Christian apologist Mike Licona whitewashes scholarly doubts about the gospels

Licona is not doing anyone a service by covering up the near universal consensus of his New Testament colleagues that the Gospel of John is a highly interpreted account of the life of Jesus written towards the end of the 1st century and is a gospel that is much further removed from the actual language and teaching of Jesus as compared to the earlier gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke.  I challenge him to cite a single serious scholar who would claim that in John ‘Jesus’s deeds and teachings can be found quite accurately’

Screen Shot 2018-02-23 at 20.37.34Screen Shot 2018-02-23 at 20.37.48

The eminent New Testament scholar Professor EP Sanders comments on the differences between the synoptic gospels and John and how historians have had to choose between them:

“It is impossible to think that Jesus spent his short ministry teaching in two such completely different ways, conveying such different contents, and there were simply two traditions, each going back to Jesus, one transmitting 50 percent of what he said and another one the other 50 per cent, with almost no overlaps. Consequently, for the last 150 or so years scholars have had to choose. They have almost unanimously, and I think entirely correctly, concluded that the teaching of the historical Jesus is to be sought in the synoptic gospels and that John represents an advanced theological development, in which meditations on the person and work of Christ are presented in the first person, as if Jesus said them.”

E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure Of Jesus, 1993, Penguin Books, pp. 70-71.

 

 

Advertisements


Categories: Bible, Biblical scholarship, Islam

46 replies

  1. You’re getting behind, relying on scholarship from 93? Fact is, scholarship is moving the other way now, there is a significant swing toward GJohn being historically accurate.

    The old guard of thought is passing, which is why relying upon such for ones polemics inevitably results in problems.

    Like

    • As usual you are gravely mistaken.

      There has been no change to the near universal consensus of his New Testament colleagues that the Gospel of John is a highly interpreted account.

      Acclaimed evangelical scholar Richard Bauckham in his book on the gospels Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (2006, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co) acknowledges that,

      All scholars, whatever their views of the redactional work of the Synoptic Evangelists and of the historical reliability of the Gospel of John, agree that the latter presents a much more thoroughly and extensively interpreted version of the story of Jesus.”
      (p. 410.)

      So you are wrong. Even conservative scholars who share your theology still agree with EP Sanders’s assessment.

      Liked by 2 people

    • In actuality the “Old Guard of thought” is exemplified by those like Paulus who refuse to accept facts and evidence uncovered by NT historical textual criticism and still think that the Gospel of John is Historically accurate.

      The Gospel of John is certainly “historical” but by no means is it “accurate.”

      Liked by 1 person

    • I guess the real problem for you is that GJohn is traced back to an eyewitness via Polycarp and then Irenaeus. So it’s surprising that you reject historical testimony for materialistic assumptions and scholarship. Well, not really. Anything for the deen, right?

      Like

    • I can understand why Paulus remains in a state of denial. It’s gotta hurt for Christians to hear the unfortunate and painful truth about the unreliability of their Biblical texts. But as they say – the truth will set you free!

      Liked by 1 person

    • Bauckham is saying anything akin to Sanders. Saying JGohn is more theologically developed (which they agree on) isn’t the same as drawing the conclusion as Sanders did that Jesus didn’t say them.

      As per usual, you quote bomb with disregard for actual scholarship nuance of distinguishing between the very words of someone and the very voice of someone. Which, mind you, was a totally appropriate distinction in antiquity. As for Bauckham, let’s allow him to speak for himself rather than be misconstrued…

      “The denigration of John as history in the 19th century had a lot to do with the desire by the major German scholars to find a historical Jesus who was not supernatural and not the Christ of the church’s dogma. So they imagined Mark to be portraying a purely human Jesus. Of course, they were wrong. Mark has a very high Christology, as is now widely recognized. They also thought John used all three Synoptic Gospels and just made up what he added to them. Few people think this now.”

