This is a must read article narrating the journey “Isma’eel Abu Adam” took through four faiths and 5 different sects in the space of three years.
“When he jumps faiths again, or comes out with heretical beliefs, I am sure the Christian community will no longer be celebrating, they will lose interest in him as the Muslim community has.”
This is sadly to be expected. He cannot remain within one faith tradition for long.
Neil Littlejohn, otherwise known as the former Muslim “Isma’eel Abu Adam” has been making the rounds lately, working with the mentally ill (according to his own testimony) David Wood. As they say, birds of a feather flock together and this recent marriage is no different.
I knew Neil through Facebook while he was still known as Isma’eel Abu Adam. He’s had quite the journey and it has been interesting to see what events eventually led to him apostating through four faiths and 5 different sects in the space of three years. Yes, you read that correctly, our friend Neil has been making the rounds on the religion merry-go-round and this is not the first time. I may be wrong, as his jumping from one faith to the other has been habitual, but this list is what I’ve gathered since knowing him through Facebook.
- Christianity to Salafi Muslim.
- Salafi Muslim to…
View original post 1,128 more words
Categories: Islam
Blogging Theology 
I haven’t known that he went throgh all these phases!
I drop the credit for him that he was the only one missionaries can present as an ex muslim.
Regardless , I really feel bad for him. May Allah open his heart to the truth.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I still don’t get why some dude on the internet is getting so much attention here. There are a billion Muslims. How many know who this guy is?
LikeLike
“Since the NT never sanctioned physical punishments for heresy or belief, rather ex-communication from the church – 1 Corinthians 5:9-13”
jesus refereed to the punishments in the ot.
there was no “new” testament in jesus’ time. these 27 books did not exist.
“excommunicated” ?
so the heretic goes on to freely infect others with his heresies?
jesus tells heresies “i have come to bring a sword…”
what did ex-communicated eat ? where did he sleep? who supported him financially ?
LikeLike
He became Quranist after he read things from of Atabek Shukurov.
LikeLike
Then he didn’t understand them. And apparently neither did you.
LikeLike
The Hanafi principles of Atabek Shukurov for testing ahadith say that any hadith can be rejected if it goes against Western morality and human rights. Once you accept this principle you will have a basis to reject everything from Islam. Some still call themselves Muslims while others leave Islam as a whole.
According to Shukurov there is rape in ahadith. Shukurov simply rejects these ahadith as valid and solves the problem. According to Neil there is rape in ahadith and they are authentic.
For Muslims there is no rape in ahadith. The things have to be looked at in historical social context rather than simply denying the authenticity.
LikeLike
What is your evidence that Atabeck says Hadith are to be rejected if they go against Western values?
LikeLike
Interesting discussion.
What about those Hadith where the fighters are practicing having sex with captive women and practicing Azl with the captive women?
How can anyone believe in such a nasty religion that Muhammad gave permission for that kind of stuff?
Those should be enough to convince anyone that Islam is false.
LikeLike
Ken
Always dredging up old accusations that have been refuted ad nauseum before.
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/does_islam_permit_muslim_men_to_rape_their_slave_girls_
LikeLike
“What about those Hadith where the fighters are practicing having sex with captive women and practicing Azl with the captive women?”
what would one have done with captive women? . don’t be a hypocrite dirt bag and employ defensive ot/nt apologetic.
LikeLike
Ken,
Biblical law permits rape of female captives (Deuteronomy 21:10-14).
Based on the standard you apply to Islam will you now admit Bible is false?
LikeLike
Shukurov’s moral principles are:
-total religious freedom (also no dhimma)
-nearly total equality between men and women
His students also accept human evolution.
LikeLike
So you claim. But you have failed to offer ANY evidence.
LikeLike
Sorry for not being able to give references. That’s what I know from his Facebook posts through the last two years.
LikeLike
You need to give references before you criticise a scholar. What you are doing is against the teaching of the prophet.
LikeLike
Salam Sir Paul Williams. I Hope you well. Would you be willing do debate Dr David Woods or Prof.Nabeel Qureshi on the Historical Jesus? This would clarify alot of things. It could even be a tag team event, where you have an apologist or 2 helping you out etc. Prof.Nabeel is terminal, so this would be a good oppurtunity to put his beliefs under scrutiny and have him understand the weaknesses of Christianity and vice versa But Dr Ismael Abu Adam must obviously be the 1st person to have his beliefs critiqued because he has said that he is an Islamic Scholar who converted to the self evident truth of Hard-Core Trinitarian Christianity because the Islamic Unitarian Jesus does not correspond with the Absolute Facts of the real Jesus, the Trinitarian Jesus.
LikeLike
No.
LikeLike
quote:
No.
rep:
short and sweet
LikeLiked by 1 person
>> But Dr Ismael Abu Adam must obviously be the 1st person
>> to have his beliefs critiqued because he has said that he is
>> an Islamic Scholar
lol
LikeLiked by 2 people
Paul already debated Nabeel Qureshi and Qureshi defeated his arguments. “The Converts Debate” – find it on you tube.
LikeLike
I know you guys don’t like David Wood, but you need to stop saying he is “mentally ill”, as if he still is; and you completely ignore all the very reasonable argumentation he makes in analyzing the Qur’an, Hadith and Islamic history, Tafsirs, etc. – Especially, when his testimony is that God healed him of his bitterness and hatred and violent anger that sent him to a mental institution. He is very clear and gives a very credible testimony of how the Lord Jesus Christ saved him and changed him. Have you even watched his own testimony of how the Lord Jesus Christ changed him?
“If any man is in Christ, he is a new creature, the old has passed away, behold, the new has come.” 2 Corinthians 5:17
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
The power of the gospel of Jesus Christ is great that can change an evil person into a good person.
LikeLike
I don’t take Wood seriously because he is just some guy on the internet. Who says his stuff on Islam is reasonable? If scholars don’t take him seriously then there’s no reason for us laymen to take him seriously.
LikeLike
Yet Shabir Ally and many other Muslims have debated him. It seems you have not even listened to his arguments.
LikeLike
Debating internet guys in person doesn’t matter. What matters are scholarly publications, speaking in academic conferences, etc. None of which Wood or even Ally has to speak of. How many scholars attend Wood’s debates? None.
LikeLike
Very few scholars even do “debating”. most scholars are pretty dry and not good public speakers. But both Shabir Ally and David Wood have done their homework and are good debaters. You cannot just dismiss them like that.
LikeLike
Yes I can. Wood’s arguments are at the level of ‘Muhammad was a cross dresser’. Funny how we find no such accusation from the enemies of Muhammad or from medieval Christian polemics or from the likes of Watt Montgomery, Muir and Margolith etc. who have written critical biographies of the Prophet…but some guy on the internet figured it out. I as a highly educated person have no time for such nonsense.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“very reasonable argumentation he makes in analyzing the Qur’an, Hadith”
Really? Such as the prophet was wearing garment of Aisha?
Just look to his audience to know that he is just a clown entertaining an ignorant audience. He has no argument at all.
May Allah expose him.
I challenge him to use the same style with jews? Would he even dare?
Nabeel was a liar as well
والطيور على أشكالها تقع
LikeLiked by 2 people
Take his serious debates with Shabir Ally ( about 4 or 5, at least), and all the other Muslims I listed. He has made many other serious videos; don’t be afraid to check out what he says and follow his reasoning. the “cross-dressing” one was weak, but many others are reasonable and raises many honest questions.
LikeLike
Okay Temple, what do you think is Wood’s number one argument?
LikeLike
He has several. Here is a good one.
LikeLike
This one is good also.
LikeLike
This may be Wood’s best one.
LikeLike
This debate with Shabir Ally was also very good by Wood.
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/05/02/3976/
LikeLike
These videos are perfect examples to prove that David is just a clown. Let’s take about the last video. God dying!
Where do you think David got it right? In fact, he made the opposite of what christians say. So did God die or not?
The answer of this question is the final answer that we need. No answer he provided, and he cannot.
Was the one who got subjected to death god or not?
Big problem, and I challenge you to answer.
You talk always about a big sacrifice which can bear the sins of the whole of the world, so the sacrifice must be god himself. Do you Remember?
Also, Christians accuse muslims that their God wants them to die for him while god of christians died for them. Do you remember?
The playing with the words doesn’t work!
David had to say something about Islam to distract christians for their own problem. Muslims do not say Quran has 2 natures! This is ridiculous!
Dr Shabir whipped Nabeel several times about this idea that christians bring about Quran.
LikeLike
Temple, you think I’m going to sit through Wood’s videos? Write here what you think is his number one argument.
LikeLiked by 1 person
there is too much there to type out. I cannot help it if you are too lazy to listen and learn.
LikeLike
the one “how can God die?” is only about 10 minutes. He shows what what Christians mean by the 2nd person of the Trinity, who was and is the eternal Son and eternal Word became human and died.
He shows that God is able to enter into His creation, using the Qur’an 27:7-9 –
David shows from the Qur’an that Allah is able to do things like to actually be in the fire (“Blessed is He who is in the fire”) and speak from the fire to Moses (Qur’an 27:7-9), and so this shows that Allah can do things like, enter into His own creation, become flesh (John 1:1-5); John 1:14; see also Luke 1:34-35.
and many more good points.
LikeLike
Yes you are lazy
LikeLike
Temple: there is too much there to type out. I cannot help it if you are too lazy to listen and learn.
I am not lazy. It is just that my time is better used reading journal articles than watching Wood videos. I just asked for ONE argument and you say that it is too much to type. Talk about being a lazy old fart.
LikeLike
10 minutes ? you are lazy
LikeLike
Also,
David Wood shows that the Qur’an limits Allah, because “Allah does not love sinners”
(Qur’an 2:190; 2:276; 3:32; 3:57; 7:31; 4:36; 8:58; 28:77; 57:23);
yet the Bible says, “God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” Romans 5:8
And Romans 5:10 teaches that Christ died for His enemies, which even the Grandverbalizer19, a Muslim, confessed is “greater love”. (at his old blog that was hacked)
LikeLike
the 33 minute was really good; he makes the same point I was making about Surah 16:14 and 3:54-55 – that the disciples became the uppermost, victorious, most manifest. Proof of the truth of Christianity.
LikeLike
Surah 61:14, not 16:14
LikeLike
Documentation of a Muslim admitting that dying for one’s enemies is greater love; proves Romans 5:6-11 true.
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/08/muslim-admits-that-one-who-dies-for-his.html
LikeLike
“2nd person of the Trinity”
Ok ! God or not ? The final answer is what we need.
========
How many times we teach you that David has ZERO understanding in Arabic ? Where do muslims say that Allah was (inside) the fire according to that verse? The place, the tree, and the fire all of them are blessed by the light of Allah. Do muslims say the fire is Allah himself? Or the tree was Allah himself ? Come on! You have to do better than that, and I’m telling you, if you keep following that clown, I gurantee that the embrassing situations will be more than this.
Haven’t you learned from his video about the garment?
So even if he quotes hadiths and Quran, yet his own interpretations are based on his filthy world that he lives in. His mind is corrupted, dude!
LikeLike
It is a similar parallel to Muslims complaining about the phrase “son of God” and “Father”, which are not terms of physicality with respect to God. They are metaphorical terms describing the close spiritual relationship that the Father and Son have from all eternity and that the Son has the same nature as the Father.
You have metaphorical language in Arabic, in the Qur’an also.
The “Mother of the Books” = the eternal tablet in heaven that the Qur’an came down over 22 years, etc.
The “Mother of villages” = Mecca
“the son of the road” = traveler
see here:
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2009/09/witnessing-to-muslims-answering-son-of.html
LikeLike
You know Ken, your age is almost the same age of my father.But your reponses are very immature, so I think I know what should I expect from younger christians who follow that clown. Those christians who never read their own bible. Shame!
LikeLike
I don’t agree.
How is defending the Bible and Christianity by our own revelation and theology somehow “immature” ?
No one has offered anything that deals with the revelation (the previous Scriptures are revelation from God – وحی
الهام
نزول
“came down”
John 1:1-5
John 1:14
Philippians 2:5-8
these are divine revelation; that reveal that God (the Son, the Word, the 2nd person of the Trinity) can become a human if wants to and you have no argument against that.
And He died for sins.
And His love is great for us human sinners.
All you guys have done is say “you are embarressing”, etc. “immature”, “getting pasted”, etc.
Just because you don’t accept God’s power – He can do that.
Jesus was born of the virgin Mary. (Luke 1:34-35; Surah 3; Surah 19)
Jesus was the eternal Word. John 1:1-5
The Word became human. John 1:14
Christ died for sinners. Romans 5:6-11
Christ rose from the dead. Luke 24
Repent and believe. Mark 1:15
LikeLike
Temple: David Wood shows that the Qur’an limits Allah, because “Allah does not love sinners”
Who says not loving sinners is a limitation? if anything, sinners (not ordinary sinners but those who transgress all bounds like Pharaoh and the people of Lot) are evil and any being that loves evil is morally deficient.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Basic Islam: “Allah will love you if you first love and obey Him; and maybe He will accept you, Ensha’Allah, if God wills.
Basic Christianity: You are a sinner, already condemned because of your sin and guilt and you cannot save yourself.
Therefore, repent and trust in Christ, Isa Al Masih, and His atonement for sin, trusting in His powerful resurrection that proved that He dealt with sin and guilt.
Romans 5:6-11
But God demonstrates His own love for us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Romans 5:8
Romans 5:6-11
6 For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.
7 For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die.
8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.
10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.
11 And not only this, but we also exult (rejoice greatly) in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.
LikeLike
Pharaoh was judged. God’s wrath and holiness is true. God judges sin and sinners.
But only those who flee to Christ will find refuge from God’s holy wrath and justice.
Hell is God’s justice against sin.
John 3:18
John 3:36
Mark 9:48
Revelation 20:10-15
LikeLike
Temple: David Wood shows that the Qur’an limits Allah, because “Allah does not love sinners”
These are recycled arguments. Besides, it’s morally deficient to love the devil (as much as Jesus).
LikeLiked by 1 person
The devil is different than human sinners. The devil is a fallen angel, (but in Islam he is a fallen Jinn).
Hebrews 2:14-18
LikeLike
Are you saying God does not love the Devil?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Of course; because Hebrews 2:14-18 shows, Christ does not offer help to fallen angels (the devil and his demons), but only to the humans who are believers like Abraham – He became human in order to save us.
He did not become the same substance as an angel. ( a created spirit)
Hebrews 2:14-18
14 Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil,
15 and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives.
16 For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham.
17 Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.
18 For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted.
LikeLike
God does not love humans who are not believers like Abraham?
LikeLike
If a person does not repent and believe, then they are not children of Abraham, the believer (see Galatians 3:6-29) – all who believe in Christ are spiritual children of Abraham.
God’s love will be on those who don’t believe.
God’s wrath is on them.
Ephesians 2:1-3
John 3:18
John 3:36
LikeLike
God’s love will NOT be on those who don’t believe.
sorry for typo
LikeLike
Ok, so how is the conception that God is a being who doesn’t love someone He created not limiting His love?
LikeLike
God is free and has authority to create and predestinate and sovereignly choose people from all the nations who will be saved; and His justice is true to judge the rest.
Romans 9:19-24
19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” 20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? 21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another [m]for common use? 22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.
LikeLike
You’re not addressing the question.
LikeLike
William Craig thinks God is all-loving (i.e., His love extends to the Devil). Why is that not your position?
LikeLiked by 1 person
show me some documentation of that.
I seriously doubt he believes that; or you have mis-understood what he meant.
there are lots of things I disagree with Dr. Craig about – his Molinism, middle knowledge stuff, anti-Calvinism, his putting down of inerrancy in debate, his putting down of the guards at the tomb in Matthew 27, etc.
though I think he was right in his debates against Muslims and atheists, he sometimes does not use the best way of defending the Christian faith.
LikeLike
William Lane Craig has said things like “God could not do anything (in reference to His sovereignty, He was forced to allow human autonomy over His own sovereignty); He had to work with the cards He was dealt”. Who is the cosmic “card dealer” who is above God? That is a very bad, bad view of God.
LikeLike
Ok, I’ll do that when I get on the computer.
LikeLike
William Craig: God loves the damned and those who reject Him and separate themselves from him forever … He is all-loving; His love is unconditional, impartial and universal.
His argument is that it is self-evident that loving is better than not loving and that since God is the greatest conceivable being, it follows that He is maximally loving…
LikeLiked by 2 people
He means humans who go to hell.
Lots of Christians who are Arminian in their theology (non-Calvinistic) have that idea.
Where did he say “Satan” ?
LikeLike
It is the definition of a maximally loving God to love ALL those He created without exception; and that includes the Devil and others who are “damned and who have rejected Him forever”. If there is one being that God does not love, then He is not the most conceivably loving being.
If when Craig says his conception of God is one of an all-loving being who shows uncondtional impartial and universal love, you still understand love with exceptions, then that’s a problem of communication.
> He means humans who go to hell.
According to you God’s love will not be on those who go to hell. But according to Craig, it will. Surely your concept of a loving God has limits compared to his, no?
LikeLiked by 1 person
that does not include the devil. I know the thinking of Evangelicals like WLCraig better than you. They don’t include the devil as an object of God’s love in the group of humans who go to hell for rejecting Christ.
LikeLike
“Where did he say ‘Satan’?”
Here: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-god-love-the-devil
LikeLike
Because of the recent date; it looks like you (? is that you & your question) or some other Muslim asked WLC that since the time we were discussing it in Dec. of 2016. I don’t think he ever said before; but I concede that he now has written that. Wow. Thanks for the evidence that makes him even stranger. I think that is a weird statement from an evangelical, and I personally think WLC is wrong on that; although, I don’t say he is not a believer in Christ. I firmly believe he is a true Christian, with some mixture of bad theology (Molinism, card-dealer above God; denigrating inerrancy and the OT and his whole method of “the best possible answer is God” (in debates against atheists, etc.) rather than, saying, “God did it” and “God the Father certainly did raise Jesus from the dead; and I proclaim it to you, as the apostles did” (Acts 17:30-31)
LikeLike
Yes, that is me. I have been meaning to email him to ask for clarification. I’m glad he answered quickly. I must say I find his answer disappointing. It is in my opinion contradictory and a play of semantics.
