”
Ken disagrees and says we can know for sure. Ken why do you cite scholars who refute you?
LikeLike
The copyist errors are easy to detect and they are all out in the open, and by comparing, we get to the most credible reading.
LikeLike
but if we don’t have the originals (only copies from generations later) how can you know this?
LikeLike
You don’t have the original Qur’an’s either, under Uthman, they wrote a fresh original, and burned all the others. You have no way of knowing if there was corruption and they made mistakes or not, for sure.
They are just humans – Zayd Ibn Thabit, Uthman, Omar, etc. they could have made some mistakes. hadiths say there were verses about other things that are not in current Qur’an.
LikeLike
120-200 AD copies are not that far from 45-96 AD, by ancient historiographical perspective and canons of the science of evidences of ancient history.
LikeLike
what’s our earliest complete copy of Luke’s gospel?
LikeLike
“there is no evidence for any of that – the textual variants are a different issue. Those that you say -“interpolations, deletions, word substitutions and harmonisation” are liberal theories, but there is no evidence for that – there is nothing extant that actually shows what those accusations are.”
some scribe did harmonise john with matthew
they added that verse which talks about jesus’ piercing to the gospel of matthew
now how many harmonisation went undetected in the first century?
if we did not catch these guys out we would never know it was added to matthew
in the gospel of mark, the women say nothing to anyone
so then who interpolated verse 28?
“ ‘I will strike the shepherd,
and the sheep will be scattered.’d
28But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee.”
29Peter declared, “Even if all fall away, I will not.”
notice verse 29 is a reaction to the verse before 28? clearly some christian ADDED that because they didn’t like the ending in mark 16
” All four are innocent until proven guilty. You would have to have extant evidence.”
that’s why textual critics are proving all 4.
”
All the textual variants are dealt with and none affect any major doctrine,”
what do you expect from man worshipping human being who would reconcile any contradiction
even if one verse said
jesus was an animal
and another
he was human
you would attempt to reconcile
LikeLike
Right. Perhaps that explains why unlike their Christian or even Roman pagan counterparts, Muslims are so unjust “by nature” that their rule of Spain brought about a Jewish golden age while the Christian-governed parts of Europe were rife with massacre and persecution.
LikeLiked by 1 person
VS
This is what Miamonides – judaism’s most highly respected philosophers and theologians – has to say about Andalusia…..
The Jewish “golden age” occurred despite the Arabs and islamic oppression.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Epistle_to_Yemen/Complete
LikeLike
Ibn Maimun (Maimonides) was just a reflection of that golden age. He was highly influenced by Ibn Rushd and others.
However, Leave us aside since we are not obligated to turn the other cheek .
Let’s talk about you , you know …you “lovey dovey” people!
What did the church fathers use to say about the apple of God’s eye?
LikeLike
Abdullah
Tu quoque retorts are unimpressive.
LikeLike
Graham
Ad hominem attacks are even less impressive.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Paul
?????
I agree…..
?????
LikeLike
@Graham
Where do you get the idea that the Epistle to Yemen is about the Muslim rule of Spain?
Why don’t you tell us what your Islamophobic source is?
LikeLike
Verdant Servant
“Where do you get the idea that the Epistle to Yemen is about the Muslim rule of Spain?
Why don’t you tell us what your Islamophobic source is?”
From the fact that it was written from Egypt after Maimonides had fled following persecution. What is an “islamophobic source”?
LikeLiked by 1 person
But do you know about the true believers who resisted Hitler and wrote the Barmen Declaration against him?
Neimoller, Karl Barth, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, etc. ?
The churches in Germany had become dead and apostate, because of the liberal theology and higher criticism – the stuff you like (like Bart Ehrman – before him, the same kind of stuff was there in Fredrick Schleimacker, Rudolph Bultmann, Tillich, etc.
Most of those regular people were just church goers and got baptized and thought they are Christians, but they were not true believers or truly converted on the inside.
Christianity is not getting wet on the outside in baptism as a baby or dressing up nice and going to church.
The church in Germany was dead and apostate, both Lutheran and of course Roman Catholicism has been apostate ever since the Council of Trent ( 1545-1563 – they condemned the heart of the gospel message and became a false church then).
It was all dead ritual, liberalism, moralism, combined with racial pride and racial hatred of others.
LikeLike
Oh dear Pope Ken excommunicates the unbelievers because there were not true believers (i.e. Calvinist fanatics) like Ken.