      Like

    • Paulus you make a basic logical error by saying that because something is written by an eyewitness then it is accurate or reliable. We have law courts that cross examine eyewitnesses because a court cannot just accept what people claim is true. People make things up (as John does) all the time; they lie; get things wrong; mis-remember facts; forget; misunderstand what they report etc.

      All scholars accept that John does not give us the actual words of the historical Jesus. This clearly threatens you, as it did me as an evangelical Christian.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Ironically, Pw tweet only demonstrates his shared assumptions of 19th century German scholarship of synoptic priority. As Bauckham says, “few people think this now”

      Like

    • Actual words? Clarify what you mean?

      GJohn is a Greek document. Jesus spoke Aramaic. So to begin with, GJohn (and the Synoptics) will never be the “actual words of Jesus”. But the “actual voice”? Yes. An actual historically reliable account? Yes.

      Just face it Paul. Your tweet only demonstrates you’re still reliant on the arguments of 19th century German liberal
      Scholarship. But few scholars accept this now.

      Like

    • “You’re getting behind, relying on scholarship from 93? ”

      LOL! A better example of IRONY there is not!

      The moron Cerbie appealed to a debunked theory from the 1970s in another thread where he was trying to prove the existence of 1st century manuscripts, and yet here, he’s criticizing brother Paul for appealing to an almost universally recognized scholarly view on the gospel of John! Loser!

      Like

    • I lack the scholarly talent and degrees to argue with any of you. However, I find it humorous that anyone would think that the Synoptic Gospels combined with the Gospel of John together could possibly contain 100% of what Jesus did and said during His time on earth. Part of what Jesus demonstrated to us was approaching different issues using multiple different methods. Why His speech would be different from His actions is not mysterious to me. If all four Gospels had zero overlap, that would cause concern. But otherwise we are just guessing.

      Like

  2. In the debate with Ehrman yesterday he affirmed that John changed things for theological and literary purposes. That tweet is him most likely covering himself from the fall-out from that comment.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. Professor Richard Bauckham has also authored a little known (at least outside of scholarly circles) book entitled God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament.

    Consider these statements taken from his book:

    ‘The Gospel of John places on the lips of Jesus during his ministry another of the characteristically Deutero-Isaianic declarations of unique divine identity. The Johannine choice is the concise statement ‘I am he,’ usually translated in the Septuagint Greek as ego eimi (‘I am’), the form in which it appears in John’s Gospel.’ (page 55)

    ‘We observed earlier [page 55] how John places Deutero-Isaiah’s great monotheistic self-declaration of God – ‘I am he’ – on the lips of Jesus in the series of seven absolute ‘I am’ sayings.’ (page 63)

    If the author of the Fourth Gospel knowingly placed the I am statements in ‘on the lips of Jesus’, then Jesus obviously by definition he did not say them, and John has invented sayings which countless generations of Christians have nevertheless taken as the actual words of Jesus.

    But if John’s portrayal of Jesus represents a ‘highly interpreted’ and partly fabricated account of his life and teaching why should we believe what it says? Readers of the gospel may wish to know the unaltered, original words and teaching of Jesus rather than a “highly interpreted” later account.

    Bauckham’s views are based on a detailed analysis of the gospels’ genre and a comparison of the synoptic gospels and John. His views on the historicity of Jesus’ sayings in John are widely shared by other scholars (outside of fundamentalist seminaries).

    Bauckham argues that the fourth gospel [John] stems from an eyewitness to the ministry of Jesus, namely, the disciple John. At the same time, however, Bauckham also acknowledges the significant differences between the fourth gospel and the Synoptics and argues that John is a more reflective and a highly interpreted account of the life and ministry of Jesus. Regarding the four gospels in general, he concludes:

    ‘In all four Gospels we have the history of Jesus only in the form of testimony, the testimony of involved participants who responded in faith to the disclosure of God in these events. In testimony fact and interpretation are inextricable; in this testimony empirical sight and spiritual perception are inseparable.’
    Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, 2006, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., p. 411.