That aside, his is an unusual position to hold but one that follows necessarily from his argumentation. As to “bad theology”, I think that is his way of presenting a filtered kind of minimalist case for Christianity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks.
Yeah, “minimalist case for Christianity” – for sure, he does that.
LikeLike
“Temple: David Wood shows that the Qur’an limits Allah, because “Allah does not love sinners”
notice how the man worshipping christian is judging qur’an by the following :
1. god is in a love triangle relationship between 3 conscious love making gods
2. one of them becomes visible flesh and like romantic love story, he needs a hug.
3. even though he is in romantic love triangle, he still experiences human like weakness such as grief and heart break (flood story).
4. even when he punishes, he punishes with love even in the depths of hell lol
5. when we say that a parent continues to “turn the other cheek” on defiant child, we say “parent has weakness in him”
what do we say about those who put their love, trust and reliance in idols, vishnu, budda, jesus etc? these are matter of the heart .
LikeLike
that is just your mockery of God’s truth and love. you read married physical, romantic love back into the great Divine spiritual Love; shame on you.
LikeLike
“Documentation of a Muslim admitting that dying for one’s enemies is greater love; proves Romans 5:6-11 true.”
i told you that this is making god into a human being who limits himself to two choices.
either punish now or get punished and then undo the punishment you received, reward yourself with “eternal life” and then punish those who did not accept your weekend “sacrifice”
ken quotes romans
why did he not quote diogenes laertius?
“they tell us that the wise man will for reasonable cause make his exit from life, on his country’s behalf or for THE SAKE OF HIS FRIENDS, or if he SUFFER intolerable pain , mutilation, or incurable disease.”
yes, a lot of people in ancient days glorified self- violence, jesus/romans 5:6 is no innovator here.
but the funny thing is that jesus is , according to ken “biological chemical substance”
which is separate from “divine logo”
yes ken, we figured out long ago that your god is only a human and does human things.
LikeLike
No; Jesus is eternal, the Word of God.
Kalimat’Allah !
کلمه الله
John 1:1-5
John 1:14
Philippians 2:5-8
John 20:28
LikeLike
Jesus had a God
LikeLiked by 3 people
While on earth, that expression was about His submission to the Father while on earth, and His subordinate role as the Son.
LikeLike
“While on earth, that expression was about His submission to the Father while on earth, and His subordinate role as the Son.”
Temple missionary fail only telling half the truth. Jesus still has a God via his human nature. Evangelical missionaries always deceiving.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“While on earth, that expression was about His submission to the Father while on earth, and His subordinate role as the Son.”
when the son incarnated did he put any “incarnation effect” in the father? did the father feel lonely , sad, depressed with the other person?
if not, then is the father fully working as full time god without the subordinated god?
what does the subordinated son have to submit himself before the father? flesh is really “biological chemical substance”
what then does the son have which allows him to submit to higher authority and being ?
LikeLike
you are just mocking, Mr. Heathcliff. Sometimes you curse also. If you are a Muslim, you violate Surah 29:46 – use beautiful, good methods. حسن hasan
LikeLike
“God’s love will NOT be on those who don’t believe.”
are you giving your god freedom to choose who he loves?
not all christians would agree with your heresy.
greyhum, for example, doesn’t believe this.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“you are just mocking, Mr. Heathcliff. Sometimes you curse also. If you are a Muslim, you violate Surah 29:46 – use beautiful, good methods. حسن hasan”
Yusuf Ali: They do blaspheme who say: “Allah is Christ the son of Mary.” But said Christ: “O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.” Whoever joins other gods with Allah,- Allah will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help.
repent ken .
LikeLike
that is not cursing.
The funny thing is; Christians never said that.
Christians said and say, “Christ is God by nature/substance, born of the virgin Mary”. Christians never said “Allah is Christ, the son of Mary”.
Since the Qur’an made so many basic errors in mis-understanding history and what Christians believed for 600 years; this proves the Qur’an is not inspired by God Almighty.
LikeLike
At least in the west, there if freedom to disagree with each other and discuss religion.
LikeLike
Not everywhere in the West, there are severe limits to freedom of speech in many places.
Btw freedom of speech is not a biblical principle. It’s a secular one.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You traded intellectual historical evidence for a leap of faith in a miraculous claim made 600 years later:
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/12/05/paul-bilal-williams-leap-of-faith-for-something-that-contradicts-history/
LikeLike
Do you think the founding fathers of the USA make a mistake in that principle? (based on John Lock, the English philosopher, and a morphing of Christian ethics and morality with Deism and rationalistic Theism.)
“all men are created equal”
“endowed from their Creator with certain in-alienable rights, the right of the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness”
” of nature’s God and the God of nature”
LikeLike
the marriage of church and state was not New Testament (from 380 AD onward, until the Reformation and then Enlightenment and USA Declaration of Independence).
It seems to be an outworking in history of realizing the mistakes of the past – the Crusades, Inquisitions, etc.
Since the NT never sanctioned physical punishments for heresy or belief, rather ex-communication from the church – 1 Corinthians 5:9-13
9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; 10 I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. 11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate [g]with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? 13 But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves.
1 Corinthians 5:9-13
freedom of religion and speech, seems to be based on and derived from NT principles.
LikeLike
What are the limitations?
yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre?
threatening to kill someone?
libel and slander?
LikeLike
“It is a similar parallel to Muslims complaining about the phrase “son of God” and “Father”
How could this have anything to do with the question of God dying?
Are you saying his death was metaphorical?
=============
Arabic has its rules when it uses the Metphorical language. I can’t see that with the term ( begotten son).
LikeLiked by 1 person
no, Christ’s death is not metaphorical.
Obviously, I was referring to our metaphorical language of “the Father” and “the Son” vs. Qur’anic language of “son of the road” and “mother of the books” and “mother of villages”
ام القری
ام الکتاب
ابن السبیل
LikeLike
Ibn Isaam – this is enough to know that Islam is false.
The narration states:
Sahih al-Bukhari 4138 – Narrated Ibn Muhairiz: I entered the mosque and saw Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e., coitus interruptus). Abu Sa’id said, “We went out with Allah’s Messenger for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq, and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So, when we intended to do coitus interruptus, we said, ‘How can we do coitus interruptus without asking Allah’s Messenger while he is present among us?’ We asked (him) about it and he said, ‘It is better for you not to do so. There is no person that is destined to exist, but will come to existence, till the Day of Resurrection.'” (Sahih Bukhari, no. 4138)
LikeLike
how so Ken? you fail to give any reasons lol
LikeLike
You have raveled your true face, Ken.
You’re a typical missionary! Once you get cornered, you start hysterically accusing teaching of Islam.
We know already that your hearts reject the law of God as your prophet Paul who called the perfect law of God as ( garbage), yet you’re delighted following the law of men. No wonder that Jesus will condemn you because you’re lawless people.
All thing that you assume it’s negative in Islam, they are found already in your bible under this label ( the perfect law of God) which God had commanded Israelites to observe to become holy before God.
The same problem with the Clown who thinks Bible was evolved around secular western values. Christianity as scriptures & history has nothing to do with western secular values. It’s just you who are so hypocritical people & nothing else.
How in the world for a religion whose main teaching is ( peace, love ,not resisting evil,and love of the enemies) turns to be the most religion using violence. It has bloody records with no competition. The clown considers USA a christian state. I don’t think I need to refresh your memory how much love you sent to Iraq, for example. In fact, some famous christians such as Dr Licona is still celebrating the ” heros” of that war!
If you need testimonies from your soldiers about that love they have done in Iraq, I can post whatever you want! Raping, killing…etc.
Even the last election has exposed the evangelicals. Your hypocrisy is unbearable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken,
You cannot get around the fact that Biblical law permits rape of female captives (Deuteronomy 21:10-14). You cite a secondary source in Islam, while your primary source the Bible, is replete with examples of rape.
Other instances of Rape in Bible:
There are several other passages in the Old Testament, including Genesis 34, Numbers 31:15-18, Deuteronomy 21:10-14, Judges 19:22-26, and 2 Samuel 13:1-14, which depict rape or have been interpreted as discussing rape by numerous scholars, including Wil Gafney and Phyllis Trible. In Genesis 34, Dinah is abducted by Shechem in a passage that is often interpreted as rape. In Numbers 31:15-18, Moses, after exacting revenge on the Midianites, commands his army to kill all the boys and every non-virgin woman while telling them to “save for [themselves]” every virgin woman,” a phrase which has been interpreted as a passage depicting rape. Deuteronomy 21:10-14 presents laws regarding marrying a captive woman, which has also been regarded as depicting rape. Judges 19:22-26 depicts Gibeah and the Levite Concubine, in which a man sends out his concubine to a group of angry men, where they gang rape her. Afterwards, the man cuts up the body of his concubine into twelve pieces and sends them to the Twelve Tribes of Israel. 2 Samuel 13:1-14 involves the rape of Tamar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_the_Hebrew_Bible
Thus your double standard is laid bare.
LikeLike
The rapes that happened are never commended. Most of those passages are historical narrative about sinful men did. God condemns rape.
I am glad you have other texts such as the ones you gave.
But you have not explained what the gross ones mean.
LikeLike
“I know you guys don’t like David Wood, but you need to stop saying he is “mentally ill”, as if he still is; and you completely ignore all the very reasonable argumentation he makes in analyzing the Qur’an, Hadith and Islamic history, Tafsirs, etc. – Especially, when his testimony is that God healed him of his bitterness and hatred and violent anger that sent him to a mental institution.”
would you allow him to stay in your house if you had a lot of hammers around?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Haha. Good one.
LikeLike
Yes, because he has proven that Jesus changed his heart.
LikeLike
“Yes, because he has proven that Jesus changed his heart.”
did he? from mental nut case to believing in the HAMMERING of jesus to a cross?
LikeLike
ken temple aka larry taunton
there is not one place in the torah where yhwh said he was going to be a sin sacrifice .
LikeLike
Larry Taunton = Ken Temple? the same person?
LikeLike
because he sounds like temple i jokingly wrote that.
LikeLike
Ken Temple, It is quite fair to assume that David Woods is not entirely objective when it comes to his critiques of Islam and neither is he motivated by dispassionate research. But rather he is a dyed in the wool Christian evangelist, with contempt for Islam. Clearly not someone who should be sought when inquiring about Islam. At least Dr Ehrman is a qualified and a recognized Biblical scholar, whose works are used in established Universities. He is even recognized as an authority by conservative Biblical scholars. But David Wood does not even understand the most elementary arabic and neither does he know Koine Greek or is a textual critic. He is a just a criminal who murdered his father. Thats all. These qualifications are not required for textual criticism. He takes pride in Lying, as did Satan Paul. Remember, woods has stated many false prophecies, just like Paul in 1st Thessalonians 4: 17.
Paul of Tarsus misquoted the OT, deliberately to perpetuate his evil desires. He also made numerous false prophecies. He lied, and justified it. Paul also called the Holy One–the God of Israel, a FOOL.
In fact most New Testament scholars conclude that Paul and his followers expected the imminent end of the world during their lifetimes. For example, the distinguished New Testament scholar Professor C.K. Barrett wrote in his commentary on 1 Corinthians:
‘Paul expects that at the parousia he himself will not be among the dead (of whom he speaks in the third person), but among the living (of whom he speaks in the first person). He expected the parousia within his own lifetime.’
LikeLiked by 1 person
LikeLike
and Ken Temple wonders why we don’t take Wood seriously. This guy is a joke.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Yeah, that one was not so good.
LikeLike
you don’t give a horse shit ken. you don’t care if that transvestite breaks every law in your hebrew bible, he is still “saved” and 3 love making gods have already “paid” for him .
LikeLike
Ken Temple, Why does Shamoun avoid Ijaz, the way criminals avoid the Police? Why does Nabeel not debate Dr Ehrman on : ”Is there any credible historical evidence which proves that Jesus worshiped, preached and taught the Trinitarian dogma?” I mean, Nabeel always makes a big deal about the fact that Christianity corresponds more with the historical information on Jesus than Islam, which allegedly converted him from Ahmadayyism ( if you ignore his other contradictions, just like you ignore the Biblical ones) or was it the dream?! lol. So he should be consistent and reject the Trinity as well (as he did Ahmadayyism) since there is no historical proof that Jesus taught it.
!) If you reject Islam because History does not support the Islamic view of Jesus.
THEN YOU MUST REJECT THE TRINITY–AS HISTORY DOES NOT SUPPORT THE VIEW THAT JESUS TAUGHT IT.
but then you are a christian and hence inconsistent and a hypocrite.
LikeLike
Did Ehrman ask Nabeel for a debate?
He lied, and justified it. Paul also called the Holy One–the God of Israel, a FOOL.
where did the apostle Paul call God Almighty a fool ?
LikeLike
@Ken
I listed to wood’s “best video” according to you. Really Ken? If that is your best ( or your best’s best) then may God help you! That guy (Wood) says he is greater than Allah because he loves sinners and Allah doesn’t!!!!!!!!!!!!
LikeLike
He really said that? Wood is an even bigger joke that I thought.
LikeLike
Mental case thinks having unconditional love for the devil makes him great. Nothing out of the ordinary.
LikeLike
“That guy (Wood) says he is greater than Allah because he loves sinners and Allah doesn’t!!!!!!!!!!”
this guy hammered his own father. he believes that the only way for him to receive forgiveness from his god is believing that his god got hammered by the pagans.
now an atheist/agnostic can argue :
“You mean God saving me from himself. But I’m supposed to “honor” this, why? I’m supposed to honor a being that has to hurt itself in order to control its anger? I know kids who are better at controlling their emotions.”
so kids are greater than each person in trinity!
LikeLike
Just listen to his last 30 secs
LikeLike
Ken Temple, Satan Paul calls Yahveh a Top Fool in 1st Corinthians 1:25. He also calls the Torah ”skubalon” meaning Animal Shit in Phillipians 3:8.
LikeLiked by 2 people
1 Corinthians 1:25 does not say what you claim.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
“the foolishness of God” = exactly what you think our message is – you think the message of the gospel is foolishness – that God can become a human and then die for our sins and still remain God, etc.
the whole context from 1 Corinthians 1:18-31 is about how you and others (Jews think the message is crazy; Greeks think it is foolishness also.)
18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
He is saying you think the message of the cross is foolishness; he is not saying God is a fool.
Read all of 1 Corinthians 1:18-31
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+1&version=NASB
LikeLike
Ken Temple, why does John 17 : 3 say that the Father is the only True God? Why can you not find a similarly explicit statement in the Bible which proclaims Jesus as the 2nd Person of the Trinity? The Shema explicitly declares God to be One. Find a similarly explicit statement that declares God to be 3 or 3 Persons? Why is it so damn hard if Jesus was a Triniarian and God a Trinity? WHY?
LikeLike
Read in context with John 17:1 – 5
Verse 5 shows that the Son had the same glory and nature with the Father in eternity.
verse 1 – Jesus lifted His eyes to heaven and prayed to the Father
The three persons is based on lots of texts that say things like “the Father loves the Son”, “the Son prays to the Father”, “the Spirit testifies to the Son” (John 15:26), etc.
and verses that have all three persons:
Matthew 28:19
2 Corinthians 13:14
LikeLike
Philippians 3:8 – skubalon = rubbish, garbage, trash, etc. ( it is a general word that includes all kinds of things that are waste and trash.
It is a verse of comparison – everything he is counting as rubbish compared to knowing Jesus Christ the Lord in a spiritual relationship.
Not about the law in itself. God’s law is good – Romans 7:12
“the law is holy, righteous, and good”
He does not say “the law is skubalon”; he is saying that he counts his own efforts of trying to keep the law (along with all other things and relationships, except relationship to God) as rubbish, because His own efforts are vain and empty.
“his own efforts at keeping the law” is different than “the law in itself”
LikeLike
“It is a similar parallel to Muslims complaining about the phrase “son of God” and “Father”, which are not terms of physicality with respect to God. They are metaphorical terms describing the close spiritual relationship that the Father and Son have from all eternity and that the Son has the same nature as the Father.”
this is all bloody nonsense. jesus could be the fathers wife or even twin brothers or even blood brothers. just put the “spiritual relationship” nonsense and play the game.
who talks about relationships within god?
what is this nonsense? are persons who have access to the same powers in a relationship?
relationship implies a connection between two separate persons.
marriage
romance
family
their must be some “spiritual romance” going on in the trinity.
LikeLike
“They are metaphorical terms describing the close spiritual relationship that the Father and Son have …”
Did he really say that? Wow. KenTemple heresy alert …
LikeLiked by 1 person
yes, i sense heresy
LikeLike
“While on earth, that expression was about His submission to the Father while on earth, and His subordinate role as the Son.”
in other words he was doing a stage play?
gods with 100 % divine nature through human body prayed to and submitted to the father in heaven or was it just a stage play?
LikeLike
you are just mocking with comments like “spiritual romance” and “needed a hug”, and “stage play”, etc.
If Surah 4:157 is true (but it is not true); then your god was doing “stage play” deceiving / tricking (Surah 3:54-55) both the Jews and Christians for all of history.
Allah is the very best trickster / schemer / deceiver. Surah 3:54
very bad character
LikeLike
your god was playing shape shifting tricks like the devil
quote :
Polymorphism is a special category of metamorphosis. In Greco-Roman literature, it was the ability of divine beings to change their own form. (Not all scholars use this definition, but it seems the most suitable one for this article. See Lee, p. 177.) A polymorphic god can change forms sequentially, or even appear in different forms to different people at the same time.
LikeLike
Mr. Heathcliff,
Explain the Qur’anic phrases:
Son of the road
Mother of the books
Mother of the villages
LikeLike
ken , does the incarnation start off from a spiritual state and then become physical/literal/real?
quote:
A Spiritual Relationship is when the two or more parties involved experience harmony, joy, understanding and peace. With a spiritual relationship the persons involved are connected at the heart. Emotionally they sense the deep connection they have together, and it is felt at their core or heart
so is it a mind making spiritual love to the other mind ?
so really the father does not really need the son, he just need to think about him. and neither does the son need the father, he just needs to think about him. they don’t need each others presence. a husband can be spiritually connected with his wife even when he is living over seas.
is this the kind of relationship in the trinity ?