How very convenient.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You need to see how I read and respect Karl Barth, Neimoller, and Bonhoeffer and others who hid Jews from Hitler (Corrie Ten Boom’s family in Holland, etc.) and the true Christians. They were good Lutherans – Barth, Neimoller, Bonhoeffer, etc.
LikeLike
But they were not judgmental fundamentalists like you Ken. They were men of knowledge and grace.
LikeLike
You need to read Eric Metaxas’ book on Bonhoeffer – I recommend it to all.
Pastor Tim Keller wrote a very good Foreward to this book by Eric Metaxas on Bonhoeffer. Here are some highlights:
“How could the “church of Luther”, the great teacher of the gospel, have ever come to such a place? The answer is that the true gospel, summed up by Bonhoeffer as costly grace, had been lost. On the one hand, the church had become marked by formalism. That meant going to church and hearing that God just loves and forgives everyone, so it doesn’t really matter much how you live. Bonhoeffer called this “cheap grace”. On the other hand, there was legalism, or salvation by law and good works. Legalism meant that God loves you because you have pulled yourself together and are trying to live a good, disciplined life.”
“Both of these impulses made it possible for Hitler to come to power.”
The church had become very liberal in the 18th, and 19th centuries, and had “left its first love” (Revelation 2:4-5) They, as a whole culture, had fallen away from the living God. (Hebrews 3:12) Therefore, they lacked discernment. The drifted slowly away from God. (Hebrews 2:1)
Keller asks,
“This lapse couldn’t happen to us today, surely, could it? Certainly it could. We still have a lot of moralism and legalism in our churches . . .
many Christians . . . don’t like talking about Jesus death on the cross to satisfy divine wrath and justice. Some even call it “divine child abuse”. ” (Steve Chaulk, a heretic for sure)
“yet it they are not careful, they run the rist of falling into the belief of cheap grace – a non-costly love from a non-holy God who just loves and accepts us as we are. That will never change anyone’s life.”
Tim Keller, Foreward, Pages xv-xvi, Bonhoeffer . . . by Eric Metaxas
The church in Germany left Christ first, became liberal with higher critical theories and liberal theology and set themselves up for Hitler’s deception and takeover. They fell for him because they were not true Christians.
But the true Christians did resist and was the underground church of the “Confessing Church” (Confessing sound doctrine and allegiance to Christ FIRST and not the “Furior” or the “father-land”, etc.
LikeLike
Ken I don’t accept your very narrow sectarian concept of Christianity. It is not what Jesus taught and comes across as very judgemental and condemning.
One of the reasons I left your religion for the truth of Islam.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You condemned those “Christians” also for supporting Hitler; so you are not consistent in your argument with me.
I respect other Christians – Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Weslyans, Methodists, Baptists, Pentecostals, Charismatics – who believe the Bible and have true faith, though we may differ on minor areas (like baptism, spiritual gifts, church government, end-times events, etc.)
But Liberalism is not Christianity at all. (Liberal theology is not Christian.
LikeLike
Ken you condemn al non fundamentalist Christians as “unbelievers” i.e. non calvinists. Karl Barth and the others you mentioned were not sectarian like you.
There is a string whiff of the Pharisee in your attitude.
LikeLike
No, I don’t condemn non-Calvinists as you are lying – take it back. I may not agree with Arminian theology, but I have NEVER said non-Calvinists are not Christians. Many good Weslyans, Methodists, Anglicans, Lutherans and non-Calvinistic Baptists are great Christians, and are truly born again; they just don’t accept Calvinstic theology – that is not a condition of salvation. If they have true faith in Christ and love the Lord, accept the Incarnation, Atonement, resurrection, Virgin Birth, Deity of Christ, Trinity, new birth, salvation by grace through faith along, good works as results of true faith, they are believers.
So, you are wrong and take it back. You are the one who judges my heart.
LikeLike
So you accept Catholics (the worlds largest church) as fellow Christians?
LikeLike
Some of them are probably true believers, but the leadership (Pope and Magisterium of teachers, etc.) and doctrines and dogmas of the Council of Trent (1545-1563) and dogmas of 1215 (Transubstantiation), 1854 (IC of Mary), 1870 (Papal Infallibility), 1950(BA of Mary) that are “de fide” dogmas (if one does not accept them, they are not Christian) make the Roman Catholic Church a false church. It is they who first condemned the Protestants as not true believers. 1520 and 1545-1563.