    As we have already seem above, regarding the gospel of John Bauckham says:

    ‘All scholars, whatever their views of the redactional work of the Synoptic Evangelists and of the historical reliability of the Gospel of John, agree that the latter presents a much more thoroughly and extensively interpreted version of the story of Jesus.’
    (Ibid. p. 410.)

    According to Bauckham, the eyewitness author of the gospel of John did not just simply rehash mere eyewitness reports, but he also weaved into his story of Jesus his highly reflective interpretations and understanding of the events:

    ‘… we can also apply the contrast between Mark (or the Synoptics in general) and John more widely. The greater selectivity of events recorded, the more continuous narrative with its more strongly delineated plot, the lengthy discourses and debates – all these distinctive features of the Gospel of John, as compared with the Synoptics, are what make possible the much fuller development of the author’s own interpretation of Jesus and his story, just as comparable features of the works of the Greco-Roman historians enable the expression of their own understanding of the history, making their works more than mere reports of what the eyewitnesses said.

    But in the case of the Gospel of John these characteristics are linked with its claim to be entirely the testimony of an author who was himself an eyewitness. In this case, the whole historiographic process of eyewitness observation and participation, interrogation of other eyewitnesses, arrangement and narrativization in the formation of an integrated and rhetorically persuasive work – all this was the work of an eyewitness, whose interpretation was, of course, in play at every level of the process, but in what one might think of as a cumulative manner, such that the finished Gospel has a high degree of highly reflective interpretation. The eyewitness claim justifies [really?] this degree of interpretation for a context in which the direct reports of the eyewitnesses were the most highly valued forms of testimony to Jesus. In the case of the other Gospels it was important that the form of the eyewitness testimonies was preserved in the Gospels. The more reflective interpretive Gospel of John does not, by contrast, assimilate the eyewitness reports beyond recognition into its own elaboration of the story, but is, as it stands, the way one eyewitness understood what he and others had seen. The author’s eyewitness status authorizes the interpretation. Thus, whereas scholars have often supposed that this Gospel could not have been written by an eyewitness because of its high degree of interpretation of the events and the words of Jesus, by contrast with the Synoptics, in fact the high degree of interpretation is appropriate precisely because this is the only one of the canonical Gospels that claims eyewitness authorship.
    (Ibid. pp. 410 – 411.)

    Note that Bauckham does not deny the “highly reflective interpretational” status of the gospel of John. He only justifies it by arguing that the author was an eyewitness.

    In light of the above, even if we are to accept the fourth gospel as a product of an eyewitness (and it should be noted that most experts disagree with Bauckham), it does not mean that we can simply read off from its surface the words attributed to Jesus as if Jesus literally uttered them in during historical ministry.

    ————-

    Extract from my book Resurrecting Jesus: Rediscovering the original Jesus in the light of modern Bible Scholarship and the Quran by Paul Williams.

    Liked by 1 person

    • This is all besides the point, again. You’re still
      lacking the nuance of scholarship re the “actual voice” of an account. You keep reading into all this that GJohn has to be a word for word account. Not even the Synoptics fit that criteria. Ergo, you continually misconstrue the academia.

      Like

    • Do you agree with Bauckham’s comment that:

      ‘We observed earlier [page 55] how John places Deutero-Isaiah’s great monotheistic self-declaration of God – ‘I am he’ – on the lips of Jesus in the series of seven absolute ‘I am’ sayings.’

      What say you Paulus? Is he right? Or is he only “demonstrating his shared assumptions of 19th century German scholarship”?

      Like

  4. “People make things up (as John does) “

    Paul, you perfectly demonstrated my point despite your protestations. I repeat Bauckham for your enjoyment

    “They also thought John used all three Synoptic Gospels and just made up what he added to them. Few people think this now.”