LikeLike
quote:
Son of the road
Mother of the books
Mother of the villages
end quote
are you saying that each person in the trinity is not living conscious person?
LikeLike
“Temple missionary fail only telling half the truth. Jesus still has a God via his human nature. Evangelical missionaries always deceiving.”
actually it is person with divine nature having a god via human nature.
LikeLike
Yep. Smells funny
LikeLike
timeline 11:20 you will hear response to smiths pagan question in the back ground . it completely contradicts the words “father in heaven”
LikeLike
”
Obviously, I was referring to our metaphorical language of “the Father” and “the Son” vs”
how do you understand what you wrote?
is the father the protector and provider of the son?
is he the leader?
is he jesus parent?
is he the creator of jesus?
does he know he is jesus’ father?
does he look after jesus?
does he guide jesus on important religious issues?
LikeLike
Ibn Issam:
Deuteronomy 21:10-14 is not even about rape. It is about marriage after a time of mourning. James White gave a good answer on that, that even Ijaz Ahmad commented on was reasonable.
But the details of your Hadith go way beyond that.
Ibn Issam – this is enough to know that Islam is false.
The narration states:
Sahih al-Bukhari 4138 – Narrated Ibn Muhairiz: I entered the mosque and saw Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e., coitus interruptus). Abu Sa’id said, “We went out with Allah’s Messenger for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq, and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So, when we intended to do coitus interruptus, we said, ‘How can we do coitus interruptus without asking Allah’s Messenger while he is present among us?’ We asked (him) about it and he said, ‘It is better for you not to do so. There is no person that is destined to exist, but will come to existence, till the Day of Resurrection.’” (Sahih Bukhari, no. 4138)
LikeLike
The Bible never sanctions rape.
but the Qur’an and Hadith sure do seem to.
the Qur’an says “whom your right hand possesses” – treating women like sex objects.
Ismaeel Abu Adam saw that and was rightly shocked and repulsed.
LikeLike
“Deuteronomy 21:10-14 is not even about rape. It is about marriage after a time of mourning. James White gave a good answer on that, that even Ijaz Ahmad commented on was reasonable.”
disgusting reply. when you grab the girl, you see her long hair, wouldn’t this tempt one to rape her?
quote:
suppose you see among the captives a beautiful woman whom you desire and want to marry, 12 and so you bring her home to your house: she shall shave her head, pare her nails, 13 discard her captive’s garb, and shall remain in your house a full month, mourning for her father and mother;
after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14 But if you are not satisfied with her, you shall let her go free and not sell her for money. You must not treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.
if you are not satisfied with her, you can let her go and pray she finds another husband. if she doesn’t then she is doomed
you don’t allow rape on the spot , but rape after one month? then you rape her to your hearts delight if you do fancy her?
LikeLike
Ken,
You cannot get around the fact that Biblical law permits rape of female captives (Deuteronomy 21:10-14). You cite a secondary source in Islam, while your primary source the Bible, is replete with examples of rape.
Other instances of Rape in Bible:
There are several other passages in the Old Testament, including Genesis 34, Numbers 31:15-18, Deuteronomy 21:10-14, Judges 19:22-26, and 2 Samuel 13:1-14, which depict rape or have been interpreted as discussing rape by numerous scholars, including Wil Gafney and Phyllis Trible. In Genesis 34, Dinah is abducted by Shechem in a passage that is often interpreted as rape. In Numbers 31:15-18, Moses, after exacting revenge on the Midianites, commands his army to kill all the boys and every non-virgin woman while telling them to “save for [themselves]” every virgin woman,” a phrase which has been interpreted as a passage depicting rape. Deuteronomy 21:10-14 presents laws regarding marrying a captive woman, which has also been regarded as depicting rape. Judges 19:22-26 depicts Gibeah and the Levite Concubine, in which a man sends out his concubine to a group of angry men, where they gang rape her. Afterwards, the man cuts up the body of his concubine into twelve pieces and sends them to the Twelve Tribes of Israel. 2 Samuel 13:1-14 involves the rape of Tamar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_the_Hebrew_Bible
Thus your double standard is laid bare.
LikeLike
“Deuteronomy 21:10-14 is not even about rape. It is about marriage after a time of mourning. James White gave a good answer on that, that even Ijaz Ahmad commented on was reasonable.”
because ahmed commented on that , you think white made a good point ? lol
https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/
lets see white take part in a discussion there
white has been on ehrmans forum for more than 1 year and the chicken never comments LOL
LikeLike
Ken,
Why don’t you quote the numerous Hadith that forbid rape and sexual abuse? Maybe because you are polemically motivated to paint a skewed picture of Islam.
Abu Alqama reported: A woman went out to pray during the time of the Prophet and she was met by a man who attacked her and raped her. She said, “This man has molested me!” The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said:
ارْجُمُوهُ
He is condemned to death.
Source: Sunan At-Tirmidhi 1454, Grade: Sahih
.
The righteous Caliphs who succeeded the Prophet continued this policy of legal punishment for the crime of rape. The victim of rape would not be punished regardless of the circumstances.
Ibn Umar reported:
أَنَّ عُمَرَ أُتِيَ بِإِمَاءٍ مِنْ إِمَاءِ الإِمَارَةِ اسْتَكْرَهَهُنَّ غِلْمَانٌ مِنْ غِلْمَانِ الإِمَارَةِ فَضَرَبَ الْغِلْمَانَ وَلَمْ يَضْرِبْ الإِمَاءَ
Umar ibn Al-Khattab was given a servant girl among the girls who served the leadership. She was forced upon by one of the young men, so Umar flogged the man and he did not flog the woman.
Source: Musannaf Ibn Abi Shayba 29012
LikeLike
ok, those Hadith are good. Thanks for citing them.
But isis uses the bad ones to condone what they do. there are several bad ones from Sahih Al Bukhari
LikeLike
The Prophet of Allah said, “The best among you are those who are best to their women.” ~Sunan at-Tirmidhi 1162
There is no theology of rape in Islam
http://abuaminaelias.com/there-is-no-theology-of-rape-in-islam/
LikeLike
The Hadith of Sunan at Tirmidhi 1162 is good. ok. but it contradicts the one from Sahih Al Bukhari that I quoted. (about Al Azl, etc.)
LikeLike
The prohibition of rape applied to all women, including slaves and prisoners of war.
Ash-Shafi’ee said:
وَإِذَا اغْتَصَبَ الرَّجُلُ الْجَارِيَةَ ثُمَّ وَطِئَهَا بَعْدَ الْغَصْبِ وَهُوَ مِنْ غَيْرِ أَهْلِ الْجَهَالَةِ أُخِذَتْ مِنْهُ الْجَارِيَةُ وَالْعُقْرُ وَأُقِيمَ عَلَيْهِ حَدُّ الزِّنَا
If a man acquires a slave girl by force and then he rapes her, and he is not an ignorant person, then the slave girl is taken from him. He must pay the fine and the legal punishment for adultery will be applied to him.
Source: Kitab Al-Umm 253
http://abuaminaelias.com/there-is-no-theology-of-rape-in-islam/
LikeLike
that’s a good ruling; but it is not Sahih Hadith.
Even Yasir Qadhi admitted the sex-slaves were a reality in early Islam:
He even said that most of the children of the Abbasids and Uthmaniyeh (Ottomans ?) were children of captive women taken after they killed all the men of many areas.
LikeLike
Ken,
“Ismaeel Abu Adam saw that and was rightly shocked and repulsed.”
I am not surprised that Neil Littlejohn, the self professed “Imam and scholar of Islam” couldn’t find the numerous hadith that forbid rape and sexual abuse of women. OR that he could not find the hadith that urge Muslim men to treat their women with respect, kindness, honor and decency. Or that he was unable to extrapolate from other Qur’anic verses and Hadith that mercy and justice should be shown to all of Allah’s creation, and to all people, regardless of gender, race, religion or social status. It just provides further evidence that Littlejohn was absolutely clueless and undiscerning in comparison to the true and righteous believing Imams and scholarly Ulama of Islam. I am ashamed to even mention them in the same sentence with Littlejohn.
I will wait to see if Littlejohn is equally shocked and repulsed by the multiple evidences of rape and sexual misconduct found in Christianity’s first scriptural source -The Bible.
Otherwise his biased double standard is equally exposed as well as yours.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Again, Deut. 21 does not condone rape.
Neither does any other passage.
LikeLike
Ken,
The verses which Mr. Heathcliff has cited below address the matter from the primary source of Qur’an. I am not surprised that you and Littlejohn seemed to have missed those verses as well.
LikeLike
Ken,
“Again, Deut. 21 does not condone rape.Neither does any other passage.”
Says you. Other scholars seem to disagree with your assessment.
In a piece for AlterNet, Valerie Tarico writes that a literal interpretation on the Bible on the topic was “disturbing” and argued that “the Bible never teaches that women should have a choice about sex”, that “Male-female relationships in the Bible are determined by a property ethic”, and that “the Bible is loaded with divinely sanctioned rape babies.” Tarico, Valerie (November 1, 2012). “What the Bible Says about Rape”. AlterNet. Retrieved May 12, 2015.
LikeLike
But the Qur’an affirms the law of Moses, so if you think the law of Moses taught that, (really ?), then you are affirming rape, etc.
Of course, the Law of Moses never approves of rape.
LikeLike
Ken
I am sure that the Law of Moses never condoned rape, but we are talking about your Bible and that is two different and separate things. There is the divinely revealed law of Moses on one hand, and on the other hand, there is the fabricated and forged Biblical texts written by unknown pseudepigraphal authors. Try to differentiate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And whoever among you cannot [find] the means to marry free, believing women, then [he may marry] from those whom your right hands possess of believing slave girls. And Allah is most knowing about your faith. You [believers] are of one another. So marry them with the permission of their people and give them their due compensation according to what is acceptable. [They should be] chaste, neither [of] those who commit unlawful intercourse randomly nor those who take [secret] lovers. But once they are sheltered in marriage, if they should commit adultery, then for them is half the punishment for free [unmarried] women. This [allowance] is for him among you who fears sin, but to be patient is better for you. And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
“And if you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans, then marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice (between them), then (marry) only one or what your right hands possess; this is more proper, that you may not deviate from the right course.”
LikeLike
Sahih International: But let them who find not [the means for] marriage abstain [from sexual relations] until Allah enriches them from His bounty. And those who seek a contract [for eventual emancipation] from among whom your right hands possess – then make a contract with them if you know there is within them goodness and give them from the wealth of Allah which He has given you. And do not compel your slave girls to prostitution, if they desire chastity, to seek [thereby] the temporary interests of worldly life. And if someone should compel them, then indeed, Allah is [to them], after their compulsion, Forgiving and Merciful.
LikeLike
“There is no compulsion whatsoever in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing.”
LikeLike
i placed two verses about compulsion together and ken still cries “abrogation”
LikeLike
One would think that “NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION” would put a cork on Ken’s false accusations, but alas……
some like he are not interested in truth.
LikeLike
If only the Muslims after 632 AD had obeyed Surah 2:256, instead of Surah 9:29, 8:39, and 9:111 and other passages that came later. They would not have attacked Byzantine or Persia if they had obeyed Surah 2:256
A hadith says, “Al Bara’ (Surah Toubeh = 9 – “Repentance”) was the last one revealed.
Seems according to
The concept of “abrogation” in the Quran is that Allah chose to reveal ayat (singular ayah – means a sign or miracle, commonly a verse in the Quran) that supercede earlier ayat in the same Quran. The central ayah that deals with abrogation is Surah 2:106:
None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?
Seems that Islamic history shows that they obeyed Surah 9 under Omar Ibn Al Khattab (634 and beyond and other Khalifs also) and not Surah 2:256. (around 624 AD)
LikeLike
”
Seems according to
The concept of “abrogation” in the Quran is that Allah chose to reveal ayat (singular ayah – means a sign or miracle, commonly a verse in the Quran) that supercede earlier ayat in the same Quran. The central ayah that deals with abrogation is Surah 2:106″
this guy is not here to learn .
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not all Muslim scholars agree on what abrogation covers.
Muslim scholars of old hold to the concept that some ayahs in the Quran abrogate other ayahs in the Quran, but do not all hold to the same set of abrogated and abrogating ayahs.
Other Muslim scholars are of the opinion that the Quran may abrogate the Quran as well as the Sunnah (deed or example of Mohammad) and vice versa.
Some Muslim scholars hold that the Quran abrogates all the previous scriptures, specifically the scriptures sent to Musa and Isa, but not itself.
Some Muslim scholars, especially of recent times do not believe in the concept of abrogation at all.
LikeLike
Heathcliff,
Exactly. He is here to throw dust in our eyes.
But anyone who has any true knowledge of Islam can see through his weakly based arguments.
LikeLiked by 1 person
you give such a dumb reply that it is not even worth showing you that you even missed the word “compel”
but i gave you the clue anyway.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The law of God which includes forcing the woman who got raped to marry the one who raped her is described as ( the perfect law of God) according to OT, Jesus, and his disciples. According to them, you must obey the law of God otherwise you should be called the least in the kingdom of God.
On the other hand, your prophet Paul, the least in the kingdome of god, had another opnion! He described that law as whole a ( garbage), yet he thought as long as that law applied by the Romans , then it’s considered perefect since the Romans are the authority from God. You know ! This hypocrisy has been applied by christians since back then till this day.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good point Abdullah!!
LikeLike
If Christians have rejected the Law, based on Paul’s Gospel of Freedom from the Law, then what is there to assure that Christians don’t rape, pillage and plunder committing every crime in the book while thinking that they are all “Saved by the Blood” through faith based redemption.
What is there to protect the innocent non-Christian masses from the lawless faith of Christianity!!
Wa Allahu Hafiz!
LikeLike
Christians never have rejected the law of God. “the law is good and righetous and holy” Romans 7:12
It was the wrong application of God’s law that Paul the apostle was talking about.
“if one uses the law properly” 1 Tim. 1:8-11
If a person uses law as a method of gaining God’s favor or love or salvation; that is the problem.
The law is good.
LikeLike
You have the gall and audacity to judge a pre-modern world characterized by conquests and military expansions. How dare you blame everything on the Quran. How would you feel if Muslims blamed the Crusades on 1 Sam. 15:3? Do you know that Pope Urban II justified the Crusades by calling the Muslims the new Amalekites? Do you know that the Bible’s violence has been read in a prescriptive manner to justify atrocities and bloodshed? You would say the violent passages needs to be understood in the proper historical context. Well, the same applies to the Quran (9:5, 29, 8:39), it must be understood in the HISTORICAL and POLITICAL context of that world. This information is found in the book ‘Laying Down the Sword’ written by Philip Jenkins. Have you read the essay about Jihad and conquests in the Study Quran? Obviously not, otherwise you wouldn’t make this bogus argument that Muslims were aggressors. Why did the Muslims target the Byzantines? It is because they killed the messenger Umair al-Hartih who was carrying a letter to the emperor. It seems the explanation given by Dr. Shabir Ally during his debate with David Wood has been completely ignored, he said centuries ago there were NO FIXED BORDERS and people could easily invade other lands as a defence mechanism. They could enjoy no permanent and sustainable peace unless they attacked others pre-emptively, but the reality is completely different today. Centuries ago, nations/tribes survived by fighting against other, even if they didn’t attack first. Where do you find the audacity to blame everything on the Quran? Even without the Quran they would’ve found themselves in a threatening situation against the Persian and Byzantine empires because the primary objective was survival. It appears you love pointing out seeming parallels between the Quran and what Muslims do based on their own circumstances. You simply don’t understand the historical circumstances of that world, they were compelled by the political factors and military conditions. This was exception to the rule, Jihad doesn’t mean conquest even if that interpretation was given, it means self-defense and fighting against the Devil, not expansion and conquest. This practice of jihad was only restricted to that time and doesn’t apply today, it was needed only for that particular world, as the Quran’s war passages are defensive and mitigates aggression. The historical background behind 9:29 is about the Expedition of Tabuk when the Byzantines threatened to invade Arabia from the Syrian north, they assassinated the messenger. They did not force anyone to become Muslim, they were expanding beyond Arabia as a defensive measure to survive against the Persian and Byzantine Empires. On the other hand, the early Church faced no enemies from the outside world because THEY WERE the dominant superpower of that time, the Roman Empire empire. If you were living in the seventh century you would’ve understood the historical reality of that time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Do you know that Pope Urban II justified the Crusades by calling the Muslims the new Amalekites?
Do you have a reference on that?
I am not Roman Catholic and the Papal office is a false doctrine; and if Pope Urban 2 said that, well, it just shows how wrong and evil the Roman Catholic Church was. But it has nothing to do with Biblical truth.
The Roman Catholic Church is a false church; not part of the first centuries. One can argue it developed slowly, but especially from 600 AD to 1517.
But @ the Council of Trent in 1545 – 1563, that is when the Roman Catholic Church became an official false church.
Protestants do not accept Roman Catholicism or Papalism as valid expressions of Biblical Christianity.
LikeLike
“Christians never have rejected the law of God”
Are you saying you don’t reject the law which includes forcing the woman who got raped to marry the one who raped her?
” The law is good”
Really? Including ” marrying” the captive women whose families got killed by you ?
LikeLike
Those verses have already been explained many times.
in the meantime,
Wood makes some excellent points about Qur’an only Muslims who reject all of Hadith.
LikeLike
Wood makes some excellent points on Qur’an only Muslims who reject all Hadith.
LikeLike
We don’t need clowns to explain what the Islam is.
Why don’t the clown explain what qadinias say about hadiths? Or he will refute himself about Nabeel’s ex faith?
BTY, He got it wrong about the times of the prayers in Quran.
==============
Yes ! I’m aware that you still run away from the questions I keep asking you about the ( perfect kaw if god) which your prophet paul called( garbage) unless it’s commanded by the pagan Romans.
LikeLike
Nabeel answered that stuff – he fully admits he was Ahmadiyeh (but not as often as he should) and says that the theology of Allah is the same in both Sunni Islam and Ahmadiyeh and 5 pillars and 6 beliefs are the same. The difference is about how Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has re-interpreted the Mahdi and the second coming of Jesus as he himself the fulfillment and manifestation of that.