LikeLike
Spoke. Like. True sectarian. Thanks for proving my case.
LikeLike
No; they are the ones who first condemned Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and the Biblical doctrines of justification by faith alone and salvation by grace alone; and that good works are necessary results of true faith, not conditions before acceptance by God. They are the ones who persecuted Wycliffe for questioning dogmas and pracitices (1300s) and burning Jan Hus at the stake (1400s). Blood Mary, Queen of England had some 300 Evangelical Protestants burned or killed. Don’t you know you your own history of England? Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley, Bilney; William Tyndale (strangled and burned at the stake just for translating Bible into English !!!!)
LikeLike
Jesus never taught ‘justication by faith alone’ that is a man made doctrine.
LikeLike
Yes He did – John 5:24; John 3:15-18.
Mark 5:36 – “only believe”
He gave His word to the apostles (John 14, 15, 16, 17:8) and inspired all NT books – all the 27 books are the inspired words of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. So Romans and Galatians are the words of Jesus also.
LikeLike
Where does Jesus say we are justified by faith alone? Please quote the verses
LikeLike
John 5:24
Jesus said:
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
LikeLike
That does not say justification by faith alone.
LikeLike
same meaning.
Romans 5:1 and Galatians 2:16 are also the inspired words of Jesus.
John 17:8
LikeLike
same meaning – to have eternal life and not be condemned to hell is the same as being forgiven of sins and not having any guilt anymore and going to heaven and passed out of judgement into eternal life – same meaning.
LikeLike
But it does say by faith only – you have to obey the Law too. That is Jesus’ teaching in Mark and Matthew
LikeLike
Yes, you must obey all the law – “do not covet”, do not lust in your heart for another man’s wife”, “do not get angry or bitter and do not call anyone names, etc. (all of Matthew 5, especially Matthew 5:21-30 and 5:48)
“You must be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.” Matthew 5:48
Problem is no one has ever been able to be perfect except Jesus the Messiah (Isa Al Masih – عیسی المسیح
You must be perfect in your thoughts and heart.
Mark 7:20-23
Genesis 6:5
Psalm 51
Only Jesus the Messiah can do that.
But He can live in your heart, if you open your heart to Him.
Galatians 2:20
I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and [a]the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.
LikeLike
But they were not judgmental fundamentalists like you Ken. They were men of knowledge and grace.
Actually, I see my heart as closer to those guys when I read Metaxas’ book; I identify with them (Bonhoeffer, Neimoller, Karl Barth, Corrie Ten Boom’s evangelical family in Holland) much more than you will ever know. Reading that book has given me a greater respect and understanding of them.
So I agree with that second part of your statement –
They were men of knowledge and grace.
Yes, that is what I desire; their example is inspiring.
so, you are wrong.
We are allowed to judge by fruits – the fruits prove that Hitler and those kind of people were not true Christians.
John 7:24
Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.”
Matthew 7:15-23
You will know them by their fruits . . .
many will say on the day of judgement, “Lord, Lord”
Jesus will say,
“I never knew you, depart from me you who practice lawlessness”
LikeLike
But YOUR fruits Ken are sectarianism, hostility towards Christians who you disagree with, an arrogant dismissal of other spiritual traditions such as Islam, and in unwillingness ever to admit you could be wrong in your theology.
So yes by their fruits ye know them indeed…
LikeLike
Islam is not Christianity, come on; you need to at least be honest that the true faith of each one is a logical contradiction to one another. I believe in friendship with Muslims and honest discussion. And I have practiced it for many years in hospitality, learning one of the major languages of the middle east (Farsi) and visiting in homes (in the USA and other places too) over coffee, tea, wonderful food from Iran, Turkey, Lebanon, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, Tajikisan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, India – I have had many honest discussions with many kinds of Muslims for the last 33 years – in their homes over meals and they have come to our home and my wife learned to cook food from Morocco, Lebanon, Iran, and Turkey and we love Muslims and have honest and open discussion and debate and friendly and respectful.
Quit attacking me personally, I am not “sectarian” as you say.
You judged Christianity as wrong.
You are wrong – I have no hostility toward anyone.
You are changing the subject and attacking me; rather than agreeing that the German Christians as whole culture had drifted from true Christianity and was the result of liberal theology and higher criticism and legalism and moralism mixed with racism, which is a problem deep in the human heart – Mark 7:20-23.
LikeLike