    As I said, you’re on the wrong side of scholarship these days. I think you are the one who feels threatened by this. Your polemics no longer have any scholarly basis. That’s what happens when you adopt liberalism

    Like

    • I refer you to Baukham’s admission that John puts words into Jesus’s mouth.

      In Bauckham’s God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament he writes:

      ‘The Gospel of John places on the lips of Jesus during his ministry another of the characteristically Deutero-Isaianic declarations of unique divine identity. The Johannine choice is the concise statement ‘I am he,’ usually translated in the Septuagint Greek as ego eimi (‘I am’), the form in which it appears in John’s Gospel.’ (page 55)

      ‘We observed earlier [page 55] how John places Deutero-Isaiah’s great monotheistic self-declaration of God – ‘I am he’ – on the lips of Jesus in the series of seven absolute ‘I am’ sayings.’ (page 63)

      If the author of the Fourth Gospel knowingly placed the I am statements in ‘on the lips of Jesus’, then Jesus obviously by definition he did not say them, and John has invented sayings which countless generations of Christians have nevertheless taken as the actual words of Jesus.

      Like

    • Consider this Paul.

      Do you think Bauckham would contradict himself or is it more likely that you’ve misinterpreted his point?

      I’ll let you decide that. As they say, you can only lead a camel to water…

      Like

    • Do you agree with Bauckham’s comment that:

      ‘We observed earlier [page 55] how John places Deutero-Isaiah’s great monotheistic self-declaration of God – ‘I am he’ – on the lips of Jesus in the series of seven absolute ‘I am’ sayings.’

      What say you Paulus? Is he right? Or is he only “demonstrating his shared assumptions of 19th century German scholarship”?

      Like

    • I do. Ironically, you are now trying to use Bauckham to contradict Bauckham. Remember, he was the one who stated, not me,

      “The denigration of John as history in the 19th century had a lot to do with the desire by the major German scholars to find a historical Jesus who was not supernatural and not the Christ of the church’s dogma. So they imagined Mark to be portraying a purely human Jesus. Of course, they were wrong. Mark has a very high Christology, as is now widely recognized. They also thought John used all three Synoptic Gospels and just made up what he added to them. Few people think this now.”

      I notice again that you still won’t engage the distinction scholars make re the very words vs the very voice in antiquity. Nor will you clarify what you mean by the “words of Jesus”

      We all know why…

      Like

    • A stunning admission Paulus! You now admit the anonymous author of the fourth gospel put words that Jesus likely did not utter onto his lips!

      Not just any old words – but the very words that evangelical preachers love to quote time and again to convert people to their religion.

      Jesus said “I AM the resurrection and the life” they cry. For decades Billy Graham quoted the alleged words of Jesus from the fourth gospel. But you admit – finally – that Jesus did not say these extremely important words, but they are in fact an anonymous authors words.

      This is hugely important.

      The inescapable conclusion: the fourth gospel is not an historically accurate record of the words of Jesus.

      Game over.

      ‘Nor will you clarify what you mean by the “words of Jesus”’

      Er – It’s obvious. Jesus did not actually say (in Greek or Aramaic) the I AM sayings attributed to him in the fourth gospel.

      Liked by 2 people

  5. “A stunning admission Paulus! You now admit the anonymous author of the fourth gospel put words that Jesus likely did not utter onto his lips”

    I admit no such thing. Your reluctance to admit the scholarly distinction between the very words vs the very voice in antiquity leads you to very inaccurate conclusions. Do you have a shred of honesty in those bones?

    “Not just any old words – but the very words that evangelical preachers love to quote time and again to convert people to their religion.”

    As Bauckham and others conclude, GJohn and the I Am statements are historically accurate summations of Jesus’ words from an eyewitness. Preachers are correct to use them.

    “Jesus said “I AM the resurrection and the life” they cry. For decades Billy Graham quoted the alleged words of Jesus from the fourth gospel. But you admit – finally – that Jesus did not say these extremely important words, but they are in fact an anonymous authors words.”