I already answered you on the law and Paul did not mean the law is garbage; but his efforts at trying to obey the law is garbage. He said the law is good and righteous and holy” Romans 7:12 – why don’t you read Romans 7:12 for yourself? and 1 Timothy 1:8-11 – read it for yourself. What are you afraid of?
LikeLike
The subject of his 5+ minute video is the fact that more and more Muslims are getting embarrassed by some Hadith and doing away with it altogether. But, Wood points out that one cannot do that without getting rid of a lot the historical context (asbab ol Nozul – “reasons for the revelation” and many practices of Islam are in Hadith, and not in the Qur’an.
One cannot even understand most of the Qur’an without the Hadith. Because it just jumps around from subject to subject without historical context.
LikeLike
Can Wood read hadith in the arabic original?
LikeLike
What’s wrong with the English translations?
LikeLike
“is the same in both Sunni Islam and Ahmadiyeh and 5 pillars and 6 beliefs are the same. The difference is about how Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has re-interpreted the Mahdi and the second coming of Jesus as he himself the fulfillment and manifestation of that.”
Well this is a big lie!
I mean ..really ?!
Why didn’t his ex prophet say the same thing then?
Why did Mirza say we differe with( muslims) in every aspect including Allah and Quran?
Why didn’t Nabeel tell you that the final message of “Islam” is what his ex prophet said not what the prophet pbuh said such as canceling of Jihad completely.
Isn’t this what all christians want from ” muslims” ?
Why doesn’t the clown declare this “awesome” news for his ignorant followers!?, especially he spreads this lie that Nabeel was an ex muslim!
Why doesn’t Nabeel tell you that according to his ex ” scripture” , Mirza has the heavens and the earth as Allah has the heavens and the earth?
Why doesn’t Nabeel tell you that Mirza in the stage of “Kashf”, he believed that is God himself?
Why doesn’t Nabeel tell you that Mirza believed that Isa (as)عيسى عليه السلام was a drunk man, and that why the second messiah ( mirza) is better? All of this in his ex scripture!
According to qadinis’ scripture Jesus was used to hang out with adulteress, and that Why Quran didn’t praise him as he praised John the Baptist!
This a mere Kufr !
In fact, In Islam to believe in a revelation after Quran or a prophet after the prophet pbuh is kufr to begin with !
All of this have been neglected by Nabeel and the clown just to give nabeel credibility among ignorant Christians.
Christians try to tell us that as you long as keep the 5 pillars , you’re a muslim even if you believed that Allah has a son! No ! This is not the case in Islam since 5 pillars themselves have their own keys and conditions!
Once you believe in a prophet after the last prophet pbuh, you’re out of Islam. This is very clear.
Christians! you cannot frame Islam to decide who are the muslims and who are not! If you decided that qadains are muslims, then we decided that mormons are christians as well, especially that mormons believe in the trinity, death, and resurrection of Jesus. They apply Romans10:9 at least.
The irony here is that those evangelicals promoting Nabeel don’t consider Catholics as christians, and they expect us to consider that clut as muslims! I cannot find a word even to describe this hypocrisy.
Continue with (Nabeel and the clown)’s lies….
Why doesn’t Nabeel tell you that the perfect name of God is ( Yalash) which is a special revelation for his ex ” prophet” ?
Why doesn’t Nabeel tell you that Mirza had the power as God himself if he wanted any thing, he just needed to say ( Be)!? This in his ex scripture!
Why did Nabeel in his last interview said as an ex muslim I believed that Jesus will return at the end of time! ( this interview was after he announced that he got a cancer) which means he still likes to lie for his igonarnt audenice! Or let’s say that what christians like to believe althogh they know he’s a liar.
Therefore, when the clown tries to be a clever, he has to know that his vomiting only affects on his igonrant christians. The clown doesn’t accept that there’s peace in Islam, and muslims who promote this idea don’t follow their scripture, and they are not true muslims for his view while on the other hand, he spreads that Nabeel was an ex muslim and he followed the true Islam (i.e since qadiniah is for pacifism except with muslims). Ok ! Which one mr clown? It’s one or the other!
Surah (43:54)
“Then he bluffed his people, and they obeyed him. Truely they were an iniquitous people” .
LikeLike
That Ahmadiyeh don’t accept physical Jihad is a given. I did not see the need to repeat that. Anyway, how do Ahmadiyeh deal with 9:29? (a nasty and evil verse, along with all of Surah 9)
To all other questions, I don’t know.
Is all that stuff documented as official Ahmadiyeh doctrines?
LikeLike
First of all, that verse is not “nasty”, especially that you believe in the perfect law of god! That law in which god had kept commanding his eye’s apple to keep so that they can be holy before him! You know it! That law which commands you to stone your own family if they invited you to worship other gods! … That law which Jesus gave a serious warning for anyone wants to break it or even teach to break it.
That verse is not “nasty” while you believe in Roman13!
Aren’t you obligated to obey the pagan romans!? Their swords are from god, and their punishment is approved by god, so why do you complain about that verse? At least we believe in Jesus!
Moreover, Jesus will do more than that verse when he will come ( Isaiah11:14).
In fact, you have done that already as christian nations & western imperialism over the world. I can show you what have you done in Iraq which Trump wants its oil for the decmcrcy you spread. I can show you the real history of christianity before 1945!
I can qoute from great Christians theologians whom christians qoute to explain your creeds, and how they had no problem with burning heretics alive, for example.
It’s just you from 90% Americans who are “what’s Aleppo” or those who are with “nuking Agrabah”.
After you think seriously to get over this hypocrisy, we can explain that verse for you with its own historical context.
==============
Regarding ( qadianiah), I’ve said their own ” prophet” can cancel anything he wanted. It’s simple as that. Quran doesn’t matter for them. If so, they woudn’t believe in a “prophet” after the prophet pbuh in the first place since Quran stated already & explicitly that Muhammed is the LAST one.
All what I said is found in their own ” scriptures” such as Baraheen Ahmadyiah, Tathkirah, and Al Arba’een ..etc.
It’s not my own problem that you follow the clown!
You can watch the last interview with Nabeel while he lied about the return of Jesus in his ex faith.
LikeLike
I think Surah 9:29 ( and all of Surah 9) is nasty and evil. Sorry, but it is, because it gave all out permission for total war against pagans until they convert (Surah 9:5) and became the basis of conquering all of Arabia and the choice was either Islam or die. (Omar Ibn Khattab – “I heard the prophet say, no 2 religions will be allowed in Arabia / Hijaz”, etc.) The idolaters had no choice. then, the Christians of the Najran were eventually expelled to outer Arabia, (Omar and afterward) and then Surah 9:28-30 shows the justification for attacking the Byzantine and Persian Empires and all other wars against Zoroastrians, Hindus, and Buddhists, etc. as Islam was constantly ALWAYS attacking until they were stopped. (722 AD, Charles Martel, etc. )
Your comment about Romans 13 seems like the same thing that Anjem Choudary says. No way! If Islam takes over, there is no freedom for evangelism or disagreement. Your culture interprets any criticism of Islam as justification for violence against the Christians. That is very bad. Sorry, but although the Romans were evil, Christianity eventually won over the culture and Empire, and Christian civilization was better than Islamic, because eventually Christian civilization gives the freedom of people to choose and not force. (and the NT says excommunication for unrepentant sin, not execution) The Dhimmi system and Jiziye system was oppression and the Christians did not have freedom to evangelize or debate (except with a few Caliphs, seemingly, because he could control the situation). Islam has never given freedom for Muslims to convert out of Islam. Therefore, Surah 9:29 is evil and nasty. (as is all of Surah 9)
O sure, a few Christians and Jews survive in some parts of the Muslim world, (Coptic Church in Egypt, 5 % in other countries, etc.) but they are oppressed and inward, and eventually, even they became compromised and just survived and left their first love (Revelation 2:4-5) and are just communities of dead rituals(basically). Some of them individuals are true believers, but the leadership of Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodoxy left the Bible’s teaching on the gospel a long time ago.
LikeLike
I didn’t expect that you’re a student of that clown in this such far.
All what you said have been discussed in the early debates of the clown with muslims, and muslim defeated him perfectly.
The point here is not about a specific verse or law rather it’s about the double standards that you can avoid. In other words, the hypocrisy that you’re soaked with.
Christians who are commanded to praise the evil of pagan romans complain about the Islamic system! They want a system that they can control although they are commanded not to resist evil!.
N.B
It’s the roman paganism which controlled this type of christianity since there’re many (christianities) in the early centuries. They chose what fit with their own hellenic idea and made it official for the empire.
LikeLike
“The law of God which includes forcing the woman who got raped to marry the one who raped her is described as ( the perfect law of God) according to OT, Jesus, and his disciples. According to them, you must obey the law of God otherwise you should be called the least in the kingdom of God”
lol, i guess even if rapist had a hard heart he could not divorce her
lol
jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
LikeLike
@Ken: I was told that you are a priest. Does your religion tells you to lie ? Why are you lying about rape in Islam. Having sex with salve girl is not like having sex with wife. OT prophets had sex with their slave girls. Why do you equate sex with slave as rape? Do you have some kind of mental problem? Now one can discuss the merit or “sex with slave” but not the same thing as rape. brothers have shown you numerous hadeeth and clear ruling by major scholars of Islam that “rape” has no place in Islam yet you keep insisting on it. If a group of criminals ( isis is “irhaboon”, the murderers and criminals) interept religion in wrong way, how does that impact normative Islamic understanding? Can you show a hadeeth or verse of Quran that explicitly permits rape?
BTW why don’t you same standard on your holy book. I think you guys suffer from inferiority complex. Since you know very well any honest analysis on this or on any topic Quran and Sunnah will beat bible hands down, you guys go on “offence is the best defense” policy.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RationalMuslim,
Jazakallahu Khair for your input.
“I think you guys suffer from inferiority complex. Since you know very well any honest analysis on this or on any topic Quran and Sunnah will beat bible hands down, you guys go on “offence is the best defense” policy.”
I think you are absolutely correct in your assessment of the strategy and tactics of many Christian Apologists.
LikeLiked by 2 people
typo: the sentence shoudl read: Having sex with salve girl is not UNlike having sex with wife
LikeLike
Ken and Wood are playing stupid by projecting the word “hate” into the Quran where it doesn’t exist. Where does the Quran explicitly say that Allah hates them? The Quran nowhere explicitly says that Allah hates anyone, it says “Allah does not love” which simply and conspicuously means He does not love nor hate them. In other words, Allah is neutral and allows the disbelievers and wrongdoers chances to repent because when He created the universe He wrote over His throne “My mercy precedes my wrath” (Sahih Bukhari). He guides those who want to be guided, not those who reject the Divine guidance and follows their own desires. Where does it say Allah hates? For example, if I say “I don’t love that person”, does that mean I him? No, if anyone says I hate that person they are misunderstanding my words. The Quran nowhere associates the word “hate” with Allah because He is merciful to all humanity. The showering of rain from heaven emanates from the mercy and compassion to God, the Quran commands the Muslims to be kind towards those who don’t fight against them. The Quran says “Do not let the hatred of a people make you swerve from justice” (5:8) and always “Stand up for justice” (4:136). On the contrary, the Bible explicitly chooses the word HATE to describe his relationship with unbelievers and workers of iniquity (Ps. 5:5). Unlike the Quran, the Bible explicitly says “You HATE those who do wrong”. According to Eprojecting their own views into the Quran. The Quran nowhere explicitly says that Allah hates anyone.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Infinity and One,
That is a great answer to the question.
LikeLike
Protestants don’t have “priests” as our ministers. Pastors, missionaries, elders, yes. “Priest” is a Roman Catholic thing.
All Christians are priests in the NT – 1 Peter 2:5-10; Revelation 5:10
I am an ordained minister – Baptist of Reformed/Calvinistic theology.
I am not lying; just started by asking a question about the Sahih Hadiths that seem to speak about having sex with captured slave girls; and performing Al Azl –
These, in all honesty, seem very disgusting and evil.
FROM SAHIH BUKHARI – VOLUME 3, #432:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri that while he was sitting with Allah’s messenger we said, “Oh Allah’s messenger, we got female captives as our booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?” The prophet said, “Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.”
(also refer to Bukhari Vol. 3, #718)
FROM SAHIH BUKHARI – VOLUME 9, #506:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri that during the battle with Bani Al-Mustaliq they (Muslims) captured some females and intended to have sexual relations with them without impregnating them. So they asked the prophet about coitus interruptus. The prophet said, “It is better that you should not do it, for Allah has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection”.
Qaza’a said, “I heard Abu Said saying that the prophet said, “No soul is ordained to be created but Allah will create it.””
(also ref. Bukhari 5:459).
FROM SAHIH MUSLIM, VOLUME 2, #3371
Abu Sirma said to Abu Said al Khudri: “O Abu Said, did you hear Allah’s messenger mentioning about al-azl (coitus interruptus)?” He said, “Yes”, and added: “We went out with Allah’s messenger on the expedition to the Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing azl” (withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: “We are doing an act whereas Allah’s messenger is amongst us; why not ask him?” So we asked Allah’s messenger and he said: “It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born”.
FROM SAHIH MUSLIM, VOLUME 2, #3432
Abu Said al-Khudri reported that at the Battle of Hunain Allah’s messenger sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah’s messenger seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that: “And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (Quran – 4:24), (i.e. they were lawful for them when their Idda (menstrual) period came to an end).
LikeLike
this one is even worse – “in the presence of their husbands”
FROM THE HADITH OF THE SUNAN OF ABU DAWUD, VOLUME 2, # 2150:
Abu Said al-Khudri said: “The apostle of Allah sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the apostle of Allah were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Quranic verse, “And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess”. That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period.” [The Quran verse is 4:24].
LikeLike
@Ken: I am baffled. Where do you find forced sex (rape) being allowed in any of the verses or ahadeeth that you quoted?
LikeLike
“they captured women”
“we were hurting because our wives were not with us”
“shall we castrate ourselves? O prophet”
“we performed Al Azl”
“in the presence of their husbands”
All of that clearly implies force and that they did whatever they wanted to
LikeLike
Narrated Abdullah:
We used to participate in the holy wars carried on by the Prophet and we had no women (wives) with us. So we said (to the Prophet). “Shall we castrate ourselves?” But the Prophet forbade us to do that and thenceforth he allowed us to marry a woman (temporarily) by giving her even a garment, and then he recited: “O you who believe! Do not make unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 139:
LikeLike
Now I see. It is the actual text that says “rape”. It is your understanding that reads”rape” in those places. and now you bring an issue or “mtua’a” marriage. That actually undermines your entire “premise” of forced sex.
BTW can I ask how do you interpret sexual relationship by OT prophets with their slave women. Is that also rape in your estimate?
LikeLike
What Abraham did with Hagar was adultery. It was not rape; but it was not a good thing either. Genesis 16 – it was their impatience and Sara and Abraham’s lack of faith.
God judged Solomon and David for multiplying wives and concubines. God never approved of it.
The Biblical pattern was one man and one woman. Adam and Eve.
LikeLike
“God judged Solomon and David for multiplying wives and concubines. God never approved of it.”
yeah , right
https://pathofthebeagle.com/2016/02/28/does-the-bible-allow-polygamy/#more-2264
LikeLike
Read 1 Kings 11
God judges Solomon for his sins of adultery and taking many wives and concubines.
LikeLike
those virgin girls which were taken would have gone to the concubine sections.
1 Kings 11
says nothing bad against have more than 1 wife.
polygamy is not causing any problem in the bible.
LikeLike
Also what do you say about this one: 17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. 18 But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves. (Numbers 31)
What kind of virginity test was used to figure out who is a virgin? Please note that verse say who is married or virgin, but it says who already had sex and who didn’t have sex among women/girls.
LikeLike
“keep alive for yourselves” is understood as “for possibility of future marriage” – nothing about rape, sex-slaves, etc.
LikeLike
and for bit of concubine
LikeLike
The historical background behind 9:29 is about the Expedition of Tabuk when the Byzantines threatened to invade Arabia from the Syrian north, they assassinated the messenger.
Why doesn’t the verse in the Qur’an or verses before (9:28 – “if you fear poverty, Allah will enrich you” – by conquering Byzantine and Persia, they got revenues from Jiziye, since there was no more money from pagans coming to Mecca for pilgrimage – Ibn Kathir’s commentary, with Hadith that says “no 2 religions will be allowed in Arabia” (Omar obeyed that and all other Caliphs after him)
9:29 says “fight the people of the book – because of their beliefs – “who do not believe in Allah nor in the last day” – and because of their religious practices – “and who do not forbid what Allah forbids”. Along with verese 30, it shows the motivations and reasons were because of religion and religious practices; it says nothing about the battle of Mu’ta (629 – earlier) or the battle of Tabuk. (630 AD)
O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.
Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.
The Jews say, “Ezra is the son of Allah “; and the Christians say, “The Messiah is the son of Allah .” That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?
Surah 9:28-30
The Jews never said “Ezra is the son of Allah”. proves Qur’an is ignorant and not from God.
The Christians say “The Messiah is the son of Allah” – seems the context shows the reason for fighting was for what the Christians believed, not because of preparing for battle.
Besides the Mu’ta battle was already over a year earlier – the killing of the ambassador / messenger – if the Ghassanids did that; that is still no reason to go and conquer the whole Byzantine Empire. Who knows if that is true anyway.
Just like many Muslims say, “we cannot trust gospel of John or apostle Paul’s writings as Scripture”
or “we cannot trust Mark 10:45 as true” (Paul Williams); why should we trust what the Muslim conquerers said about why they conquered centuries after they did the conquering? As Ehrman and others accuse the Christians of doing: “the winners get to write history”, etc.
LikeLike
Here are some good article addressing the misunderstood verse Q. 9:29
https://discover-the-truth.com/2014/06/03/examining-quran-929-does-islam-sanction-the-killing-of-christians-and-jews/
https://discover-the-truth.com/2014/11/02/revisiting-quran-929-tabuk/
The conflict with the Byzantines only started because the Ghassanids killed the messenger, that subsequently led to the Expedition of Tabuk and the revelation of 9:29 followed. Everything else followed from there. The verse 9:29 was understood in a positive light by Muslims and non-Muslims of that time because it was something unique for granting religious freedom to people instead of persecuting and oppressing them (physically) because of their beliefs.
Do you know why the pagans were expelled from the region? Have you bothered looking into the historical time-specific reasons? Haven’t you noticed that the Bible and Yahweh are completely allergic to idolaters and idolatry? You always highlight the WHAT and never the WHY behind things. If you have problems with the expulsion how could you justify (as many Christians have done) the genocides of the Bible that is tremendously worse than expulsion? The pagans of that time weren’t just spiritual threats to the Muslims but physical too, but their expulsion from the Hijaz (not Arabia itself) wasn’t adopted as the universal Muslim policy throughout history.
“In their wake Muslim armies left large portions of the lands they conquered predominantly non-Muslim for decades or even centuries, as we see in the cases of Syria and Persia, since the expansion of Islamic rule did not require the expansion of the Muslim population. Indeed, on occasion Christians fought alongside Muslims during the early conquests, and Jews fought alongside Muslims in Andalusia. Moreover, most of the Islamic world was never conquered at all, but became Muslim through the example of saintly figures, preaching, or simple contact with pious Muslim merchants. Had Muslims desired to convert populations by force or expel them, the Christians and Jewish communities that have historically lived in the Islamic world and continue to do so until the present day would not exist. A better example of “religious” conquest would be the Christian conquest of southern Spain in 1492, after which not a single active mosque or Muslim community was allowed to exist in Spain until the latter part of the fourteenth/twentieth century” (The Study Quran, Syed Houssien Nasr, pp 1810)
THE CONQUESTS WERE FOR SURVIVAL:
“One could argue that to the Companions it was not at all obvious that Islam as a religion could survive if they did not take an active role in establishing a political, military, and cultural environment robust and resilient enough to protect it; in those early times the first generation pushed the borders of the Islamic political entity for fear that the spiritual message of Islam would not last long in the world if they did not do so. They did not live on an island. Despite the somewhat persistent notion that the Arabs lived in a land that was a backwater ignored by the civilization around it, Arabia, or at least the Hijaz, was very much connected to the rest of the ancient world, and the early Muslim community often felt the concrete threat of the Byzantines and Persians, through their Khassanid and Lakhmid allies to the north” (ibid, The Study Quran, p 1814)
“In some cases, such as the surprise attack at Khaybar and the campaigns of Mu’tah and Tabuk, the Prophet and his Companions set out in an offensive posture, attacking first. However, these were not instances of aggression, but what modern international law might call preemptie (not “preventive”) self-defense. In the case of Khaybar, the Prophet was taking action against a tribe that was secretly plotting to attack the Musilms. In the case of Mut’ah, an emissary of the Prophet was killed by tribes to the north, who were under the protection of the Byzantines, and in the campaign of Tabuk the Musilms took to the field based on information that the Byzantines were planning attacks of their own. Indeed, the Arabic saying, “When the Byzantines are not campaigned against, they campaign”, describes the state of much of the world before the UN Charter, the Nuremberg Principles, and the Geneva Conventions, and in many cases after these agreements as well. Maintaining security was often a matter of active defenes to maintain boundaries, and in the absence of an explicit treaty one group could not expect to be left alone if it left others to prepare to attack. Borders were not established facts of international agreement, but rather were usually determined by how much territory one group could effectively defend. (ibid, p 1810)
LikeLike
The conflict with the Byzantines only started because the Ghassanids killed the messenger, that subsequently led to the Expedition of Tabuk and the revelation of 9:29 followed. Everything else followed after that. This verse was understood as something positive by Muslims and non-Muslims of that time because it granted religous freedom to people instead of persecuting and oppressing them because of their religion.
Do you know why the pagans were expelled from the region? Have you bothered looking into the historical time-specific reasons? Haven’t you noticed that the Bible and Yahweh are completely allergic to idolaters and idolatry? You always highlight the WHAT and never the WHY behind things. If you have problems with the expulsion how could you justify (as many Christians have done) the genocides of the Bible that is tremendously worse than expulsion? The pagans of that time weren’t just spiritual threats to the Muslims but physical too, but their expulsion from the Hijaz (not Arabia itself) wasn’t adopted as the universal Muslim policy throughout history.
“In their wake Muslim armies left large portions of the lands they conquered predominantly non-Muslim for decades or even centuries, as we see in the cases of Syria and Persia, since the expansion of Islamic rule did not require the expansion of the Muslim population. Indeed, on occasion Christians fought alongside Muslims during the early conquests, and Jews fought alongside Muslims in Andalusia. Moreover, most of the Islamic world was never conquered at all, but became Muslim through the example of saintly figures, preaching, or simple contact with pious Muslim merchants. Had Muslims desired to convert populations by force or expel them, the Christians and Jewish communities that have historically lived in the Islamic world and continue to do so until the present day would not exist. A better example of “religiuos” conquest would be the Christian conquest of southern Spain in 1492, after which not a single active mosque or Muslim community was allowed to exist in Spain until the latter part of the fourteenth/twentieth century” (The Study Quran, Syed Houssien Nasr, pp 1810)
THE CONQUESTS WERE FOR SURVIVAL:
“One could argue that to the Companions it was not at all obvious that Islam as a religion could survive if they did not take an active role in establishing a political, military, and cultural environment robust and resilent enough to protect it; in those early times the first generation pushed the borders of the Islamic political entity for fear that the spiritual message of Islam would not last long in the world if they did not do so. They did not live on an island. Despite the somewhat persistent notion that the Arabs lived in a land that was a backwater ignored by the civilization around it, Arabia, or at least the Hijaz, was very much connected to the rest of the ancient world, and the early Muslim community often felt the concrete threat of the Byzantines and Persians, through their Khassanid and Lakhmid allies to the north” (ibid, The Study Quran, p 1814)
“In some cases, such as the surprise attack at Khaybar and the campaigns of Mu’tah and Tabuk, the Prophet and his Companions set out in an offensive posture, attacking first. However, these were not instances of aggression, but what modern international law might call preemptie (not “preventive”) self-defense. In the case of Khaybar, the Prophet was taking action against a tribe that was secretly plotting to attack the Musilms. In the case of Mut’ah, an emissary of the Prophet was killed by tribes to the north, who were under the protection of the Byzantines, and in the campaign of Tabuk the Musilms took to the field based on information that the Byzantines were planning attacks of their own. Indeed, the Arabic saying, “When the Byzantines are not campaigned against, they campaign”, describes the state of much of the world before the UN Charter, the Nuremberg Principles, and the Geneva Conventions, and in many cases after these agreements as well. Maintaining security was often a matter of active defenes to maintain boundaries, and in the absence of an explicit treaty one group could not expect to be left alone if it left others to prepare to attack. Borders were not established facts of international agreement, but rather were usually determined by how much territory one group could effectively defend. (ibid, p 1810)
LikeLike
Genesis 19 features an attempted homosexual gang rape, not to mention the extra added content of drunken incestual drug rape. What a shameful accusation for the Bible to make against a Prophet of God, Astaghfirallah.
LikeLike
Estaqfr’Allah
استغفر الله
The Genesis 19 passage – the literary genre is historical narrative – it records what happened; it is not approving of homosexuality or gang rape nor does it approve of what Lot suggests. Lot sinned under pressure.
Only Jesus Al Masih عیسی المسیح
was perfect and without sin.
LikeLike
“angel of the lord” watched him get drunk and make incest with his kids. disgusting
LikeLike
where does the text say in Genesis 19:30-38 that the “angel of the Lord” watched those sins?
LikeLike
Does your Lord not see all things?
LikeLike
Yes, but He does not approve of sin.
LikeLike
It seems that the God portrayed in the Bible approved Lot’s incestuous relation with his daughters.
LikeLike
No, God did not approve of that. That literary genre is historical narrative – what happened. It records man’s actions and sins and warts and all. Proof of honesty, but not proof of approving of sin. God never approves of sin.
LikeLike
“It records man’s actions and sins and warts and all. Proof of honesty,”
even embarrassing stories could be fabricated . there doesn’t have to be “proof of honesty”
you have to admit that the bible lies when it attributes righteousness to lot, daniel and others. you also have to admit that the guy who penned about the sins of lot, was not consistent with the guy who attributed righteousness to him
why even trust the bible since it is authored by sinful men who probably lied , exaggerated and mixed in their own tales
why do you trust the transmission of your bible? your gods spirit is null and void. it couldn’t even guide his close ones.
“angel of the lord” could not even stop lots daughters but it did stop abraham from sacrificing his son.
LikeLike
“No, God did not approve of that. That literary genre is historical narrative – what happened. It records man’s actions and sins and warts and all. Proof of honesty, but not proof of approving of sin. God never approves of sin.”
why do you trust lot in telling his scribes what to write? the guy was sinful and “angel of the lord” was unable to stop him from getting drunk. how many LIES did lot tell about himself?
why do you trust any person in the bible, since they are all sinners who gave you your bible.
LikeLike
ken ,you are proof that the bible is written by corrupt people. sinners. if solomon could have worshipped idols, then he could have told his scribes any lie about any event or any lie about god. why do you trust anything in the bible? even gods close ones were telling lies. why do you trust the bible?
LikeLike
“Proof of honesty, but not proof of approving of sin. God never approves of sin.”
gods “angel of the lord” could not prevent his “righteous ” ones from sinning ,what makes you think they were HONEST in telling their scribes about ANYTHING ?
LikeLike
@Ken: For a minister ( and ordained one at that), it is not befitting that you make up things about religion.
1. Abraham had sex with salve girl. You say it is adultery? any proof? Did Jesus tell you tell?
2. Solomon had sex salves: You say God will judge. But it seems you are judging him.
Look no matters how hard you try ( and how hard many “modernist” Muslims try) it is a fact that sex with slave was sanctioned in Bible and in Quran. But that is not rape.
BTW you didn’t answer what kind of “virginity” test was used by Mose’s people on those girls who they were to save for themselves. and they were thousands of such girls who were saved for themselves (as concubine not just as future wives).
LikeLike
@Ken Polygamy is an established fact on OT. Can you name one OT prophet who was married but monogamous? Again don’t assume things. Give specific textual evidence.
LikeLike
@Ken you wrote:Only Jesus Al Masih عیسی المسیح was perfect and without sin.”
What sins
*Mary committed?
*John the Baptist committed?
*Babies commit?
LikeLike
John the Baptist: He started doubting Jesus was the Messiah, after he (john) got arrested and was in prison.
Jesus said that “he was stumbling over Me” (or what Jesus allows – the sufferings of being in prison)
Matthew 11:1-6
Mary:
John 2:4
others:
View 1) (that Mary sinned) is in line with the Protestant position. Tertullian stated the following in his work Treatise On the Flesh of Christ: “His mother likewise is not shown to have adhered to him, though Martha and other Marys are often mentioned as being in his company. At this juncture their unbelief at last comes into the open” (Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ, Ch. 7 italics mine). Unbelief and doubt are sins (2 Chronicles 30:7; Psalms 119:158; Jeremiah 3:12; Matthew 8:26; Matthew 14:31; Romans 14:23; James 1:6). Tertullian also understood Matthew 12:46-40 as teaching Jesus was very angry at Mary for standing outside in unbelief while others listened closely to him:
“He was justly indignant, that persons so very near to Him stood without, while strangers were within hanging on His words, especially as they wanted to call Him away from the solemn work He had in hand. He did not so much deny as disavow them. And therefore, when to the previous question, Who is my mother, and who are my brethren? He added the answer None but they who hear my words and do them, He transferred the names of blood-relationship to others, whom He judged to be more closely related to Him by reason of their faith” (Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book 4, Ch. 19).
Second century Irenaeus remarked that Jesus rebuked Mary for her untimely haste:
“For all these things were foreknown by the Father; but the Son works them out at the proper time in perfect order and sequence. This was the reason why, when Mary was urging [Him] on to [perform] the wonderful miracle of the wine, and was desirous before the time to partake of the cup of emblematic significance, the Lord, checking her untimely haste, said, Woman, what have I to do with you? My hour is not yet come—waiting for that hour which was foreknown by the Father” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3. 16. 7).
Basil commented on the sword of Luke 2:35-36 stating, “Even you yourself [Mary], who hast been taught from on high the things concerning the Lord, shall be reached by some doubt. This is the sword” (Basil of Caesarea, Letter, 260, 9 italics mine). John Chrysostom argued Mary, in an ungodly way, sought glory from Jesus’ miracles:
“perhaps too she had some human feelings, like His brethren, when they said, Show yourself to the world, desiring to gain credit from His miracles. Therefore He answered somewhat vehemently, saying, Woman, what have I to do with you? My hour is not yet come” (John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, homily 21).
Commenting on Chrysostom’s Mariology is Catholic scholar Richard P. McBrien who observed that he
“acknowledged the negative flavour of Mark’s estimation of Mary, and in his Homilies on St. John’s Gospel, declared that ‘she did not cease to think little of [Jesus] . . . but herself she thought everywhere worthy of the first place, because she was his mother.’ At Cana, Mary told Jesus there was no more wine only because ‘she wanted to confer a favour on the others, and render herself more illustrious through her Son.’ Even at the annunciation she was at fault. The angel had to calm her down lest she kill herself in despair over the news that she was to have a son” (Richard P. McBrien, Catholicism: Completely Revised and Updated, [HarperCollins, 1994], p. 1084).
There is broad academic support for the fact that many early church writers taught Mary had sinned. World-renowned historian and scholar of early Christian doctrine J. N. D. Kelly notes:
“In contrast to the later belief in her moral and spiritual perfection, none of these theologians had the least scruple about attributing faults to her. Irenaeus and Tertullian recalled occasions on which, as they read the gospel stories, she had earned her Son’s rebuke, and Origen insisted that, like all human beings, she needed redemption from her sins; in particular, he interpreted Simeon’s prophecy (Luke 2, 35) that a sword would pierce her soul as confirming that she had been invaded with doubts when she saw her Son crucified” (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, [HarperOne, 1978], p. 493).
Concerning Origen’s comments Kelly cites his work Homilies on Luke, 17. Romanist scholar Ludwig Ott gave an important admission stating, “individual Greek Fathers (Origen, St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria) taught that Mary suffered from venial personal faults, such as ambition and vanity, doubt about the message of the Angel, and lack of faith under the Cross” (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, [Tan Books and Publishers, 1960], p. 203).
Moreover, church historian Philip Schaff relayed that Irenaeus “was still widely removed from the notion of the sinlessness of Mary, and expressly declares the answer of Christ in John ii. 4, to be a reproof of her premature haste” (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 3, [Hendrickson, 2011], p. 415). He also remarked, “In the same way Tertullian, Origen, Basil the Great, and even Chrysostom, with all their high esteem of the mother of our Lord, ascribe to her on one or two occasions (John ii. 3; Matt. Xiii. 47) maternal vanity, also doubt and anxiety, and make this the sword (Luke ii. 35) which, under the cross, passed through her soul” (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 3, [Hendrickson, 2011], pp. 415-416)
Babies:
Babies are sinners also.
Psalm 51:4-5
“from the moment of conception in the womb of my mother, I was a sinner.”
Romans 5:12
all sinned in Adam
LikeLike
The material about Mary’s sins was sourced from this website, for convenience.
Also proves Roman Catholicism is wrong.
http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2013/10/the-early-church-did-not-believe-romes.html
LikeLike
“John the Baptist: He started doubting Jesus was the Messiah, after he (john) got arrested and was in prison.”
how was that possible? he recognised your god in his mums womb. not only that, according to the 4th gospel, the doubt is removed and john puts in johns mouth “lamb of god coming to….”
doubt is not a sin. john baptised jesus and cleaned jesus from jesus’ sins.
he washed him.
john baptised with water .
that john doubted jesus
1. he did not see the clouds open
2. he did not hear the father speak “this is my son…”
3 john’s doubt was right.
LikeLike
“Babies:
Babies are sinners also.
Psalm 51:4-5
“from the moment of conception in the womb of my mother, I was a sinner.”
erik did a post on this verse. you have a short memory .
LikeLike
erik is not a Christian theologian.
all Christian theology has believed that; Roman Catholics and Protestants; Augustine made it clear, (around 400 AD) as right interpretation of Romans 5:12 and Psalm 51:5
LikeLike
@Ken: You don;t seem to be consistent. you didn’t bring any evidence from lips of Jesus on your position on John the Baptist or Mary. also if you believe these following to be scripture then why hesitate to apply on Jesus too? if not then tell us why not? again give evidence from lips of Jesus.
Babies:
Babies are sinners also.
Psalm 51:4-5
“from the moment of conception in the womb of my mother, I was a sinner.”
Romans 5:12
all sinned in Adam
.
Wasn’t Jesus “baby” once? Wasn’t he part of “All”
LikeLike
“all Scripture is God-breathed” 2 Timothy 3:16
2 Timothy 3:15 is about the OT
in verse 16 he expands it to the NT also (by principle, even to those inspired books that were not written yet)
1 Timothy 5:18 – gospel is put on the same level as Torah as Scripture
LikeLike
Wrong. There is nothing in that verse to expand it to a canon of scripture Paul knew noting about. Delusional thinking.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is there by principle.
Since Jesus’ promise was to the apostles when the Holy Spirit came, that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all the truth and testify of Christ (John 14:26; 15:26; 16:12-13) and that Jesus had many more things to reveal to them (John 16:12), and the promise was to them, and by extension to the apostle Paul (Acts 9, 22, 26 seem to show that God chose Saul to be the 12th disciple rather than Mathias in Acts 1), and all the 27 books have some kind of apostolic authority (Mark writes for Peter; Luke is fellow missionary with Paul, Hebrews seems to be associate of Paul and Timothy – likely Barnabas, who is called an apostle also in Acts 14:4, 14; and James and Jude are half-brothers of Jesus), the principle is there and stops when the apostles died. (Peter, John, and Matthew being eyewitnesses and 3 of the 11 disciples) .
The church is built on the prophets (OT) and apostles (NT) – Ephesians 2:19-20
LikeLike
All humans have sinned except for Jesus.
Hebrews 4:15
2 Corinthians 5:21
John 8:46
Hebrews 7:26
LikeLike
And Mary, according to most Christians.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Roman Catholics. A false idea.
LikeLike
They are Christians. Don’t be a bigot.
LikeLiked by 1 person
they added lots of false doctrines and traditions, especially from 600 AD onward until 1517. Wycliff in the 1300s and Hus in the 1400s recognized some of the problems.