    Very words vs very voice. Ready to have an adult conversation yet rather than fabricated lies?

    “This is hugely important.”

    Only if one repeated ignores what people actually say and draws false conclusions.

    “The inescapable conclusion: the fourth gospel is not an historically accurate record of the words of Jesus.”

    Hmm, a conclusion not drawn from an accurate premise. Just to repeat the obvious, Bauckham argues the opposite- GJohn is historical accurate. Because you refuse to actually engage with the words of people you just quote bomb and draw illogical conclusions. You must make Allah proud!

    “Game over.”

    It was over before you began. You rely on outdated scholarshipto draw illogical conclusions based on your refusal to actually engage with nuance and facts.

    You make Islam look despicably vile and unattractive. Good job!!

    Like

    • ‘Very words vs very voice.’

      So if Jesus did not say the words attributed to him in John what exactly did he say?

      Please give me his words.

      Like

    • They are his words, if by “words” one understands that the very voice of jesus is preserved through GJohn’s summation. Remember, one need not verbatim quote somebody to accurately represent them.

      If you are after verbatim quotes, we’ll then your hunting the wrong thing, because the original mss were not Aramaic sources to begin with. Which is why the Aramaic phrases in the gospels are so unique and interesting

      Like

    • But the actual words are very important to Christian theology and doctrine. To say they are not causes huge problems for you.

      Remember Bauckham’s comment that:

      ‘The Gospel of John places on the lips of Jesus during his ministry another of the characteristically Deutero-Isaianic declarations of unique divine identity. The Johannine choice is the concise statement ‘I am he,’ usually translated in the Septuagint Greek as ego eimi (‘I am’), the form in which it appears in John’s Gospel.’

      The concise statement in John is a direct quote from Isaiah. If you lose this then what linguistic reason do you have for supposing Jesus referred to himself in Deutero-Isaiah’s great monotheistic self-declaration of God – ‘I am he’?

      John’s rhetorical point about Jesus gets lost if Jesus did not say these words. You have not thought through this problem carefully enough Paulus.

      Like

    • You can’t seem to move beyond the idea that verbatim quoting is the only possible option here. It’s not. I can confidently say Jesus said….. knowing that what has been recorded is an accurate portrayal of what Jesus taught.

      I’m not sure why you insist on a point that is non controversial. This is precisely why when Muslims appeal to “contradictions” in the gospels it so irrelevant. They bring an assumption to the text that the gospels are just verbatim dictation. They are not. They are historical biography from antiquity. The authors have selected and summarised the teachings of Christ for their particular purpose and audience, e.g GMatthew for a Jewish audience. GJohn is clearly theologically motivated. Until Muslims actually engage this reality the argument will be forever lost.

      Like

    • You have not addressed my point. The actual words are central to the John’s presentation of Jesus and christian apologetics. As I said, the concise statement in John is a direct quote from Isaiah. If you lose this then what linguistic reason do you have for supposing Jesus referred to himself in Deutero-Isaiah’s great monotheistic self-declaration of God – ‘I am he’?

      John’s rhetorical point about Jesus gets lost if Jesus did not say these words.

      ‘The authors have selected and summarised the teachings of Christ for their particular purpose and audience, e.g GMatthew for a Jewish audience’.

      True, and as a result they have mutually contradictory views on what Jesus taught. Mark’s Jesus contradicts Matthew’s Jesus on what he taught about the Law. This is not a ‘Muslim view’. It is well recognised in the western academic literature. As a fundamentalist you have to reject scholarly research on the gospels unless it agrees with your presuppositions.

      Like

    • ‘Very words vs very voice.’

      If Muslims ever forced to resort to such a twisted argument as this Christians would never accept it from us, but they expect us to swallow such a foolish argument in defense of their fundamentalist reading of the Bible.