At the Council of Trent 1545-1563, the Roman Catholic Church became a false church.
some individuals may be Christians, but the leadership and what they believe and their man made traditions and dogmas are false.
They have lots of statues and idols also; and exalt Mary too much. And still give wrong impression to most Muslims.
LikeLike
Your doctrine of sola scriptura is not taught in your bible.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is taught by principle yes.
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/11/08/sola-scriptura-series-by-dr-white/
LikeLike
Where is it taught? Chapter and verse please…
LikeLike
A good book on the issue.
https://www.amazon.com/Scripture-Alone-Exploring-Authority-Authenticity/dp/0764220489
LikeLike
Chapter and verse please Ken like you always do.
LikeLiked by 2 people
theology requires intellectual argumentation also.
but 2 Tim. 3:16-17 provides the basis – “in order that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped, sufficient for every good word.”
1 Cor. 4:6 – “do not go beyond what is written”
by principle, the Roman Catholics kept adding man-made traditions and dogmas in history, thus violating 1 Cor. 4:6
and also
Mark 7:6-13 – nullifying the commands and word of God by their man-made traditions. Matthew 15:1-20 also.
LikeLike
@ken : Luke 1: 5 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah,[a] of the division of Abijah. And he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 And they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord.
Here Gospel is clearly saying that Zachariah and Elizabeth were righteous and blameless. So your pick and choose of biblical verses is ingenious at best.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Luke 1:5 does not mean that there sinless. It is like Job 1:1 – they were believers and lead pious lives, but it does not mean that they were sinless.
LikeLike
But they were righteous. So Paul’s gospel is redundant and irrelevant.
LikeLiked by 2 people
a relative righteousness, not perfect righteousness
LikeLike
A distinction found only in your Calvinist brain. Not in Luke. They were righteous without Paul’s gospel.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“a relative righteousness, not perfect righteousness”
they were viewed as righteous in gods eyes you joker. it was not the people who were viewing them as righteous it was
Both of them were righteous in the sight of God
this destroys you completely .
LikeLiked by 3 people
Missionary mishap: Ken Temple
LikeLike
Missionary faux pas: “a relative righteousness, not perfect righteousness”
Abdullah reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Ruined, were those who indulged in hair-splitting. He (the Holy Prophet) repeated this thrice. (Sahih Muslim)
LikeLike
before he understood the truth, the apostle Paul, when he was Saul, thought he was righteous also.
Philippians 3:6
“as to the righteous of the law, found blameless”
It does not mean sinless.
LikeLike
is 53 never uses “sinless language” for the servant
paul was never seen in gods eyes as righteous , he was an evil sinner who was poked by satan
jesus said “why do you call me good, only 1 is good and he is god , not me, i am born of a woman and i get tempted by satan having all sorts of thoughts from a to z “
LikeLike
Yes Paul was an agent of Satan I agree. But Luke says certain people were indeed declared righteous under the law. It undermines Paul’s gospel claims.
LikeLike
“Like a lamb led to the slaughter” – Isaiah 53:7 – points to the conditions of being innocent and pure in order to be the blameless sacrifice – Leviticus chapters 1-7 – had to be “without defect”
Isaiah 53:9
“he had done no violence and no deceit was in his mouth” = he was pure and innocent; ie; sinless
LikeLike
So? Red herring. It means righteousness under the law according to Luke. It refutes the basis of Paul’s gospel.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“as to the righteous of the law, found blameless”
he found himself blameless? this was paul speaking before he accepted pauline christianity. so before pauline christianity he thought he was able to keep jewish laws and rituals perfectly? so this meas that laws and rituals can bring one into relationship with the jewish god, doesn’t it?
LikeLike
If the apostle Paul was an agent of Satan, why did Peter, James, and John agree with him on the gospel?
Acts 15
Galatians 2:7-10
The Apostle Paul wrote, around 48-49 AD, right before the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15:
7 “But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised 8 (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles), 9 and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas (Peter) and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 They only asked us to remember the poor—the very thing I also was eager to do.”
Galatians 2:7-10 (my emphasis)
LikeLike
“Like a lamb led to the slaughter” – Isaiah 53:7
you forgot about metaphor ?
” – points to the conditions of being innocent and pure”
NO IT DOESN’T, BECAUSE MANY PEOPLE WERE SLAUGHTERED “LIKE A LAMB..”
”
in order to be the blameless sacrifice – Leviticus chapters 1-7 – had to be “without defect””
jesus temptations in the wilderness would have made him defect .lev is not talking about the thoughts of the animal. the animal only knows how to hump to make more children.
jesus was battered .
jesus doubted his god “why have you forsaken me”
jesus became “reluctant sacrifice”
any jew who brought his animal, he(the jew) went WILLINGLY to give up his expensive animal. jesus did not willingly and passionately give himself up, he became deeply troubled, agitated , scared, weak faith and prayed “please remove the cup …”
quote:
Isaiah 53:9
“he had done no violence and no deceit was in his mouth” = he was pure and innocent; ie; sinless
it does not say that. in gods eyes zak and liz were righteous , in gods eyes. this means they had no violence and no deceit
not having violence and deceit does not cancel out other sins .
so according to your god , zak, liz and jesus did sin in other ways
if a person is being persecuted ,is he doing violence on persecutors ? no, the persecuted is not doing violence, he is being persecuted.
explains “he had done no violence when he is being persecuted….”
when he is being interrogated, he says , “tell me what lie did i say…”
because a person is not able to find any lies, does that mean he never told a lie? no, only in that time period no lie was brought up.
LikeLike
i find it funny human sacrifice worshipers like you think everything in isaiah 53 must be thinking that “jesus was an innocent animal and yhwh ”
this goes to show how cursed and shunned you people are
LikeLike
violence is not a sinful thing in the old testament . this verse is talking about unjust violence. the text does not say that the ss never did violence, it seems it is assuming unjust violence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“7He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he would not open his mouth; like a lamb to the slaughter he would be brought, and like a ewe that is mute before her shearers, and he would not open his mouth. ”
it is not even talking about slaughter, it is talking about how easily this person/persons were man handled/oppressed.
LikeLike
I agree with you edward on the issue of unjust violence.
we agree on something! 😉
LikeLike
what i meant was cutting the necks of unborn, infant and suckling is not seen as unjust violence in the torah.
LikeLike
@Ken: Let me ask you a blunt question. Are you insane? If not then why do you insert your words into text of scriptures. You do that to Quran and Sunnah in order to derive a meaning that you like in order to criticize it. You do that same to same to text of Bible to derive a meaning that you like in order to support you belief. Why can’t you take words and simple straight forward teachings of the text of Bible and Quran as it would be understood by a normal sane person? Isn’t this how normal people are expected to understand anything from any source about any matter let alone religion? Or do you recommend a special “type of holy ghostly” attitude in order to derive just the opposite meaning from the texts when it is not there?
LikeLike
what are you talking about?
where did insert words into the text of Scriptures?
Even if I give an interpretation, I am not “inserting words”; rather seeking to interpret in light of context and harmony with other texts and historical evidence, etc.
All texts have to be interpreted in their context and book and overall in the book, and in the case of Islam, you do the same thing in harmonizing all the data from the Qur’an, and Hadith, and Tarikh and Sira and Tafsirs – you (or some other Muslims here) quoted other Hadith and other sources – rulings from famous Imams and founders of schools of Islam, etc.
LikeLike
ken, are you gekhie on academi biblical
gekhie sounds like you
LikeLike
No
LikeLike
Ken Temple
December 5, 2016 • 9:02 pm
What Abraham did with Hagar was adultery. It was not rape; but it was not a good thing either. Genesis 16 – it was their impatience and Sara and Abraham’s lack of faith.
God judged Solomon and David for multiplying wives and concubines. God never approved of it.
The Biblical pattern was one man and one woman. Adam and Eve.
mr.heathcliff
December 5, 2016 • 9:12 pm
“God judged Solomon and David for multiplying wives and concubines. God never approved of it.”
yeah , right
https://pathofthebeagle.com/2016/02/28/does-the-bible-allow-polygamy/#more-2264
Ken Temple
December 5, 2016 • 9:19 pm
Read 1 Kings 11
God judges Solomon for his sins of adultery and taking many wives and concubines.
I say;
How did God judged his own prophets he chose to send? Tell me Ken, how did God judged his own prophet? By putting them in hell fire? Oh you are just saying this to escape Jesus’s bad behaviour of allowing his prophets to commit the most horrendous sins?
Were the prophets of God(Jesus) not saved? by Jesus? and they have to be judged?
If the prophets of God(Jesus) are judged for sins they commit, it means Christians are not saved by Jesus(God) if they commit sin because they will be judged.
If Ken, you will be judged by Jesus Christ, then you are not saved by the death of Jesus Christ. Explain.
Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken Temple
You are saved. So you believed, as a Christian and you will not be judged. If you will be judged, then Jesus did not die for your sins. Why will you be saved and will not be judged but the prophets of God whom He Himself chose will be judged and were judged?
Are you Ken Temple better than God’s own prophets? God judged His own prophets but will not judge Ken Temple(Christians).
Are the Christians better than God’s own prophets that he judged His prophets but will not judge Christians? i.e. they(Christians) are saved and free from judgement.
If Christians will be judged when they sin like how Abraham was judged, it means Jesus did not die for their sins but they were judged like Muslims.
Muslims we will be judged if we do not sincerely repent because we do not have anyone died for our sins. If Jesus will judge his own prophets and Christians when they sin, then he did not die for Christians sins because he will judge them when they sin.
Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken Temple
What will happen to Jimmy Swaggart, Eddie Lee Long etc. Church Fathers who rape, molest and commit adultery, fornication, teenage pregnancies, Donald Trump grabbing MARRIED women p***y and bragging about it and more than 8-0% Evangelicals voting for him?
Are they going to be judged? You always tell me, they are not Christians. Are these prophets of God who committed adultery, incest and rape not Christians?
Did they not believed Jesus died or will die for their sins? Were the prophets of God not saved by the blood of Jesus Christ?
Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken Temple
The punishment for adultery is to be executed. If you claimed, prophet Abraham was judged, where is the evidence he and almost all prophets of the Bible were executed?
Exodus 20:14 “You shall not commit adultery.”
It is not good for Jesus Christ not to protect his prophets from this big sin and later judged them according to Ken Temple.
=================
Matthew 19:9 “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.” Wouldn’t this cause the man to be put to death?
Mark 10:11 “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.” Again, wouldn’t he then be put to death since he would have committed adultery?
Mark 10:12 “And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.” Same question I ask about the women who are considered have committed adultery. Wouldn’t they be put to death also?
Luke 16:18 “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”
Deuteronomy 22:22 “If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die.”
Leviticus 20:10 “If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife–with the wife of his neighbor–both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.”
Proverbs 6:32 “But a man who commits adultery lacks judgment; whoever does so destroys himself.” He destroys himself by being put to death as shown above.
Leviticus 21:9 “And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.” Why should only a daughter of a priest gets burnt to death if she profanes herself? Why can’t this law apply to all daughters?
Deuteronomy 25:11-12 “If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.” This doesn’t make any sense what so ever! Why should the woman get her hands cut off for defending her husband? It’s not like she was cheating on him or anything like that!
Thanks
LikeLiked by 1 person
it is funny that these prophets in the bible have
“spirit of yhwh ” in them
When the prophet Samuel anointed Saul to be king, he said that when Saul met other prophets, “Then the spirit of YHVH will come upon you mightily …”
When Samuel anointed David, “the spirit of YHVH came mightily on David.” In the next verse, “the spirit of YHVH departed from Saul.”
David cries out in Psalm 51:11, “Do not take Your holy spirit from me.”
Pharaoh also noted that Joseph was “endowed by the spirit of God.”
yet they were still sinning and getting away with breaking the laws which came out of gods mind.
it seems like the future human “sacrifice” of jesus was allowing these sinners to get away with acts which mandated death penalty.
what is strange is that christians fear going to prison , fear speeding, fear carrying drugs, etc etc
they are fearing man made consequences , but when they are sinning before their god, they are hiding under jesus’ skirt and “repenting” and reminded their god how jesus’ “sacrificie” allowed god to leeway on the crimes of his close “prophets” like
david who was
“a man after god’s own heart”
LikeLike
there is a unjust imbalance here and it doesn’t compute.
LikeLike
“Intellect”,
Your comments entail a big discussion about judgement, justification / salvation, and what is the evidence of true justification and salvation and the relation of that to the final judgement day.
That is a big discussion. You will not understand Christian thought unless you really take the time to study all of the passages that follow. I hope you will take the time to think about it.
Christians nor the Bible teaches that you just claim you are “saved” and do whatever you want (sin). A person who is truly saved (justified – Romans 5:1; Romans 8:1; 8:33-34; Galatians 2:16) will have evidence by a holy life; but that does not mean that they will be perfect. Sometimes a true believer sins, but if they do, they will eventually repent and return to God.
The prophets in the Old Testament were believers, but not perfect. Only Jesus Christ was perfect and sinless. This is a big difference Islam and Christianity and even Judaism over what the Scriptures say about the prophets in the OT. The OT records their sins and yet Islam claims that prophets never sinned. Yet Muhammad asked (or is said ) about forgiveness for his sins at least 3 times in the Qur’an. (Surah 47:19; 48:2-3; 9:43; 40:55)
After reading Genesis 16 again, I have changed my mind from what I wrote that earlier that it was adultery. Sarah gave Abraham Hagar “as his wife” (Genesis 16:1-3) I don’t think the Scriptures judge it as “adultery”; but it does not seem like a totally positive thing either. It was a lack of faith and impatience on Sarah and Abraham’s part.
Concubines existed in the ancient world. Polygamy also existed. They seem to be things that existed and God allowed, but they were not His ideal for humans.
https://gotquestions.org/concubine-concubines.html
It is hard for us in the modern world to understand this situation. So, it seems in reading Genesis chapter 16 again, that it was not considered adultery, it seems, but it was a negative thing; and Abraham and Sarah had many trials and emotional struggles over this situation. Hagar seems to have had faith in the true God – Genesis 16:7-13 and 21:17-20. She said “You are the God who sees” (Genesis 16:13) God had compassion on both Hagar and Ishmael, and provided for them when they were driven away.
But chapter 16 through 25 shows the negative consequences of what Abraham and Sarah did in their impatience and lack of faith.
Abraham was justified and saved in Genesis 15:1-6; but it seems he struggled to keep on trusting God for God to keep His promise of the child that he would have. (Genesis 12, 13, 15)
But a true believer is never perfect, and will return to God in repentance.
David is the model of a true believer who sinned, but was restored after true repentance. Psalm 51; 32
Everyone must face God on judgment day.
Everyone will be judged one day.
Revelation 20:10-15
Hebrews 9:27
Christians also will be judged.
2 Cor. 5:10-11
Romans 14:10-11
You will have to face God with your own efforts and righteousness (in that case they will go to hell- John 3:18; 3:36; Mark 9:48; Revelation 20:10-15), or have someone else’s righteousness on your account (Christ’s own perfect righteousness) –
2 Corinthians 5:21;
Romans 4:1-16;
Romans 3:21-28;
Philippians 3:10;
Romans 5:1;
Romans 8:1;
Romans 8:32-34
David was a true believer, and his expression of repentance was evidence that his repentance was real – Psalm 51
Psalm 32
Psalm 38
It seems that Solomon also repented at the end of his life also – Ecclesiastes 12:13-14
The same principle applies to Abraham – even though the text of Genesis chapters 12-21 does not tell us.
Many times the judgment of God is seen in the consequences of sins in this life, and there is also a judgement at the end of time. (Revelation 20:10-15)
If your name is written in the lamb’s book of life (see Revelation 20:15 and 21:27), it records all who put their faith in the lamb of God, Jesus Christ, who was the final sacrifice / atonement for sin – Revelation 1:5; 5:5-6, 5:9; 7:9-10; 7:14; 22:14
But if we believe in Christ and His atonement, it does not mean we can just sin and do whatever we want and live like the devil and then claim we are covered by the blood of the lamb. No; a true believer does not have that attitude; they are changed and don’t want to sin. 2 Corinthians 5:17; Hebrews 12:14
The TV preachers who have sinned, and seem to be in the whole thing for money (they keep asking for money and promise that God will make you rich also) are wrong. I don’t think Eddie Long or others like him, like Benny Hinn and Kenneth Copeland, etc. are true believers because the message they preach is so, so far away from the Bible.
LikeLike
“The prophets in the Old Testament were believers, but not perfect. Only Jesus Christ was perfect and sinless”
god reminding dave the good old days of wife sharing
12:8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.”
dave had the spirit of yhwh in him even when yhwh was giving another wife to dave.
“but not perfect”
yet they had spirit of yhwh in them
and dave was
“a man after god’s own heart”
his son was loved by god
“She gave birth to a son, and they named him Solomon. The LORD loved him;”
he also had holy ghost of yhwh in him
LikeLike
“Concubines existed in the ancient world. Polygamy also existed. They seem to be things that existed and God allowed, but they were not His ideal for humans.”
sorry, god said it was a blessing. any blessing from god has to be idea for humans .
you are ashamed of your god .
LikeLiked by 1 person
according to the bible, even with multiple wives, one can love god with all his heart and all his soul. it is possible
quote:
Now what I am commanding you today IS NOT too difficult for you OR BEYOND your reach. It is NOT in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that
we may observe it?’ NOR is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart SO YOU MAY OBEY IT.”
Isaiah 45:7
it is possible to love god and obey him even when one is cracking skulls of infants, unborn and children.
LikeLike
hey ken,
even when yhwhs spirit was in the prophets, we saw the filth they could get up to
now here is my question
before bc times, what were soldiers of war doing with young girls?
god commanded soldiers of war to take young girls and kill non-virgin girls
what were soldiers of war doing with young girls ?
“”Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle. ”Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them…“NOW KILL ALL THE BOYS. AND KILL EVERY WOMAN WHO HAS SLEPT WITH A MAN, BUT SAVE FOR YOURSELVES EVERY GIRL WHO HAS NEVER SLEPT WITH A MAN.””
[Numbers 31:1-18]
remember, these are yhwh filled soldiers here. and we know what happens even when yhwhs ghost is in them.
LikeLike
ken said christians will be judged, but they are not really worried about judgement because they are looking forward to their “guaranteed” reward.
being judged on judgement day should bring fear in the heart
but if you are guaranteed heaven ,what does it even mean to be judged? your beliefs are shot because christians doubt
their repentance is shot because it may not be sincere enough
their deeds are black and menstrual rags
so what does it even mean “will be judged” when belief is enough to be guaranteed heaven ?
LikeLike
“I think Surah 9:29 ( and all of Surah 9) is nasty and evil. Sorry, but it is, because it gave all out permission for total war against pagans until they convert (Surah 9:5) and became the basis of conquering all of Arabia and the choice was either Islam or die. (Omar Ibn Khattab ”
are you questioning Gods judgement on jews, christians and pagans? who are you to question Gods judgement? are you better than God? God drowned the people of Noah after noah turned the other cheek, are you suggesting you would have told God to take it easy ? “nasty and evil”
what about the “nasty and evil” the pagans were doing by forcing them out and killing them and the jews and christians siding up with the disbelievers to drive out and destroy the muslims?
is it compulsion when God himself is declaring them kaafir?
Sahih International: Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.
who are you to question Gods judgement ?
quote:
Sahih International: Has there not reached them the news of those before them – the people of Noah and [the tribes of] ‘Aad and Thamud and the people of Abraham and the companions of Madyan and the towns overturned? Their messengers came to them with clear proofs. And Allah would never have wronged them, but they were wronging themselves.
LikeLike
because we are no longer in the time of revelation and God has not revealed to us the hearts of pagans like you, we must practice mercy.
LikeLike
Surah 9 is not from God at all – it is a man-made book that justifies unjust war and aggression and conquering.
God’s judgment in the OT and NT is true.
But Qur’an is false. Period.
Surah 9 is nasty and evil and not from God at all.
LikeLike
you are a hypocrite with double standards. is the killing of unborn, infants and suckling a commandment from god?
LikeLiked by 1 person
the New Testament revelation replaces the OT issues that you are saying still apply, etc.
The New Testament teaches there is no more theocracy of political kingdoms that do what Israel was commanded to do in the OT times.
western Christian civilization of freedom of religion and speech (along with Christian morality and ethics) is superior to Islamic Sharia law and the unjust and nasty Surah 9.
LikeLike
is the commandment to kill infants, unborn and children from god?
LikeLike
the passages in Deut. and Joshua and 1 Samuel 15 were temporary and only for Israel and only for that time. And only for borders of Israel. They did not have permission to go beyond the borders of the promised land and attack other countries.
Jesus took the kingdom away from Israel. Matthew 21
There is no more Biblical Theocratic Israel.
LikeLike
“temporary” “only for israel”
“only for the borders”
do you know this has been severely demolished? you are, like mental freak, repeating these debunked lies. can you tell me, was the KILLING of unborn, infant and suckling COMMANDMENT from god? was killing from CITY TO CITY commandment from God?
LikeLike
“. They did not have permission to go beyond the borders of the promised land and attack other countries.
Jesus took the kingdom away from Israel. Matthew 21”
but jesus, your god APPLIED toratic punishment LAW on unborn, infants and children!
the non-jews were judged by toratic punishment laws.
LikeLike
“The New Testament teaches there is no more theocracy of political kingdoms that do what Israel was commanded to do in the OT times.”
huh? where were christian terrorists in the past getting the idea that their god was “dominus” and “kyrios”
????
LikeLike
Ken Temple
December 7, 2016 • 4:09 pm
the New Testament revelation replaces the OT issues that you are saying still apply, etc.
The New Testament teaches there is no more theocracy of political kingdoms that do what Israel was commanded to do in the OT times.
western Christian civilization of freedom of religion and speech (along with Christian morality and ethics) is superior to Islamic Sharia law and the unjust and nasty Surah 9
I say;
“Western Christian civilization of freedom of religion………..(along with Christian morality and ethics)…….” is not superior to Islamic Sharia law and Sharia law allows Christians Jews and non Muslims to stay in their lands till today.
New Testament revelation did not replace the OT issues and Christians continue to carry OT issue to rule and govern until they were beaten and subdued by the liberal West.
Proof:
Along with the religious consequences of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation came deep and lasting political changes. Northern Europe’s new religious and political freedoms came at a great cost, with decades of rebellions, wars and bloody persecutions. The Thirty Years’ War alone may have cost Germany 40 percent of its population.
——————————-
When German peasants, inspired in part by Luther’s empowering “priesthood of all believers,” revolted in 1524, Luther sided with Germany’s princes. By the Reformation’s end, Lutheranism had become the state religion throughout much of Germany, Scandinavia and the Baltics.
——————————-
The Swiss Reformation began in 1519 with the sermons of Ulrich Zwingli, whose teachings largely paralleled Luther’s. In 1541 John Calvin, a French Protestant who had spent the previous decade in exile writing his “Institutes of the Christian Religion,” was invited to settle in Geneva and put his Reformed doctrine—which stressed God’s power and humanity’s predestined fate—into practice. The result was a theocratic regime of enforced, austere morality.
—————————–
Source:http://www.history.com/topics/reformation
Christians voted for Donald Trump, because he lied to them that he will bring some of their theocratic laws to ban all Muslims from entering USA even though he is clearly visible immoral person. Why vote for immoral to claim Christianity has morality and ethics? He brags of grabbing MARRIED women p**** together with hatred, racism, bigotry etc. and more than 80% Christians voted for him.
It the west there are strip clubs everywhere and Donald Trump has a lot of strip clubs in his Casinos with gambling, prostitutions, gentlemen(gay) clubs, gangs, armed robbery, incest etc. just like in the Bible OT and NT. Why should you lie and say the West has Christian morality and ethics? There is not morality and ethics in the west because Church Fathers, Pastor Jimmy Swaggart, Pastor Eddie Lee Long, Bill Cosby, Bill Clinton, Anthony Wenner, Senator Mark Sanford, etc. makes the West the most immoral and bad ethic place to live and all is from the Christian Bible.
The West has no morality and ethics Ken. and you know that. It is rather the continuation of Biblical incest, killing, robbery, teenage pregnancy, strip clubs, semi nakedness, abortions, etc. but the liberals managed to stop the Christian killings and brought freedom of religion.
The liberal West has its own problems of bringing gay marriages, gay lessons at schools, supporting public gay activities to tune our children towards gay that the Bible said it is a sin.
You do not see all these under Islamic caliphate and Iraqi Christians and all non Muslim natives still live in the Muslim majority countries.
Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken Temple
December 7, 2016 • 4:16 pm
the passages in Deut. and Joshua and 1 Samuel 15 were temporary and only for Israel and only for that time. And only for borders of Israel. They did not have permission to go beyond the borders of the promised land and attack other countries.
Jesus took the kingdom away from Israel. Matthew 21
There is no more Biblical Theocratic Israel.
I say;
Is it ok. to smash the skull of innocent baby to kill it, even if it is temporal? I do not think so and any sane person will not think so. Accept it Ken, and there is barbaric act commanded by Jesus Christ in the Bible and in both NT and OT and Christians have been using these barbaric commands to kill until the liberal West managed to stop them(Christians) through wars upon wars and revolts.
The Christian immoral and unethical behaviour still continue in the west with strip clubs, casinos, teenage pregnancies, prostitutions, child sex by pastors or big Churches, adultery by politicians including Bill Clinton and Donald Trump who received over 80% of Christian votes despite being an expert in grabbing MARRIED women genitals and having sex with then and ultimately is likely to cause more abortions himself. This is not a moral West Mr. Ken.
Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
12:8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.”
Where is that? 12:8 does not tell us what book you are quoting.
ok, I found it; 2 Samuel 12:8 – please provide the book, 2 Samuel.
You are quoting King James Version and seemingly just cut and paste from some Islamic or atheist site. It does not mean what you are claiming it means.
the other quote you gave is from Deuteronomy 30:11-13, not Isaiah 45:7.
Why did you put Isaiah 45:7 with that?
I have already refuted Paul Williams many times on Deuteronomy 30:11-13.
It does not mean that obeying God is easy. It is saying that you have no excuse because you have the law and it is written down and you have heard it and even memorized it (it is in your heart and mouth = you know it and can quote it)
What he is saying is , “don’t say the commandments are beyond the sea or in heaven or mysterious or we don’t know what God’s will is. ”
You know what the will of God is; you have the written word. God wants them to obey; but God is not saying that they are able to obey it perfectly. He is saying, “don’t say the law and commands are unknown and mysterious and “I didn’t know”. (“in heaven or across the sea” = not available or known.
God knows that they will be able to obey and follow God –
Deuteronomy 31:16;
Deuteronomy 31:29;
Joshua 24:19
19 Then Joshua said to the people, “You will not be able to serve the Lord, for He is a holy God. He is a jealous God; He will not forgive your transgression or your sins.
LikeLike
ken is making his god into a buffoon
he wrote :
You will not be able to serve the Lord
reply :
You can’t help being naughty and god sent the law to help, but it didn’t, meaning you have to die, so he sent his son to die in your place because god couldn’t just send functional laws or change his mind or know what he was doing in the first place.
thanks ken
LikeLike
I cannot help you if you don’t study the way Christianity and the NT and western history has dealt will all of these issues over the centuries.
The NT fulfills the OT. Some stuff is no longer.
Christian history worked out the political and social issues to favor no theocracy, freedom of religion and freedom of speech, based on the fact that 1 Corinthians 5 teaches excommunication, not execution.
LikeLike
“God wants them to obey; but God is not saying that they are able to obey it perfectly. He is saying, “don’t say the law and commands are unknown and mysterious and “I didn’t know”. (“in heaven or across the sea” = not available or known.”
quote :
Then you shall again obey the Lord, observing all his commandments that I am commanding you today, 9 and the Lord your God will make you abundantly prosperous in all your undertakings, in the fruit of your body, in the fruit of your livestock, and in the fruit of your soil. For the Lord will again take delight in prospering you, just as he delighted in prospering your ancestors, 10 when you obey the Lord your God by observing his commandments and decrees that are written in this book of the law, because you turn to the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
11 Surely, this commandment that I am commanding you today is not too hard for you, nor is it too far away. 12 It is not in heaven, that you should say, “Who will go up to heaven for us, and get it for us so that we may hear it and observe it?” 13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, “Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us, and get it for us so that we may hear it and observe it?” 14 No, the word is very near to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart for you to observe.
15 See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, death and adversity. 16 If you obey the commandments of the Lord your God[b] that I am commanding you today, by loving the Lord your God, walking in his ways, and observing his commandments, decrees, and ordinances, then you shall live and become numerous, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land that you are entering to possess
end quote
what was the condition to become numerous? why did the lord delight in prospering the ancestors? what did they do?
LikeLike
12:8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.”
Where is that? 12:8 does not tell us what book you are quoting.
ok, I found it; 2 Samuel 12:8 – please provide the book, 2 Samuel.
You are quoting King James Version and seemingly just cut and paste from some Islamic or atheist site. It does not mean what you are claiming it means.
//////////////
I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.
////////////
what do we call it in english when god increases something for someone?
“blessing” isn’t it?
david had the spirit of yhwh in him and was blessed by yhwh with many wives and yhwh would have added more if “all this” had been “too little”
LikeLike
It was a general statement that God gave the kingdom to David, after judging Saul. Nathan is rebuking David for committing adultery with Bathsheba – see larger context. What he is saying is, “God gave you such blessings in giving you the kingdom and taking it from Saul, why did you sin against God in taking Uriah’s wife?” There is no record of Saul’s wives being given to David; it probably means that David took care of Saul’s widow after Saul committed suicide. (1 Samuel 31) It does not mean he got to take Saul’s wife as his own wife, etc.
LikeLike
this guy is a liar.
7 Nathan said to David, “You are the man! Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel: I anointed you king over Israel, and I rescued you from the hand of Saul; 8 I gave you your master’s house, and your master’s wives into your bosom, and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would have added as much more. 9 Why have you despised the word of the Lord, to do what is evil in his sight? You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and have taken his wife to be your wife, and have killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. 10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house, for you have despised me, and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife. 11 Thus says the Lord: I will raise up trouble against you from within your own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this very sun. 12 For you did it secretly; but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.” 13 David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” Nathan said to David, “Now the Lord has put away your sin; you shall not die. 14 Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the Lord,[a] the child that is born to you shall die.” 15 Then Nathan went to his house.
/////
your god said he will give dave’s wife to daves neighbour. he is going to minus daves blessings.
LikeLike
“Christian history worked out the political and social issues to favor no theocracy, freedom of religion and freedom of speech, based on the fact that 1 Corinthians 5 teaches excommunication, not execution.”
“freedom of religion and freedom of speech”
but yhwh decided that “freedom of religion” is causing people to prostitute their hearts to other gods and this will cause many different laws and systems which would clash and cause corruption. so you trashed your gods laws for excommunication?
LikeLike
No; God Himself made that change, since He inspired the New Testament, and the New Testament fulfills the OT. Some stuff was changed, like the food laws, etc.
LikeLike
no, you are a liar. god said his laws are eternal and the nt, jesus, his blood and his cross, cannot replace eternal laws.
thanks
LikeLike
God’s law against something, is different than the punishments for them.
Adultery is still sin; but the punishment for it was changed, as in 1 Corinthians 5, the punishment for unrepentant adultery was excommunication, not execution.
But I believe in the death penalty for murder. Genesis 9:6
Modern leftism and liberalism is not good. (most Democrats are hollywood type adulteries, secularists who have hatred against God; atheists, agnostics, skeptics, earth worshipping creation worshiping nut jobs; Darwinian dogmatists who don’t allow debate in public school. )
LikeLike
god’s spirit was in david and david still commited adultery. there was no need for the law to be changed. it was not the law, but gods spirit doing a weak job in david.
LikeLike
You can disagree; but come on; you need to stop saying “You are a liar!” – your method is wrong.
Christians sincerely believe the NT fulfills the OT and some of the OT is no longer applicable.
That is not lying; it just a difference of understanding, based on NT being the final revelation.
Jude 3
“the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints”
LikeLike
you lie on the quran, the bible and the new testament. you are a liar. “ot is no longer applicable” is a LIE according to the jews. so you are a liar according to the jews. how can “eternal laws” be “no longer applicable”
so you are a liar.
thanks
LikeLike
The Jews don’t accept the Qur’an either.
It is not lying to sincerely not believe in the Qur’an.
The NT is the final revelation.
The Jews were judged for rejecting the Messiah in 70 AD.
but we need to be patient with them and show them Isaiah 53 is about Messiah Jesus.
NT says some things are no longer applicable, therefore I am not a liar.
Qur’an is not even from God. one man’s delusional claim to prophethood.
LikeLike
god replaced his “eternal laws” because he couldn’t send easier unbreakable ones and because of this he let david get away with crimes which mandated death penalty? you have a very human god.
LikeLike
what has accepting the quran got to do with “eternal laws” which yhwh said don’t have sell by date? it is for this reason you have a pagan insane brain.
you christians have super glued two contradictory books together
the nt is nothing, it didn’t even exist in jesus’ time.
the jews were judged for imagingin their god as visible being.
isaiah 53 has nothing to do with jesus. jesus is your animal sacrifice. isaiah did not view his god as animal sacrifice.
nt has no authority to say anything. the torah says “eternal laws” i.e no sell by date
LikeLike
disagreeing is not lying.
If we sincerely believe NT is final revelation (Jude 3); then it is not lying to say the Qur’an is not from God.
LikeLike
the new testament is fraud and man made. nobody denies this anymore. you guys fabricated lies because you didn’t like the idea of an invisible god.
LikeLike
What evidence do you have that God inspired the New Testament? It does not claim to be inspired as a canon of scripture anywhere. Unlike the Quran
LikeLike
Why do you keep repeating that? All of Christian theology and history established this already.
I already answered that thousands of times.
John 17:8
John 17:17
John 16:12-13
John 14:26
2 Tim. 3:16-17
1 Timothy 5:18
2 Peter 1:19-21
2 Peter 3:16
1 Corinthians chapters 1-2
Galatians 1:6-9
LikeLike
if god could increase daves blessings, he could decrease them to by doing the following
Thus says the Lord: I will raise up trouble against you from within your own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this very sun. 12 For you did it secretly; but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.”
ken is clearly a liar and would make up any lie to justify the sickness in his bible.
yhwh says, “I would have added much more!”
what would yhwh have added?
LikeLike
God knows that they will NOT be able to obey and follow God –
Deuteronomy 31:16;
Deuteronomy 31:29;
Joshua 24:19
19 Then Joshua said to the people, “You will not be able to serve the Lord, for He is a holy God. He is a jealous God; He will not forgive your transgression or your sins.
LikeLike
21But the people said to Joshua, “No! We will serve the Lord.”
22Then Joshua said, “You are witnesses against yourselves that you have chosen to serve the Lord.”
“Yes, we are witnesses,” they replied.
23“Now then,” said Joshua, “throw away the foreign gods that are among you and yield your hearts to the Lord, the God of Israel.”
24And the people said to Joshua, “We will serve the Lord our God and obey him.”
25On that day Joshua made a covenant for the people, and there at Shechem he reaffirmed for them decrees and laws. 26And Joshua recorded these things in the Book of the Law of God. Then he took a large stone and set it up there under the oak near the holy place of the Lord.
27“See!” he said to all the people. “This stone will be a witness against us. It has heard all the words the Lord has said to us. It will be a witness against you if you are untrue to your God.”
28Then Joshua dismissed the people, each to their own inheritance.
Buried in the Promised Land
29After these things, Joshua son of Nun, the servant of the Lord, died at the age of a hundred and ten. 30And they buried him in the land of his inheritance, at Timnath Serahc in the hill country of Ephraim, north of Mount Gaash.
31Israel served the Lord throughout the lifetime of Joshua and of the elders who outlived him and who had experienced everything the Lord had done for Israel.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken the same book you quote disproves your claim.
“if you obey the LORD your God to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this book of the law, if you turn to the LORD your God with all your heart and soul. 11″For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach. 12″It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?” – Deuteronomy 30:10-12
With regards to Deuteronomy 31, verses 19-22 demonstrates that this would happen when the Israelites entered the promised land and began to worship other gods. However as you well know God did not abandon them forever and continued to send Prophets warning them to repent and also punishing them with the Babylonian exile whereafter the Prophets spoke a message of hope and healing.
With regards to Joshua once again if you simply read on you would see this;
“If you forsake the Lord and serve foreign gods, he will turn and bring disaster on you and make an end of you, after he has been good to you.” – Joshua 24:20
What follows on from this a dialogue between Joshua and the Israelites whereupon they swear to obey God and his Law (which we are told is not too difficult) to which Joshua accepts;
“See!” he said to all the people. “This stone will be a witness against us. It has heard all the words the Lord has said to us. It will be a witness against you if you are untrue to your God.” – Joshua 24:27
The texts you have quoted make no mention of an impossible law and timeless abandonment of the Jews but quite the opposite, not only is the Law able to be followed but also taking into account the full Tanakh, God has not abandoned the Jewish people even after rebelling against him by turning to idolatry. This demonstrates that God is merciful unlike your Evangelical theology which says that he abandoned humanity to its own devices until only 2,000 years ago.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Well said – let’s see if Ken understands your points.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I understand your points; but the LORD did judge Israel and Judah in her history – allowing the nations to enslave them in the book of Judges in a repeated cycle of “sin, oppression, repentance, salvation, sinning again, oppression, repentance, salvation, etc.
then Assyria conquered the Northern Kingdom Israel in 722 BC – 2 Kings 17
Then Babylon conquered Judah in 606-586 BC and destroyed Solomon’s temple. (2 Kings 23, 24, 25) they went into exile for 70 years. 606-536 BC
The Persian conquered Babylon.
Daniel prophesied in Babylon and Persia of the coming Messiah. (Daniel 7:13-14; 9:14-27)
The Persians allowed the Jews to go back to the land, and rebuilt the temple (book of Ezra) and the walls of Jerusalem (book of Nehemiah)
The OT closed around 430 BC. (Chronicles and Malachi written).
But the Greeks conquered Persia in 300 BC
The Jews enjoyed some autonomy and freedom during the Hasmonean / Maccabean dynasty. (164 – 63 BC)
Then the Romans in 63 BC.
These were all examples of when the people of God are not a witness to the nations, being a holy people (Exodus 19:5-6; Psalm 67; Psalm 96), God allows those nations to conquer His people, as a punishment. (2 Kings 17, 23-25)
LikeLike
”
I understand your points; but the LORD did judge Israel and Judah in her history – allowing the nations to enslave them in the book of Judges in a repeated cycle of “sin, oppression, repentance, salvation, sinning again, oppression, repentance, salvation, etc.”
what destroys your beliefs is that people in history were able to obey the law and live happily with their god. this completly rebuts the christian lie that “nobody can obey the laws of god and one needs bloody human sacrifice”
LikeLike
To Ken
If this is the case, coupled with the teaching of Deuteronomy 30, why do we need anyone to die for us? and what does this acknowledgement with respect to your earlier comment;
“God knows that they will NOT be able to obey and follow God”.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Read Joshua 24:19
19 Then Joshua said to the people, “You will not be able to serve the Lord, for He is a holy God. He is a jealous God; He will not forgive your transgression or your sins.
and the rest of the OT.
The Israelites were never able to follow God and they kept sinning and sinning.
God is showing us the weakness of man – man cannot do good (even relative good works are done for selfish or prideful reasons)
Only those in Christ are able to do good works without evil motives.
LikeLike
“God is showing us the weakness of man – man cannot do good (even relative good works are done for selfish or prideful reasons)”
“Only those in Christ are able to do good works without evil motives.”
this is why i believe that you definitely have mental issues. if god said “love thy god with all thy heart” then the heart must have something, by nature, which gives human the ability to thank god and love him. what were the jews loving before the human sacrificial ritual of jezers ? their pride and selfishness?
how do you know that you don’t have evil motives? you look at the history of the jews and their rebellion, look at your churches history .
LikeLike
Ken that is where you are mistaken there are many examples of people in the OT and NT who were considered righteous without needing to believe Jesus died for them.
Such as:
1. Noah – “These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.” – Genesis 6:9
2. Abraham – “Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? – James 2:21
3. Job – “In the land of Uz there lived a man whose name was Job. This man was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil.” – Job 1:1
4. Zechariah – “In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly.” – Luke 1:5-7
No mention of a need to be ‘in Christ’. So you see the OT is full of examples of people who were described as righteous before God, obeying his law despite your protests to the contrary.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Ken: Pl read up your own posts once more and see why I called you insane. You make things up. When Bible teaches wholesale genocide of people, it is still word of God. When Bible permits slaughter of people and saving their young girls for themselves it is for marriage ( the marriage doesn’t occur in the text) . You have no problem with that you God ordered these things that you will consider evil today. Even if God commanded it then for just one time , does that make it legit? for you it does. In contrast When Qur’an allows sex with captured women it must be rape despite being given tonnes of evidence. The “word” rape doesn’t exist in any of the passages of Qur’an and Sunnah that quoted, but you inserted that anyway!
When Qur’an by comparison legislates a very mellow, fair and workable solution to prisoners of war, rules of engagement, taxes etc, it evil for you [ and what is your basis for saying so? other than your own imagination? did Jesus teach you this? if so Christians did NOT get that memo for millenniums. just go and look at their wars and the their justification based on bible. I am no talking about any group of fanatics , but the whole your civilization behaving that way]. that is why you are insane. you have lost capacity to analyze any thing in honest and fair manner. I guess that is what holy ghost is supposed to do to your brain. to turn you into an irrational zombie.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The “word” rape doesn’t exist in any of the passages of Qur’an and Sunnah that quoted, but you inserted that anyway!”
Wow!! They inserted the word “rape” in the translation of the original Arabic Hadeeth.
The blatant deceit and dishonesty of many Christian apologists never ceases to amaze me. It is sad how they are so easily willing to sink to the lowest depths in order to unscrupulously spread so much lies, slander, confusion and misunderstanding about Islam – all in order to justify their own false doctrines and beliefs, which were not even taught by Prophet Jesus himself.
What a dishonest and untruthful act in betrayal of the honest truth as taught by the true Abrahamic faith tradition!! I think all decent Christians should be ashamed of such sinful tactics which are used by many Christian polemicists today and should call them out on it in defense of the honest truth. Otherwise such tactics will shame the name of all good Christians.
LikeLike
“It was a general statement that God gave the kingdom to David, after judging Saul. Nathan is rebuking David for committing adultery with Bathsheba – see larger context.”
quote:
7 Nathan said to David, “You are the man! Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel: I anointed you king over Israel, and I rescued you from the hand of Saul; 8 I GAVE you your master’s house, and your master’s wives into your bosom,
and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would have added as much MORE.
9 Why have you despised the word of the Lord, to do what is evil in his sight? You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and have taken his wife to be your wife, and have killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. 10
Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house, for you have despised me, and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.
11 Thus says the Lord: I will raise up trouble against you from within your own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this very sun.
12 For you did it secretly; but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.” 13 David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” Nathan said to David, “Now the Lord has put away your sin; you shall not die. 14 Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the Lord,[a] the child that is born to you shall die.” 15 Then Nathan went to his house.
quote:
What he is saying is, “God gave you such blessings in giving you the kingdom and taking it from Saul, why did you sin against God in taking Uriah’s wife?”
so what was the relevance of verse 11?
”
There is no record of Saul’s wives being given to David; it probably means that David took care of Saul’s widow after Saul committed suicide. (1 Samuel 31) It does not mean he got to take Saul’s wife as his own wife, etc.”
I GAVE you your master’s house, and your master’s wives into your bosom,
god said he would minus these wives and get them raped by daves neighbour.
LikeLike
“No; God Himself made that change, since He inspired the New Testament, and the New Testament fulfills the OT. Some stuff was changed, like the food laws, etc.”
god told the people to kill unborn, infant and suckling and to batter down a country from CITY to CITY
since god told the jews to give up on worshipping idols and loving the neighbours why was it difficult to give up on baby killing? the new testament wouldn’t have even been needed.
LikeLike
“These were all examples of when the people of God are not a witness to the nations, being a holy people (Exodus 19:5-6; Psalm 67; Psalm 96), God allows those nations to conquer His people, as a punishment. (2 Kings 17, 23-25)”
reply :
You can’t help being naughty and god sent the law to help, but it didn’t, meaning you have to die, so he sent his son to die in your place because god couldn’t just send functional laws or change his mind or know what he was doing in the first place.
ken, that’s what it all boils down to doesn’t it? easily breakable rules given to a corrupt creation because god does not know what he is doing.
LikeLike
. . . because god couldn’t just send functional laws or change his mind or know what he was doing in the first place.
That part is just you mocking; and your mocking God is sin.
You have a very shallow understanding of sin. Sin is deep in the thoughts, attitude, and motives, not just external actions.
“Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”
Genesis 6:5
“The heart is more deceitful than all else
And is desperately sick;
Who can understand it?
Jeremiah 17:9
Mark 7:20-23 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
20 And He was saying, “That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man.
21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries,
22 deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness.
23 All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man.”
Which proves I was right in discussing this earlier at times with Paul Williams.
The Islamic view of sin is very shallow and is focused upon external actions. sometimes the Qur’an and Hadith talk about internal sins, but not much; it is not an emphasis in Islam. The emphasis in Islam is eternal actions and rituals and forms. (dead religion)
LikeLike
@Ken : did it get lost on you that all quotes of Jesus and other prophets about sin is something you do and that comes from the status of your “heart”. It seems you haven’t bothered to read Islamic teaching on this , but the besides the point. Sin in not your imagination of guilt of adam upon us. Jesus never taught it. Ot prophets never taught it. You ( your theologians) manufactured it in early centuries of your faith. get over it.
LikeLike
Jesus taught it very clearly in Mark 7:20-23; Matthew 5:21-30 and Matthew 7:11 and John 8:34
The prophets also:
Genesis 6:5 and Jeremiah 17:9 and Psalm 51:4-5; 58:3;
Psalm 14:1-3 (there is no one who does good; not even one)
You – get over it!
LikeLike
Psalm 14:3 They have all turned aside, They have together become corrupt; There is none who does good, No, not one.
Yep: Jesus in part of “not one”
LikeLike
“ou have a very shallow understanding of sin. Sin is deep in the thoughts, attitude, and motives, not just external actions.”
who created the brain, the human, the thoughts, the memory?
sin created it? i know you have grown up hearing that you are manure , please don’t impose
your image of yourself onto the rest of humanity.
“Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”
Genesis 6:5
then he drowned everyone but kept wicked hearts on a boat and said to one of them
even if these three men–Noah, Daniel and Job–were in it, they could save only themselves by their righteousness, declares the Sovereign LORD.
quote:
“The heart is more deceitful than all else
And is desperately sick;
Who can understand it?
Jeremiah 17:9
quote:
10“I the Lord search the heart
and examine the mind,
to reward each person according to their conduct,
according to what their deeds deserve.”
god is telling humans, don’t trust in human beings, trust in me, the invisible god.
when people trust in human beings (jesus krist)they are paying LIP service to god ” i trust in god”
but really you are trusting in man (jesus krist) and only DECEIVING yourself.
but god says ,
“love thy god with ALL thy heart and ALL thy soul”
indicating that the nature of human is not evil
quote :
Mark 7:20-23 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
20 And He was saying, “That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man.
21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries,
22 deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness.
23 All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man.”
end quote
no baby is born with the thoughts of fornication, theft , murder, evil thoughts …even when it is being nursed by its mother. jesus himself was being tempted of sex thoughts by satan in the wilderness, he is after all “100 % human” so he was having these sexual thoughts. when mary oiled him, he must have had some kind of sexual thought about her . think about it, a woman using her hair to rub oil into feet? the thought of it is kinky.
“The Islamic view of sin is very shallow and is focused upon external actions. sometimes the Qur’an and Hadith talk about internal sins, but not much; it is not an emphasis in Islam. The emphasis in Islam is eternal actions and rituals and forms. (dead religion)”
quote:
Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Verily, when the servant commits a sin a black spot appears upon his heart. If he abandons the sin, seeks forgiveness, and repents, then his heart will be polished. If he returns to the sin, the blackness will be increased until it overcomes his heart. [Tirmidhi]
LikeLike
Physical heart = the muscle in the chest that pumps blood.
IF that is what the Hadith means, then that is also very shallow also.
but IF it means something deeper; that is good; but like I said, the Qur’an and Hadith SOMETIMES mention internal sins, but not much.
“the heart” in the bible is deeper that the physical pump/muscle in the chest – it is the unseen central core of us – our mind, will, emotions, affections, attitudes, motives, conscience, etc.
LikeLike
“ou have a very shallow understanding of sin. Sin is deep in the thoughts, attitude, and motives, not just external actions.”
yet your god let prophets get away with disgusting sins like fornication, idolatry and adultery. if it were other than a prophet , he punished them to death by having them stoned to death.
LikeLike
quote:
“ou have a very shallow understanding of sin. Sin is deep in the thoughts, attitude, and motives, not just external actions.”
coming from a person who believes that all his sins have been paid for and is guaranteed heaven. these hypocrites boast about how bad sin is and what it caused god to do , but @ the same time they believe they are free from divine consequences.
LikeLike
“. . . because god couldn’t just send functional laws or change his mind or know what he was doing in the first place.”
quote:
“ou have a very shallow understanding of sin. Sin is deep in the thoughts, attitude, and motives, not just external actions.”
you mocked god by telling him that he created corrupt creatures who are “born in shit”
you are the mocker. you are the one telling god that without gods bloody go between idol, no one can have relationship with him. you are the mocker. you are the one telling god that his laws and rituals don’t help people come close to god. you are the one who tells people that a pagan moabite dead idol hanging off a dead cross mends the way. it is you who is mocking god. it is you who is trashing your gods torah when you call cracking baby skulls “barbaric” it is you who is mocking god ,when you in the open boast about sins, but in private , when no one is watching you sin and @ the same time you tell yourself your sins have been paid for and you are guaranteed heaven. it is you who is mocking god. it is you who is the one doing deed to be seen by men , but in hidden your true face is seen and you see that
“. . . because god couldn’t just send functional laws or change his mind or know what he was doing in the first place.”
LikeLike
edward wrote:
you mocked god by telling him that he created corrupt creatures who are “born in shit”
you are the one lying since I never wrote that.
Being born in sin and guilt is not the same as what you wrote.
You are the one who lies you liar.
Even though we are all guilty and sinners by nature, we still have the image of God within us, however twisted and corrupted.
But never do we say we are manure or doggie poo, etc.
that is your lie, you liar.
LikeLike
“Even though we are all guilty and sinners by nature, we still have the image of God within us, however twisted and corrupted.”
you are making the human being deformed in sin. beyond recovery. born handicapped in sin. if humans have “image of god” then humans don’t need blood of jesus or his “sacrifice”
our “image in god” can help us have relationship with god without the bloody coupon .
if god still sees worth in us, then jesus is USELESS between us and god .
if he doesn’t then you admit that humans are “born in shit”
LikeLike
quote:
That part is just you mocking; and your mocking God is sin.
end quote
your jewish brethren think that it is you who is mocking your god :
We are told about and expected to believe the reports of a god that no one can know and no one can please (but jeesus, mind you) but yet they’re the authority on this god… does this make sense?
If they are even remotely correct on their slam-fest of God, how is it that they know what God is like? Are they merely believing and PROMULGATING second-hand information?
Were people like King David, the Prophet Moses, the Patriarchs, the Later Prophets lying when they ascribed adjectives of “mercy, loving kindness, abundant compassion and comforting” to this “vengeful” God?
But they claim it’s the same god they serve! Were these biblical personalities wrong in their assessment of God and these xians who really don’t have a relationship with God (or a relationship by proxy) possessing the “true” relationship?
And can you really have a relationship via proxy? How intimate is a relationship if you have to go through someone else to have a simple conversation with the one you’re to have a relationship with–and with a person (or in this case god) who, were it not for jeesus, would consider you worm fodder and banish you?
REmember, according to xians, without jeesus no one could know god or have a relationship with him. So is jeesus our ticket to a relationship with god, or the wool pulled over god’s eyes (and our own) with regard to the true relationship? Or are we really just having a relationship with ourselves and this belief in jeesus is a mere distraction from the reality that no one can know this unreachable god? Is there anything more pathetic and more sad than to have a relationship by proxy; knowing the Object of your supposed loyalty and devotion doesn’t love you but only tolerates you because of someone else? Take that piece away and we’re back to the fundamental view of this “god” to his creation. What does that really say about this “god”?
no set of lies is more damning and more self-serving than to tell people that they are defective from birth, can never know God, cannot improve themselves and they are damned for all eternity unless you believe their variant/cult and to believe otherwise is the ultimate delusion. Are there any lies WORSE to not only one’s soul but one’s perception of the CREATOR HIMSELF??????? Is there anything MORE disgusting to the very Mercy, Compassion and “You can do it!” encouragement given by God Himself (even right in the VERY opening chapters of Genesis—- God tells Cain he can overcome evil! This from a “vengeful, can-never-please-Him” God!)? Is there any sin greater than to have one of God’s creations believe they can never know Him without any aides, “blood tricks” and “redemption coupons” from Jeesus?
The lies of these xians is “God knows you can’t have a relationship with him because you’re dirty, worthless, vile and wretched .. you’re spiritual trash. Only a bloody go between can mend the bridge”. They lie about God and also fail to ask the obvious.. what person would WANT a relationship with someone who will only see you as less than.. and only by the CHARITY of another can you come into a “relationship” with this person? Who wants a relationship with a god who only allows you to come into his presence via a proxy.. can it even be called a relationship? I think this is the most vile lie ever devised… lying about God and then LYING about the inherent potential (and the “god spark” ALL people have!) just so you can form an emotional attachment to jeesus.
LikeLike
It all depends on what you mean by “defective from birth”.
All parents are responsible to teach their children right from wrong; and love them as persons (created in the image of God) and, when they do wrong, to always say, “what you did was wrong”
rather than the way you treat me, “you are a liar” – instead you should say, “I sincerely believe that you are wrong”.
When you have a good relationship with your children, love them, and teach them properly, teaching them about the Christian and Biblical concepts of sin and guilt is not damaging in the way you try to make it.
LikeLike