      Alhamdullilah we have the original Qur’an and are free from resorting to such weak polemical arguments as this!

      Btw please consider the above as my “very words!” 😁

      Like

    • “You have not addressed my point”

      I believe I have. Consider an example. Suppose you told ibn Issam that you “converted to Islam”. These were your exact words.

      I then tell Porky pig that Paul “has decided to be a muslim”. Have I accurately represented you? You still continue to insist on verbatim quotation being required for GJohn.

      “If Muslims ever forced to resort to such a twisted argument“

      It’s not twisted at all. It’s actually fairly straightforward and academically accepted in ancient bio. My example above shows how normal and straightforward it is. The only reason you won’t accept it is because Islam’s doctrine of inspiration is and must only be dictation theory. Ergo you reject common sense because of your doctrine

      Like

    • ‘Very words vs very voice.’

      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)

      Like

  6. Br Paul, you can’t argue with that potato. Let him live his delusional life.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. Where can I watch his debate with dr Ehrman?

    Like

  8. My brothers in Islam,
    Pleas remember your brother in Ghouta. Make Dua’ for them. They face the most brutal attack by the crusaders and the twelver Shia

    Liked by 1 person

    • abdullah1423

      And the Palestinians who are facing brutal ethnic cleansing by the Zionist and Donald Trump who said “Islam hate us”, blocked money that help Palestinians who got their houses demolished to pave way for Israeli settlers. Yet the Saudis received Donald Trump and some Zionist with sword dancing. We should also make Dua’ for the Rohingya Muslims in Burma who have been suffering for a very long time under brutal buddhist extremists.

      We must also pray for the people of Iran who are under sanctions like how Iraq was under sanctions and later bombed out to stone age. Iraq was not Shite but was under sanctions and later bombed because it is majority Muslim country.

      We pray for our brothers in Ghouta, Palestine, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Burma etc. and May Allah help them out of their predicament. Ameen. We must not forget any.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Intellect, do you still think twelver Shia are your brothers in Islam after what they have done in Syria?
      For God sake, stop this nonsense comments and try to be a normal guy. We don’t need a muslim version of Sam Shamoun, believe me.
      I referred to Ghouta because it’s the news these days . I have plenty of comments about Palestine and Burma. Again, I do not need to defend my self before you. You are the one who is in this position, and you need defend yourself for promoting for those enemy of Islam.
      It’s not my own problem if you’re so naive in politics.
      http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-middle-east-43143619/syria-war-desperate-rescue-efforts-in-rebel-enclave

      Don’t ever try to compare the Gulf countries with Iran and its aggressive agenda in the region. Iran is our enemy in religion and in politics. What it’s done in Syrian, Iraq, Yemen, and Lebanon will not be forgotten ,and it will not be forgiven whether you like that or not.

      Like

    • abdullah1423

      Iran is not our enemy but Donald Trump who said “Islam is our enemy” and continue to carry his hatred towards Islam by banning Muslim majority countries citizens from entering USA, starving Palestinians and blaming them for the brutal Zionist occupation they suffer. Yet, Saudi Arabia received Donald Trump, Tom Friedman and other Zionists with dancing swords.

      With regards to Sunni and Shite, what do you say about Saudi Arabia and the Zionist bombing Yemen to stone age? Is Saudi our enemy? No. Both Saudi Arabia and Iran are not our enemy but Donald Trump and some of the Zionist who continue to instigate war among Muslims. It is disappointing for Muslims such as you will accept the Zionist and the Crusaders lies that Iran is the problem. Before Iran, it was Iraq which is the problem and no weapons of mass destruction was found in Iraq. Yasir Arafat was the problem and he is now dead. Afghanistan was the problem, destroyed, Libya was the problem, destroyed. Now Iran is the problem and people like you are accepting such lies.

      Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain etc. are starving Yemen citizens and it is in the new. They are also trying to starve Qatar and thank God Qatar is rich and cannot be starved. Is Saudi Arabia your enemy? Both Saudi Arabia and Iran are not my enemy but those who telling lies to cause Muslims to fight. You are not God and you cannot say Shite are not Muslims. Most scholars agree they are also Muslims.

      Thanks.

      Liked by 2 people

    • First of all, Iran is an enemy whether your dreamy mind likes that or not. After all what it’s done in the region, I don’t think any sincere muslim having just a little reason would think the otherwise.
      The broad lines of Iran’s politics is to export the cultic revolution which started with the Satan Khumini. Muslim scholars and sunni muslims in the region were aware of that danger form the beginning, and they warned about that danger. However and because there have always been morons buying anything Iran is selling, we have fallen in the trap of that cultic state. And the result now is that four capitals of main Arab countries are under its satanic authority. Thank God, after all what happened in the Arab world, all muslims there have been awaken, and they have realized what muslims scholars have been saying all these centuries about this cult is true. Believe me, Intellect, our bleeding wounds cannot take any teeny-tiny of this s**t dreamy vapid talk about the “brotherhood with that country.

      Second, I’m not sure why they have to be your brothers just because they are selling that ” they are against Israel”? These are slogans to attract muslims like you!
      Seriously, why on earth do you think that they are against Israel? Twelver Shia have always been against Islam and with the enemy of Islam.
      They helped crusaders in Acre and Antakya against muslims. They betrayed muslims during Mongolian invasion. Furthermore, Safavid dynasty allied with Portuguese empire to invade Mecca.
      Forget the history that you are obvious have nno clue about.
      What did they do to Iraqi and Syrian Muslims and what are they doing right now ? Have you heard about the stories of drills which were used agianst muslims in Iraq?
      What did the satan Qasim Sulimani do in Aleppo? Why did they try to change the demographic population in Iraq and Syria? Who gave them this courage except some naive muslims like you!
      You know what ? …..Let’s know what their attitude is towards the Second Caliph Umar Ibn Al Khattab who opened and liberated Jerusalem?
      What about the one who killed Umar? What do they think about him? Look for his shrine in Iran and how they did honour him.
      What about Saladin?
      Tell me what they did in Mecca in 1978?

      Man, this’s what they did when they entered the Umayyad Mosque, which has never been under Shia.
      Umayyad Mosque where the Sunnah were written, and taught…where Ibn Kathir, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Al-Dhabi, Ibn Asaker, Ibn Hajar studied and taught.

      This’s what happened when that Iranian twelver Shia Melissa they entered.

      So are you telling me this’s what you really want to see in Al Masjid Al Aqsa when your Iranian brothers take it back?

      Third, how dare you to compare Saudi with Iran? I mean even in Yemen, Iran is the one which has started that war through its proxy militia . Saudi has done a great favor in Yemen for years since it’s the one which pays the state’s budget and salaries,and the same thing is in Palestine. Look… I’m not here to defend Saudi for it has its mistakes, yet there’s no any kind of comparison when you try to put Saudi and Iran in the same basket. How dare you to put Saudi with all what it’s been doing for Sunnah and Quran with Iran which exports its cult and the instability in the region?
      It seems for you, just because Iran raises t “against Israel” slogan, it can do whatever it wants in the region. No it will not, and we will not permit that whatsoever! Enough it’s enough!

      Finally, “Most scholars agree they are also Muslims”. I encourage you to read about the subject. These subjects need to nuanced and detailed. However, I can quote for you what the great 4 scholars of Islam said about them.

      Like

    • Abdullah1423

      You said;
      Third, how dare you to compare Saudi with Iran? I mean even in Yemen, Iran is the one which has started that war through its proxy militia .

      I say;
      SAUDI ARABIA INVITED THE ENEMY OF ISLAM, DONALD TRUMP AND SOME ZIONIST AND PERFORMED SWORD DANCING FOR THEM. After they have openly said “Islam is our enemy”. I remember you saying Nabeel Quraish is an enemy of Islam, so he will pay the consequences. Those Saudis who invited the Zionist and Crusader Trump will also pay the consequences including you who is supporting enemy of Islam against Iran who is a Muslim majority country.

      Iran will not tolerate an enemy of Islam with sword dancing and will not allow its country to be destroyed like how Afghanistan, Palestine, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon was destroyed by the Zionist and the Crusaders. I know you will join the Zionist and Crusaders enemy of Islam to destroy Iran. By the grace of Allah you and them cannot destroy the last strong Islamic country of Iran standing strong despite the sanctions and lies against it.

      You said;
      Second, I’m not sure why they have to be your brothers just because they are selling that ” they are against Israel”? These are slogans to attract muslims like you!
      Seriously, why on earth do you think that they are against Israel? Twelver Shia have always been against Islam and with the enemy of Islam.
      They helped crusaders in Acre and Antakya against muslims. They betrayed muslims during Mongolian invasion. Furthermore, Safavid dynasty allied with Portuguese empire to invade Mecca.

      I say;
      Some Sunnis also helped the Zionist and the Crusaders against Islam. SOME SUNNIS are still helping the Zionist and the Crusaders today against Islam. Iran is not helping the Zionist and Crusaders today against Islam. We are against any help by Muslims to Zionist and Crusaders against Islam and SOME SUNNIS did that in the past and are doing it today. Do you like the sword dancing with the enemy of Islam?

      to be continued……

      Liked by 1 person

    • abdullah1423

      You said;
      How dare you to put Saudi with all what it’s been doing for Sunnah and Quran with Iran which exports its cult and the instability in the region?

      I say;
      There is no compulsion in religion. Both Sunnis and Shites knows that, and because of that there are Shites in Saudi Arabia and there are Sunnis in Iran. There have been there for centuries including Christians Jews and the rest living together without major fight until the lies by the Zionist and the Crusaders deceived people like you to take arms against each other.

      Of course just like how Sunnis are spreading our religion, the Shite too are spreading their religion. Christians are also spreading their religion. Islam forbids attacking any religion with arms, unless it attacks you first. Iran is spreading its shite religion and never attacked anyone. Israel attacked Palestine and took it with the help of some SUNNI ARABS. Israel attacked Lebanon and occupied it the Hizbullah with the help of Iran managed to drive away Israel. Do you like Israel Zionist occupying Muslim lands or Shite? Remember Shites are in Saudi Arabia and Sunnis are in Iran with peace for a long time until the Zionist and the Crusaders lies.

      They did not say Iran was the problem but Iraq and it was a lie, there was no weapons of mass destruction. They said Libya was the problem, the said Afghanistan was the problem, they said Arafat was the problem. Now it is Iran. Why? Because they have destroyed all the Muslim majority Arab countries except the non Arab Muslim majority countries. If the finish Iran with your help and may Allay forbid, the next country that is the problem will be Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan.

      Donald Trump has started saying Pakistan is the problem. abdullah1323, you hate your fellow Muslims than the Zionist and the Crusaders and you are supporting them against Iran. I know you will fight with them against Iran like some sunnis did.

      NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION, SO SAID OUR DEEN. ALLAH CREATED US IN DIVERSE AND SAY WE MUST NOT ATTACK OTHER FIRST. If the Shite are spreading their brand of Islam, we also have to counter in preaching the real Islam rather then hating them, fighting them and supporting the Zionist and the Crusaders against them. Iran is a member of organization of Islamic conference and no one accused it as non Muslim. If Iran is accepted as a Muslim country by majority, how dare you say they are non Muslims? Among Sunnis, there are sects and the prophets said Muslims will be divided into many sects. He did not say fight them and hate them to the extent of supporting Zionist and Crusaders against them.

      Thanks.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. Marketing. “Connect a friend today …”

    Logo and Customer Experience really suck.

    Like

Please leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: