Christian Apologetics

William Lane Craig: List of Videos

2011-02-18T01:30:00.000-08:00

Just wanna inform the readers of a particular blog that includes almost every video clip, debate, interview, almost everything available on William Lane Craig.

This is an excellent resource centre.

http://drcraigvideos.blogspot.com/

The Qur'an and the Expansion of the Universe

2011-02-16T18:58:00.000-08:00

Just to notify the readers of this blog, that I posted an article refuting the claim that the Qur'an supposedly predicts the modern concept of Cosmological expansion; the article can be found on this link:

http://debunkingquranicscience.blogspot.com/2011/02/quran-and-expansion-of-universe.html

50% want Creation Science to be taught alongside the Darwinian evolution theory

2011-02-02T11:34:00.000-08:00

Is Darwins theory of evolution becoming unpopular:

A recent MORI poll found that more than 50% believe that children should be taught about creationism and evolution. Only 21% believe that evolution alone should be taught. The views of the majority are currently ignored.
To suggest otherwise is a fatal career move.

http://www.creationconferences.org.uk/index.php?PHPSESSID=39034524f81694a127f8de9594665c6b

Dawkins might possibly blow his bloodvessels, no wonder he is getting desparate

Actually I feel sorry for the guy

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further information on the matter is found on:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm

Just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life, according to an opinion poll.

Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that creationism or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons.

The survey was conducted by Ipsos MORI for the BBC's Horizon series.

Its latest programme, A War on Science, looks into the attempt to introduce ID into science classes in the US.

Over 2,000 participants took part in the survey, and were asked what best described their view of the origin and development of life:

• 22% chose creationism
• 17% opted for intelligent design
• 48% selected evolution theory
• and the rest did not know.

Intelligent design is the concept that certain features of living things are so complex that their existence is better explained by an "intelligent process" than natural selection.

Andrew Cohen, editor of Horizon, commented: "I think that this poll represents our first introduction to the British public's views on this issue.

"Most people would have expected the public to go for evolution theory, but it seems there are lots of people who appear to believe in an alternative theory for life's origins."

When given a choice of three descriptions for the development of life on Earth, people were asked which one or ones they would like to see taught in science lessons in British schools:

• 44% said creationism should be included
• 41% intelligent design
• 69% wanted evolution as part of the science curriculum.
Participants over 55 were less likely to choose evolution over other groups.
"This really says something about the role of science education in this country and begs us to question how we are teaching evolutionary theory," Andrew Cohen added.

The findings prompted surprise from the scientific community. Lord Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society, said: "It is surprising that many should still be sceptical of Darwinian evolution. Darwin proposed his theory nearly 150 years ago, and it is now supported by an immense weight of evidence.

Horizon: A War on Science was broadcast on BBC Two at 2100GMT on Thursday, 26 January 2006

See also an article from 2009:

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/features/The-genius-of-Charles-Darwin.4940624.jp

In fact an article from the Guardian states that only 8 procent believe in the evolution theory (sounds absurd though, these darwinian believers have certainly through academic monopoly managed to twist a fairly higher percentage of our society):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/jul/01/evolution

Correcting three common Muslim misconceptions about Christianity

2011-02-02T08:50:00.000-08:00

I want to make the readers aware of three common and rather typical Muslim claims purposely promulgated to subvert and undermine the crediblity of Christian faith and character.

It amazes me how these deceivers manage to distort a book and text, which they hardly know nor understand:

Did the Apostles believe Jesus to be insane?

The first relates to the personality of Jesus Christ. In the Gospel of Mark, chapter 3, verse 21:

'When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, "He is out of his mind"'

Some Muslims apologists have mistakenly been swayed toward the opinion, that Mark depicts Jesus as a mad personality.

However, noticing that Mark is simply pointing to a sentence uttered by Jesus' own family this claim hardly supports the claim that this constitutes an apostolic perception.

Mark is neither confirming nor stating that Jesus was insane. The passage makes even more sense when perceived within it's context. There was indeed a reason why his family uttered the sentence: 'He is out of his mind'.

Verse 20 clarifies this:

'Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat'

Hence the 'He is out of his mind' utterence was not a specific reaction to Jesus as a person, but rather it records a blaze reference, to an occasion in which he set aside his physical need to minister to the people.

Jesus portrays Christianity is a violent religion

A second claim relates to the judgement of the nations; when Jesus in his second coming brings judgement upon his enemies.

But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them her and kill them in front of me (Luke 19: 27).

Muslim apologists have ignorantly purported the passage to portray a violent Christianity. However, the passage ascends the Christian religion.

Firstly, the passage belongs to the parable of the 'Ten Minas', and does not reveal direct description of an event.

Furthermore, despite the fact that the parable includes Christians, e.g. 'the three servants', those executing the judgement appear to be a group distinguished from these and referred to as ‘those standing by’.

Finally, the parable does not refer to a Christian event, but a futurist, imminent and divine judgement; the closest analogy is Luke 9: 26:

‘If anyone is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels’.

Both Mark and Matthew relate to this event as a time of future judgement:

The Son of Man will send out His angels and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of sins (Matthew 13: 41-42)

As in Luke 19 these angels executing the judgement are distinguished from the actual servants (Jesus followers), about which Matthew records Jesus saying the following:

‘Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the Kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear’ (Matthew 13: 43)

These Muslim apologists seem to confuse between Christianity on earth in the Christian era future and divine judgement.

Did Paul the Apostle encourage deception?

A third misconception is rooted in the Muslim failure to understand a Pauline saying in Philippians 1: 17-18:

'The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing they can stir up trouble for me, while I am in chains. But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.'

Some Muslim apologists reiterate that Paul is encouraging Christians to utilize deceptive tactics and lies in their propagation of the Christian message. However, this is not what Paul is indicating.

Paul refers to certain individuals who preach the Gospel from a wrong motive; he is not describing deception or lies; but rejoices that at least the Christian message spreads among the people; after all, it’s the Christian message, the response of the listener and God who saves and transforms the sinner, the messenger itself does not account for that.

Response to Yahya Snow: Cancellation of a Debate

2011-01-20T17:21:00.000-08:00

The first matter of worry is Yahya’s icon, that somehow symbolizes this article, namely: ‘The Wedding Crashers’. It surprises me that a Muslim that repels jinns out of his own bedroom reveals insight into such a disgustingly immoral piece of a movie! Have you actually watched this film? My wife and I began watching this movie on television and fairly quickly changed to another channel. I would probably refrain from advertising such garbage on my blog, neither would I utilize it as a icon.

Anyway, as before, Yahya is not (or was not) willing to link to my blog, consequently hoping that his readers fail to grasp the full picture of my article; this is not the first time, hence the reason for my sentence: ‘playing dirty’, the use of ‘The wedding crashers’ only confirms this.

Yahya is presenting this entire matter as a farce.

Notice: did I actually conclude that Yahya Snow was behind the cancellation? This is a vital pre-insight prior to the reading of both articles. In fact Yahya himself enforces this particular point when he writes:

‘he has alleged I (little old Yahya Snow) could have been responsible...’

Exactly, ‘could have been responsible’ is probably a more accurate response; that’s what I concluded.

Yahya Snow writes:

This Yahya Snow guy is quite special; he can "cancel debates" without knowing. Wow, just wow!

Could everybody put aside their paranoia for a second – I never knew this “debate” was even arranged, never mind me being the one responsible for its cancellation! [Mr Hagbard is in red]

Hogan replies:

The reason why this will not work, is because Anjum Ahmed was aware of my planned debate with Ayaz prior to October, which was cancelled from my side. Yet I am not certain as to the reason why the particular debate had to be cancelled, the Muslims failed after two months of my continues emailing to arrange the venue and provide me with details despite our agreement over a date.

What I am saying is: in September-October something occurred that caused the otherwise arranged debate in October not to occur. In October we agree to rearrange another debate, which leads to the scenario this January.

In each case the progress, lacks communication from the Muslim side, and ends in some kind of scenario, in this case to shift the debate to another opponent, even at the last minute, without informing the original debater, despite my continuous communication about the program and details of the debate---suspicious???

Yahya Snow writes:

So Hogan deducts this Anjum Ahmed is me because his “writing style resembled that of Yahya Snow??? If I was to email Hogan I would use MY email address and identify myself. I have no idea who this "Anjum" chap is. Does he even exist?

Hogan replies:

You are raising good points: who is this Anjum Ahmed? Does he exist? Why would you email me, not using your own email address?

Can I speculate some more? Is it possible that you are the only Muslim I know who has focused on the ‘brit thing’, such as your youtube response, in which you use the phrase: ‘a fellow brit indeed’. This first thing popping up in my mind is: Yahya Snow.

I don’t know, is your real name Anjum Ahmed? Is Anjum Ahmed possibly a cover name using a cover email address? Why not? People do that?

Yahya Snow wrote:

"Campaign"? Really? Nobody told me everybody “knows” I have been “playing dirty”. Paranoid, just a little?

Hogan replies:

Do I have to get into details? Well in my experience:

1) you write a response to me, you even upload an entire youtube rebuttal,
2) without linking to my actual writing, without informing people what the matter was all about. 3) Consequently when I inform readers about the link on your blog, you ban me and remove my posts.

Is this playing dirty or not?

Yahya wrote:

??? So this bloke (if he even exists) used a phrase I have used and Mr Hagbard’s mind began working overtime. Sad. Is it not possible for others to use the “fellow Brit” phrase? Is it not conceivable that somebody wanted to misdirect Mr Hagbard via the usage of this phrase? Is it not possible for myself to have enough concealment ability in order to drop a potentially incriminating phrase – if the email was from me?

Hogan replies:

So you see the potential possibility: ‘Is it not conceivable that somebody wanted to misdirect Mr Hagbard via the usage of this phrase...’ Exactly, is it not pretty obvious? Is it really a matter of incriminating? Perhaps the ‘fellow brit’ thing simply reveals your personality, such as: I should focus more on what we have in common as ‘fellow brits’ rather than me being a Christian. That’s how I red you in the very beginning of your writing. Both these cases reveal that even you would view the matter suspicious!

Yahya wrote:

“Propagandist”?? That’s not very “Christ-like”.

Hogan replies:

You don’t play that game with me. I view it this way: If you murder, you are a murderer, if you commit adultery you are an adulterer. And in your case: if you engage in propaganda, your are a propagandist. Jesus would do the very same thing. We have excellent evidence of that!

Yahya Snow writes:

Actually, its something Mr Shamoun would spout. Does this mean Mr Hagbard is Mr Shamoun as they have used a similar turn of phrase…according to the paranoid logic of Mr Hagbard it certainly does.

Hogan replies:

Not an excellent comparison

Yahya Snow replies:

Mr Hagbard would be advised to STOP speculating and START investigating the issues before presenting such outlandish conjecture.

Hogan replies:

That is exactly what I am doing. As to Anjum Ahmed, you have already indicated that my deduction was not completely way off.

Yahya Snow:

I suggest Mr Hagbard emails “Ayaz” immediately and finds out as to the real reason why this debate was called off. Once he does this, I expect a public apology for his outrageous aspersions.

Hogan replies:

When these sort of things occur, personal communication is no longer the option, you have been downplayed and tricked already; trust is no longer an option; this is when you go public, firstly to inform about the cancellation, then to stir up a debate about the actual cause of the predicament.
Yahya snow replied:

NOTE: If I was bent on “cancelling” a debate in Birmingham it would not be too difficult for me to get hold of the organisers and ask them to reconsider – I would hardly require the underhand tactics Mr Hagbard’s paranoia is intimating. Furthermore, if the said debate was cancelled by me it would certainly have been mentioned on this blog or via email to Mr Hagbard – I try to operate in an upfront fashion in my blogging of apologetics.

Hogan replies:

Again perhaps you are simply applying ‘taqqya’, perhaps not? How am I supposed to know? As I pointed out: a Muslim, employing similar terminology as Yahya Snow, who is already suspected of an attempt to cause reason for cancelling another debate, emails me, asking for the email address of my opponent—you yourself treated such as suspicious.

Hence the reason, as I already pointed out, that I am inclined to believe that Yahya Snow or someone else has some involvement in the cancellation.

Yahya Snow replied:

Mr Hagbard seems to have taken a page out from the book of Mr Wood. Mr Wood had a debate cancelled and he began to lash out at everybody and anybody. WITHOUT any proof at all he accused little old Yahya Snow (that’s me), an extremist group (Revolution Muslim) and Abdullah al Andalusi (and who knows who else was accused) publicly for such a cancellation WITHOUT any evidence but merely based on his over active mind. This is precisely what Mr Hagbard is doing here.

Hogan replies:

In your world, Yahya, a simple denial or a claim, sorts out every matter and difficulty-seems obvious from your writing.

I suggest the reader deduces the matter himself from the communication between MDI and Acts17 on the answeringmuslim blog.

Yahya Snow replied:

I WAS EVEN ACCUSED OF BEING THIS BIRMINGHAM “AYAZ” BY SOMEONE ON THE INTERNET (IF MEMORY SERVES ME CORRECT IT WAS MR HAGBARD WHO THOUGHT I WAS THE BIRMINGHAM AYAZ!!!!). Welcome to the odd world of Christian internet apologetics. Wow, just wow!

Hogan replies:

Can you link us to where I actually accused you of being Ayaz? Maybe I did and fail to remember, but can show us where?

I remember that I did raise the question? Raising a question is not the same as accusing! Or is it?

Yahya Snow replied:

The Holy Spirit

When Christians behave and reason in such a fashion whilst simultaneoulsy claiming they have the Holy Spirit (they believe this is a person of God) dwelling within them, you just have to wonder as to the subtle manner in which they negate their beliefs. Think about it.

Hogan replies:

The Holy Spirit actually exposes falsehood. Me raising suspicion about you attempting to cancel a debate, does not exonerate me from the Holy Spirit?
You are way off man!!!

Yahya Snow wrote:

It was not me. The New Year has left My Hagbard more than a little paranoid. I EXPECT a public apology from Mr Hagbard soon – email the organisers and get confirmation it had nothing to do with me, pronto!

Hogan replies:

So you want an apology for having accused you of causing a debate cancellation.

Let me analyze what I actually wrote, before you take it that far; as usual you badly misrepresent information:

I wrote:

‘Perhaps the cause of the pull-out relates to such matters’

(Notice that my first alternative is due to Ayaz’ possible inability to debate; then I move to alternative two:)

‘However, earlier this year a certain Muslim, by the name Anjum Ahmed, whose writing style resembled that of Yahya Snow, attempted several times to obtain information about Ayaz, such as emails, etc.

Everyone knows that Yahya Snow has been playing dirty since the very start, and appeard to launch a campaign to cancel debates between Muslims and the Acts17 team’

(notice: I present this as an alternative, not as a direct accusation)

‘This is speculation from my side but I am inclined to think that Yahya Snow or possibly others indeed managed to influence the Birmingham Dawah team to back out at the very last minute, and even without warning. A move that resembles the sudden cancellation between Muslims and Acts17 earlier this year’

(notice, here that my alternative above, is speculation from my side, I do admit that. I never stated that Yahya Snow cancelled my debate, but I did state that I am personally inclined to think that Yahya Snow may have stirred something up. Notice also, my statement: ‘Yahya Snow or possibly others’, hence my suspicion is not solely directed toward Yahya)

There are a number of points to consider here:

1) I state that there is alternative one and two

2) I state that alternative two drives me to view the possibility, that e.g. Anjum Ahmed is Yahya Snow

3) I state that my second alternative is nevertheless speculative

4) I state that my second alternative may not even include Yahya

To put it lightly, Yahya is driving the entire matter out of proportion

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional information:

I mentioned above my suspicion that Anjum Ahmed is Yahya Snow, based on his phrase 'my fellow brit' related to this exact phrase in an attempt to refute me on youtube.

I mentioned that I found a particular trend repeatedly in the early writings of Yahya Snow, this whole thing of me being British and hence having to behave like a british; the primary focus was on being a 'Brit'.

Here is another evidence from a post written by Yahya Snow early last year:

'This is not the way I expect a British Christian to behave,yet alone a Christian who has resided in Bradford, Birmingham and London owing to their respective Muslim populations I would have thought you would have gone beyond such a level of discourse and thought.'

http://christianityresponse.blogspot.com/2010/02/i-am-open-to-learn.html

I am still fairly convinced that Yahya Snow is Anjum Ahmed or Anjum Ahmed is Yahya Snow in disguise. I still have a suspicion about Mr Snow's possible interference to cancel a debate, but as I clarified, that is still speculation from my side.

Now I understand why Yahya Snow is ashamed of revealing his face, I would be too.

Keep in mind Yahya Snow, when it comes to serious, high level interaction within online debating, I give very little for someone who hides himself behind a computer, and I don't believe these 'fellow brits' are gona touch even a hair on your head.

At least you cant brand us Christian debaters who reveal our names or faces, in similar ways, we defend truth and expose falsehood despite the danger we expose ourselves and our families to.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Further additions:

Earlier this year I posted an entire thread on Yahya Snow’s fear to reveal the link to my blog:

http://christianityresponse.blogspot.com/2010/02/my-suggestion-to-yahya-snow.html

My article informed the readers that I deplore Yahya Snow’s responses which are presenting the information he attempts to refute in wrong context. I pointed out that Yahya Snow even fears revealing the original source so as to avoid revealing his deception to his readers, hence his decision to avoid any link to my blog.

Yahya Snow’s latest refutation (an embarrasing attempt) revealed the same deceptive behaviour, to which I responeded and challenged Yahya:

‘I notice that you are still scared of providing a link to my blog. What are you afraid of? That Muslims will actually read the actual source I find you distorting reality?'

To which Yahya Snow replies:

Being "afraid" to link to your blog? Not really!

I don't have the time to compose another blog post in response to your next post. Please respond via comments on my/your blog or via email.

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7465988133223323978&postID=3874882737607321105

Hence Yahya can’t reveal to his readers the original source since he has no time to respond. Last time I commented on his blog my comments were all blocked.

Another Christian-Muslim Debate Cancelled

2011-01-20T05:21:00.000-08:00

I regret to say, that my debate with Ayaz on the 22 Januar in Birmingham has yet once more been cancelled.

I am not certain about the exact reason.

The Muslims were responsible for the venue, and the date was as I am aware of decided between our Muslims in Birmingham and my team in the UK.

By pure luck I contacted the Muslims about the progress of the arrangements and was chocked when informed that the venue, date and debate was still in progress, but against another Christian brother.

If I had not randomly contacted the Muslims, I would still have bought my flight ticked, used a significant amount of money for nothing.

A similar incident indeed occured related to David Wood and Nabeel this year, when the Islamic group MDI in UK managed to urge Islamic debaters in the US to cancel debates with Acts17 last year. A lot of money and time was wasted:

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2010/05/abdullah-al-andalusi-does-mdi-need-new.html

There is suspicion that Ayaz and his team in Birmingham are running. If that is the case, I don't mind, but I wish they would have informed me about this sudden move in reasonably good time.

In a dialogoue between me and Ayaz (earlier this year) over 'the talking ant' in the Qur'an, it became rather obvious that Ayaz did not appear significantly able to deal with indepth debating (the dialogue can be read here):

http://debunkingquranicscience.blogspot.com/2010/07/ant-in-bible-and-quran-dialogue-between.html

Perhaps the cause of the pull-out relates to such matters.

However, earlier this year a certain Muslim, by the name Anjum Ahmed, whose writing style resembled that of Yahya Snow, attempted several times to obtain information about Ayaz, such as emails, etc.

Everyone knows that Yahya Snow has been playing dirty since the very start, and appeard to launch a campaign to cancel debates between Muslims and the Acts17 team.

This is speculation from my side but I am inclined to think that Yahya Snow or possibly others indeed managed to influence the Birmingham Dawah team to back out at the very last minute, and even without warning. A move that resembles the sudden cancellation between Muslims and Acts17 earlier this year.

This is the eamil I received from this Muslim, which I believe is Yahya Snow (notice the fellow Brit thing, a sentence I have only heard from this particular propagandaist):

First email:

Peace be with you Hogan
Can I have Ayaz's email address, I can't find it anywhere!!!
I wanted to talk to him about a private issue. He doesn't know me. I have to ask him some questions.
Thank you my fellow Brit.
Anjum

Second email:

Peace be with you Hogan
Can I have Ayaz's email address, I can't find it anywhere!!!
I wanted to talk to him about a private issue. He doesn't know me. I have to ask him some questions.
Thank you my fellow Brit.
Anjum

Since I do not share email addresses online I obviously declined.

I can't say that I am fully aware of full reason for the sudden decision of the Birmingham Dawah team to pull out. They have complained about matters related to the question-answer part of the event, which as far as I was told was a matter clarified. But I find this new trend worrying, especially when so much money and so many people are involved. I should have been informed about this sudden change of decision well ahead of time and not through my own initiative.

Sorry for my recent Absence

2011-01-20T05:05:00.000-08:00

I want to apologize for my absence the last six months. We have moved into a rather significant ministry (still within the field of apologetics), which has demanded significant time to adapt into a new administration, different topics and a lot of research and teaching.

I intend to resume my writing on my blogs and the answeringmuslims.org blog in nearest future.

Be ready for a whole lot more information on these blogs the next months.

I also agreed upon a written debate with Ehteshaam Gulam on the 'death of Jesus'. Sorry for my delay brother Gulam. Do contact me if you read this.

God bless

Does the Sun orbit the Earth According to the Qur'an?

2010-08-23T07:59:00.000-07:00

I was hoping some Muslims could educate us about these passages.

“(God is) the one Who created the night, the day, the sun and the moon. Each one is travelling in an orbit with its own motion” (Sura 21: 33).

I find it rather obvious from what this passage depicts that the day and night depends upon the orbit of the sun and moon. In other words, contrary to what Muslim apologists exclaim about the sun's galactic orbit, the passage appears rather to describe the sun and the moon in parallel orbits.

It is not permitted to the Sun to catch up the Moon, nor can the Night outstrip the Day: Each (just) swims along in (its own) orbit (according to Law)(Sura 36: 40).

That the Qur'an refers to parallel orbits is further clarified in this passage, which states that the sun and the moon do not catch up each other.

Think of it: what sense does this make if the Qur'an described a galatic orbit since the moon is already attached to such an orbit, and since the orbit relates not to the galaxy but the day and night? Furthermore, notice that this passage states the impossible task of the sun to catch up the moon.

Why can't the sun catch up the moon, is due to its inability to do so? No really! The passage makes it clearly that the sun is not permitted to do so. In other words, the sun has the ability to catch the moon, hence the switch from day to night, since both travel in parallel orbits; yet their abilities to catch up is simply not permitted.

I might here agree with some that the passages are metaphorical, much like Sura 91: 1-2:

By the Sun and his (glorious) splendour; By the Moon as she follows him…(Sura 91: 1-2)

I must say I have no real problem with the metaphorical language of this passage, and I am inclined to believe that this simply describes what is observable from the earth.

Yet there are two further problems here:

The first, which I will refrain from looking at at this point, is the very language utilized by the Qur'an in describing the orbits, which appear to be in a close similtude with the pre-Islamic thinkers.

The second problem derives from the interpretation of Muhammad himself:

Sahih Al-Bukbari clearly confirms some of these as scientific facts (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 421: Narrated Abu Dharr):

The Prophet asked me at sunset, "Do you know where the sun goes (at the time of sunset)?" I replied, "Allah and His Apostle know better." He said, "It goes (i.e. travels) till it prostrates Itself underneath the Throne and takes the permission to rise again, and it is permitted and then (a time will come when) it will be about to prostrate itself but its prostration will not be accepted, and it will ask permission to go on its course but it will not be permitted, but it will be ordered to return whence it has come and so it will rise in the west.
And that is the interpretation of the Statement of Allah: ‘And the sun Runs its fixed course for a term (decreed). That is The Decree of (Allah) The Exalted in Might, The All-Knowing.’" (36.38)

An Outsider's Observation and Perspective

2010-08-19T02:13:00.000-07:00

While I am not living in USA, I have to say that the anti-Christian, liberal, and extreme pro-Islamic movement astonishes me. I guess this is what we Christians refer to as the spirit of anti-Christ.

What do we mean by that! Well in what sense do liberalism, atheism (frequently) and Islam cohere together? Where is the logic? Personally as I see it: these, despite their diversity all originate from the same root!

Here is a comment I found on a forum related to the possibility that Obama is a Muslim in disguise. More and more Americans seem to take this view onboard.

What really concerns me when I read such information is not merely Obama religious view, but the collective force, the trend in USA of liberalists, atheists, media, the political system along with Islam that manages to suppress Christianity to such an extent that the next step practically speaking can only result in serious future injustice against the Christian community.

We can only imagine the effect when such individuals are placed in every significant post of the American society, whether religious affairs, foreign ministry and national security.

Such individuals will simply sell or hand over your nation and rights to foreign forces and cultures, typically due to political correctness or due to decades of mind-twisting liberal and postmodernist philosophies.

Anyway here is the comment!

(I would like to know if all these points are based upon reality and whether the situation really is what the comment portrays.)

You decide for yourself America:

A Christian University is asked to
cover all Crosses in order to have the Pres to speak there, so that it wouldn't
offend "the muslims."

Christians are asked to pray in the street and not
on the lawn of the white house, just a couple of weeks ago;

White House
holds "ram-a-@#$% dinner", a muslim holiday, this last week at the white house;

NASA is asked to not explore space, but to "reach out to the muslim
nations, and let them know how much they've contributed to "space innovation";

Our pres has repeatedly said we are "not a Christian Nation."

Is
he Christian or Muslim?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100819/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_poll_obama_s_religion

The Big Bang and the Qur'an???

2010-08-14T06:10:00.000-07:00

This post includes an essay on the Qur'an and Cosmogony with a focus on the Big Bang theory, which I wrote five years ago. The purpose was obviously to debunk the various exponents of Islam (e.g. Bucaille, Harun Yahya and Osama Abdallah) who propagate their wishful imagination to what they deem as scientific evidence for the Qur'an.

Since then I have greatly expanded my insight into the matter and am currently preparing a more detailed work, which I may post in small parts or in a lengthy essay in near future.
Notice that my intention here is not to debunk the improbability of the Qur'anic view (that will derive in a later post) but to point out that the Qur'anic picture of the cosmological origin was a view that flourished centuries prior to the rise of Islam, and which the authors and composers of the Qur'an appear to have borrowed from circulating teaching or sources, sometimes (possibly) even word for word.

To assess the cosmology of the Qur’an our study has to begin with its concept of cosmogony, the origins. Here Muslims usually refer to Sura 21: 30:

‘Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them, and we made every living thing of water? Will they not then believe? (Sura 21: 30)’

Read more...

http://debunkingquranicscience.blogspot.com/2010/07/quran-and-big-bang-theory-in-comparsion.html

Is this atheist logic?

2010-08-06T10:36:00.001-07:00

Was just informed by an atheist that the cells and DNA system simply confirms that God lacks imagination and furthermore that if God willed or created the cells to reproduce themselves by copies why only cells, why do typical animal or human beings not possess the ability to simply copy themselves rather than undergo the process of sexual intercourse, conception and birth?

What... are atheists now claiming that the DNA system reveals lack of imagination???

Sounds like Dawkins' assertions: that the molecule world is so simple that the evolutionary process easily explains its existance and functions. I agree with Stuart Burgess, that Dawkins' proposition here is naive to the core. The cell and DNA system constitutes a world of complexity far too incomprihensive for modern scientists to fathom.

Hence such an atheist claim amounts to accomplish nothing but to reveal desparation and silliness.

And how about the other argument, that God could have willed the animal world to copy themselves in similar ways to the cells. If that is supposed to be creative imagination the reality is quite the opposite; in fact such an idea reveals only the atheist expectation and view of the world in general, that of chaos, funny how continuous chaos is viewed as comparative with a creative mind of order.

Good grief, what a world, I can imagine making a copy of myself on a everyday basis, imagine 10.000 Hogan Elijah Hagbard's; I can imagine a quick human exodus to Mars. How could we cope, yet imagine a world that was a million times more populated than presently? Would life not have seized several millenniums ago?

Are we not rather to conclude that the world, production and function of the cells and that of the animal and human world are better separated and hence merely reveals the effective mindset of divine intellegence?

Is Muhammad Predicted in the Biblical Old Testament Writings?

2010-08-05T13:33:00.000-07:00

The Koran itself makes this statement, and Muslims have strongly attempted to prove this point by referring to particular passages in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures.

Muslims usually wonder why Christians reject Muhammad as a prophet, and the answer is obvious: 1) the Jewish and Christian Scripture refer nowhere to Muhammad, and secondly 2) Muhammad does not fulfil the standard of a prophet as set out in the Bible.

The Koran says:

“Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own Scriptures in the Taurat and he Gospel” (Sura 7: 157)

And remember Jesus, the Son of Mary, said: “O Children of Israel! I am the messenger of Allah (Sent) to you, confirming the Taurat (which came) before me, and giving a glad tidings of a messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad” but when he came to them with clear signs, they said “This is evident sorcery” (Sura 61: 6)

Thus the Koran states that Muhammad is predicted and found within the Torah and the Gospel as it was read and understood by the Christians and the Jews in the era of Muhammad.

I. Muhammad predicted in the Torah

Muslims will usually claim that God’s blessing upon Ishmael was the prediction concerning Muhammad; however, taking a closer look, we find that there is virtually no prophetic blessing ascribed to Ishmael (Gen. 16:7-15; 17:17-21; 21: 13, 18; 25:12-18). Even the Qur’an itself confirms that the line of prophet-hood ran through the nation of Israel and its prophets (2:47; 29:47; 45:16-17).

The Muslim scholar Jamal Badawi seeks however, to argue his case on the issue by stating that a position of the kind always went to the firstborn first, which in this case is Ishmael, however:

1) this decision was taken before the law was inaugurated,

2) secondly God is above the law and

3) thirdly the context makes the whole setting understandable.

The Bible recognises the same to occur in terms of both David and Solomon (1 Samuel 16:6-13
1 Chronicles 29:23-25), and this is indeed accepted by the Koran:

We gave knowledge to David and Solomoon and they both said: ‘Praise be to Allah, Who has favored us above may of His servants who believe! And Solomon was David’s heir. He said: O ye people we have taught the speech of birds and we have been given of every thing: this is indeed grace manifest (from Allah)’ (Sura 27: 15-16)

The classic point referred to by Muslims is Deuteronomy 18:18 which says:

“I will raise up for them a prophet like you among their own brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I commanded you.”

The attempt of the Muslim is to state that compared to Moses, no prophet presented himself in the same close similitude as Muhammad. To prove their point Muslim scholars have listed a range of parallel elements which mark the life and accomplishments of both individuals.

E.g. Ahmed Deedat in his booklet What the Bible says about Muhammed comes up with these points:

1) Moses and Muhammad were prophets, while Jesus according to the Gospels was the Son of God!

- however, notice that this attempt is futile as the Gospels do refer to Jesus as a prophet too (Mark 6:4)

2) Moses and Muhammad were both married, Jesus was not

- if that is important we also need to consider the number of wives Muhammad had in comparison to Moses, which proves to be highly unequal

3) Moses and Muhammad had both a father and mother, but Jesus had no father

- to use this argument a Muslim is simply referring to Jesus on a much higher level than Muhammad, and secondly if this is important why should we stop here, why not also consider the comparison between the parents of Moses and Muhammad?

4) Both Moses and Muhammad, were accepted by their people while Jesus was rejected

- firstly Jesus was indeed accepted by his followers, and secondly his mission is not over yet. The time is coming when he will receive global acceptance. Secondly, was Muhammad really accepted by all, or did he simply force his rule?

5) Moses and Muhammad were both rulers, Jesus never ruled a people or anyone

- Jesus stated that he is ruling already now over heaven and earth (Matthew 28), however again, his mission is not completed yet, he will return to rule globally

6) Moses and Muhammad gave laws to the people Jesus did not

- wrong again, read the sermon on the mountain or Jesus’ words prior to his ascension (Matt.28:20)

7) Moses and Muhammad died a natural death, while Jesus’ according to the Gospel died as a sacrifice

- 1) Moses was killed by God himself, 2) Jesus died as a sacrifice and 3) Muhammad was possibly poisoned by a Jewish women; which of these three died a natural death?

8) Moses and Muhammad are both buried but Jesus according to the Gospel was taken to heaven

- Jesus was buried for a few days, as for Moses there is no grave, we are left ignorant. The main issue is, is this really and truly relevant anyway?

This kind of approach is obviously formulated by an individual who is grossly desperate and whose lack of Biblical knowledge simply leads him to pull verses out of context, combine them with other verses and add a slight of speculation. For example what has marriage got to do with the similitude of prophet-hood?

If this kind of approach lays the criteria, then the Muslim also needs to consider the elements which speak against Muhammad’s prophet-hood and present a disparate comparison between him and Moses:

Similar argumentation proving Muhammad to be unlike Moses:

1) Both Moses and Jesus were Israelites descending from the prophet line of Isaac of Jacob;
Muhammad was an Arab

2) Both Moses and Jesus were in Egypt; Muhammad was not

3) Both Moses and Jesus were saved as babies; Muhammad was not

4) Moses (Ex.33: 13-14) and Jesus (Matt.11) knew God personally, Muhammad did not!

5) Moses and Jesus could read, Muhammad could not, according to most Muslims

6) Both Moses and Jesus did miracles, but according to the Qur’an Muhammad performed none (Sura 24: 13) (29: 50).

7) Jesus and Moses never advocated foreign gods, however Muhammad at one point encouraged the worship of the three daughters of Allah.

8) The passage in Deut.18: 18 cannot refer to Muhammad since the whole context deals with Israel and individual positions within that society, such as prophets, who were to originate from the nation of Israel, that is: from among their own brothers, just like the kings (17:14-15) and priests (18:2).

Hence this prophecy whether a prediction of a line of prophets (from Joshua and unward) or a specific reference to the Lord Jesus Christ, is a prediction of prophets or a prophet who is an Israelite. This completely devastates the claim of Muslims that this particular prophecy refers to Muhammad.

The Actual context of Deut.18: 15-20

The argument falls to ground merely by considering the actual context of Deut.18, and this is where modern Islamic scholarship finds itself debunked.

“The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your own brethren—him you shall heed (15). Just as you desired of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God or see this great fire any more, lest I die’ (16). And the Lord said to me, ‘They have rightly said all that they have spoken’ (17). I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth…(18)”.

In other words the promise of a prophet like Moses was an answer to Israel’s prayer. One who will succeed Moses and stand between Israel as a nation and God; in this context it had no global or international implication; the matter concerns the nation of Israel only.

Furthermore:

“And whoever will not give heed to my words which he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him (19). But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death (20)”.

It becomes obvious from verses 19-20 that the prophet has a plural significance, in other words, the ‘prophet’ is a prediction of several prophets rather than a particular one.

Secondly, since the passage refers to the context of Israel and the function of prophets there within. In other words, the prophet like Moses begins with Joshua. Thus the most accurate interpretation reveals that the ‘prophet’ refers to the line of prophets, from Moses up to Jesus Christ.

It is vital here, that Muhammad did at one time through prophetical utterance permit the worship of idols. This according to Deuteronomy 18: 20 renders Muhammad as a false prophet. Later the particular verses (known as the satanic verses) were abrogated from the Quran by the angel Gabriel (Sura 17:73 – 75, Sura 22:52-53, Sura 52: 19-26 Bukhari 6: 385; Tabari vol 6: 107).

This one of the main reasons, why Christians refuse to accept Muhammad as a prophet from God and certainly not as the last prophet, he simply did not meet the standard!

There is more, verses 21-22, speak of the actual sign which confirms prophethood, that is the fulfilment of his predictions, say a prophet really speaks for God and Muhammad did fail in this area as well; e.g. Sunan Abu Dawud, book 37: Number 4283 (Did the Dajjal appear in the seventh year of the battle over Constantinople?).

II. Is Muhammad predicted elsewhere in the Old Testament?

Since the word mahamaddim is used in Song of songs 5:16 Muslims quickly assert that Muhammad is being predicted.

However mahamaddim is a Hebrew word, which simply refers to a ‘loved one’ (literary it means delights) in a romantic setting; the same noun is applied in several Old Testament passages such as Hosea 9:6,16; 1 Kings 20:6; Lamentations 1:10,11; 2:4; Isaiah 64:10; 2 Chronicles 36:19; Ezekiel 24:16,21,25.

Secondly the passage does not describe Muhammad but possibly king Solomon or even a shepherd boy.

Often Deut.33: 2 and Habakkuk 3: 3 are used to claim that Paran refers to Mecca, however Paran is located in the Sinai Peninsula near Egypt. Secondly, the context of Deut.33 speaks of an event in the history of Israel, not Saudi Arabia in the era of Muhammad.

Some Muslims refer to the servant in Isaiah 42:1 to prove Muhammad, however the context clearly refers to a Jewish related individual, who is a peacemaker and fits the full context of the anointed Messiah.

The Muslim scholar Badawi postulates that Isaiah 21:13-17 is a reference to the battle of Badr, however the context speaks about the Assyrian and Babylonian invasions of Arabia.

Psalm 84:6 is often used to prove the pilgrimage to Mecca, however the name used, Baca, is located in northern Israel, as near as five miles from Jerusalem.

Isaiah 29: 11-12 is supposed to refer to the giving of the Quran to someone who is unable to read (Muhammad), however according to the context, it is the rebellious people of Israel (not God) who provide the book. Thus, say Muhammad is the focus, then not Allah but the rebellious people of Israel provide Muhammad with the Koran (talk about corruption), and then again, how about the other individual who is literate? Who is he? Also we need to consider that the text is plural, and no particular individual seems to be in mind, and finally the book is sealed and can therefore not be read; is the Muslim thus willing to admit that he can’t read his own holy book?

Isaiah 42-45 speak about a chosen anointed one, yet again we need to look at the context as; in Isaiah 42 the chosen anointed servant clearly is a Messianic prediction, in Isaiah 42-44, 48-49 it is Israel, and in Isaiah 41 and 45 it is the Persian king Cyrus.

Quantum Level Evidence of an Independent or Caused Universe

2010-07-24T09:24:00.000-07:00

How did the universe originate, from where and by which mechanism? Are there traces in the physical realm that may reflect cosmological inauguration, which then suggests another alternative than the necessity of a creator? By far the most developed argument against the theistic view is the often atheist response in which he asserts original building blocks of physics to reflect cosmological origins.

As to the cosmological view of ex nihilo (creation or appearance from nowhere and nothing), the foundational questions being raised related to cosmogony relate primarily to the original building blocks of existence. Are such building blocks self-caused, did they appear independently or were they caused by external factors? If we consider available evidence of an empirical nature, the only supporting pointers are obtained by considering the quantum world particles. Here we need to consider two types of ‘quantum occurrence’, firstly the ‘manipulated lab occurrence’ and secondly the ‘free occurrence’.

Indeed according to the ‘Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle’, particles on quantum level truly appear and behave like ghostlike entities (1), almost equivalent to waves (2). They cannot be interpreted according to time (3), neither can we measure their movement while simultaneously measuring their positions, and vice versa (4). The quantum world also appears completely probabilistic rather than determined (5), and most importantly it has often been asserted that observation reveals their ability to appear randomly out of nothing, through vacuum fluctuation (6).

This conclusion is based however, not upon natural conditions, but by experimental manipulation of particles. By virtually speeding up protons and electrons in particle accelerators by a velocity that almost reaches the speed of light, particles collide from which mass spontaneously appears (7).

Physicists seem to envisage that under such accelerating conditions the ‘initial condition’ of the early universe can be recreated.

While Davies indeed states that such discoveries come close to creation out of nothing (8), he nevertheless raises several objections. He points out firstly, that such particles are ‘dependent’ as they derive from energy within a vacuum rather than a condition of zero energy or virtually nothing (9); secondly, that its process is inaugurated by intelligent lab manipulation rather than a natural random cause (10). Furthermore, such particles are annihilated as spontaneously as they appear (11); in fact some critics remark that manipulated particles may not be real (12).
Hence, while such experiments may reveal the early ‘initial condition’ and Planck time era as Hawking also proposes (13), they do not reveal particles appearing as self-caused, neither do they reveal anything about the condition of a zero energy state or singularity. Here we would need to consider a totally independent fluctuation prior to any envisaged cosmological conditions.
Davies also concedes that these discoveries which occur in isolated systems of laboratories cannot relate to the entire universe (14).

Yet free vacuum fluctuation may still occur within the random abilities of nature. It has been theorized that black holes, which in theory is the closest we reach a singularity state (15), may cause such an occurrence apart from intelligent manipulation. However that is plausible only if it is assumed that gravity or electromagnetism can effect the positive energy of a mass, which indeed is envisaged to occur near black holes (16). If so, it might denote that the universe in its ‘primeval bang’ might have been a zero energy offset by negative energy or gravitational attraction. Yet such reasoning is obviously problematic, as particles appearing within black hole proximity presumably still depend upon some kind of energy (17), occurrence and space.
Hence self-caused, independent energy appears to contradict scientific observation. Current scientific observation reveals that space or vacuum is never empty (18); therefore at the present vacuum never reaches a ground state of zero energy (19).

Accordingly even spontaneous appearance of particles in a black hole proximity are not closely related to ex nihilo either. Hence according to the theory, energy and particles are dependent upon both time and vacuum (20). However, we may also argue that if vacuum, against all logic even succeeded to become entirely empty, particles would still depend upon vacuum (21).

From this we may conclude that while the universe may originally have fluctuated much like quantum particles, quantum particles despite their random behaviour are not independent.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notes

1. Davies, God and the New Physics, p. 103

2. Etienne Klein, Conversations with the Sphinx: Paradoxes in Physics (London: Souvenir Press, 1996), pp. 66-8, 109-23: Einstein envisaged quantum particles to be equivalent to waves; see also Davies, God and the New Physics, pp. 105-11

3. John Barrow, Theories of Everything: The Quest for the Ultimate Explanation (London: BCA, 1991), pp. 63-4; see also John Wright, Designer Universe: Is Christianity compatible with modern Science (Crowborough: Monarch, 1994), pp. 56-7

4. Davies, God and the New Physics, p. 103

5. Ibid, p. 35

6. Quentin Smith, The Uncaused Beginning of the Universe, 1988
http://www.qsmithwmu.com/the_uncaused_beginning_of_the_universe_(1988).htm (Accessed 18 June, 2008)
see also Davies, God and the New Physics, pp.30-4

7. Davies, God and the New Physics, p. 26

8. Davies, God and the New Physics, p.31

9. ibid, pp. 31-2; Davies states that the process of the experiment does not reveal matter appearing from nowhere as we still have to account for where the energy came from in the first place. See also Adams and Laughlin, The Five Ages of the Universe, pp. 6-8; they argue that the energy required to make these particles are borrowed from the vacuum; hence the experiment does not resemble ex nihilo

10. Davies, God and the New physics, p. 31; see also Tony M. Liss and Paul L. Tipton, The Discovery of the Top Quark in David H. Levy (ed.) The Scientific American, Book of the Cosmos, p. 331- 37

11. Adams and Laughlin, The Five Ages of the Universe, p. 7

12. Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator (USA: Zondervan, 2004), p. 123

13. Quentin Smith, Quantum Cosmology’s Implication of Atheism, Infidel.org, 1997
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/quantum.html (Accessed 18 June, 2008)
Here Quentin Smith elaborates on Hawking’s conclusions

14. Davies, God and the New Physics, p. 32

15. Hawking, A Brief History of Time, pp- 93-4, 128 and Hawking, The Universe in a Nutshell, pp. 110-5; see also Antony Flew, There is God, p. 118, he describes the theory of multiverses (see pages 12-3), as all universes, including ours materialised from black holes.

16. Hawking, A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes, (New York: Bantam Books, 1998), pp. 111- 4; see also Hawking, The Universe in a Nutshell, London: Bantam Press, 2001, ppp. 116-129 and Davies, God and the New Physics, pp. 31-2, and Adam and Laughlin, The Five Ages of the Universe, pp. 128-35

17. Davies, God and the New Physics, p. 32

18. ibid, p. 18; see also Adams and Laughlin, The Five Ages of the Universe, pp. 6-7

19. Hawking, The Universe in a Nutshell, pp. 44-5; this is not to be mixed with the fact that the universe as a whole has a total energy of zero caused by positive energy of matter being cancelled by negative energy of attracting gravity, see Hawking, A Brief History of Time, p. 136)

20. Adams and Laughlin, The Five Ages of the Universe, p. 7

21. Heinz R. Pagels, Perfect Symmetry, pp. 338-9

Is Darwinian and neo-Darwinian Evolution outdated in the light of the most recent science?

2010-07-17T17:14:00.000-07:00

Michael Behe in his book Darwin’s Black Box expounds upon the theory of Darwinian evolution and its succeeding postulate neo-darwinism as outdated scientific conjecture in terms of understanding the mystery of life’s origin.

The fact remains quite simple, neither postulate is up to date with the most recent discoveries of the complex molecule system, the cells, it machinary and the DNA.

I have to admit that Behe is not radically opposed to the evolution theory, he writes: ‘I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study development...within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world...however I do not believe it explains molecular life’ (p. 5). Hence Behe is inclined to believe that Darwin’s evolution theory indeed might help understand horse hoofs, but certainly not life’s foundation (p.4).

I realise that many atheists out of ignorance have pointed out that Behe occasionally corrects himself in favour of the evolution theory, however, granted the Behe is open toward evolution, the matter is not related to his occasional favour of evolution in certain often irrelevant details, but his overall tendency to be inclined in favour of design and a more divine intervention that greatly ascends mere naturalism.

Make no mistake about as Behe states: ‘Can all of life be fit into Darwin’s theory of evolution? Because the popular media likes to publish exciting stories and because some scientists enjoy speculating about how far their discoveries might go, it has been difficult for the public to separate fact from conjecture...’ (p.5). Hence here and elsewhere Behe considers much of the evolutionary enterprise as mere humbug; in fact in relation to molecular science he write: ‘...if you search the scientific literature on evolution, and if you focus on your search on the question on how molecular machines machines—the basis of life—developed, you find an eerie and complete silence’ (p.5).

Behe’s further point depicts how Darwinian exponents have utilized in their tendency a range of childish and simply solutions to explain the complexity of the molecular system and the human body as a whole, e.g. the eye, which Darwin claimed had gradually evolved from a very simple function to the human incredibly complex machinery, and this conclusion based upon the idea that the lesser effective examples of functional eyes in a variety of animal species would therefore have to reveal a gradual evolvement from a lesser effective function to another; however this trick will not do with the newer and more advanced discoveries within biological science; we have today advanced far too considerably to fall for such outdated conjecture.

According to Behe the evolution theory is simply an outdated model of the understanding of life and its origin, which in modern days ought to be exchanged for the new advancement in science which recognises that biology and the human body is based much more upon engineering science than mere natural evolution, and which therefore demands a creator.

Interestingly a year ago I read a Danish report laying in the Danish embassy in London (2009) which reckoned that the Darwinian evolutionary theory was only held as a valid theory by 20 percent of the British population, the number is supposedly the same in Denmark, an utterly secular nation.
What does this suggest? It suggests that Darwinian evolution is currently a theory that the majority of thinking individuals recognise based upon the most recent discoveries as devoid of logic, reason and proof, and that there is far too much more complex and intelligent details that suggest an intellectual cause for the origin of life rather than random effect and a meaningless universe.

I guess individuals will have to decide between the most recent atheist conclusion, namely that E.T. planted DNA in the sea 400 million years ago (which of course begs the question, on which star E.T. was planted, when and by whom) or that a divine and eternal being not depending upon neither time, space or anything, by its own intellect, will and power originated existence and life.

Update: Zakir Naik banned from Canada too

2010-06-22T12:12:00.000-07:00

There is now an update on the Zakir Naik versus the West Controversy: Zakir Naik now appears to get banned from Canada too:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/06/22/controversial-muslim-televangelist-zakir-naik-banned-from-toronto-conference/

Zakir Naik banned from the UK

2010-06-22T12:07:00.001-07:00

Home Secretary Theresa May said she had barred Zakir Naik, a 44-year-old television preacher based in Mumbai, for inflammatory remarks he was known to have made in the past.

Naik had been due to give a series of lectures in London and the city of Sheffield in northern England.

"Numerous comments made by Dr Naik are evidence to me of his unacceptable behaviour," May said in a statement, without elaborating.

The Daily Telegraph on Friday reported Interior Ministry sources saying that 2006 website footage had shown Naik telling Muslims it was acceptable to embrace terrorism in certain instances.

According to the paper, Naik said Muslims should beware of people saying Osama bin Laden was right or wrong, adding: "If you ask my view, if given the truth, if he is fighting the enemies of Islam, I am for him.

"If he is terrorising the terrorists, if he is terrorising America the terrorist, the biggest terrorist, every Muslim should be a terrorist."

He is also reported by the paper to have suggested Western women make themselves "more susceptible to rape" by wearing revealing clothing.

"Western society has actually degraded (women) to the status of concubines, mistresses and social butterflies, who are mere tools in the hands of pleasure seekers and sex marketeers," the paper quoted him as saying.

May said: "Coming to the UK is a privilege not a right and I am not willing to allow those who might not be conducive to the public good to enter."

The minister made it clear she had not banned him simply because of his views, which is prohibited under the law.

A Home Office spokesman said the powers were used if an individual expressed views that "foment, justify or glorify terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs" or "seek to provoke others to terrorist acts."

He declined to elaborate on the exact nature of his comments, or when they were made.
(Reporting by Stefano Ambrogi; Editing by Alison Williams)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7836557/Home-secretary-Theresa-May-bans-radical-preacher-Zakir-Naik-from-entering-UK.html

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20100618/tuk-uk-britain-preacher-ban-fa6b408.html

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20100618/tuk-home-office-bans-indian-muslim-preac-a7ad41d.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/10349564.stm

Here is the youtube in which Zakir Naik glorifies terrorism on USA:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxk5AAA5FbI&feature=related

The previous trend of Western over-kindness to those who wish to harm to our society is deplorable. Of course we should not permit terrorists or the exponents of terrorism, supression and persecution (such as Zakir Naik) to enter our society; I rejoice over this decision of the UK.

Richard Dawkins turns to the Aliens

2010-06-17T18:10:00.000-07:00

I recommed greatly the documentary movie of Ben Stein: 'Expelled, no Intellegence allowed'

In a interview with Ben Stein, Richard Dawkins finally admits that the earliest stages of life's development is indeed slightly complicated if we adduce from the bulk of modern wildly imagined postulates that life evolved from utter chaos by nature's random process.

Now our shaken atheist buddy suggests that life on earth might originally be created by some almost incomprehensible alien being which consequently planted this life on earth. Obviously Dawkins presumes that these alien beings were also the products of random evolution.

I am amazed, our atheist friends now believe in aliens and that life on earth was produced by aliens!

After such ridicolous statements should I still expect that atheists believers and exponents will continue to solely follow their highpriest?

At least Dawkins is ready to embrace the fact that a non-earthly being or force intelligently controlled the complexity of human life, unfortunately he hardens his mind and hearth to simply reject the possibility that such a being might be God. Secondly what gives Dawkins the authority to state that such alien beings were evolved through evolution? Seems that Dawkins has an effective explanation to the realm of the universe unknown to us and the mysterious unknown to us.

A Muslim Challenge

2010-05-21T17:08:00.000-07:00

On one of the threads of this blog a Muslim who calls himself Ashfaq wrote:

ASHFAQ said...
Dear Sir

Iam asking you, can you read Ezekiel chapter 23 in the meeting hall? I will book the hall for you and you can invite your people and I will invite my people in the hall. I dare you come in the meeting hall and read Ezekiel chapter 23 in front of all the people. Send me message at www.youtube.com/ayuzma

Read the entire thread, comments and response here:

http://christianityresponse.blogspot.com/2010/01/why-i-am-christian-apologist_31.html

Hogan replies:

Hi Ashfaq

I will most gladly come and read Ezekiel 23 out loud for you. You are mostly welcome to pay my flight tickets, my stay and whatever expanses related and to rent a hall. When you have done so, I will come and read the passage out loud. I also will invite every believer in the area to come and listen.

Now, what is your name and contact number?

If you provide me with that I will quickly arrange a contact person to whom you can give the money.

As soon as the money are provided I will come and read Ezekiel 23 for you
.
Furthermore I would like to challenge you as well. At this same venue and in the same gathering, I would like you read before the entire gathering Sura 33: 50-52:

033.050
PICKTHAL: O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war, and the daughters of thine uncle on the father's side and the daughters of thine aunts on the father's side, and the daughters of thine uncle on the mother's side and the daughters of thine aunts on the mother's side who emigrated with thee, and a believing woman if she give herself unto the Prophet and the Prophet desire to ask her in marriage - a privilege for thee only, not for the (rest of) believers - We are Aware of that which We enjoined upon them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess - that thou mayst be free from blame, for Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.

033.051
PICKTHAL: Thou canst defer whom thou wilt of them and receive unto thee whom thou wilt, and whomsoever thou desirest of those whom thou hast set aside (temporarily), it is no sin for thee (to receive her again); that is better; that they may be comforted and not grieve, and may all be pleased with what thou givest them. Allah knoweth what is in your hearts (O men), and Allah is ever Forgiving, Clement.

033.052
PICKTHAL: It is not allowed thee to take (other) women henceforth, nor that thou shouldst change them for other wives even though their beauty pleased thee, save those whom thy right hand possesseth. And Allah is ever Watcher over all things.

Wow, that is moral standard or what?

Atheism and the Big Bang theory: Is there coherence?

2010-03-22T07:14:00.000-07:00

The Big Bang Theory implies that the universe erupted from nothing or from an infinite state of singularity in which the entire energy and existence of the present universe was confined. Initially as the universe bursts out of this prison it expands through various stages until matter and energy is released in open space and matter is freed to form into gaseous clouds, then into stars gathering into groups of galaxies.

Contrary to the often held notion that the Big Bang is an atheistic model of existence, the Big Bang theory would require the need of an original mechanism, it implies the necessity and need for a creator who powered it, including a cause behind the universe that depends upon intelligence. This has indeed caused concern within the scientific academic world, which otherwise induces natural explanations only (Andrei Linde, The Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe, in The Scientific American (ed.) David H. Levy, New York, Macmillan Publishers, 2000, p. 386).

Very few atheists dare to touch this topic in details and most scientists and philosophers either remain silent on the matter or at least indicate the possibility of divine action. The former atheist Antony Flew claims that the Big Bang theory changed everything and disturbed the naturalistic paradigms of the cosmologist and the atheist alike (There is a God, pp. 136-7). Also Hawking records that there were reactions against his work since it upset many physicists while it delighted religious leaders who believed in an act of creation, ‘for here was scientific proof (Hawking, The Universe in a Nutshell, p.41).’ Indeed the atheist exponent, Quentin Smith, concedes that among atheists an uncomfortable silence ruled and the response is weak and almost invisible (see Quentin Smith, A Big Bang Cosmological Argument For God’s Nonexistence (Infidel.org, 1992)

Consequently, a number of atheist scientists have embraced as a clear probability the existance of a creator, e.g. Robert Jastrow and Antony Flew (see: Jastrow, Until the Sun Dies, p. 21 and Antony Flew, There is God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (New York: Harper Collins Books, 2007), pp. 136-7).

Exposing Barakah: A rhetoric interrogation by Barakah on Pal-talk’s: ‘Muslim Women are Respected and Not Oppressed’.

2010-03-06T23:31:00.000-08:00

On 5 Mars I was contacted by a Christian debater from Pal Talk and after a little chat I decided to journey through a number of rooms on the Social issues.

One particular room of interest was the Islamic room: ‘Muslim Women are Respected and not Oppressed’, which was administrated by an Arabic female Muslim with a French accent, by the name ‘Barakah’ whom I (after 30 minutes experience on the chat room) deem to be a psycho.

As far as I know the name 'Barakah' means blessing, however, the experience was closer to a curse.

I entered the room ‘Muslim Women are Respected not Oppressed’ stayed for a little while whereupon I left a link to a Christian site before entering another room. Leaving a link seemed reasonable to me since it did not seem to be prohibited. After a minute, Barakah virtually hunts me down on pal-talk, sending me at least 15 notifications and a private message.

In the private message Barakah through rather intimidated wordings challenged me to be brave enough to dare enter the room again where she threatened to publically expose me and my religion. It was quite obvious from her wordings that I would be considered a coward unless I acted upon her command.

It was also perfectly obvious to me that entering the ‘Muslim Women are Respected and Not Oppressed’ room, meant entering a room full of Muslims, with debate based upon violent insult, intimidation and Muslim rhetoric including an admin that would continually victimize me by red doting by blocking my text and muting my voice.

After a few minutes I nevertheless decided to take the risk and give the Muslim female debater a chance.

I quickly realised that my expectation of the room were far from exaggerated. Barakah made it very clear that she did not care about me or my religion, or my answers or explanation; in fact she claimed openly that as a Christian I simply had no answers and nothing worth saying, so I could simply spare myself the effort.

So now I was getting really confused, she had called me back into the room to defend my faith, yet after meeting her challenge and being brave (according to her mentality) and entering the room I am immediately informed by her and the room that they have already presupposed that as a Christian I should not be listened to.

This was turning out to get really funny.

Well I still decided to give her a chance.

After several minutes of abuse and rhetoric (only God knows what I had to put up with) she finally asked me to come to the mic and show the room ‘where Jesus says he is God’. I had a good answer to her question, but I refused to enter a debate that reminded about an interrogation (I know that Muslims tend to like it this way, my own experience is an excellent example). I am indeed happy to debate or dialogue, yet if Muslims think that I am or consider myself a ‘dhimmi’ like the Christians they suppress in their own Muslim nations (and from whom they mentally drain all confidence and personal pride), they will quickly find themselves very offended.

Rather than letting Barakah interrogate me and decide my wordings. I asked for five minutes to explain this question but I never got that far; after only 15 seconds I was muted. Barakah came back on the mic and insulted me for being unable to answer and scared to deal with the issue whereupon she challenged me to take the mic again and answer her question.

Again I only managed to speak on the mic for 10 seconds, without being allowed to answer the question. I got muted as before by Barakah, who again resorted to insult my personality, religion and had the audacity to claim again and again that I was a coward. She had even blocked my writing to unable my comments to her insults and abuse.

She challenged me a third time to take the mic and answer her question.

By this time it was clear that this was not a debate or a dialogue but a rhetorical conversation in which I was being interrogated and yet not permitted to answer. This was abuse, intimidation, manipulation a joke. She stated time and time again that she had no interest in my answer and explanation, that it was simply a waste of her time.

The third time I elaborated on the word ‘coward’, this time I literally called her a coward, after all she was the one being too scared to engage me in a proper dialogue without continually red dotting me after 10 seconds and muting my answers. I pointed out that I probably was the only Christian in a room of 60 Muslims who continuously abused my character and religion, muted my answers and blocked my writings; this whole scenario was literally ridiculous.

At this point Barakah accused me of insult (yeah try imagine) and continually called me a coward and chicken for not sharing in her rhetoric games (all I had asked for was for me to answer her question in my own way; but Barakah insisted that my answer would be a waste of time).

I was allowed to the mic a fourth time, this time I challenged Barakah for a proper the debate on any subject but under a different admin, an admin would that play fair games; but Barakah (this blessing of Allah does not like fair games) as before I was muted within 15 seconds. In fact I had already challenged Barakah to debate me properly prior to this, even in writing.

This obviously made Barakah go crazy, I guess the Muslim listeners began realizing that she was running away from a challenge, and she muted me as before, called me a coward and heaped upon me insult upon insult.

I even apologized if I had come on against her too strongly or if she had found me insulting her, and again I asked respectfully if she was interested in debating me under a proper debate format and a fair admin (yeah imagine I even humbled myself to that level).

This dialogue (if we can call it a dialogue) went on for 30-40 minutes, I went on the mic probably ten times, asking her to debate me formally, and every time being red dotted after 10-15 seconds whereup I was insulted and intimidated to every possible length and at the same time prohibited from writing.

Finally I had enough and left.

I have to say that the experience reminded me of my early days in Birmingham, being encircled by 10-20 Muslims and being bombarded with questions and arguments without being given the opportunity to answer.

http://christianityresponse.blogspot.com/2010/01/why-i-am-christian-apologist_31.html

In fact most Muslims I have encountered in debate and dialogue are not interested in the Christian answering, either due to the ‘dhimmi’ mentality or because they are scared to listen and particularly scared of the answers or objections raised by the opponents (possibly both).

Barakah seems to have all the questions but to dread the answers and the contra attack against her faith.

I would advise Christians not willingly to submit themselves to chat rooms or individuals who resort to such behaviour or rhetoric methods. Yet my challenge to Barakah remains, I am more than willing to meet her in a proper debate with a pre-planned format under an admin which will act fairly toward both of us.

The impression I had of Barakah is: she knew that in a proper debate against me and without her administrative authority to reddot and mute her opponents, her arguments and her faith would have been ripped into pieces (she knew that); hence the reddot was and is her only protection.

However, I seem not to be the only one having experienced the desperately antagonising behaviour of Barakah; here is another example from Youtube (but it reveals far from the level of antagonizing behaviour Barakah experienced by me):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqbRizFjjQk

My only conclusion after 40 minutes on her chat room is: despite her admin authority and reddot she was hiding behind she was in reality on the run.

Illustrations and Examples of the Lack of Logic in Muslim Argumentation

2010-02-27T13:43:00.000-08:00

How do Muslims engage in dialogue? Here are three excellent illustrations from the answeringmuslims.org blog; two by David Wood and one example from Fatman (I suggest the reader to read the illustrations in their full context from the that blog; but I am just fascinated how this illustrates so perfectly what we are dealing with and which I myself have experienced firsthand):

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2010/02/on-proper-and-improper-use-of-extra.html

DIALOGUE #1
CHRISTIAN: The Qur'an says, "Fight those who do not believe" (9:29). This means that Muslims are supposed to fight unbelievers.
MUSLIM: No, it simply meant that one particular group of Muslims was supposed to fight a particular group of Christians that was attacking them at a particular time.
CHRISTIAN: That's not what it says at all.
MUSLIM: But that's what it means.
CHRISTIAN: Can you give me a Muslim source saying that?
MUSLIM: No, but that's what it means.
CHRISTIAN: Well, since you can't give any Muslim sources that agree with your interpretation, let me give you some commentaries that agree with my interpretation. Ibn Kathir says . . .
MUSLIM: Ibn Kathir! Who cares what Ibn Kathir or any other Muslim commentator says!
CHRISTIAN: It seems you don't want to listen to classical Muslim commentators because they say that "Fight those who do not believe" means "Fight those who do not believe."
MUSLIM: Enough of this paranoid, Islamophobic racism!

DIALOGUE #2
MUSLIM: Christianity is a religion of violence and bloodshed!
CHRISTIAN: Nonsense. Jesus said that we are to love our enemies and to pray for those who persecute us (Matthew 5:43-48). He said that His followers do not fight, because the Kingdom of God is not an earthly kingdom (John 18:36). When one of His followers used the sword, Jesus condemned the attack (Matthew 26:52). Paul said that we "do not war according to the flesh (2 Corinthians 10:3-4).
MUSLIM: Yes, but all of those verses mean the opposite of what they actually say. They really mean that Christians are to hate their enemies and that they are to spread Christianity through the sword.
CHRISTIAN: That's not what the verses say.
MUSLIM: But that's what they mean. And to show you that Christians are supposed to hate their enemies and spread Christianity through the sword, let me quote a Christian theologian from a thousand years after the New Testament was written.

The third illustration is from Fatman; I am not posting all of it here due to certain inapropriate wordings, but the full quote can be read on the answeringmuslim.com blogspot:

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2010/02/on-proper-and-improper-use-of-extra.html

I once had the following conversation

Muslim: To understand the Quran
you need to use the Hadeeths, but only the hadeeths that agree with the Quran.

ME: Well how am I to know which hadeeths agree with the quran if the
hadeeths are to explain the quran in the first place?

Muslim: Well
that’s were the science of the hadeeths comes in, see we have Scholars, and they
are really smart they study the quran and hadeeths and they know which hadeeths
to use.

Me: Ok then here is what Ibn Ksthir says, or this scholar or
that scholar...

Muslim: Scholars? Those are only men, we don't accept
everything a scholar says only what the quran says....

Me: But wait you
just told me that to understand the quran I need to read the hadeeths but only
the hadeeths that agree with the quran. And to know which hadeeths agree with
the quran I need to read what the scholars say, but now you say scholars are
only men and you don’t listen to men but only the Quran...

Muslim: Yes
you see now you understand... (I'm not making that part up, he really thought I
was getting it and was really impressed started doing the whole MASHALLA thing.
I mean he got really exited)

Pause for laughter because it gets
better...

The Muslim then proceeded to read some verses in arabic... and
then he said...

Muslim: See how beautiful that is (Then he gave the
challange to produce something like it in arabic)

Me: I dont understand
arabic, or have any clue as to what you just said.

Muslim: That’s ok I
understand arabic and I will tell you what the quran says,,, YOU HAVE TO TRUST
ME. (And no I'm not making that part up either

It was at this point that
the conversation really went down hill, because I was unable to control my
laughter at this point.

He finally said...

"Why are you not a
muslim now? I have read for you lots of verses from the Allahs book in his won
language Arabic. You should be a Muslim by now."

Now keep in mind this
conversation started because I was invited by a woman who converted to islam. I
guess these are the arguments that swayed her to leave christ.

Finally
it broke down to the point, where he said I wasted his time, something about my
mother working in a brothel with my sister

I have to say I have had several similar experiences when talking to Muslims. I will never forget debating a Muslim on rape in Islam and quoting a number of passages from the Hadiths in which Muhammad literally permitted his soldiers to rape female war captives whose fathers, husbands, sons had been either killed or captivated; he responded that the text did not say 'rape' but simply that these soldiers of Islam intended to have sex with these women. He somehow assumed that these soldiers had a romantic relationship with these victims.

Now try to imagine the logic: the women have been captured, their familes killed or captured and their lives are devastated forever; are we correctly to assume that these women would fall in love with these terrorists upon the day of their devastation, I simply don't think so!

And even if such would be the case, it would suggest that Islam, the Qur'an and Muhammad (the prophet of Islam) legalised and encouraged immorality, promiscuity and sex prior or outside marriage. Well that ought not to surprise us since Muhammad and his followers originally engaged in the use of prostitutes through contemporary marriages, known as muta marriages (marriages for one or two nights by payment).

My suggestion to Yahya Snow

2010-02-15T01:25:00.000-08:00

Since Yahya Snow has not welcomed my rebuttals of his youtube video, in which he criticises my comments made on http://www.answeringmuslims.com/ that Islam is demonic (see link: http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2010/01/pakistan-twelve-year-old-christian-girl.html ), and since Yahya has even removed the comment section on his blog to prevent the links and my responses to his youtube video (read his explanation: http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/02/comment-section.html ), all I am going to do now is to ask Yahya to edit his own post and to provide the links to my blogs under the video.

My rebuttals can be read here:

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2010/02/hogan-elijah-hagbard-responds-to-yahya.html
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2010/02/my-written-response-to-yahya-do-i.html

This should be fair and honest toward me and the issue that has been brought up.

So far Yahya's readers and viewers are only introduced to his side of the matter and his refutation, which I have refuted into pieces (check the links to my rebuttals).

Other Christian apologists such as Semper Paratus have experienced a similar treatment doing dialogue with Yahya Snow:

http://smprparatus.blogspot.com/2010/01/yahya-snow-challenged-to-debate-trinity.html

So far Yahya Snow has been permitted to post freely on my blogs and the blog of Semper Paratus and he is still free to post there. Yet we do not share in this privilege when entering the blog of Yahya, which is slightly complicated when engaging in a dialogue.

I can only conclude so far that Yahya is probably being afraid of being exposed.

Yahya has contacted me urging me to be patient, however, this is not a matter of being patient, the issue concerns the basic and simple honesty of providing the full picture of our dialogue to the readers; that simply cannot demand all this time.

I will be patient and wait as long as it takes for his next rebuttal of my refutations of his video, but at least I expect him to share with his readers the full scale of this dialogue.

So what is the problem? Why is it so difficult for Yahya to provide the links to my rebuttals on Yahay's blog?

Why is Yahya afraid of comments? He claims that unmoderated comments are chaotic, and I can only say: good grief. I run three blogs and contribute to a fourth, I have never had that problem. But now Yahya states that even moderating the comment sections is an impossible task, mainly due to blasphemous statements (I guess my honest rebuttals) and dubious links (my blogs). Due to this he closed down the comment sections.

See his reason for removing the comment section here below:

'It has been removed. A moderated comment section was in vogue, however seen as I am being further pressed for time I cannot commit to moderated comments...which does require time and effort as many comments contain blasphemy and dubious links.
An unmoderated comment section does notwork...it has been tried in the past and has failed pretty miserably :(

So, for those who wish to interact or have suggestions then please contact me via YouTube.'

See link below:

http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/02/comment-section.html

All I am asking Yahya to do is to present his rebuttal against me in full context and to allow his readers to know that Hogan has defended himself: that Hogan does not perceive himself as misbehaving nor does he perceive himself as being unwise. Furthermore, his readers and viewers ought to know that Hogan has defended himself against several remarks in the video in which Yahya states that Hogan must know otherwise and that Hogan has not read the Bible. Also the readers and viewers of Yahya should be introduced to the real matter, that is: what Hogan originally reacted to.

I expect therefore Yahya Snow to show honesty in this matter and edit his video or original post on his blog and on the youtube and provide the links to my rebuttals and the original issue I reacted to when I made the comment.

No offence bro, I respect you and I hope we can keep up the dialogue.

God bless

Eight Fundamental Questions to the Christian

2010-02-13T17:50:00.000-08:00

1. How do you know God exists?

There are a number of reasons why I believe in God; I will briefly expound on a few of these:

1) the fact that the universe began; 2) that fact there is existence rather than not; 3) the fact that the universe and life reveals organisation, design, symmetry and systems so complicated that nature and random evolution could not possible offer an alternative explanation. This makes God probable and existence without God improbable.

Furthermore, my faith in God is based upon my own experience when becoming a Christian and experiencing the supernatural aspects and side of Christianity, what we describe as the power and presence of the Holy Spirit including (and this is the most vital aspect) its transforming effect upon my life.

A third reason for my belief in God is based upon my own research and studies. Having devoted myself to investigate the Christian faith historically has simply confirmed my faith in God and the Bible.

A fourth reason probably relates more to the field of ethics and logic. I find it utterly repulsive that atheists and post-modernists can refer to ethics as relative or simply genetically inherited, etc. The fact that the human mind incorporates the ability to distinguish between good and evil confirms a law and hence a law giver (of some kind); from this we can adduce that ‘all there is’ is not simply a meaningless and purposeless universe in which we attempt to perceive or make some sense; in fact without God life and nature leaves no room for life-meaning, law, right and wrong. I guess Stalin’s concentration camps and Hitler’s gas chambers are obvious evidences of such a philosophy perceived to its core.

2. What is a Christian?

We need to be cautious about the term 'Christian', while many people would categorize themselves as Christians, the majority falls short to the full Biblical meaning of what constitutes a genuine and true Christian.

A Christian is Biblically to be perceived as 1) an individual who believes in the one God of the Bible; 2) who believes in Jesus as God revealed in flesh who entered the world to atone and save humanity from sin and future judgement. 3) Furthermore, a Christian is someone who has embraced the doctrines of Christianity in faith, repented from a life that opposes the standard of God and consequently devoted his life in service God. This makes a person a follower and disciple of Jesus.

3. Does Christianity make people good?

Well to put it more correctly Jesus Christ transforms an individual to a very different lifestyle; so yes certainly, it makes an individual into a good person. A true Christian has not only devoted his life to submit to and follow God but equally to make a difference in the world and to help and support his fellow human beings.

Christianity is therefore to be perceived as a transforming religion; it transforms the individual and the community he or she lives in. This is the reason why Christianity is so attached to social work and relief work; communal transformation constitutes what his religion stands for.

The Bible makes it rather clear, that Christianity without personal and communal transformation is not Christianity.

4. Do you think Christianity might benefit a society?

In the UK where I live, Christianity is probably one of the major contributors in the society to reach out to the homeless, the broken families, those who are neglected and lonely including the morally neglected population of youth. In various UK locations, the government has commended and urged the church to lay the ground-work socially, where the government has failed, including to provide moral sexual education to a morally bankrupted youth culture. The money and time Christians poor into the community is simply unbelievable.

I would like to see atheists (if atheism really holds the key to the solution of mankind) put less attention into the complaining trend and propaganda and if they really care about society and humanity, to focus more on the everyday problem of decline of the Western civilisation caused by decades of secularist philosophy.

5. What about all the evil and atrocities Christians have committed throughout the centuries?

We need first to clarify which atrocities you have in mind. For example the Crusades, as wicked as they might have appeared, are not correctly categorized as a Christian campaign but more of a political response to Islamic invasion of Christian territory.

Furthermore, the atrocities often ascribed to the Catholic Church also need to be clarified. When Christianity became a state religion it led to an influx within society, the multitudes simply streamed into the church without conversion or proper Biblical understanding of what a Christian is. Many of these initially reached high levels in the so called Christian community, which led to early persecution of pagans. Still in all this, Christianity gradually transformed society even though such a progress took centuries.

Yet the bottom line is, that so called Christians or priests who engaged in the hunting of witches, Jews and heretics were simply not following the teachings of Jesus Christ, hence according to Christian Scripture these were not real Christians.

6. But does the Bible itself not confirm that these misconceived Christians were correct in their conduct?

If you are referring to the Old Testament, then no, not at all! It does not confirm that these people were following Christian conduct. The Old Testament constitutes the Mosaic Law for the nation of Israel in a specific time and in a specific situation including the narrative that accompanies it, followed by additional divine prophecy as the history of Israel proceeds. In Matthew, chapter 5 Jesus clarifies that he has come to fulfil the law and the prophets, which culminated with John the Baptist from which a new era derived, the Kingdom of God (Matthew, chapter 11).

Hence: 1) the Law had ended; 2) the narrative applies to the situation in which it occurred and 3) Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament prophets by fulfilling its predictions, in which the Servant of God would die as an atonement for the people and be brought to life again (Isaiah 53) and from which the Spirit of God would indwell his people. All these elements of the Kingdom of God were predicted in the Old Testament prophets.

Hence in contrast to the Law given to Israel, in the Kingdom of God, the followers are not told to fight physically for their faith or to engage in the cultural and situational norms that belonged to the Mosaic society due to its time and situation; this should be logical to anyone. Hence committing atrocities in the name of God or Jesus in a Christian context is breaking away from the teaching and ethics of the Kingdom of God.

7. What evidence is available that might support the historical claims of the Christian faith?

It’s an obvious fact that Jesus existed! His teaching and the narrative surrounding it were transmitted down to us by Jesus' own apostles. This resulted initially in 50 AD to 80 AD in two written records of this transmission, written by actual apostles (Matthew and John) and further two written works, one from apostolic dictation (the Gospel of Mark) and the other recorded from oral transmission (the Gospel of Luke). The latter ones were written by two apostolic disciples Mark and Luke. Mark recording the dictation of the Apostle Peter and Luke utilizing already existing written records (Matthew and Mark---sorry I am not convinced about the two-hypothesis theory nor Q) alongside oral transmission. All this occurred while apostles and other eyewitnesses of Jesus were still alive and mutually controlling the information.

These writings were written down between 50 AD and 80 AD only, the written record beginning as early as 20 years after Jesus’ death, resurrection and ascension. Based upon the Jewish culture, environment and the Jewish ability and trend of the time to preserve and accurately transmit tradition it is most likely that the transmission was not corrupted nor lost within the 20 years gap between 30 AD and 50 AD. Neither was it lost in the following century, since the methods of preservation were still being applied. Furthermore, since this was the eyewitness era both corruption and loss of transmission is highly unlikely.

If we move toward the early second and late second century into the early third century, we possess a number of manuscripts of these writings. As we move from early third to late third century the number of manuscripts increases. Here we apply textual criticism. Interestingly, textual criticism has not revealed corruption or fabrication expect what we would naturally expect and recognise as typical textual errors.

So think of it this way: based upon the apostolic succession and transmission from 30AD to 90-100 AD and from 100 AD to 180 AD (the era of apostolic disciples) it is unthinkable that the information was corrupted. From that time one we already have empirical access to the information which due to the field of textual criticism confirms that the information was effectively preserved by writing.

Hence the supernatural history of the Gospels is combined effectively with secular history.

8. Why should anyone chose the Christian faith above another religious or philosophical path?

Well, atheism is in decline and has been in decline since the discovery of the Big Bang theory. In Science the fact that the universe has a beginning has not supported the philosophical ground for atheism.

Furthermore atheism has nothing to offer the world, except for the notion that we live in a senseless and meaningless universe in which laws and ethics are relative; these views are contradictory to observation and experience of nature and life in general and are repulsive to human achievements.

These views are not attractive to the human mind; in fact they are dangerous, as they reduce humanity to an animal and from that level to mere atoms. Furthermore, this view fails to strictly distinguish between good and evil, it also lead to individualism, causes moral decline, population decline and initially national breakdown.

This is why humanity needs to consider theism in its aspects, such as God, cosmological order and purpose, absolute morals and ethics, absolute rules, goals, etc.

Yet would not vote for any type of theism on the religious market!

There are a number of theistic religions which are false in their nature and origins. One has to consider which theism is the most original, logical and moral.

Since the Mosaic religion is a temporary religion meant for a certain people in a certain time and under certain circumstances, it is not to be deemed false yet it would be pointless to suggest that Judaism would work on a global scale for all people.

In the same way Islam fails on several grounds! Firstly, its origins are based upon a compilation of a variety of human sources not revelation; this provides evidence that Islam is a fabricated religion. Furthermore, Islam is by nature and from its origin a religion of war, it degrades women, suppresses and persecutes people with other opinions as well as being morally bankrupt in various areas of its view of life, such as permitting concubines, muta-marriages, rape of female captives and marriage to minors.

In the same way we need to consider Hinduism and the caste system.

Yet there is an even more effective way of discovering the theistic religion that by nature and origin presents the truth of divine intervention and revelation.

Considering all the major religions, Hinduism and Sikhism recognise Judaism, Christianity and Islam as alternative paths of salvation. However, Judaism, Christianity and Islam reject both Hinduism and Sikhism as divine revelations and paths to salvation; hence Hinduism and Sikhism annihilate their own credibility.
From here focusing on Judaism, Christianity and Islam, Islam recognises the founders and sacred writings of Judaism and Christianity, but Judaism and Christianity both reject Islam as a religion of God; here Islam annihilates itself.

This leaves only Judaism and Christianity. It is a fact that Christianity recognises the original religion of Israel, but Christianity does not recognise Judaism in its full sense. In the same way Judaism does not recognise Christianity.

However, Christianity has proven itself to be a legitimate continuation of the Old Testament religion of Israel. Which logically then proves Christianity to be most reliable religion on the religious market place.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard Responds to Yahya Snow: Does Monotheism and Belief in Jesus Serve as Evidences that the Qur'an is Not Demonically Inspired?

2010-02-10T04:32:00.000-08:00

In Yahya Snow’s rebuttal he brings up a number of points to prove that Islam was not demonically inspired. I will just assess one of these points on this thread.

Yahya said that Islam teaches belief in Jesus and belief in Abrahamaic monotheism; Yahya then argues that Satan would never convey such teaching to anyone and hence Islam can only come from God himself.

There are a number of fallacies with these two assumptions.

Firstly according to the Epistle of James, simple belief in the God of Abraham is not sufficient and does not constitute true religion unless accompanied by certain actions, which together constitute genuine faith (James 2: 18-19).

Two points within this passage are vital of consideration:

1) simple faith in monotheism is not sufficient

2) faith has to be genuine and accompanied by certain deeds.

These deeds are the once you will find if you read e.g. the Sermon on the Mountain (the Gospel of Matthew 5-7 and e.g. James 1: 26-27) in which a number of elements clearly contradict the ethical teachings of the Qur’an. Hence according to James 2 Muslims who claim to believe in the God of Abraham and follow the Qur’an to the core will not escape hell-fire.

Let me point out one example from your youtube rebuttal and compare it with the standard found within the epistle of James.

In your rebuttal I was made the bad guy because I reacted to the rape, torture and death of Christian girl. I expounded upon my reaction since Islam clearly teaches that Christians are to be attacked, suppressed, humiliated, not be trusted and are the worst of all creatures.

Hence, no Muslim can be in his right mind if he expects me to glorify, respect or embrace the Islamic faith. Try to ask a Palestinian to recognise and respect the Nation of Israel or a Jew to embrace the rule of Nazi Germany.

You worry because I reacted with one sentence about the religion of Islam. Yet you do not seem to worry when Muslims react with violence against non-Muslims for silly things such as some cartoons or a Qur’an being desecrated. We Christians experience worse every day.

Furthermore, in your rebuttal no word was mentioned about the Christian girl, who was mutilated and eliminated; all that mattered was my reaction, which I believe was fully justified.
This is called ‘favouritism’! You favour your Muslim comrades and give a diamond when they cause such atrocities, you even call the reaction of those who speak out an act of misbehaviour and unwise.

In James 2: 8-9 we read:

‘If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbour as yourself,” you are doing right. But if you show favouritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as law-breakers’

Now consider this Yahya. According to James chapter two, your faith in the God of Abraham only, will not save you from hell. Furthermore, you have even broken the law that is to accompany it, proving that your faith in Abraham’s God is not genuine or that the religion you follow now, which teaching contrary to God true Law is not genuine.

Notice also that in James 5: 1-6 there is a curse upon those who undermine, suppress and exploit others. Well the Qur’an teaches Muslims not to trust Christians or Jews, to attack them, suppress and treat them harshly. Hence based upon the epistle of James Islam is not from God and is correctly categorized as the influence of evil spirits (take a look at James 3:13-18 which describes to kinds of wisdoms and their nature).

But there is more. You say that Islam cannot be demonically inspired because it teaches belief in Abrahamic Monotheism and belief in Jesus.

However, Jesus condemned a number of Jews who believed in Abrahamic monotheism and in him and even categorized them as children of the devil:

‘To the Jews who had believed in him, Jesus said: “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free”’ (John 8: 31-32).

Yet in verse 44 he says:

‘You belong to your father the devil, and you want to carry out your fathers desire’

These were Jews, believing in the God of Abraham, believing in Jesus. Yet these followed will of the devil.

Notice that in the Qur’an, you are clearly permitted multiple wives, your are permitted to divorce these, you are permitted concubines (females captured in war), you are commanded to attack polytheists, Christians and Jews because of their faith and to suppress them, you are told not to trust Christians or Jews and consider them the worst of creatures.

Try to compare this with the teaching of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 5.

The fact is: you can believe all you want in Abrahamic monotheism and in Jesus; yet not being a true follower of Jesus you will still adhere to a doctrine or a mindset that conforms to the desire of demonic nature and you will be eternally condemned. Notice, this the teaching of Jesus, not mine.

This is why in Matthew’s Gospel chapter seven, verse 21-23 Jesus will reject many so called believers who on the day of judgement will say: ‘Lord, Lord’.

Hence just believing in Jesus is not sufficient, you need to repent and devout your life to his standard.

I have noticed that Muslims frequently use this passage in Matthew 7 as a means to argue that these are Christians who call him Lord and hence are rejected for their belief in his divinity. Yet this is not at all what the passage is teaching. Notice that verse 21 says ‘not everyone who comes to me’, in other words not everyone who says ‘Lord, Lord’ is rejected. Notice also that verse 21 further speaks about doing the Father’s will and verse 23 speaks of evildoers. Hence the passage states that anyone whether Muslim or a so called Christian who does not live in accordance of Jesus’ standard will not be spared on the day of judgement (read the First Epistle of John more on this).

Thus being a Muslim who adheres to the Qur’an you are not in the category that follows the teaching of Jesus.

Jesus even rebuked the teachers of the monotheist Law. Look at Matthew 23 and Luke 11: 37-54. These teachers in the Law all followed Abrahamic monotheism strictly. In Luke 11, these teachers of the Law even seem to respect Jesus and ate with him; yet Luke 11 he curses these experts in monotheism; in verse 52 he says:

‘Woe to you experts in the Law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourself have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering.’

So try to imagine this: even monotheistic law teachers who believe in Jesus do not have the key to knowledge and are not entering the heavenly bliss.

Another vital passage, which I have brought up in our discussion before is Mark 8: 31-33. Jesus shares with his disciples that he will killed and rise again (verse 31).

Peter opposes this future event (verse 32),

As a response Jesus says to Peter:

‘Get behind me Satan!...you do not have in mind the things of God but the things of men.’

We all know that Islam and the Qur’an denies the crucifixion and death of Jesus, yet according to
Jesus’ teaching denying his death is evidence of demonic inspiration and relates to the human mind not the mind of God.

Hence based upon Jesus’ words in the earliest Gospel, the Qur’an contains demonic inspiration and is composed by the influence of humans. Again this is based upon the teaching of Jesus not me.

This correlates with a phrase in the Epistle of James chapter 3, verse 15, which describes the standard of Christianity versus standard that falls short of it (of which the Qur’an is a typical example):

‘Such wisdom does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, of the devil’

Is it possible based upon this, that the Islam is not from God but is a human religion inspired by demonic forces?

I will let the reader decide.

See more on: http://christianityresponse.blogspot.com/

My Written Response to Yahya: Do I Misbehave For Believing Islam to be Demonic?

2010-02-09T05:15:00.000-08:00

I will respond in writing to Yahya's written words here. My Youtube response to his youtube will come later.

Let me just say that I intend in no way to attack Yahya Snow personally by my wording here, even though they might come out harsh. I hope we can in future continue our dialogue. Yet I know his view represents the view of the majority of Muslims, hence I defend myself not against so much Yahya but against the common view of Islam.

First of all me believing that Islam is demonic is not to be deemed as misbehavior. If I went out on the street to riot against Islam, kill and burn their houses or instigate violence against Muslims, yes that would be misbehaviour. Me holding to the view that Christianity is the truth and what contradicts it being a lie and hence from the devil is not misbehaviour; you need to utilize a different vocabulary here.

Furthermore, what would you say about the Hindu religion? The Hindu religion certainly expresses itself by the supernatural!

Would you agree with me that such forces are demonic or from God?

If you agree with me ought you not correctly to describe yourself as misbehaving. Yet if you do not agree with me, then according to your standard you behave, but at the same time you welcome the forces obtained by paganism and idolatry.

Hence exposing falsehood is not tantamount to misbehaviour.

Why do I believe Islam to be demonic?

Well it contradicts the Christian faith. It supposedly is a revelation from Gabrial, which based upon Paul in Galatians one, would be a false angel, a demon.

That is of course unless Muhammad had no experience at all and merely along with others fabricated the Qur'an, which explains the high amount of ancient Greek science.

Furthermore, the Qur'an rejects the death of Jesus, which according to Mark's Gospel renders the Qur'an as from the devil (Mark 8: 31-33).

Do I need to continue?

It has to be my right as a human being, living in the West and being a Christian, to believe that Islam is not from God--without being portrayed as someone who misbehaves.

Furthermore, the comment you referred to, related to an event in Pakistan in which a 12 year old Christian girl was tortured to death. These attrocities are common in Muslim countries. The perpetrators ussually get away, and you know as well as I that such injustice is in accordance to the Sharia Law. Which is why I call the religion demonic.

You should not worry about me, following my right and my faith in not accepting the religion of Islam as divine. All Muslims reject the Christian faith I believe in as a corruption. Should that not worry us as well?

Secondly I reacted to the attrocities against my dear sister who was raped and tortured to death.

Considering, that Islam does not permit a Muslim to be punished to death for the murder of a Christian, but merely to pay some blood money (correct me if I am wrong) (Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim) and that the Qur'an commands Muslims to attack the Christian and Jews and to fight them and to subjugate until they feel humiliated (Sura 9: 29) and to be harsh with the unbelievers (9: 123) and that Christians and Jews are the worst of all creatures (Sura 98: 6) and that Christians have no juridical right in the court system (Bukhari) then I fully understand why and how my sister was victimised in this way and why such attrocities are ussually acceptable and hardly ever condemned in the Muslim community (even in Britain)--I find that repulsive, worrying and demonic--if it is not, then what is it?

And why do I misbehave for considering such as wrong, repulsive and demonic (at least I can trace the possibility of such attrocites as acceptable to the Islamic wrings---that worries me).

So don't worry about me, a British Christian believing based upon his faith and the actions among Muslims linked to the writings in Islam that Islam in demonic and not from God.

I have my right to believe so, without being deemed evil or unwise.

Lets rather worry about these attrocities.

I have yet to see Muslims speak out against the attrocities that Muslims commit against non-Muslims in Muslim societies--I find that worrying, extremely worrying.

Since you encourage me to consider Nadir Ahmed in your reply, I think I am eligable to post you a link to Answering-Islam on these matters:

http://www.answering-islam.org/BehindVeil/btv4.html

You also say that I owe it to the Muslim communities in Bradford, Birmingham and London and their respective behaviour against me to be respectful and not declare that Islam is not of God or from the devil.

Now I am not sure whether you read my biography. I did live in Bradford for a while where I met the Muslims, I did express my opinions (they did), yet because I did I was publically insulted, intimitated and abused greatly, I had stones thrown after me. I sat in a Muslim home and was told that I could was not even allowed to ask indicative negative questions about Islam, even though they were allowed to attack my faith. At the same time they glorified the Islamic Regime in Sudan for being the most Godly based country in the world for following the Sharia. Think about it: Sudan, the country that has systematically butchered and genocided millions of Christians. A country in which my Christian brothers have been systematically shot, had their limbs cut of and often crucified. A land that has forced an estimate of half a million of my Christian sisters into slavery, either as concubines or sex slaves after their fathers, husbands and sons had been butchered.

You can imagine the insult on me a Christian, much like telling a Jew that Nazi Germany was the most examplary society in the world when it comes to moral, social and human conduct.

And how about Birmingham, my biography explains how Muslims attacked and insulted my faith openly on the street, without respect.

Do you really think I owe these communities anything, except to love them and expose falsehood and share the truth.

This was only a short written response, I will upload a youtube dealing with your youtube arguments.

I said I welcome criticism, but this critic has no logical basis; it begs me to accept the attrocities against my Christian family.

Hence I do not view my reaction as unwise or wrong, I stand up for the truth and those suffering who are forgotten and neglected due to Western political correctness.

If that means disrespecting those who propagate the faith behind this evil, I will gladly disrepect the religion, who wouldn't?

I Am Open to Toward Criticism

2010-02-07T23:41:00.000-08:00

Yahya Snow posted on a previous thread that I had posted a very dissapointing comment on the blog: http://www.answeringmuslims.com/

I am not sure exactly what he refers to. I assume it's my reaction to Christians being persecuted.

Unfortunately I deleted Yahya's comment (instead of posting it here) since that particular thread concerned a seminar and those joining it only (I should have clarified that). I guess other issues might have interupted any flow of comments from participants after the seminar, and questions they might burn in with until the next session.

But I thought it appropriate that Yahya should be allowed to criticise me on any errors or faults (that is how we learn and I appreciate criticism), and then I will either defend myself or learn from the correction (or both). We could also clear this on the comment section of any other thread, but I thought: why not simply open a thread on it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edition to this thread (This information below is what Yahya referred to) I posted this as a response and reaction to a 12 year old Christian girl who had been raped, tortured and killed by Muslims.

So why do we Christians reaction with distress when we read this? Because this is common in Muslim countries. Muslims react with violence over some cartoons and a Qur'an that supposedly ended up in a toilet. But when we Christian react in distress when a little Christian girl is tortured to death, British Muslim get worried that we react. I find this odd and very very disturbing.

Before I respond to Yahya probably on Youtube, I will simply post the comment I made here:

This makes me absolutely mad

There are thousands of similar cases (in Pakistan alone) involving murder, torture and rape---you will all see, the perpetrators will walk free; Islam teaches that the blood of a Muslim is more valuable than that of a Christian

Its demonic

Well, the revenge belongs to the God, if justice is escaped yet again, fire and torture still awaits on the day of judgements

Let's just consider the facts as they are.

The comment was posted here:

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6590312557191237519&postID=2267118858243851217

Seminar: How Can I be Sure About My Faith

2010-02-06T09:38:00.000-08:00

For those attending the seminar: ‘How Can I Be Sure About My Faith’ on Wednesday the 10 of February.

We will be looking at two matters:

1. How can a Christian be sure that the religion of Christianity is genuine?

2. How can a Christian be sure that his faith in Christianity is genuine?

We will assess these two questions from three angles:

• The personal angle (I): which elements (evidence) in me and my life provide evidence that what I believe in is genuine?

• The personal angle (2): What evidence in me and my life provides evidence that my faith is genuine?

• The angle of apologetics: Which external elements (historical, scientific, philosophical) are available that confirm that your faith is based upon what is genuine?

My only requirement is that you think these matters through until Wednesday.

God bless

Hogan

Scientific errors in the Gospels and the Book of Revelation Debunked

2010-02-05T01:41:00.000-08:00

This thread includes a dialogue between me and Etheshaam on scientific errors in the New Testament (The Gospels and the Book of Revelation).

Etheshaam wrote:

"The wind bloeth where it listeth."
Jesus says that no one knows which way the wind is blowing. But, of course, he was wrong about that. The direction and speed of the wind are easily measured. (See John 3:8)

Hogan replies:

No, Jesus does not say this all, nor does he indicate it; Jesus is not talking about the speed of wind; Jesus says about the wind: ‘you hear its sound but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going’.

That is actually accurate! You don't always know where the wind comes from, even today with our tools to predict the weather, we are often mistaken about the direction of the wind.

Yet even if you were right, nobody of the time of Jesus had the equipment to measure the speed of wind; hence Jesus is not referring to our society today, but to a society that lacked such equipments; this is both a misrepresentation of the words of Jesus and a ridicolous argument.

Etheshaam wrote:

Jesus holds seven stars in his hand. Of course, it is possible that this is metaphorical. Perhaps. But it is clear from other verses (Revelations 6:13, 8:10, 12:4) that John thought of stars as being small, perhaps even small enough for Jesus to hold in his hand. See Rev1:16)

Hogan replies:

One word of advise: when you deal with the Book of Revelation; keep in mind that you are dealing with both metaphorical and apocalyptic language here; its an art to master each of them. All the references you have brought up are metaphorical; they are not referring to literal stars; just read the passages you quoted. I have spent much time in my life studying the Revelation, and almost memorized the entire book (I love the book of the Revelation); the content of the book is often more metaphorical than most people imagine.

Etheshaam wrote:

The dragon's tail smacks down to earth one third of the stars. To the author of Revelation, the stars are just little lights that can fall to the ground from the sky. (See Revelations 12:4)

Hogan replies:

I suggest that you read the entire context of Revelation chapter 12, in which the explanation is provided. The dragan stands for the devil, not a literary dragon (read the context). Stars were often viewed as angels or in this case of demons, in the Jewish language of metaphors, you will even find Old Testament passages confirming that; in the same chapter you read of the dragon and his angels being thrown down on the earth (again I encourage you to read the context).

Etheshaam wrote:

Jesus is incorrect when he says that the mustard seed is the smallest seed. (The smallest seeds are found among the tropical, epiphytic orchids
(Mark 4:31)

Hogan replies:

Jesus is not talking about seeds on a universal level, but ‘them’ the Jews or residents of Galilee and the seeds they planted in their gardens, this is evident if you read the entire context (Mark 4: 31-32). It may come more clearly out in Matthew 13: 32, which includes: ‘your seeds’.

Why I became a Christian Apologist

2010-01-31T14:58:00.000-08:00

Many people ask me why I devoted my life to argue against the critics of Christianity and even to question these same individuals and the religions or philosophies they adhere to in the same manner. Am I just the type that simply seeks confrontation and thrives in such environments?

In fact some people find me utterly offensive and suggest either that I become more objective or strive for the unity of all faiths and philosophies.

In other words my life and work is seen as a battle against each and all who differ from the Christian faith and hence my ambition and effort to attack or debate is by many considered as a negative element in our multireligious and multi-philosophical world community.

But why and how did I become an apologist?

In all honesty I would rather spend my time in Africa or India helping out those who are less fortunate.

Believe it or not I often ask God why he has guided me to take up the role as an apologist in God’s Kingdom.

When I became a Christian I knew nothing of the issues and questions related to apologetics.
However, since my decision to be a Jesus follower at the age of 15 I have been exposed to the views and arguments of many opponents who attacked the faith and life that I loved so dearly: that is the faith and connection with God, which virtually transformed my life from teenage rebellion and gang activity into a mindset and lifestyle that aimed at loving God and my fellow human being.

I grew up with atheists continually attacking and mocking my faith and the Bible in the news papers. I witnessed atheists virtually propagating and evangelising the teenagers in my church. Secondly, I witnessed my own Christian home-community being unable to adequately reply to these attacks and accusations, simply because apologetics and polemics was not the tactic or approach of these Christians, and because they neither possessed training or experience in apologetics or debating.

This is when I realised how weak the Christian community in the West stands in dealing with their critics, which is why I have (today) devoted my life to study and provide the training and answers they need in confronting their opponents on a intellectual basis.

In my teenage years I quickly involved myself in Christian youth work, preaching and Bible teaching as well as discipleship training.

Mission was my passion. I developed a great interest in theology and Bible knowledge and read the Bible from cover to cover a number of times and began memorizing passages.
In my first year in Bible College in the UK in 1992 I memorized all the epistles of Paul. I read extensively the Bible and additional theological and Christian literature until late night time.
In addition I joined several evangelistic teams and organisations in Europe and involved myself in a variety of missionary campaigns and projects.

The breakthrough into a ministry of apologetics was nevertheless not triggered by the dialogues and conversations with typical Europeans or hanging around in the slums or homeless shelters.
It was not until I stayed for a while in the city of Bradford in UK in 1992 that I experienced for the first time the Muslim community and the necessity of developing my apologetics skills.

The Muslims I encountered eagerly attacked and undermined my faith.
These relied heavily upon liberal theology and the claims that the Bible is changed and fabricated. Particularly I became familiar with the Ahmed Deedat and his literature.

I realised that I had to begin considering apologetics; also I was convinced that if Islam felt obliged to attack Christianity in this manner, I and other Christians logically possessed the same right to criticise, expose and debunk the Islamic faith.

After my experience I began looking into literature dealing with Bible background, the canon of Scripture, criticism, etc. I particularly enjoyed the books of F.F. Bruce ‘The Canon of Scripture’ and ‘The Bible and the Parchments’. Also I got hold on Philips Comfort ‘The Origin of the Bible’ and Josh McDowells’ two heavy volumes of ‘Evidence that Demands a Verdict’ and another heavy work of McDowell: ‘He walked among us’. Other books that greatly impacted me at this time were George Eldon Ladd’s ‘The New Testament Criticism’, Ralph P. Martins two excellent volumes: ‘New Testament Foundations: A Guide for Christian Students’ and Gleason Archer’s: ‘A Survey of Old Testament Introduction’.

Despite my sudden interest in apologetics, I moved back home and my involvement in church work resulted in my apologetics study to halt.

Later in 1995 I moved to Birmingham. Never in my whole life had my faith been as challenged to the extent as in Birmingham 1995.

The Muslims I met tore me apart with their arguments against the Bible and well prepared apologetics. From an intellectual point of view this was not surprising. I had very little back-up. In these days Christians were hardly prepared for these Muslim apologists. There was no Answering-Islam.org, few books, Jay Smith had just entered the scene; and it seemed as if Islam was gaining ground.

For several months I was considering becoming a Muslim. I used to spend hours meeting Muslims, experience my faith and view of the Bible to be demolished and then head off for the library to find answers to solve my doubts.

At that time I had not the slightest clue where to look for answers. I knew nothing about the Talmud, Galen, Lucretius (books that reveal early Qur'anic plagiarism) and there were hardly any books out there dealing effectively with Biblical criticism or Islamic polemics.

Thanks God today things have changed, and changed significantly.

What probably overwhelmed me the most was this sudden move into a different culture, the frequent debates, in which I lacked basic knowledge, and particularly the street debates.

In Birmingham 1995 the radical Islamic student organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir had taken the streets by surprise. I found myself constantly in fiery street debates, often being the only Christian surrounded by 20-30 Muslims.

I realised the tactic these Muslim street apologists utilized by simply having ten guys bombarding you with questions, all ten in one go, not permitting you to respond and quickly and continually changing topic, which appeared to me as a way to protect themselves from the replies but also the means to manipulate and confuse your mind. After an hour you actually felt that you brain had been twisted, virtually out of your control; think about it: by nature this is a method that corresponds to typical cultic brainwashing techniques upon their new members; I had already read a number of books describing these methods and its dreadful effect upon the victims.

After one to two hours of that experience, I dreaded to think about the effects of such manipulation if exercised over a couple of days.

I had other co-workers who had similar experiences being surrounding by a Muslim mob and in one particular case been held physically in the middle while question after question was pounded from several individuals at the same time. One Christian described that after a while he literally fell to the ground in exhaustion trying to repel the pressure of the intimidation, shouting and the arguments.

It was in this sort of situations I was exposed to the variaty of claims e.g. that the Qur’an predicts modern science, the full list of Biblical contradictions and textual criticism, the Jesus myths (Jesus being a plagiarised version of Mithra, Osiris among others), and the claim that everyone even Christian scholars were renouncing Christianity and the Bible and becoming Muslims.

It was only later that I discovered the fallacies, deception, lies and misconceptions behind all these claims.

What convinced me against the religion of Islam, in favour of Christianity were my own personal studies on Bible backgrounds, my reading about early manuscripts and the New Testament Canon (thanks God for Bruce and Comfort), and of equal importance was my own personal experience of a supernatural nature when I became a follower of Jesus.

After my experience in the UK I actually headed for the mission field for several years.

I travelled through several third-world countries, of these several Muslim countries. I spent entire months in these Muslim countries, met Muslim preachers, spent time in mosques doing dialogue, evangelised, got persecuted, abducted, arrested, and was occasionally forced to escape or hide from military, fundamentalists and the secret police. Yeah I should write a book.

I also met and spent months with the Christian communities in these countries and lived among them; I saw firsthand the persecution and the pain wrought upon them and their families by their Islamic rulers. This one Christian brother of mine had been held in jail for months due to his faith. He had been continually beaten, burned, suffered torture by freezing and had his belly opened. I will never forget standing in an abandoned church building in which a number of Christians had been butchered. The blood and body parts were still scattered all over the church. I also entered an area secretly in which Muslims were encouraged every day, through the mosque loud-speaker, to kill at least one Christian prior to breakfast; Christians had already been killed and those remaining lived in horrible conditions.

It also caught my attention how much these brothers and sisters of mine needed training in apologetics.
These Christians who by the Muslim communities are reduced to dhimmis and which the Western media (due to political correctness) has willingly neglected had not only been exposed to the Islamic polemics and its intimidation their entire life; in addition, by Islamic law, they were not even permitted to defend their faith.

I have to say that these years moulded and shaped my personality, my ambition and my plan for life.

Returning back to Europe I began my studies, I completed a BA degree in theology from USA and a second in the UK. At the same time I worked with a Christian organisation; it was hard life and busy, but worth it.

When finishing my BA Honour in theology I continued theological studies on MA level. This is when things became really exciting. I did extensive studies on source criticism, the synoptic Gospels and Q, the historical Jesus, Gnosticism, early Christian succession and oral transmission and the contribution of the church fathers. I spent considerable time studying New Testament Greek, palaeography, New Testament textual criticism, Christology and church history.

In addition I expanded my knowledge significantly in studying the scholars of theology and Biblical studies from both extremes of the spectrum; from the fringe liberal and critical scholars to the actual believers in the Bible.
I would say that most of my time went reading and studying liberal scholarship, such as Barth Ehrman, Bultmann, Ludemann, Kasemann, Burton L. Mack, Sanders and many others.

I decided to be as objective as possible in my study of the Bible and its background and not base my academic studies upon my faith but upon the historical sources and data.
At the same time I decided to consider the theories of all these critical scholars (and that is what liberal-critical scholarship is: theory), but I decided that as an historian neither faith nor theory would determine the conclusions based upon the actual historical data.

I can only say the study has been revolutionary. The reliability of the Gospels and the New Testament is outstanding evidence that the apostles and their successors together with the earliest Christian community preserved the facts: the account and teachings of Jesus effectively.
This fact certainly debunks the conjecture of critical scholarship, atheism and the inconsistent claims of Muslim apologists.

This is an exciting time in my life; I am currently building up my ministry to expand my work in apologetics.
I expect in future to engage myself in public debating, seminars and writing, defending the truth of the Gospel and the accuracy of the Christian writings and the Christian faith, while at the same time to expose the lies of opposing ideas of false religion and atheism.

Neither have I forgotten my passion to provide support and training for my brothers and sisters who need the basic training and are living their lives in world communities in which their freedom to study, speak out and defend themselves is not right provided.

Hence being an apologist, I do not deem my work futile. In fact strengthening Christians in their faith, I am not only confirming the Christian faith but by the grace of God I support and build up Christians who will enter the mission field or promote Christianity in their everyday life and who will make a difference in the world spiritually, politically and socially.

Debunking the claim that the Quran Predicts Modern Science: The Qur’an and the World of Atoms

2010-01-09T08:41:00.000-08:00

Does the Qur'an Predict the Sub-atomic world and particles? This is the claim of certain Islamic apologists, such as Mustafa Mlivo, Muhammad Assaid and Zakir Naik among others:

Mustafa Mlivo, Quran and Science , The Qur’an prior to Science and Civilisation; see: http://www.preciousheart.net/Main_Archives/Links_Folder/SUPER_List_Islam.htmAnd

Muhammad Assadi, in his book: The Unifying Theory of Everything: Koran and Nature’s Testimony; see http://www.amazon.com/Unifying-Theory-Everything-Natures-Testimony/dp/0595129048

And Zakir Naik; see http://www.scribd.com/doc/18926563/Quran-and-Modern-Science-EnglishBy-Dr-Zakir-Naik

These among others claim that the Qur’an is miraculous in its prediction of the sub atomic world (that is sub atomic particles).

Let's assess the claim:

The particular Qur’anic (Sura 34: 3) passages reads:

‘...by him who knows the unseen,—from who is not hidden the least little atom in the heavens or on earth; nor is there anything less than that, or greater, but is in the record of perspicuous ’

See also Sura 10: 61:

‘He [i.e., Allah] is aware of an atom’s weight in the heavens and on the earth and even anything smaller than that...’

Firstly we need to consider that there is a debate whether the Qur’an is literally referring to atoms or insects or possibly dust.But let us for a moment assume that the Qur’an does refer to atoms and the sub-atomic particles, are we then correct to presume that this reference is miraculous or is possible that the Qur’an only makes a lucky guess or even that sub-atomic particles were already a common idea flourishing in the time of Muhammad?

The theory of atoms was founded by Leucippus (440 BC) and Democritus (432 BC), who proposed that atoms constituted and composed everything in existence even heaven and earth.

The theory perceived the atoms as physical particles, which are in constant motion; being indivisible, indestructible and infinite in number and varieties.

All this is slightly correct indeed, expect of course that the number of atoms and their varieties are infinite.

Indeed the early atomists predicted a range of up-to-date details, such as Democritus’ ‘moving at random’, which according to Russel in his book: 'History of Western Philosophy' suggests denotes the kinetic theory of gasses; and furthermore the collisions of atoms which collected them and formed vortices and later material bodies (Russell, 82-84); all this was in agreement with the latter theory of Lucretius (Lucretius, The Nature of the Universe, p. 185).

Yet Democritus and many early atomists seem to have committed the fallacy of considering atoms to contain no void, which made them impenetrable and indivisible (Russell, History of Western Philosophy, p. 88).

This error excluded the existing reality of e.g. the neutrons, protons and electrons, and the newly proposed theory of the quarks.

That is of course unless we move Democritus’ understanding as a theory of the Quark world and what preceded it.

Hence according to certain Muslim writers, e.g. Mlivo and Muhammad Assadi and Zakir Naik, this suggests that the Qur'an solely gets the information right and must therefore be of divine origin.

However, there are serious flaws within this Muslim proposition.

Its primary failure is the failure to grasp that atomic science developed through the centuries.

The emphatic claim of Democritus, that atoms were the first cause-particles which could not be further divided appears to be slightly diminishing at the time of Lucretius (approximately 50 BC); Lucretius seems to refer to new ideas in his time which suggests that atoms could be divided (at least he alludes to ideas quite different from those presupposed by Democritus); Lucretius writes in 50 BC:

‘It is with a mass of such parts, solidly jammed together in order, that matter is filled up. Since they cannot exist by themselves, they must stick together in a mass from which they cannot by any means be prized loose. The atoms therefore are absolutely solid and unalloyed, consisting of a mass of least parts tightly packed together. They are not compounds formed by the coalescence of their parts, but bodies of absolute and everlasting solidity. To these nature allows no loss or diminution, but guards them as seeds for things. If there are no such least parts, even the smallest bodies will consist of an infinite number of parts, since they can always be halved and their halves halved again’ (Lucretius, The Nature of the Universe 45)?

What are these least parts of which the atoms consist? And how about the opposite position, but otherwise proposed impossibility, that atoms can be halved and halved again?

This idea seems to have been raised 600 years prior to Islam. And there are further indications, that even the Epicurean's postulated particles smaller than atoms.

Epicurean theory theorized that our body throws off thin films, which travel to touch the soul-atoms to create sensation; if these were considered to operate between atoms, then we might assume they are smaller (Russell, History of Western Philosophy, p. 255).

If however, atoms are the principle of matter and thus life, why is it that the Qur’an, being a divine revelation does not provide further insight into the world of atoms or quantum? Why is the Qur’an making no reference to atoms in relation to compounds or the combination of atoms to form a greater mass, as was expounded upon by Lucretius more 600 years prior to Islam (Lucretius, The Nature of the Universe, p.41); Lucretius writes:

‘At that time the sun’s bright disc was not to be seen here, soaring loft and lavishing light, nor the stars that crowd the far-flung firmament, nor sea nor sky, nor earth, nor air nor anything in the likeness of things we know nothing but a hurricane raging in a newly congregated mass of atoms of every sort’ (Lucretius, The Nature of the Universe, 184).

This completely refutes Zakir Naik in his debate with William Campbell, in which he admitted the similarity between Qur’anic and Greek science but then claimed that Qur’anic science is more specific and even corrects Greek science.

The Qur’an does not explain that the atoms are the fundamental building blocks and existed prior to cosmological expansion and the accretion of the earth, nor does it describe their existence as prior to the galactic dimension the pre-stellar material existed.Lucretius’ description of a primordial congregated mass of atoms in the writings of Lucretius is fairly accurate and presents an idea that is much more advanced and explicit than the Qur’anic simple reference to the world of atoms and lesser matter.

Lucretius continues:

‘...they (the atoms) began, in fact, to separate the heights of heaven from the earth, to single out the sea as a receptacle for water detached from the mass and to set apart the fires of pure and isolated ether. In the first place all the particles of earth, because they were heavy and intertangled, collected in the middle and took up the undermost stations. The more closely they cohered and clung together, the more they squeezed out the atoms that went to the making of sea and stars, sun and moon and the outer walls of the great world’ (Lucretius, The Nature of the Universe, 184-5)?

While Lucretius’ postulate is outdated and contains a number of flaws, it does reveal a much more advanced insight into the atomic world than the Qur'an does and some details actually predicts modern science.

If the Qur’an is a miracle due to its reference to atoms and smaller matter, then certainly a number of Greek philosophers and indeed the atheist Lucretius were divinely inspired.

What is much more logical however is that the Qur’an simply describes the ideas that were flourishing within its time and era; unfortunately for the Muslim position is the fact that these pre-Islamic sources provide a much more advanced and accurate picture of the atomic world than the Qur’an.

The Mosaic Law on Marriage and Family and its application for Christianity and the Modern Society

2010-01-08T18:39:00.001-08:00

This is an old essay I wrote on Marriage according to the original Israel religion, mainly based upon Deuteronomy. This is of great interest to me, since critics and atheists constantly attack the Old Testament Laws, regulations, rules of war, etc. A number of these matters are indeed very different from the typical Western situation and society of our time and the typical mind may find it hard to understand how different laws and approaches may vary and apply to very different situations in a very different setting and time. This essay also considers the Deuteronomy Law on family and marriage in relation to Christianity. While Christianity is not required to abide strictly by the Mosaic Law there are a number of issues that still apply in the light of New Testament Law and indeed appear practical.

Careful some of the issues raised here are controversial.

Introduction

From a modern angle, the ancient patriarchal and the later family system of Israel are often deemed suppressive and even barbaric. Yet, despite the alien structure of such a society and its family system, the modern mind needs to consider the circumstances in which the patriarchal structure developed. Additionally, it needs to consider some of its positive aspects, which currently may be lacking in and may improve the nuclear family. But is this possible and how is it possible?

Societal structure and the geographical family

Israel in every aspect functioned as a society based upon patrimonial authority; the God Yahweh ruled supreme (Deut.12: 1-3), kings as second (Deut.17: 14-20), followed by the tribes, the clans and finally the families ruled by the great grandfather (Jos.7: 16-8) (1 Sam.10: 20-1).[1]
Moses selected the wise and leading men to serve as tribe officials, such as judges and leaders; these leaders and the family elders, frequently represented the tribes in front of Moses (Deut. 1: 9-17; 5: 23). This hierarchal structure permeated the entire fabric of Israelite social life, including the family. In a sense the whole Israelite nation was perceived as one house, despite multiple households[2] such as the house of David (the Southern kingdom) and the house of Omri (the Northern kingdom).[3]

Vaux points out that the number of family members within a household was probably reduced after the Canaan settlement as sons began moving out and built their own houses.[4] Yet, the social structure of Deuteronomy still shaped the geographical settings of a village construction. Here Matthew points out that the earliest villages of the ancient Israelite society probably originated as multiple family compounds under the leadership of the great grandfather.[5]

Mutual unity and procreation

The purpose behind such societal and family structure was caused by the circumstances, which formed the paradigm of the ancient mind; structure provided the basis for security, safety and work in which society and the extended family centred.[6] Thus society and family was group oriented (Ex.20: 7-9); the family goal was mutual survival, which means that family was often extended and combined; the individual was not strictly excluded but neither emphasised; rather an individual was encouraged to benefit the entire group.[7] It was on the basis of this mindset the Levitate system operated (Lev.25: 5-9) (Deut.25: 5-10).

In fact the whole nation of Israel, as one house, applying the same exclusive unity provided mutual support to each other (Deut.15: 7-11), and the family structure seems to have resembled this national-social structure.

Within this situation the survival of the family and community depended not only upon family unity but also upon the vitality of fertility and procreation (Deut.28: 1-14), very much like the pre-Mosaicpatriarchal family.[8]

Procreation guarantied first and foremost that the various roles and responsibilities were secured and secondly that the group was able to expand and increase in strength and power.[9] Due to the family system, only internal marriages were permitted, as any sexual relation outside the group reduced its survival. External marriages were perceived as compromising the strict boundary, which initially could jeopardize the security and survival of the whole group.[10]

This explains why the Mosaic Law required marriage within one’s father’s tribal clan so as to retain the family unity, basically to avoid the loss of land (Num.36: 5-9). This was also consistent with Israel’s exclusive policy with other nations, in which cross-cultural marriage were strictly prohibited (Deut.7: 3-4).

All of these reveal that the family structure of ancient Israel emphasised survival rather than individual comfort, which stresses that the ancient structure is not as a whole applicable to a society where the situation differs.

In comparison, the social structure and benefits of the Western World present a very different situation and a different social and personal paradigm. This was caused by the industrial period which divided the extended family by migration and mobility[11] and by the Renaissance which inaugurated the philosophy of individualism.[12] Economy has however proliferated and from a modern Western mindset, where economy and benefits are currently thriving anyway, this historical process is often considered as having proved societal progress and maturity.

Certainly, several of the problems in the group-oriented family, such as the loss of individualism, internal family frictions[13] and mobile inability have been excluded. But has it improved the stability of the family and marriage and has it enhance its survival? And if not, what can we learn from an ancient paradigm?

Marriage and family life made easier

David and Vera Mace confirm that despite some elements of complexity, the combined family structure gives stability, particularly as it excludes loneliness and provides security and economy.[14] Unfortunately this is not always the case with the Western marriage and the nuclear family, despite its attraction and autonomy. The individualism of the West has caused social isolation, from which two unpredicted problems have erupted; firstly, the probability of poverty and secondly, the probability of loneliness and lack of companionship; this is mainly due to enforced necessity upon one of the spouses to work, while the other is pre-occupied with domestic responsibilities.[15]

From this angle the marriage in a nuclear family where privacy is strictly included often turned into a prison where emotional and physical needs were not met.[16] And currently, as economic pressure has forced both parental members to work, exhaustion and tiredness has caused parents to neglect their spouse and children.[17] These have further jeopardized the families ‘quality time’ and turned the home into a place only to eat, rest and sleep, rather than being the social centre of communication and education as it was meant to be. In addition, mobility has merely increased these problems.[18]

The Israelite social structure possessed the means to exclude these elements.

First and most, the family of ancient Israel was probably much larger and mainly locally busy. Hence it provided time and energy to focus on the home and make it into a place of social activity, enjoyment, and education; a place where children were prepared for the life-task ahead, particularly in matters of basing daily conduct and decisions in accordance with the law and standard of God (Deut. 6: 4-9; 11: 18-21; 32:7; Ex.12,24-7; 13:1-14; Deut.4:9; 6:20-5; 11:19; Josh.4:6,21-2; Psalm 78:3-7).[19] In other words incorporating similar values would make it easier and less burdensome to be a spouse or parent.

Secondly in relation to the Law, the Israelite family had a clear understanding about values and consequences, that well-being was only granted if they yielded to the standard of Yahweh (Deut.12: 28) and honoured the parents (Deut.5: 16); basically a strict emphasis on religion and family. Hence stability of a family and society was determined by the effort to accomplish the common goal of a God-centred mindset and practice. Negatively however, an entire family was shamed in case of misconduct (Deut.22: 13-30).

Yet it was probably that shame which laid the ethical boundaries, whereas in a modern society shame and boundaries are virtually excluded, and misconduct and promiscuity are permitted to thrive.

As to the marriage this rendered several practicalities, first and most regulation and order; it provided unity in which parents and children in unity alongside the extended family worked toward a common goal. The shame and consequence factor caused personal concern about the risk of possible sexual promiscuity. Marriage therefore became less exhaustive, more joyful and serious and obedience from children was easier obtained.

The Law, family and economy

Concerning economy David and Vera Mace further point out that in East Asia the focus on family has excluded the need of welfare systems and orphanages.[20] Similarly in the UK it has even been suggested that the Asian family is in less need of benefits than the average British white family;[21] this same effect was evident within the Israelite social-family structure (Lev.25: 23-31, 35-43).

Furthermore, the combined family despite its mobile inadequacy and because of its size is often
far more successful as a settled community than a nuclear family; this might explain why the tribes of Israel were provided with their own territory (Num.33-4) (Deut.3: 12-20). In the West this is particularly observed in its educational opportunities, in which members of group-oriented families are often better supported in terms of education, career and profession than members of a nuclear family.[22]

It has also been suggested that a primary reason for the high divorce rate is the economical burden in a family.[23] If the extended family chose to unite it would lower this threat against the marriage significantly.

The Law, family and health issues

Yet the Israelite family took further steps than merely separating from evil; there was a certain fanaticism about food (14:1-21) and cleanliness (23: 12-14). The family strictly differentiated between clean and unclean meat, most probably for hygienic reasons; hence a family stressed healthy living.[24] Again how do we apply this to a modern family and its effort to eat and live healthy? How many families are devastated because a spouse is effected by illness, caused either by lack of hygiene or unhealthy food habits.

The Law, family and manhood

Deuteronomy is male-centred, males had to be strong and brave; they were the protectors of their family; hence the male pride might have been essential. Yet again this Deuteronomic aspect also relates to the natural male psychology, which not necessarily proves to be harmful, and which currently is under severe attack by radical feminist forces. Lahaye points out that current research reveals the growing impotence in males is related to the loss of male dominance.[25]

Another research reveals devastating results in the abilities and self-esteem in two thirds of American schoolboys as radical feminist ideas are being imposed upon them through education.[26] Again we see how an ancient paradigm might dissolve current elements that are harmful to family and marriage.

Balanced incorporation

However concerning marriage, current observation indicates that the structure of combined or blended families often jeopardizes or even excludes marriage relationships;[27] often because husbands tend to retain their strong child-mother bond and thus fail to mature; the wife is then neglected in relation to the in-laws.[28] In the Mosaic Law, forced marriages were indeed common (Deut.21: 10-14), and a girl married into a family typically became a daughter (Lev.21: 9) having to subject herself in honouring the new parents (Deut.5: 16), hence similar problems may have abounded. However, married women in ancient Israel would probably be closer associated with the other women in the family than their own husbands; in the same manner the males would mutually go on their own business. Despite its repulsiveness from a modern perspective, then perhaps within the ancient situation in which families were forced to unite, this lack of relationship between husband and wife might have provided great stability as it excluded the friction between wife and mother-in-law.

Christians, who value the principles of Genesis 2: 24, need however to realise that the situation in Deuteronomy is significantly different. Yet comparing the situation of Deuteronomy and the original marriage principle of Genesis two, it might not be entirely wrong to propose a combination.

This is what Goldthorpe suggests and what he defines as the modified extended family.[29] Here the autonomy of the couple and the nuclear family is included as well as a geographic proximity of the extended family. Also the benefits are obvious, the marriage relationship and its responsibilities are less exhaustive, it is retained and autonomous, and grandparents and needy family members are cared for; basically members can help, encourage and support each others.

The Law, Christianity and the hard issues

How about divorcing women in case indecency was discovered? Here the husband could write a bill and send her off (Deut.24: 1-4). It is possible that the Law might have permitted this to protect the women from domesticated oppression, and certainly the bill would later have protected her and enabled her to remarry.[30] Verse four is however a matter of significance, as it prohibits her from marrying her previous husband if she did remarry and divorce a second time. Here the Law might have intended to discourage the misuse of an easy divorce and remarriage which initially could culminate in a trend of promiscuity and fornication,[31] and secondly, the economical aspect, that the women or the third couple might burden the previous families through greed by requiring unnecessary bridal prices mainly to accumulate wealth.[32] In other words despite the outcome of a marriage, whether divorce or remarriage, then any attempts to gain material gain, if the solemn motive is greed, is prohibited.

Obviously the divorce of Deut.24: 1-4 does not apply to New Testament standards (1 Cor.7: 10-1). Yet what applies to a modern Christian setting is that the Law despite of the situation took measures to lay a strong foundation for marriage (Deut.24: 5).

However, if the divorce in Deut.24: 1.4 solved a matter of domicile abuse, we might assume that the passage somehow applies to 1 Cor.7: 10-1, as it recognised that a woman might for some reason have separated from her husband. Here the divine standard does not condemn her; neither does it permit her to remarry or enforce her to return to her husband; however she has a choice whether to remain single or to reconcile.[33]

Conclusion

Yet how easily are all these elements applied in a modern nuclear family? And if they are applied how do they impact each family member?

To summarize it, it should be notable that the Mosaic family retained the unity and was cautious about any external influence, whereas in a Western nuclear family the opposite is true; the influence, the decisions the mindset is decided by external forces!

The emphasis of such a family would be that of unity, separation and involvement. The price of such a paradigm would be a slightly lesser emphasis on individualism, and the mindset would be first and most a focus on God, and secondly mutuality, lifestyle, values and restriction of external influence.

As to marriage, a modified extended family system would exclude many burdens and the exhaustion. Parents would retain their authority and be backed up by the internal family paradigm, not external influence. A couple would gain quality time with each other and as a nuclear family home life would benefit everyone in every direction.

In any case, to incorporate the Mosaic Law with modern Christianity the key is to be selective, both in terms of honouring God and at the same time to include practical and cultural logic.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bibliography

Barret, Michèle & Mcintosh, Mary, The Anti-Social Family, London: Verso Editions, 1982

Blood, Peter R (ed.), Afghanistan-Family, U.S. Library Congress, (http://www.countrystudies.us)/, 1997

Clements, R.E (ed.), The World of ancient Israel, Cambridge: University Press, 1991

Closson, Don, The Feminization of American Schools, Probe Ministries 14 July 2002

Craigie, P.C, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament: The Book of Deuteronomy, London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1976

Mace, David and Vera, Marriage East and West, London: Macgibbon & Kee, 1990

Fee, Gordon D, The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The First Epistle to the Corinthians, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1987

Goldthorpe, J.E, Family Life in Western Societies: A Historical Sociology of Family Relationships in Britain and North America, Cambridge: University Press, 1987

Hafizur Rahman, Go Out Young Man, The International News, Internet Edition, May 14, 2005

Jagger Gill & Wright Caroline (ed.), Changing Family Values, London and New York: Routledge, 1999

Kaiser, Walter C, Toward Old Testament Ethics, Academic Books, USA, Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983

King, Philip J & Stager, Lawrence E, Life in Biblical Israel, UK, Westminster John Knox Press, 2001

Knight, Barry, Gibson, Miriam, Grant, Simone, Family Groups in the Community, London: London Voluntary Service Council, 1979

Lahaye, Tim & Beverly, The Act of Marriage, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan 1998

Mace, David R, Hebrew Marriage, London: the Epworth Press, 1953

Macquarrie, John, Issues in Ethics, New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1970

Mayes, A.D.H, The New Century Bible Commentary: Deuteronomy, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publ. Co, 1987

Matthews, Victor H, Manners and Customs in the Bible, USA, Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991

Rogerson, W (ed.), The Pentateuch, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996

Traditional Kinship Patterns, allfer – Reference – Country Study and Country Guide – Pakistan (no author mentioned), 1994

Vaux, Roland De, Ancient Israel Its Life and Institutions, London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1976

http://www.divorcereform.org/ (no date or author mentioned)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnotes:

[1] Philip J. King & Stager E. Lawrence, Life in Biblical Israel, UK, Westminster John Knox Press, 2001: 4-5
[2] Roland De Vaux, Ancient Israel Its Life and Institutions, London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1976:3-8
[3] King & Lawrence, 2001:4-5
[4] Vaux, 1976:22-3
[5] Victor H. Matthew, Manners and Customs in the Bible, USA, Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991:68
(see also King & Lawrence, 13-5)
[6] King and Lawrence, 2001:4-5
[7] John W. Rogerson, W (ed.), The Pentateuch, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996:265
[8] David R. Mace, Hebrew Marriage, London: the Epworth Press, 1953:201
[9] King and Lawrence, 2001:17
[10] Rogerson, 1996:266-7
[11] J.E. Goldthorpe, Family Life in Western Societies: A Historical Sociology of Family Relationships in Britain and
North America, Cambridge: University Press, 1987: 9, 17, 19
[12] John Macguarrie, Issues in Ethics, New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1970:60-7
[13] Peter R. Blood (ed.), 1997,Afghanistan-Family, U.S. Library Congress, (http://www.countrystudies.us)/
[14] Mace, 1953:39
[15] Barry, Knight, Miriam, Gibson, Simone, Grant, Family Groups in the Community, London: London Voluntary
Service Council, 1979:5-8
[16] Michèle, Barret & Mary Mcintosh, Mary, The Anti-Social Family, London: Verso Editions, 1982: 56
[17] Barret & Mcintosh, 1982:62
[18] Mace, 1953:48-9
[19] Mace, 1953:215
[20] David & Vera Mace, Marriage East and West, London: Macgibbon & Kee, 1990: 34
[21] Caroline Wright and Gill Jagger (ed.), End of Century, end of Family?: Shifting discourses of family in crises, in
Changing Family Values, London and New York: Routledge, 1999:27
[22] Goldhtorpe, 1987:74
[23] http://www.divorcereform.org/ (no authorship mentioned)
[24] Craigie, 1976:230-2
[25] Tim & Beverly Lahaye, The Act of Marriage, Zondervan Publishing House, 1998: 242
[26] Don Closson, The Feminization of American Schools, Probe Ministries 14 July 2002
[27] Traditional Kinship Patterns, 1994, allfer – Reference – Country Study and Country Guide – Pakistan (no author)
[28] Hafizur Rahman, Go Out Young Man, The International News, Internet Edition, May 14, 2005
[29] Goldthorpe, 1987:74
[30] P.C. Craigie, P.C, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament: The Book of Deuteronomy, London:
Hodder and Stoughton, 1976:304-5
[31] Craigie, 1976:304-5
[32] A.D.H. Mayes, The New Century Bible Commentary: Deuteronomy, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publ. Co,
1987:322
[33] Gordon D. Fee, The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The First Epistle to the Corinthians,
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1987

Reply to Abdullah Kunde on Various Issues

2010-01-07T03:10:00.000-08:00

I noticed a number of arguments being brought up by Kunde as a reply to Sunil.

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6590312557191237519&postID=189095653198387790

Again as usual when we read Muslim argumentation for Islam or against the Christian faith, we quickly discover the high number of inconsistencies, and I intend to assess some of these here; not because I intend to attack Kunde personally or single him out to expose him publically but rather because these lines of arguments are so frequently used in modern islamic apologetics:

Kunde wrote:

1) Muslims/Qur'an does not attempt to follow earlier revelations or prophets.
a) This is absolutely false. The Qur'an, in multiple instances, asks Christians and Jews to look to what is still contained within their books for guidance towards the Qur'an and Islam.

Hogan replies:

I assume you are referring to the Gospel in Muhammad’s time! But can you then explain what the Gospel was in Muhammad’s time and what did it still contain? Could you please elaborate on this?

In the sixth and seventh century we know that Christians utilized the ‘Four Gospels’, hence based upon your wording here, the book of the Christians or the Gospel would be the ‘Four Gospels’, which Christians commonly referred to as ‘the Gospel’ and which would contained doctrines and narratives such as Jesus’ death and resurrection, which clearly contradict the Qur’an.

But now comes the real puzzle, because later in your replay to Sunil you state that the Gospels are not reliable. I find your view of these matters highly inconsistent; firstly your phrase ‘what is still contained within their books’ and secondly that these books are unreliable, and thirdly that Jews and Christians are still to seek their guidance.

This third claim (that Jews and Christians are to look to what is still contained) is indeed confirmed by the Qur’an:

“Say, O people of the book! You are not founded on anything until you PERFORM the TORAH and the GOSPEL, and what was revealed to you from your Lord” (Sura 5:68-71)

But you forgot to mention the third faction, the Qur’an encourages even Muslims and Muhammad to believe in and to consult the content of these previous writings:

Be courteous when you argue with People of the Book except with those among them who do evil. Say: “ We believe in that which is revealed to us and which was revealed to you. Our God and your God is one”. (Sura 29:46)

“If you Muhammad are in doubt regarding that which we have revealed to thee, ask THOSE who READ the BOOK from BEFORE YOU” (Sura 10:94).

“O ye who believe! Believe in Allah and his Messenger, and the SCRIPTURE WHICH HE SENT TO HIS MESSENGER, AND the SCRIPTURE WHICH HE SENT TO THOSE BEFORE (HIM). Any who denieth Allah, His angels, His BOOKS, His messengers, and the day of judgement, hath gone fare astray” (Sura 4:136)

I would assume if the author of the Qur’an believed the Gospel to be corrupted, he would have worded these passages quite differently and have revealed passages that explicitly confirmed the corruption of the Gospel (Injeel), yet such passages are no where to be found in the Qur’an.

The author of the Qur’an was either a deceiver or just plain ignorant!

If as you assume that these previous revelations are no longer reliable, why are the Christians, the Jews and the muslims asked to seek guidance from these books, and if it only refers to specific passages in these books which are devoid of corruption, where does the Qur’an differentiate explicitely between these corrupted passages and the intact passages?

I ask this question in particular since I would assume that this matter would demand explicit reference in the Qur’an, if this indeed was the author’s view.

Kunde continues:

In fact, we see in the Gospels a clear and progressive steering away from the earlier message. In Mark (12:29) we find Jesus saying the greatest commandment is "Hear, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.", yet in the parallel passage in Matthew (23:36) states: "Love God with all your heart, soul and mind." Why? Possibly developing Christian theology?

Hogan replies:

No this is not developing Christian theology, the phrase of Jesus in Matthew 22: 36-37 (not 23: 36) is taken from Deuteronomy 6: 5 which records the phrase of Jesus in Matthew 22 and that of Jesus in Mark 12: 29-30; in fact both phrases are from Deuteronomy 6: 5, which makes it likely that Jesus quoted both of them, but Matthew simply omits the first part. It puzzles me how this is steering away from an earlier message, could you please elaborate on this?

Kunde seems to think that this is Matthew removing the focus of worshipping one God. All I can do is, is to encourage Kunde to read through Matthew, is this really the context of Matthew? Can you elaborate on, based upon the enterity of Matthew’s Gospel that Matthew’s omission of one single phrase reveals that Matthew is attempting to change the theology?

Furthermore, if this was the case then you would have to admit that the Qur’an is also steering away from the previous revelations and a development in theology. The Qur’an indeed claims to be united with the previous revelation, but a comparison of the contents of these writings reveals that the Qur’an is the book that deviates.

Kunde continues:

2)All the disciples/followers of Jesus were also mislead by the fake crucifixion.
a) This is only if you assume the Gospel accounts are accurate, which I do not, and as I argue, it is completely reasonable to question the validity of them (at the very least).

Hogan replies:

Again I find your conclusion highly inconsistent

Firstly, the Gospels are according to the Gospels not revelations they are the transmitted testimony of the eyewitnesses. The disciples are commanded to transmit Jesus sayings (Matthew 28: 20) and the narrative (Luke 24: 45-48) (Acts 1: 8).

Luke 24: 48 and Acts 1: 8 confirms that the disciples were commanded to be witnesses.

In the Gospel of John 15: 26-27 Jesus says:

‘When the Counsellor comes, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me. And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning’.

Having been with Jesus from the beginning and be elected was to be a fundamental and authoritative witness, and this was indeed vital as we see from the selection of Matthias to join the category of the twelve (Acts 1: 23-26).

What am I saying here: I am saying that the Gospels are eyewitness testimony of the apostles and their transmission of the Gospel account and the sayings of Jesus, not revelation. Hence the Gospel is a witness of those who were commanded by Jesus to transmit this information.

Indeed the Qur’an seems to confirm this

When Jesus found unbelief on their part, he said: ‘who will be my helpers to (the work of ) Allah?’ Said the disciples: ‘We are Allah’s helpers: we believe in Allah and do you bear witness that we are Muslims. Our Lord! We believe in what you have revealed, and we follow the messenger, then write us down among those who bear witness’ (3: 53-4)

If the disciples of Jesus failed, and they must have if the Gospel suffered the corruption you are proposing, then the Qur’an is conveying a false picture of these followers of Jesus as being superior and victorious and doing the work of Allah:

O you who believe! Be you helpers of Allah: as said Jesus the son of Mary to his disciples, “who will be my helpers (to the work) Allah?” Said the disiciples, “We are Allah’s helpers!” Then a portion of the children of Israel believed, and a portion disbelieved: but we gave power to those who believed, against their enemies, and they became the ones that prevailed (Sura 6: 14)

I will make those who follow you superior to those who reject the faith to the day of resurrection (Sura 3: 55)

Kunde continuous:

3)What Paul did isn't deception.
a)I'm pretty sure I didn't say, "Paul lied", but I did say something along the lines of deception. I was asked a similar question on the night to which I replied: "If it were modern times, would Paul come into a mosque and pray as we pray, etc, in order to present Christianity? Thats what it seems he did.

Hogan replies:

This is exaggerating the matter, I doubt Paul would have recognised any resemblance between Islam and first century Judaism! Paul would not have bowed toward a Gentile city like Mecca and a pagan shrine with a black stone kissed by its followers, I guess Paul would have recognised such practice as paganism. Paul at least realised that parts of Judaism and the religion of Israel was part of the progressive revelation of Yahweh, which Islam is not. This is why Paul and early Christians did not view it problematic to enter the temple or a synagogue; I don’t think they would have been equally sympatetic with a mosque.

Kunde continues:

You do realise that by being a 'Gentile to the Gentiles' that means he possibly worshiped their gods while with them? Do you think God needs to be presented in this way?"

Hogan replies:

You are in fact misrepresenting the passage here, Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 9: 20-22:

‘To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the Law I became like one under the Law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the Law. To those not having the Law I became like one not having the Law (though I am not free from God’s Law but under the Law of Christ), so as to win those not having the Law’.

It never says Paul became like a Gentile or that he adopted Gentile pagan practice. All the passage points is that Paul did not practice the Mosaic while in the presence of those not having this Law. Yet he emphasises that he is not free from the Law; meaning the Law of Christ, e.g. the Sermon on the Mountain and the Gospel information.

I am amazed how you even read the possibility of pagan worship into this context.

Kunde continues:

If you say 'yes', thats a very interesting belief system.

Hogan replies:

I also find it interesting that the Qur’an refers to the previous revelations as intact despite the rejection of its doctrine; is that misleading or was the author of the Qur’an so human that he failed to consider the content of these previous revelations?

The Bible and Science: The Biblical view of Cosmology

2010-01-04T14:44:00.000-08:00

We are constantly bombarded with the claim that the Bible is unscientific! Let's consider that claim in the light of what the Bible has to say about science.

Interestingly, while secular science right up to the 20th century viewed the universe in accordance with Aristotles' philosophy that the universe was simply eternal the Bible presented the scientific reality that the universe began, all a long.

The first passage of the Bible correctly states: 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth' (Genesis 1: 1).

Notice that the passage does not include particular ridicolous statements such as God separating heaven and earth, which was a common understanding among the ancient thinkers (as seen in the Gilgamesh writings, the Talmud, Lucretius and the Qur'an) and which is entirely unscientific in accordance to observation such as cosmological development and accreation.

Genesis simply records the beginning of the universe we live in.

We need however to consider the words 'heaven' and 'earth' in Genesis 1: 1; these are often recognised by the modern reader as references to the actual heaven and earth. Yet in accordance with the understanding of the ancient mind these terms combined ussually denoted a definition of the universe as a whole not a seperation of two entities.

Wenham clarifies:

But in the OT, as well as in Egyptian, Akkadian and Ugaritic, "heaven and earth" may also be used to denote the universe...Genesis 1: 1 could therefore be translated: "In the beginning God created everything" (Gordon J. Wenham, Word Biblical Commentary 1: Genesis 1-15, p.15)

This agrees with the modern scientific view that the universe once began.

The Bible also predicted another scientific factor, namely the very recent discovery of cosmological expansion. In Isaiah 40: 22: '...He stretches out the heavens like a canopy'.

At the same time God in his revelation to Isaiah also denotes the very end of the universe, something which in modern scientific theory is referred to as the Big Crunch, basically the universe being brought together into nothing:

"All the stars of the heavens will be dissolved and the sky rolled up like a scroll; all the starry host will fall" (Isaiah 34: 4)

This probably describes the total vanishing of the first earth and heaven in the Book of Revelation prior to the arise of a new universe:

'Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away...' (Revelation 21: 1)

This obviously speaks of a universe with different laws, eternal laws.

Response to Yahya Snow's article: Jesus has Muslim Brothers, Sisters and Mothers

2010-01-02T11:47:00.001-08:00

On 22 September Yahya Snow posted on his blog a thread assessing from an Islamic perspective a phrase of Jesus from Mark 3: 35. Yahya attempted to prove that Jesus’ teaching by nature includes those who adhere to the Islamic and Qur’anic teaching, since Muslims who adhere to Islamic teaching naturally do the will of God.

In this rebuttal I intend to respond to Yahya Snow’s assessment of the passage in Mark and a number of additional related points, which he raised on his blog.

Yahya’s post and the related topic can be read on these two threads on his blog: ‘The Facts about Islam’

In this rebuttal I intend to respond to Yahya Snow’s assessment of the passage in Mark and a number of additional related points, which he raised on his blog.

Yahya’s post and the related topic can be read on these two threads on his blog: ‘The Facts about Islam’

http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2009/12/jesus-has-muslim-brothers-sisters-and.html

http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2009/12/become-muslim-if-you-love-jesus.html

Yahya Snow wrote:

‘The Bible Confirms: Muslims are the Brothers and Sisters (and Mothers) of Jesus by Yahya Snow

This may come as a surprise to those who are unaware of the contents of the Bible as well as unaware of whom the Muslims are but rest assured it comes as no surprise to those who are familiar with Prophetic Monotheism.

In order to explain the title let us look into the statement attributed to Jesus within the Gospel of Mark (3:35). Herein Jesus teaches us that his brothers, sisters and mothers are those who follow the Will of God.

Mark 3:35 says "For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother."

The uninformed may ask; how does this relate to the Muslims? Well, the word ”Muslim” simply means one who has submitted to the Will of God, so we come to know that “whoever does the Will of God” is a Muslim.

Thus we realise that Jesus is referring to Muslims in this passage so we should pass on these glad tidings to the Muslims as Muslims are indeed the brothers, sisters and mothers of Jesus’.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard responds:

Now let’s assess Yahya’s interpretation of Mark 3: 35:

Yahya presumes that Jesus’ wording in Mark 3: 35: ‘for whoever does the will of God, he is my brother, sister and mother’ establishes the Muslim claim that Jesus was a Muslim and that every Muslim is joined into the original religion of Jesus.

Yet, as I will pinpoint in this rebuttal, such a use of this passage is neither fair to its Markan context; neither does it do justice to the teaching of the Qur’an itself.

First and most we need to clarify that basing this particular debate on Mark’s Gospel may nevertheless prove futile since Mark’s Gospel is not a teaching Gospel but primarily a narrative Gospel. Hence if the Gospel of Mark is the earliest and the most reliable, as Yahya assumes, it simply eliminates the claim of the Qur’an that the original Gospel was a revelatory book of from heaven, it rather seems that the earliest writing focused much more on the narrative part.

However, let’s consider from the teachings of Jesus in Mark whether a Muslim can adhere to the teachings of the Qur’an and still do the will of God according to the words of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark.

An excellent example is Jesus teaching on divorce. In Mark 10: 11-12 Jesus says:

‘Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another women commits adultery with her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery with here’

Yet in the Qur’an we find its author conveying to his readers a very different regulation:

‘And if ye wish to exchange one wife for another and ye have given unto one of them a sum of money, take nothing from it’ (Sura 4: 20)

And if he hath divorced here (the third time), then she is not lawful unto him thereafter until she hath wedded another husband. Then if the (other husband) divorces her it is not sin for both of them that they come together again if they consider that they are able to observe the limits of Allah (Sura 2: 230).

According to the teaching of Jesus in Mark, if someone was to adhere to this teaching in Qur’an he would be categorized an adulterer; hence adhering to the teaching conveyed by the author of the Qur’an is not abiding by the will of God according to Jesus.

Another example if Jesus’ prediction of his own death in Mark 8: 31:

‘He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and teachers of the Law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. He spoke plainly about these this and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter: “Get behind me, Satan!” he said: “You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.”’

Now I here am getting slightly puzzle about the Muslim interpretation of our scripture here! The Gospels clearly teach that Jesus died physically, while the Qur’an openly denies the death of Jesus (Sura 4: 157). Yet in Mark 8: 31 Jesus clearly describes his death as the will of God.

Hence my question to Yahya and other Muslims at this point is: How can you do the will of God in heaven (based upon Mark 3: 35) if you openly reject the ‘things of God’?

Notice here that Jesus even refers to Peter as Satan, since Peter had the audacity to oppose the will of God in heaven in terms of Jesus’ death and crucifixion.

In case of Yahya’s interpretation of Mark 3: 35, anyone who holds to the Muslim position and rejects the death of Jesus hardly describes a follower of Jesus; hence the faithful follower of the Qur’an is according to Jesus teaching in Mark not adhering to the will of God nor is he the Mother, brother or sister of Jesus, but rather as we read in Mark 8: 31 a devil or someone who represents the cause of Satan.

Hence considering Yahya’s conclusion of Mark 3: 35 in its proper context we find that quite the opposite conclusion is more bearing and accurate.

The flipside of the matter is also worth consideration, that is: Peter changed and embraced the will of God in terms of Jesus death; which means that Peter is no longer a representative of the devil---This same option is left open for every Muslim who wants to embark unto the true path of God.

There were also a number of other points raised by Yahya, which I feel we need to respond to.

Yahya Snow wrote:

We should also acknowledge that this verse is from the Gospel of Mark, this Gospel is thought to be the most reliable of the four as it is the earliest but it is also clear that even this Gospel has been adulterated (or changed) by the scribes; this is seen through the footnotes in the NIV Bible (indicating manuscript differences) especially the last ten verses of the Gospel of Mark (16:9-19) which are forged additions by a scribe(s).

There are a number of fallacies within this paragraph of Yahya.

Firstly he assumes that Mark being the earliest Gospel presumes that Mark is the more reliable of the four. Now Mark is indeed an early Gospel, if we consider the writings of Eusebius, Mark was written in Rome and was brought by Mark to Alexandria fairly early, possibly AD 45-50. I say this because the first bishop of Alexandria was Anniasus who came after Mark and became a bishop in the eight year of the emperor Nero, prior to the persecution (Eusebius, The History of the Church, Book 2, 15, 24). In that case Mark’ Gospel might have been written only 15-20 years after the ascension of Jesus. I am fully aware that many scholars date Mark 60-65, however, the earliest data we possess suggests 50 AD or a date even earlier.

However, Yahya is correct Mark is a reliable Gospel, in fact Mark’s Gospel proves to be a devastating problem for those seek to undermine the Christian faith.

I have spent months studying the nature, order, style and origins of Mark, and it is an incredible piece of literature based upon a dictation, which according to the early Christians was an oral transmission passed on from the apostle Peter to his disciple Mark.

Yahya claims that the gospel has been adulterated. This is quite an exaggerated and unattested claim. You only come anywhere such a possibility if you adhere strictly to the individual theories of source critics; yet these methods are conjecture only and if Yahya is to consider these claims he needs to reject Jesus’ miracles (after all one can only consider e.g. Koester and others who saw the supernatural aspect of Jesus as that very adulteration)

Yet there are good evidences that Mark has been well preserved. How do we know that? There are a number of pointers, both logical, historical and textual. Firstly, Mark’s Gospel is not very good literal piece of reading material, the author or its source had good but limited Greek, but knew Aramaic well, this is very obvious from the text and does not render it a very professional piece of literature. Furthermore, the text is written as sermon, lively and wordy and repetitive, etc; the grammatical side is also an issue.

Now try to ask yourself, does that render Mark unreliable or reliable?

Think of it this way, the very reason why the Gospel of Mark has been preserved in this style without any proper amendment or textual polishing reveals that later Christians knowing this transmission to be conveyed by an apostle were unwilling to make any necessary polishing or amendments; they preserved it in its original style and order. This refutes the allegation that Mark has suffered corruption. If Christians intended to corrupt Mark either to elevate Jesus Christ or some other doctrine they would also amend the literary style of the writing---yet they didn’t.

As to the variants caused by later scribes (which Yahya refers to), we are now moving from a speculative field of study into the field of textual criticism, yet the picture Yahya is presenting is a serious misinterpretation of this field of study and even a misinterpretation of e.g. Ehrman and Metgzer (whose books I love dearly).

I do not mind do an extensive debate on this in a later post, but the so called variants found in the Markan apparatus does not reveal the type of corruption so often exclaimed by the Muslims. The typical variants are typical scribal errors caused by faulty hearing or tiredness. These are typical categorized as spelling mistakes, grammatical mistakes, omitted words or sentences, or repeated words or sentences. If the reader wants to studies these issues may I recommend: Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford Clarendon Press, 1987) and Bart D. Ehrman Misquoting Jesus.

Interestingly changes were made even of theological nature, yes! You will find the explanation of these in the books cited above.

However since a Muslim is bringing these up we need to consider them in that context. Some errors are indeed of theological significant such as certain corruptions of words in Luke’s Gospel mainly to protect the doctrine of the virgin birth (some local scribes sought to remove any wording in the three first chapters of Luke in Luke which were revealing any parental link between Jesus and his adoptive father Joseph; these passages despite the clear teaching of the virgin birth in Luke were potential lines misused by certain heretics who rejected the virgin birth, hence some scribes in their best intention, changed the wording ‘parents’ to Mary and Joseph).

Now before Muslim exclaim that this is sign that the Bible was changed, he has to consider firstly, that these were local not overall changes. Furthermore, they were detected and do not appear in the majority mainstream manuscripts nor in the Bible we read today (as far as I know). In fact early Christian successors were trained to detect such changes both in the written and oral transmission.

Furthermore, if the Muslim wants to push this matter, that is, if the local corruption of the text to support the teaching of Jesus’ virgin birth was an original fabrication, would that would not refute the reliability of the Qur’an as well since the Qur’an refers to this the virgin birth as factional (this is why Muslims ought to do their homework before they use textual criticism as a method of questioning the Bible).

In fact textual criticism does not support the Muslim view, on the contrary it confirms the accuracy and preservation of the New Testament manuscripts:

Ehrman writes:

‘Most changes are careless errors that are easily recognised and corrected. Christian scribes often made mistakes simply because they were tired or inattentive...In spite of the remarkable differences among our manuscripts, scholars are convinced that we can reconstruct the oldest form of the words of the New Testament with a reasonable (though not 100 percent accuracy) (Barth Ehrman, Lost Christianities: The Battle for the Scripture and Faith We Never Knew, pp. 220-21).

Ehrman agrees in his later book Misquoting Jesus:

‘For my part however, I continue to think that even if we cannot be 100 percent certain...that it is at least possible to get back to the oldest and earliest stage of the manuscript tradition...This oldest form of the text is no doubt closely (very closely) related to what the author originally wrote’ (Barth Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, p. 62)

This backfires upon the Muslim use of textual criticism. While the Muslim focuses on these minor textual issues, which generally are of no significance and typically a local deviation, the fact is that textual criticism has only managed to support the fact that the New Testament was well preserved. If textual criticism is utilized by the Muslim to point out our ignorance of a tiny portion of the New Testament text, then the Muslim also needs to recognise that the majority of the New Testament text has been proven intact and preserved by the methods and discovery of textual criticism; hence if we apply e.g. Ehrman, then the New Testament writings are fairly reliable and consequently the Qur’an needs to be rejected based upon historical investigation. This is why textual criticism backfires against the Islamic religion.

As to Yahya’s reference to the end of Mark 16, it hardly renders any support to the modern Muslim position either. Muslims tend to postulate that because the passage was not part of the remaining Mark or the original Mark, it renders entire Mark as a document of corruption. However, this is overstating a matter in which Muslim apologists lack even the most basic insight. The bottom line is: it does not render the passage as non-canonical or even secondary to the rest of Mark just because the passage is not Markan, this is often the typical misunderstanding of the common reader including some scholars.

We have to understand firstly that Mark’s Gospel is Peter’s own personal transmission of a two-genre Gospel tradition, which was common type of transmission in those days.

However, based upon the Triple-tradition it is obvious that Peter is not simply conveying an entirely different tradition, he is handing over to Mark his own personal transmission of a fixed oral transmission. This was also a common practice, yet a free transmission would naturally vanish due to the fixed transmission, unless of course the free transmission was written down and Mark was indeed written down; a free apostolic transmission (Mark’s Gospel) was therefore preserved with the fixed transmission. This fixed transmission is what you find when you start comparing the three synoptic gospels.

What am I saying here? I am saying that in 50-60 AD Mark’s Gospel, due to the presence of the apostles and the oral transmission, would still be rated as secondary. Who cared if the end was missing? The Christians at this time were reciting the entire Gospel in its two genres and the end of it (found in Mark 16, which Mark summarizes), orally and under the control of eyewitnesses anyway.

So where did the end come of Mark originate? There is one explanation only: if we consider the role of succession and transmission in first century Christianity, the end of Mark came from the oral transmission, hence it is as authoritative and apostolic in nature as the rest of Mark.

Yahya Snow further elaborates:

‘As a side note, this verse from the Gospel of Mark does reinforce the view that the followers of Jesus thought of Jesus as a Prophet rather than God as God would not declare people to be his mothers, sisters or brothers. It also shows that Jesus did not view himself to be God as this is not a statement one would expect of God but one would have expected a statement like this from a Prophet, hence Jesus thought himself as a Prophet.’

I think Yahya is misunderstanding the two natures of Jesus, the divine and the human; this is very typical Muslim fallacy. Jesus looks at his followers here as those who follow his teaching and example, hence in his human dimension it is fair to say that they have a close connection. Notice however, that the point is metaphorical, whether Jesus is God or not, the language is still metaphorical; they are not naturally the family of the human Jesus or divine Jesus anyway. This argument is totally futile.

Yet Yahya somehow derives from this that his followers must from, language such as this, have understood Jesus to have been anything but divine. However, this is not the picture we get from Mark’s Gospel at all. The reader of Mark is on the contrary introduced to Jesus as someone who in his very nature is extraordinary. In Mark chapter 1 God announced no less than twice in the Old Testament prophets his coming (the prophets Isaiah and Malachi). Isaiah in Isaiah 40:3-5 predicts the coming of John the Baptist who prepares the way for the Lord; this Lord is no one else but Jesus Christ. From Malachi we have another interesting description, a messenger who is preparing the way for the Lord who comes to his temple. It is interesting that this same individual is also the messenger of the covenant; what is this but God revealed in an inferior form (Malachi 3: 1). This same Lord and messenger who comes to the temple will also refine and judge the world (verse 2).

In Mark 1: 4-8 John confirms: 1) that he is the prophet who made way for this Lord and messenger of the covenant (now why would God send a human prophet to make the way for a human prophet? The answer lies in the passage itself: this is not a prophet arising among the people, but the Lord arriving in a inferior form); 2) that this Lord is much superior and powerful than John the Baptist himself, even to the extent that John is not worthy of untying the Lord’s sandals (why would a human prophet sense such inferiority because another human prophet?).

What is of greater significant is John’s statement that Jesus is the one who will baptise with the Holy Spirit, a privilege and ability not ascribed to human agents and which according to the Old Testament prophets is the ability and eschatological action ascribed to God only.

Hence my question is: does this Jesus depict just a human being?

Obviously not. Hence the Gospel of Mark refutes Yahya’s conclusion that the disciples of Jesus were unaware of his true nature. There was certainly a time of ignorance, and when Jesus utilized the family metaphor in Mark 3: 35 they were probably still ignorant, but initially as Mark chapter One reveals they were enlightened about the true nature of the one who metaphorically described them as brothers, sisters and mothers.

Yet to remain in this category, as we have seen from the Gospel of Mark requires quite the opposite of what Yahya presumes it would take to make a metaphorical family member of Jesus.

John Lennox refuting the atheist

2009-12-23T06:06:00.000-08:00

I want to make the reader aware of John Lennox, an excellent Christian apologist and debater and author of several books, such as God's Undertaker among others, see:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8&sort=relevancerank&search-alias=books&field-author=John%20Lennox

Lennox recently debated the radical evolutionist and atheist Richard Dawkins and did a fairly good job in representing the Christian faith and view.

Lennox blog can be seen here: http://johnlennox.org/

Personally I find the atheist position extremely weak, dishonest and selective.

I can't help referring to Richard Carrier's methodology that only non-theist scientists can be considered as reliable, since they are non-theists, a claim which proves utterly devestating for the integrity of atheist reasoning; see

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/ten.html

Here I guess theists show much more virtue than the majority of radical atheist, a point which Lennox himself brings up:

http://johnlennox.org/index.php/en/resource/limitations_of_science/

Here is also a list from youtube on the famous particular blunder of Richard Dawkins to respond to a simple question related to DNA, which is foundational for his evolutionary view and theory:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJMp6p3tLj4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uz1CiDDIq4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZoMnz9JgGI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o57VUdQoPr4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W4e4MwogLo&feature=related

Of particular interest is this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_s9oKio-fEU&annotation_id=annotation_817251&feature=iv

I did read the book in which Richard Dawkins refers to this particular incident prior to our privilege of Youtube; great actually to watch the interview and the reaction of our atheist friends. You will find it interesting from these youtube videos that it is becoming more and more of an atheist claim that theists fabricate or corrupt interview records, which is a desparate claim indeed. Quite similar to the reaction we had to Antony Flew's conversion from atheism to theism or deism.

Well it seems that Dawkins confirms that the recording was not tampered with. Hence he was stuck when a fundamental question and issue was raised and funny Dawkins has failed to adequately address this issue with anything that impresses a mind that actually conforms to actual reason.

In any case the evolution theory is hardly an adequate refutation of either the Bible (according to some) or God (and I personally hold to the creationist view).

Refuting the Muslim Misuse of Jeremiah 8: 8 Concering the Corruption of the Torah

2009-12-14T16:24:00.000-08:00

In a fairly desprate attempt to prove Bible corruption modern muslims have even resorted to the Biblical text for supporting indication. The most frequent passage being quoted by these Islamic missionaries is Jeremiah 8: 8 which reads:

How can you say, ‘We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD,’ when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?"

Basically, the people of Jerusalem cannot claim to possess the Law since the scribes have falsefied it, or so the muslim argument runs, hence the Torah in our possession today is corruption.

This argument was originally utilized by a radical critical scholar named Albertz Rainer in his book ‘A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period: From the Beginnings to the End of the Monarchy’.

Rainer along with a number of radical critics utilized this passage in Jeremiah to support a yet another speculative attempt to undermine scripture namely the popular theory of an early religious conspiracy to turn Judea from its polytheistic state towards monotheism and back to the prophetic, priestly and political function of Moses (Rainer, pp. 203-207).

That Josiah’s reform indeed was a return to the original movement of Yahweh and the Law of Moses if accurate, but it is virtually impossible to prove that Josiah and his contemporaries forged the Deuteronomy document and neither Rainer nor any of his associates achieves this.

The book is an enjoyable reading yet apart from its academic outfit as fictionous as the Davinci Code itself.

The problem with the argument of Rainer is as Weinfeld points out that the particular word ‘sheqer’ in Jeremiah 8: 8 has multiple meanings such as untruth, shame, lie or in vain, and is far more accurately translated ‘writing in vain’ in this context. In fact the same word is found in 1 Samuel 25: 21, where David uses the same wording, which is often translated: ‘it’s been useless’

In that case the scribes of Jerusalem in Jermiah’s time are not corrupting the Law of Moses, but what they write is useless because they fail to abide by it.

Furthermore, that ‘writing in vain’ is an accurate translation of ‘sheqer’ in this passage is also supported by the context itself. In Jeremiah 26: 4-6 we are told that the Law still exists and should be followed:

"Say to them, ‘This is what the LORD says: If you do not listen to me and follow MY LAW, which I have set before you, and if you do not listen to the words of my servants the prophets, whom I have sent to you again and again (though you have not listened) then I will make this house like Shiloh and this city an object of cursing among all the nations of the earth.’"( Jeremiah 26:4-6)

Hence if the Mosaic Law still exists and should be followed, how can it be corrupted?

Interestingly a few decades later Daniel the prophet reads the book of Jeremiah:

"In the first year of Darius son of Xerxes (a Mede by descent), who was made ruler over the Babylonian kingdom - in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, understood from the Scriptures, according to the word of the LORD given to Jeremiah the prophet, that the desolation of Jerusalem would last seventy years. So I turned to the LORD and pleaded with him in prayer and petition, in fasting, and in sackcloth and ashes." (Daniel 9:1-3)

And confirms in the same book that the Law of Moses is still intact:

"Therefore the curses and sworn judgments WRITTEN IN THE LAW OF MOSES, the servant of God, have been poured out on us, because we have sinned against you. You have fulfilled the words spoken against us and against our rulers by bringing upon us great disaster. Under the whole heaven nothing has ever been done like what has been done to Jerusalem. JUST AS IT IS WRITTEN IN THE LAW OF MOSES, all this disaster has come upon us, yet we have not sought the favor of the LORD our God by turning from our sins and giving attention to your truth." Daniel 9:11b-13

This only supports that the meaning of Jeremiah 8: 8 is not that of corrupting the text but that of copying the Law in vain since the people of Jerusalem failed to abide by it anyway.

Furthermore, even if Jeremiah attests to a group of scribes falsifying the Law of Moses, it does not support the view that the Law of Moses was universally corrupted. Scribes were not only residing in Jerusalem and both Jeremiah himself and Daniel confirm that the Law remained intact and existed as such in Jeremiah’s time and in the era of Daniel.

Furthermore, if the argument of Rainer is used by a Muslim, how does the Muslim explain the Qur’anic description of the Torah in Muhammad’s time and era:

"But why do they (the Jews) come to thee for decision, when they have the Torah in which IS the command of God." (Sura 5: 46)

"But when the truth has come to them from Us, they say: `why is he not given the like of what was given to Moses?' Did they not disbelieve in that which was given to Moses before? They say: `Two kinds of magic (the Torah and the Quran) each helping the other!' And they say: `Verily! In both we are disbelievers.' Say (to them, O Muhammad): `Then bring a Book from Allah, which is a better guide than these TWO (the Torah and the Quran), that I may follow it, if you are truthful.'" (Sura 28: 48-49)

"The Jews say, `The Christians are not (founded) upon anything.' And the Christians say, `The Jews are not (founded) upon anything.' And yet THEY READ THE BOOK." (Sura 2: 113)

Obviously Rainer’s view and the view of the modern Muslims does not cohere with the teachings proposed by the author of the Qur’an.

Misquoting Jesus

2009-12-09T05:00:00.000-08:00

As I am critically writing a review of Barth Ehrman's Misqouting Jesus, I am amazed at the publicity this book has received as becoming a main academic source of contribution to the effort of the critic to debunk the historical reliability behind the NT text. Personally I think this is a brilliant book of this field of study, even though simple and merely a work of popular literature. My main disappointment is that Ehrman simply reiterates what he has already covered in other books such as 'Orthodox corruption' and 'Lost Christianity'. Yet despite being an excellent source of informaton, it amounts to nothing more than I already have covered at Bible college.

The book has nevertheless been utilized by muslims to promote their case against the Bible. Personally, I don't think New Testament Textual criticism supports this muslim myth, neither does the book of Ehrman.

I wonder therefore if my Muslim friends could elaborate on how the textual criticism Ehrman proposes defends the modern islamic view (not Quranic view) that the Gospels have been corrupted, to the extent the modern muslim individual promotes it.

(note: the modern muslim who adheres to the view of Bible corruption is not obedient to the teachings of the Qur'an which describes the Injeel intact; in fact such a muslim is according to the Qur'an not a muslim but a individual who has driven far away from the true path)

My Email Address

2009-12-06T08:41:00.000-08:00

I have just discovered that the email address attached to this blog does not work (at least if you email me from my profile). I anyone has tried to contact me within the last four weeks by the 'email' under profile, then I have not received your post.

I am trying to find out why emails do not reach me from this blog. In the mean time if you wanna get in touch with me I have included my email address under the 'about me' on the front page of this blog.

My email address is hoganelijahhagbard@yahoo.co.uk

Additional Questions for Yahya Snow: The prophet in John 1: 19-28

2009-12-03T03:06:00.000-08:00

Concerning the prophet in John 1: 19-28

1) Do you believe this passage is authentic?

2) If it is authentic do you believe it was a part of the original Injeel?

3) If you believe that John's Gospel is simply a corruption but you are merely making a point from what you believe to be corrupted or fabricated material, are you not then wasting your time?

4) If you believe some words or phrases in the passage are authentic or even revelatory how do you differentiate between these and the fabricated part?

Did the Qur'an Suffer Textual Corruption?

2009-11-15T10:09:00.000-08:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y40X6ykSQlE&feature=player_embedded

I am not making myself an expert on the field of Qur'anic textual criticism, yet I think this issue demands our consideration.

This youtube video reveals that Qur'anic experts in textual criticism assume based upon early Qur'anic manuscripts and the earliest Qur'anic manuscript in existence that the Qur'anic text was manipulated and formulated from an earlier version to the standard version we possess today. They estimate that this corruption which preceeds other later Qur'anic manuscripts took place within the fifty earliest years of Islam. When considering the Hadiths and Sira and the vast corruption and fabrication of material, this is not all surprising.

It seems that the matter of Qur'anic textual criticism is a future field of study that will greatly challenge the traditional claim of Islam that the Qur'an has suffered zero corruption.

Let me in addition refer the reader to this particular debate which took place in London this summer between Bassam Zawadi and Nabeel Quershi:

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/07/bassam-zawadi-vs-nabeel-qureshi-has.html

Bassam was well prepared for this debate, however, the very matter which Nabeel wished to pin point was firmly established, namely that the early Qur'an's contain variants and to this Bassam agreed, yet he dared to refer to these as divine variants. I have to say that such a reply to Nabeel's argument does not impress me at all, it goes against both logic and history. Bassam seemed here to point out a reply later stressed by Muslims to avoid the difficulties. In fact even if the Qur'an originally existed in multiple forms (which is logical but hardly is connected to this matter raised by German scholars) there is no clear evidence that these forms constitute the variants and textual inconsistencies which have been detected with early Qur'anic manuscripts and from the early historical sources.

Bassam and the Muslims present sought to argue that these variants were parts of revelations revealed in different forms to Arabic tribes of different dialects and that each form has been perfectly preserved wherever possible.

There are nevertheless a number of refuting points to this argument.

Firstly, Nabeel pointed out effectively that there forty different views among Muslims concerning these variants, and certainly no evidence that these were merely dialectical variants. In fact why would Allah commit such a foolish error in the first place, an error, which later almost lead to civil war. And if it was Allah's will to reveal the Qur'an in seven forms, based upon what revelatory authority did Uthman and later Islamic leaders discredit these forms and burn them?

It also came across rather clearly that the best reciters of Muhammad transmitted Qur'ans in dialects that later were burned; that is if the matter relates to dialects only. However, early Islam gives no real evidence that this was only a matter of dialects, and the reaction toward the Islamic rulers who inagurated this Qur'anic reform and revision of the text seem to reveal an attempt to cover up a real problem, namely that the early Qur'an was not preserved, which led to the corruption and later stratums of periods in which Qur'ans were burned; hence a development in textually formulating the Qur'anic text within the first fifty years of Islam.

Furthermore, the German scholars have effectively established that under the printed text they have discovered a text that has been erased, which reveals a number of stages in which the text has been polished and reformulated, hence the variants are not resulted from divine logic in providing a number of texts for various dialectics but the result of an early corruption of the text. This refutes the claim of the Muslims that the existing variants reveal dialectic form, rather the variants reveal a fluid transmission and a text that underwent a lengthy development.

We need also to reject the claim of Muslims that the variants reveal seven variant forms, which despite their variants remain in each their own preserved form. In fact the scrutiny of the early manuscripts reveal that the variants result from rewriting and rearranging the text, which in the typical Muslim mindset is corruption.

While I am not a keen favorit of source criticism and the typical theoretical methods behind it, this certainly rekindles my desire to consider the works of Chrone and a number of scholars who propose that the present Qur'an was fabricated under a Syriac influence and that much of the transmitted transmission related to the earlist history of Islam and the biography of Muhammad is early fabrication and corruption of reality.

Yahya Snow and the Prophet in John 1: 19-21 an Example of the Inconsistency of Islamic Apologetics

2009-10-29T09:17:00.000-07:00

An interesting debate that has taken up in recent weeks concerning the prophet in John 1: 19-21 has been heavily stirred up by a certain Muslim named Yahya Snow. Yahya much like most of his muslim buddies would attempt to argue that this particular prophet is no one else but prophet Muhammad.

In this post I will not address the actual details of the debate; my brothers, Sam Shamoun, David Wood and Semper Paratus have already effectively refuted Yahya Snow and smashed his arguments to pieces:

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/10/reply-to-yahya-snows-comments-on-john_26.html

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/10/sam-shamoun-vs-yahya-snow-on.html

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/10/reply-to-yahya-snows-comments-on-john.html

However, I want to address another particular problem with Yahya Snow's methodology, which is typical of muslim apologetics as a whole, and which I have already posted on www.answering-muslim.com:

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6590312557191237519&postID=8397958699663275226

The problem with the Muslim approach here, is that in Muslim apologetics, the Gospels reveal a progress in corruption: Mark being the earliest Gospel, being the least corrupted and hence the most islamic Gospel. Followed by Matthew and Luke, which are slightly more corrupted and embellished (such as the inclusion of the virgin birth, which unfortunately for the muslim is found in the Qur'an) and finally joined by John's Gospel which is the ultimate corruption (according to Muslims and other critics) and which according to Muslims has included a number of trinitarian details, teachings contradictory of the Qur'an, narratives and ideas; but unfortunately also references that according to muslims may support the Qur'anic position, such as the reference to the three: Christ, Elijah and the prophet, including the 'paraclete' in John 14: 16-17, which muslims mistake for Muhammad the prophet of Islam.

The question I always ask is, why is the Paraclete not found in Mark's Gospel? And why is the reference to the prophet in John 1: 17-21 not found in Mark's Gospel.

Muslims cannot simply state that parts of John's Gospel are parts of the Injeel along with parts of Mark's Gospel! Firstly because many of these passages such as John 1 related to the prophet is narrative, in that case the original Injeel was not a book from heaven but a human narrative.

Furthermore, based upon the progressive-corruption argument held by muslims, muslims can only appeal to Mark's Gospel, and therefore prove themselves inconsistent if they move even onto Matthew or Luke.

Either they cannot hold to the view of progressive corruption, and the Muslim can then pull verses out of context whereever he desires from the four Gospels (which in itself is embarrasing) and which they do, but which then implies that he (the muslim if he is consistent) needs to consider the Christological and Trinitarian sayings of Jesus in John's Gospel also.

Or the Muslim can hold to progressive-corruption, but then the prophet in John 1: 17-21 is completely futile for their argument, and then the Qur'an refers to a corrupted passage when claiming that Muhammad was predicted in the Gospel, which implies that the Paraclete in John 14 is not an argument the muslim can appeal to provide proof for a prediction of Muhammad in the Gospel.

So, go ahead muslim, which view do you hold to? Be consistent. However, it is obvious that whatever view the Muslim adheres he will yet again shoot himself in the foot.

The Qur'an and the Big Bang Theory: Seven Easy Questions for the Muslim

2009-10-24T06:38:00.000-07:00

As I am preparing my youtube videos on the Qur'an and modern science, I would first wanna hear the Muslim opinion and interpretation on this particular passage in the Qur'an:

‘Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them, and we made every living thing of water? Will they not then believe? (Sura 21: 30)’

Do Muslims actually believe:

1) That the heaven and earth were fused in cosmological time?

2) That the earth actually separated from this primordial entity?

3) That this view of the Qur'an correlates with modern science?

Furthermore:

4) Who are these disbelivers?

5) How did the disbelivers know something that modern science has just recently revealed?

6) If the disbelivers already knew, what makes this passage in the Qur'an so special?

7) If the disbelievers already knew, what makes us deny the possibility that the Qur'anic author simply plagiarized this particular claim and other scientific claims from intellectuals who were contemporaries of Muhammad?

2009-10-21T23:56:00.000-07:00

A New Testament Insight into Apologetics

This post introduces my own notes on my teaching on 1) apologetics; 2) how to prepare for apologetics; 3) and how to become an effective apologist. I believe Christians more than ever need to grasp the vital aspect of this ministry within the Christian community and by the grace and wisdom given by God, prepare themselves to take a stand against the desperate attacks of the opponent and falsehood.

The meaning of apologetics:

In apologetics there are two terms we need to consider:

· Apologetics = defending your faith
· Polemics = criticising the view of your opponent

Both approaches are Biblical and in most cases these two are combined into one approach.

The four primary purposes of apologetics:

1. To defend the gospel (Philippians 1: 7)
2. To communicate the gospel by means understandable to the hearers (Acts 17)
3. To give an answer to those who question our faith (Colossians 4: 6) (1 Peter 4: 15)
4. To expose falsehood (Matthew 23) (Acts 17)

Christian attitude in apologetics:

Apologists who resort to insult, personal attacks, accomplish little in their attempt to defend Christianity or expose falsehood.

· Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone (Colossians 4: 6)

· But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behaviour in Christ may be ashamed of their slander (1 Peter 3: 15-16)

However we need also to consider the attitude of Jesus to those who were willing to communicate with him yet with the sole intention to insult, humiliate or attack him (Matthew 12: 24, 38) (16: 1). Jesus knew these types of people, to whom he often engaged with by appealing to polemics (Matthew 23) and spoke with harsh words (Matthew 12: 39) (Matthew 23) (Luke 11: 37-52). On some occasions he decided simply to ignore these and move on (Matthew 15: 12-14) (16: 4). Jesus referred to these are wicked (Matthew 16: 4), blind (Matthew 15: 14), hypocrites (Matthew 23: 27-28) and even brood of vipers (Matthew 23: 33). Whether you like it or not, there is a place for this within Christian communication towards certain categories of opponents. Yet in the light of 1 Peter 3: 15-16 we need to act wisely. Also note that insult is not to be misunderstood as challenging or exposing your opponent.

Preparation for apologetics:

Be ready spiritually: Jesus Christ needs to be the focus of your life:

But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord (1 Peter 3: 15)

A good apologist keeps his spiritual life intact. In other words Christ being Lord of our life and our life and our belief has to correspond: ‘If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in darkness we lie and do not live by the truth’. The word used here is ‘pseudometa’; which implies that unless Jesus is Lord of our life we simply lie to ourselves. Jesus emphasises this in the Gospel: ‘why do you call me Lord, Lord and do not do what I say’ (Luke 6: 46)? That is ‘pseudometa.’ Rather we should practice as Paul reinforces: ‘So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him’ (Colossians 2: 6). Notice here how conversion, life and faith has to correspond.

· ‘...aim for perfection, listen to my appeal, be of one mind, live in peace. And the God of love and peace will be with you’ (2 Corinthians 13: 11)
· ‘Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put into practice. And the God and peace will be with you’ (Philippians 3: 9)
· ‘Keeping a clear conscience’ (1 Peter 3: 16)

Conclusion: Holy lifestyle and a Christ-like attitude is essential for a successful apologist

Be rooted in your faith:

This is applies to the Christian to know his faith and be strong in his faith. The Bible commands us to be strong and rooted in our faith:

· Be on your guard: stand firm in the faith (1 Cor.16: 13)
· I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments. For though I am absent from you in body, I am present with you in spirit and delight to see how orderly you are and how firm your faith in Christ is. So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him, rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness. See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy which depends upon human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ (Colossians 2: 4-8)

Be courageous:

We need a lot of boldness as Christians to face the society we live in, be it in a college, in a university or a work place. It is a fact the community, the authorities, the education system and the media almost work collectively to derive us from the freedom to speak and hold onto our opinion, and indeed to study and research Christianity from a positive standpoint. Furthermore these aspects of society frequently question the Christian faith and undermine it. Now wonder so many Christians are driven by fear and hence fail to stand up for their belief, which they realise might cause them to fail in any given work or study, while the reality is that our fear hinders our progress. If we want breakthrough, risks have to considered and contrary to what Christians often tend to perceive, the common person is often impressed with our courage.

The Bible says:

· Do not fear what they fear; do not be frightened (1 Peter 3: 13)
· Be on your guard: stand firm in the faith: be men of courage: be strong (2 Cor. 16: 13)

Be ready time- wise:

That apologetics is a tool and skill we need to be ready to practice spontaneously at anytime only reveals how urgent this aspect is in the life of every Christian. We read:

· Always...(1 Peter 4: 15a)
· ...be prepared (1 Peter 4: 15b)

Be prepared with and know your information:

Know the Bible:

· ...go make disciples of all nations...teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you (Matthew 28: 16)

· They devoted themselves to the apostles teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer (Acts 2: 42)
· Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom (Colossians 3: 16)
· You will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Timothy 3: 14)
· But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you have learned it, and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 14-17)

Know the sources of your opponents:

Paul’s sermon at Areopagus reveals that he possessed an excellent insight into the books and beliefs of the Greek ideas and philosophies (Acts 17). This requires Christians to possess knowledge about atheism, Islam and other views that oppose the Christian faith.

Organising your study:

The Christian needs to engage in study and daily set of time for study and research; here are a few vital categories of studies:

· Topic study (topics and verses that cover a number of doctrinal topics and then to memorize them within a specific amount of time)

· Context study (find methods that help you to memorize the context and the passages, and methods that provide you with insight into the structure of the Biblical books.

· Set of time to gain inside into philosophy, science, church history and other religions

The purpose with this is:

· ...so that you may know how to answer everyone (Colossians 4: 6)
· ...always be prepared to give an answer to everyone (1 Peter 3: 15)

Oral Transmission and Bible Memorization

2009-10-16T18:02:00.000-07:00

Bible memorization and memorization of information is the ambition of my life; my foremost goal at the present moment is to memorize the entire New Testament and in future to do so in Greek language also.

Why do I believe this to be so vital? I believe this is the strenght and the impetus that constitutes effective ecclesiastical training, accurate doctrine and successful dealing with the external factor, such as mission, apologetics and debating.

Currently, many Christians engage themselves in memorization, whether through straight through repetitition:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfnB4qWJhes&hl=fo

Or memorization technics:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_d4oVq6gNCc&feature=related

We know that Christians in China and other Communist countries have not had much choice but to emphasize memorization since these atheist regimes have either banned or reduced the spread of Bibles.

There are a number of stories in the Chinese underground church how one Bible or a part of it has circulated from one church to the other and been memorized.

Memorization proved a vital part in the early Christianity.

Prior to the writing of Mark, the Christians utilized a oral transmission, which today is included in the four Gospels. However, memorization in the first, second and third century church continued to utilize the oral transmission alongside the written transmission.

The early church father Ireneaus (120-190 AD), the disciple of Polycarp (70-150 AD) who himself was a disciple of John the apostle (died 90/95) the disciple of Jesus, records a number of details relating to memorization and oral transmission. In his Against Heresies, Book 3, chapter 3 and verses 2-3 he records from the line of Roman successors and narrators:

‘...the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul...The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles... To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him...’

Hence Clement of Rome the bishop of Rome and an apostolic successor was in position to memorize and recite the apostolic tradition.

Irenaeus himself records in the Fragments of the Lost Sayings of Irenaeus, chapter 2, how he sat under the influence of Polycarp the successor of John the apostle and memorized the traditions:

‘...I then listened to them attentively, and treasured them up not on paper, but in my heart; and I am continually, by God's grace, revolving these things accurately in my mind’.

Indeed Irenaeus records in Fragments of the Lost Sayings of Irenaeus, chapter 2 how Polycarp had engaged in memorization from the apostles, those who were eyewitnesses and hearers of Jesus:

‘...and how he would call their words to remembrance. Whatsoever things he had heard from them respecting the Lord, both with regard to His miracls and His teaching, Polycarp having thus received [information] from the eye-witnesses of the Word of life, would recount them all...’

We read here of two lines of successors, both lines leading us back to the apostles and then to Jesus, of which both lines of successors are engaged in memorization.

Of similar lines of successors we could refers to Papias who memorized the ‘The Living and Abiding Word’ (that is information transmitted by an eyewitnesses of the account and under his control) from John the Elder and Eyewitnesses and disciple of Jesus (Eusebius, The History of the Church Book 3, chapter 39).

Irenaeus confirms in Irenaeus in his Against Heresies, Book 3, chapter 4, verse 1, that in 180 AD the oral transmission is still so intact within the church, that even with no Bible the oral preservation of the Gospel would be sufficient to preserve the entire tradition:

‘For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?’

As Christians we need to continue with this practice; we need to consider its importance in equipping the teachers, the preachers, the apologists and the average Christian. Furthermore, we need to consider this practice if it should come as far that the Christian community in the West should be persecuted and the Bible banned.

Has the Injeel been corrupted: A challenge to Etheshaam

2009-10-11T23:38:00.000-07:00

This is mainly a response to Gulam Etheshaam and a refutation of his response to my previous thread. In my previous thread I considered three foundational answers to a muslim who claimed that the Injeel is corrupt. Etheshaam replies back in the comments as a response to my third answer, in which I stated that the Qur'an itself does not include the idea that the Injeel has been changed and was in fact intact in Muhammad's own time.

Etheshaam replies:

"if the Injeel is corrupt, how will the Muslim respond to his own book, the Qur'an, which does not state that the Injeel was corrupted, but rather attests to its preservation and accuracy Muhammad's era. "I don't know how many times I Have to say it, The Quran 4:157-- clearly says the New Testament is corrupt. The Quran is talking about the Gospel of Jesus (which We don't have) not the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John or Paul.

Hogan Elijah replies:

Firstly, lets consider what the Qur'an truly says:

“If you Muhammad are in doubt regarding that which we have revealed to thee, ask THOSE who READ the BOOK from BEFORE YOU” (Sura 10:94).

In this passage Muhammad is to approach those who read the previous revealation and consult with them if he is in doubt. Now elaborate on this for a while: Muhammad has received and is receiving the superior book, the Qur'an (according to the muslim view), why does he need to consult those who follow a corrupted book? Unless of course, the previous book is not corrupted.

...whom they find written in the Torah and the Gospel that IS WITH THEM (Sura 7:156-157)

In this passage we find the claim that Muhammad is found in the Torah and the Gospel. In fact he is found in neither of these, but we know which passages the Qur'an is referring to. The passage of greatest interest is John 14: 16, which refers to the paraclete, the comforter, which in its Aramaic wording was used for a councellor or an advocate but also for the Holy Spirit.

What is interesting here is that the Qur'an is here referring to the fourth Gospel, the Christological and Trinitarian Gospel, the Gospel that Muslims hate the most. This blows away completely the Muslim view that there was a gradual corruption in line with some source critical theories, in which the muslim argues that the Gospel of Jesus was corrupted into Mark's Gospel and then embellished into Matthew and Luke, which then implies that the virgin birth is a corruption and hence debunks the Qur'an, and which finally led to the fabrication of John's Gospel, which the Qur'an actually refers to as the Word of God. Perhaps Etheshaam can be consistent here and explain to us why the Paraclete is not found in Mark's Gospel or why the Qur'an is referring to John not Mark.

In fact, this answers Etheshaam's question: 'where is the Gospel of Jesus', well the Qur'an is quite explicit here, the Gospel of Jesus is the particular Gospel which supposedly predicts the comming of Muhammad, in other words, the Gospel of John; how more simple can it be.

Sura 7: 156-7 clearly says: ...the Gospel that is With them

Hence a Gospel that the Christians possessed and used in Muhammad's time. This clearly confirms that the Gospel of John is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

“Say, O people of the book! You are not founded on anything until you PERFORM the TORAH and the GOSPEL, and what was revealed to you from your Lord” (Sura 5:68-71)

This implies, that I a Christian am to follow my book, the Injeel and if a Jew, I am to follow the Torah. Why would Allah reveal anything near this line of reasoning if the Injeel was corrupted? Would Allah not rather warn us clearly to throw the previous revelation in the bin, rather than revealing something like this?

We find nothing the Qur'an that warns us against the Injeel or states that the written Injeel is corrupted, what we find are passage like these that confirm its reliability and preservation.

Here the Qur'an urges me to follow my book. Now consider this: am I to listen to Allah or Ethesham?

Be courteous when you argue with People of the Book except with those among them who do evil. Say: “ We believe in that which is revealed to us and which was revealed to you. Our God and your God is one”. (29:46)

This Sura 29: 46 is for the Muslim, it basically instructs and commands the Muslim to believe in the Injeel as it is read in Muhammad's time. Notice that according to this passage Etheshaam and other muslims are being disobedient to their own book and the command of Allah when they argue with the Christians and disbelieve the previous revelations.

Thus this attempt of muslims to attack previous revelations and the book of the Christians is a clear violation of the command of Allah, these are disobedient Muslims who do not understand nor follow their own book.

O ye who believe! Believe in Allah and his Messenger, and the SCRIPTURE WHICH HE SENT TO HIS MESSENGER, AND the SCRIPTURE WHICH HE SENT TO THOSE BEFORE (HIM). Any who denieth Allah, His angels, His BOOKS, His messengers, and the day of judgement, hath gone fare astray (Sura 4:136)

Can it be more simple, a Muslim who doubts the previous revelations, has gone astray. How am I to understand this? I can only conclude either that Muslim like Etheshaam are either not Muslims or are deceived Muslims.

If I am wrong about these passages, I want Etheshaam to prove to me from the Qur'an or from the words of Muhammad himself, not Abbas, Tabari or any other scholar, but from the Qur'an or Muhammad's own words how these verses are to be understood otherwise, but it has to be a clear rejection (from the Qur'anic context) of the clarity of these passages.

Ethesham brought up Sura 4: 157 which reads:

That they say in boast “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary the apostle of Allah”; but they killed him not nor crucified him, but so it was made appear to them and those who differ therein are full of doubts with no certain knowledge but only conjecture to follow for of a surety they killed him not (4: 157-159).

Etheshaam concludes that this passage proves that the Injeel is corrupted, however where does the passage say that? It says that Christians follow conjecture when they say this, yet it does not imply that their book is corrupted.

There are a number of problems here:

Where in this passage does it imply that that the Injeel is corrupted?

If this implied Bible corruption, would that not contradict all the previous passages?

It seems much more likely that the author of the Qur'an considers this to be an idea that flourished among the Christians but not a doctrine included in their revelation, otherwise the passages I quoted earlier are deceptive and are bound to lead both Christians and Muslims to hell.

In other words, the author of the Qur'an is being inconsistent here and limited in knowledge; this is an error that clearly reveals that the author of the Qur'an was a human being.

I want to challenge Etheshaam to present to us a passage from the Qur'an that clearly and explicitly says something like: the Injeel on a universal level has been corrupted by writing

If he fails to do so, Etheshaam has simply lost in this matter.

When a Muslim asks me: Is the Injeel corrupted?

2009-10-11T07:06:00.000-07:00

When a Muslim asks me: what do you answer to the claim that the Injeel is corrupted, I answer with

Firstly: Define corruption? To what extent do you mean corrupted? Are you referring to local corruption or universal? Are you referring to the term 'corruption' often utilized within the field of Biblical criticism, which is slightly different from the typical muslim understanding of the word?

Secondly: Prove from primary sources that the modern muslim view of Bible corruption took place:

I want to know 1) who corrupted it, their names 2) where it was corrupted, the city and country, 3) when it was corrupted, which year, which century, 4) how it was corrupted, 5) why it was corrupted.

I would ask the muslim to provide primary sources for all these three.

Now the Muslim might refer to textual criticism and claim that corruption took place gradually. However, the corruption referred to in textual criticism is a completely different matter than the corruption pre-supposed by modern muslims.

Within textual criticism there is doubt about the 5 procent of the NT, this is not to say that remaining is corrupt, but rather that we do not have sufficient lacks the earliest attestation and cannot be effectively composed by the manuscripts, unfortunately for the muslims this does not imply that meaning of these passages are corrupted or missing. Hence this remaining part is left for our own individual belief or disbelief. Thus it would still confirm that Jesus died and resurrected, it would leave within the gospel the narrative and the sayings; this would hardly fit the nature of the Book Allah gave to Jesus.

Now the Muslim may go beyond textual criticism to source criticism, however now were are gona have a number of problems; firstly, this approach is utterly speculative, yet if factual as many muslims claim, it would would exclude Jesus' miracles, virgin birth (which are found in the Qur'an), it would exclude the paraclete (the presupposed Muhammad); it would leave utterences related to Jesus being the Son of God and Jesus being the one to baptise in the Holy Spirit as intact, which both contradict the Qur'an.

Hence if the modern muslim theory of corruption took place, the muslim needs to consider the five questions I asked earlier.

Thirdly: if the Injeel is corrupt, how will the Muslim respond to his own book, the Qur'an, which does not state that the Injeel was corrupted, but rather attests to its preservation and accuracy Muhammad's era.

Muslim Debate and Rhetoric

2009-10-10T09:04:00.000-07:00

In all my years engaging in muslim apologetics and debating I have noticed a certain three-fold trend in the way many (though not all) Muslims interact with Christians in dialogue, namely the habits of 1) asking questions or making strong claims followed by an 2) unwillingness to either allow the Christian to respond or let the Christian speak but not listen to his answer, followed by 3) changing the topic by bringing up another claim.

Anyone who engages with Muslims is aware of this islamic tactic of debating and the difficulty it poses to sincere and effective dialogue.

For example (and this in fact occurred in the recent talkshow on the Aramaic channel hosted by Sam Shamoun and David Wood) a Muslim brought up the claim that the prophet of Deuteronomy 18 is similar to Muhammad in action, deed and circumstances (a ridicolous claim and easily refuted). In fact the argument originally derived from the famous Islamic apologist Ahmed Deedat and provides details of such ignorant and non-scholarly nature, that most theologians find anyone promoting it a laughinstock.

This was effectively dealt with by both Shamoun and Wood in approximately 5-7 minutes. Shamoun took a scholarly approach, left out the imagination and stupitity and dealt with the passage in its historical context. The refutation totally blew the islamic use of the passage into pieces.

I was mildly speaking in shock, so was Shamoun and I guess must viewers when realising that this muslim who phoned the show had not even bother listening to the answer from Shamoun and merely began reiterating the same details.

However, this example establishes but one of the most difficult issues related to Christian-Muslim debating: why does the Muslim blindly presuppose that his view is correct which gives him the superior right to keep talking and not listening?

Personally I am more aware of this presupposed islamic superiority and choice to downplay the opponent as simply inferior, when I spend time with my Christian Pakistani friends and co-workers. These Christian brothers of mine were born and raised up in a country in which they were considered inferior and second class citizens merely due to their Christian faith. What strikes me is that it was enforced upon them to listen and listen and learn and certainly not to speak up. In words, this is the Muslim trend of dealing with e.g. Christian in a Muslim society.

This is why Muslims in UK and USA when engaging with Christians in dialogue find it difficult to engage in a proper, lengthy and focused debate, they simply do not believe in listening and learning from a non-muslim, neiter dare they. This is why dialogue with a muslim begins with any topic and quickly ends up with a topic on the other side of the spectrum; they simply do not want your answer, hence, neither can they respond to it, so the easiest way is to change the topic.

Interestingly when these Christians from muslim countries settle in England or the West, this changes drastically. These Christians who have had no choice but to remain silent and humbly listen, have decided to turn the tables, now it is their turn to get vocal and it is the Muslim who has to listen, which is logical.

And it works.

We quickly notice here the effectiveness of these Christians to debate Muslims, refute and expose them since they for the first time in their entire life have the chance and freedom to speak, rather than the approach of Western Christians simply to give in for the Muslim tactic in allowing them to control the dialouge and conversation; those who grew up in Muslim countries and first hand experienced the suppression will not buy that.

My encouragement to my Christian brothers and sisters is: be bold, speak out, stand up for the truth, learn to debate. Be firm: do not listen unless the Muslim himself is willing to listen, and speak only if he is willing to listen. Get yourself used to not only to be on the defence and answer the typical rhetorical question of muslims, get used to ask the questions, demand that the muslim answers your question and make sure he stays on the topic.

Go for it, God bless

Evidences for the Qur'an: a reply to Ethesham

2009-10-02T06:12:00.000-07:00

My dear brother Ehtesham has listed a number of evidences for Islam on his website. I will just list them here and lightly respond to them. God-willing when he provides a detailed description of all these points I will respond to them also.

Ethesham wrote:

1.) The Quran says the Bible (Both the Old and New Testaments) is corrupt. Today Scholars of the Bible say the same exact thing-- Both the Old and New Testaments(especially the New Testament) have been badly edited, corrupted and distorted over time.

Elijah replies:

The first problem with this statement is the fact that the Qur'an does not imply that the Injeel is corrupted.

Secondly, the scholars who imply this are secular and humanists who apply certain methods to exclude the supernatural aspect of the Bible. These methods are philosophical in nature not historical; furthermore, these methodologies will equally debunk the Qur'an and hence the religion of Islam.

Thirdly, Christians who apply e.g. textual criticism or redaction criticism often apply the words critic, problem, corruption (I myself do that), however these words are not meant in a way to imply the nature or extent of corruption, which the Muslim is in need of to protect his own Qur'an from the reliability of the previous revelations.

Ethesham wrote:

2.) Scienctific Miracles from the Quran. Nobody has been able to refute many Scientific claims of the Quran. This is the biggest evidence that the Quran is not from a human
rather from Allah-- the God of All.

Elijah replies:

This claims seems very odd to me. I have done extensive studies on science also in relation to Islam and Greek philosophy. The fact is that most of the science described in the Qur'an is wrong. Furthermore, these claims were also common knowledge among the ancient intellectuals who preceeded Islam.

Ethesham wrote:

3). The Miracles of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Prophet Muhammad was able to perform miracles, something a false prophet can't do or an ordinary human
can do-- there was something supernatural in him where he was able to do miracles.

Elijah replies:

Firstly I disagree with the statement that a false prophet cannot perform miracles. Many hindu holy men, satanists and spiritists perform miracles.

Secondly, the Qur'an nowhere ascribes any miracles to Muhammad, quite the opposite it claims that the only miracle of Muhammad was revelation of the Qur'an, a book whose integrity has been refuted both historically, logically, scientifically and textually.

Thirdly, even though the Hadiths records miracles ascribed to Muhammad, Ethesham and other Muslims have to agree that based upon their own methodology these are human writings and ideas that were passed on from person to person for hundreds of years. If these traditions are to be considered reliable why does Ethesham distrust the succession, transmission and preservation of the Gospel material in the first century?

Ethesham wrote:

4.) True Prophcies of the Quran. More evidence its from the divine.

Elijah replies:

I am at loss as to what prophesies we are dealing with here.

Ethesham wrote:

5). True Prophcies of Prophet Muhammad-- more evidence he is a Prophet of God.

Elijah replies:

Again, I which which prophesies we are dealing with here.

Ethesham wrote:

6) Perservation of the Quran-- Allah said he would protect the Quran (Quran 15:9). This is another miracle of the Quran.

Elijah replies:

An assessment of the Islamic material shows that Muhammad was indeed dependent upon his followers in the writing or creation of the Qur'an; hence the Qur'an seems to be more of a fabrication. The number of Greek scientific ideas, Jewish fables, and Gnostic ideas simply confirms this.

Secondly, the Hadiths reveal that Muslims and even Muhammad in Muhammad's time were unable to preserve the Qur'an. When Muhammad died the situation of the Qur'an was chaotic and much of its content had been lost.

Thirdly, when the Qur'an was compiled after Muhammad's death, a civil war almost broke out since the variaty Qur'an versions were not matching.

Forthly, the Muslim rulers decided to favour only one Qur'anic version (the one of Zaid) an inferior version and burn the remaining ones. Those who had proved themselves to the most of reciters within Muhammad's time were literally forced to hand over their qur'ans to be burned.
Sounds to me like an organised and enforced corruption, of political nature. The fact is, there is no reason to trust a trustful transmission of the Qur'an before we see the varity of these Qur'an's that existed prior to Uthman's destruction and corruption of the Qur'an and we can compare these.

Fifthly, we know that even the manuscript of Hafsa, which Uthaman utilized for the corruption of the Qur'an was later destroyed to cover up errors.

Ethesham wrote:

7) Prophet Muhammad was foretold in the Old Testament. He may have also been foretold in the New Testament as well.

Elijah replies:

There not a single reference to Muhammad in the Bible, neither in the Old or New Testament.

The prophet in the Torah is Israelite and does not apply to Muhammad neither in nature or action.

The paraclete in John's Gospel does not apply either and neither can it since Muslims claim that John's Gospel is a complete corruption and fabrication and total embellishment of primitive Christianity.

Furthermore, from a Christian point of view, the only mention of Muhammad in the New Testament is categorized under the variaty of warnings of future false prophets, who do not meet the standard or doctrine of Jesus' or apostolic doctrine.

Science in the Qur'an and the External Sources.

2009-09-29T15:39:00.001-07:00

A common claim propagated by Muslims in the recent era is the claim of modern scientific discoveries being predicted in the Qur'an, which then obviously begs the question: how could a nomad such as Muhammad, who cut of from the world and aquainted only with the dessert and the camels possess such knowledge?

Let me first say, that I have done extensive study on must of these so-called scientific predictions in the Qur'an and my conclusion remains that the Qur'an reveals the knowledge of Muhammad's era only; hence the claim that the Qur'an is miracolously predicting in the seventh century what science recently has discovered is not a sustainable claim.

In this short thread I intend merely to assess the claim that Muhammad was so cut off and remote from the outside world, its knowledge and science as Muslims want us to believe. Or is it plausible that such knowledge was available and obvious to the prophet of Islam via those individuals to whom he was aquainted?

Muhammad and the two claims

Pre-Islamic Arabs are usually portrayed as simple nomads, strongly acquainted with dessert-life and particularly poetry; yet lacking every existing insight into the thought and science of its present era.[1] According to Iabal the scientific advancements that emerged with Islam were caused primarily by the appearance and study of the Qur’an; which later laid the foundation for Islam’s interaction with the world-powers and their knowledge.[2]

Based on this, two assertions run frequently: primarily that Muhammad would have no access to nor possess any knowledge of the science promoted by his contemporaries; secondly, that the cause behind the science promoted by the Qur’an must therefore be of divine revelatory origin.
This proposition has in recent years been particularly promoted by Maurice Bucaille, who writes:

‘How could a man living fourteen hundred years ago have made corrections to the existing description to such an extent that he eliminated scientifically inaccurate material and, on his own initiative, made statements that science has been able to verify only in the present day? This hypothesis is completely untenable’.[3]

Hence to assess this claim, we need to ask whether Muhammad was divinely inspired and uninformed, or whether he possessed access to the scientific postulates of his day. Furthermore, we need to ask whether the scientific claims of the Qur’an are consistent with the claims of modern discoveries.

Muhammad a man of knowledge

O’Leary points out that there are elements of definite Greek scientific origin, which made its way to the Arabs by a transmission of which route and date are uncertain.[4] This suggests that early Arabs might have possessed a slight insight into the ideas of the Greeks, even prior to the era of Islamic conquests. According to early sources Muhammad possessed knowledge and pursued it, as evident from Tabari’s narration: ‘Muhammad said:

“Man’s glance at knowledge for an hour is better for him than prayer for sixty years”. He therefore commanded all believers to seek knowledge and to go to China in search of knowledge, if required’.[5]

Muhammad certainly possessed insight into the celestial world and their orbits; al-Tabari writes:

‘The Prophet [Mohammed] replied: “Ali, they are five stars: Jupiter (al-birjis), Saturn (zuhal), Mercury (utarid), Mars (Bahram), and Venus (al-zuhrah). These five stars rise and run like the sun and the moon and race with them together. All the other stars are suspended from heaven as lamps are from mosques,… al-Tabari vol.1 p.235-236.”’[6]

If therefore, Muhammad was acquainted only with the impoverished life of northern Arabia and its cultural exclusiveness and remoteness, from where did such insight derive? Is it plausible that Muhammad’s environment and social circle was not as scientifically impoverished as we are made to believe? Is it possible that Mecca and dessert cities were indeed impacted by external cultures?

Here we first need to consider the situation and history of ancient Arabia.

Prior to Muhammad Arabia was divided into the South, the Sabaens, also referred to as the Yemenites, and the North, referred to as Arabs.

The South was a populated and sedentary community, living in cities, while the North was inhospitable, nomadic and isolated; hence we know that Arabia was not solemnly remote and isolated. Yet were there any interactions between Arabs in the south and north and other factions that might have enriched or established knowledge among the dessert people? The Sabaenas, ran two trade routes, an ocean based route between India and Africa, and the land-based, particularly toward Syria and Egypt.[7]

There is evidence that literary interaction between the South-Arabs, the Greeks and the Indians took place even centuries before Islam. Since 1300 BC, the South Arabs left inscriptions in the North, what the nomads referred to as musnad. Interestingly, the musnad alphabet was effected by Greek language, which reveals the impact of Hellenism even in the south prior to appearance of Islam. Furthermore since alters to Arabic deities have been found in Delos we know that the Arabs actually traded in the Greek world.[8]

For these routes to operate intermediate centres were needed; these were the oasis alongside the land-route between Yemen and Syria of which one was Mecca.[9] This confirms that the trades required among the Arabs a certain acquaintance with Greek and other languages, which became the communication of administration.[10] Hence the influence of trade and their international influence and the stations, certainly imply that Greek knowledge was spreading around.

Yet there were also other means of international interaction, such as the intervals of Northern dominance.

At one point the South weakened and the Northern tribes took the advantage to invade extensive parts of the South Syrian territory.[11] Even though no signs are evident of the Greek culture passing to the Arabs here, yet because Arab states were formed a long the eastern border of Syria and left untouched,[12] it is plausible that centuries of proximity prior to Muhammad’s era caused ideas to pass on. Further escalation between the political powers of the Byzantine in the North, the Persians in the East and the rulers of the south caused North Arabia to be caught in between.[13]

In 450 AD the community in the South suddenly declines, its proliferation vanishes, which causes massive migration to the North. These immigrants strengthened the oasis and their communities and establish intellectual centres among the people of the dessert.[14]

A third influence was the dispersion of various Christian sects and Judaism, which also impacted the dessert community.[15] The Christian Nestorians reached deep into the Arabian dessert with their message, as far as to Wadi I-Qura, near Medina. Beside the Nestorians, there were other Christian factions who expanded their influence; such as the Monophysites whose centre in Arabia was Najran.[16]

These sects were connected to Christian factions to which science was greatly valued; who possessed schools which emphasised and propagated the Christian faith, including philosophy and science. Their contribution to translating literature e.g. into Syrian language and their knowledge was not only confined to monasteries but were transmitted to the communities.[17]

The extensive influence impacted even scientific centres such as Jundishpur in Persia, in which global science was accumulated and dispersed into all direction;[18] plausibly into Arabia.

We need to consider that these factions of Christianity were proliferating in Arabia prior and in Muhammad’s era. We know also that Muhammad visited Syria at least once.[19] Arthur Jeffery suggest that a range of religious vocabulary in the Qur’an, such as Qur’an, Isa and Injil derives from the Syrian Christian faction. If this is true it reveals strong, intellectual interaction and borrowing, which Jeffery seems to suggest.[20]

In the early era of Islam a group of Muhammad’s followers settled in the Christian Abyssinia, which led to interaction between Muhammad, the earliest Muslims and the ruling body of Abyssinia.[21]

Furthermore, O’Leary points out the possibility of runaway Ethiopian slaves who joined the Muslims, who interestingly might be the ones who were suspected to help Muhammad composing the Qur’an.[22] The Bukhari indeed refers to a Christian convert to Islam, who helped narrating Muhammad revelations. Initially he left Islam and informed about his contribution to fabricate the Qur’an with Muhammad; Bukhari informs us that Allah caused him to die.[23]

Greek scientific ideas would also have been passed on to Muhammad by the Jewish community; in fact some of the scientific ideas of the Qur’an, both terminology and chronology, resemble the writings of the Talmud significantly.[24]

A strong notion to this influence upon the author of the Qur’an does not only derive from the presence of the Jewish community, to which Muhammad interacted, but early Jewish converts to Islam. One of these Jewish converts was Abdullah ibn Salim who lived in Medina and was a companion of Muhammad. Qadir, points out that Salim was acquainted with cosmology and even ‘spread his knowledge among the Muslims’.[25]

Based on this information; Muhammad would be acquainted with Christians and Jews who were aware of Greek science; particularly being based in Mecca and then Medina. Additionally, he might presumably possessed insight into the information passed on through centuries of trading, invasions, political interactions and simply information being passed on by travellers, settlers and immigrants.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Hottinger points out that the Greek philosophy and science was virtually absent from Arabia as fruitful contact between the two worldview was still nonexistent; the Arabic hold upon the Greek heritage was to arrive in the Abbasid era (Arnold Hottinger, The Arabs, Their History, Culture and Place in the Modern World, London: Thames and Hudson, 1963: 80); see also Muzaffar Iqbal, Islam and Science, England, Hampshire, Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2002:6-9; he states that the rapid invasions of nations brought the Muslims in contact with the existent scientific centres of the world

[2] Iqbal, 2002: 1; Iqbal refers to the two advancements as the intellectual (the Qur’an) and the social revolutions (Islam’s expansion).

[3] Maurice Bucaille, The Bible, the Qur’an and Science, Pakistan, Karachi: Idaratul Qur’an, Wa-Uloom – Il Islamia: 1975: 148; here Bucaille emphatically states that Qur’anic science is unique and distinct from any former religion and philosophy

[4] De Lacy O’ Leary: How Greek Science passed to the Arabs, part one, chapter one: Introduction, 1979

[5] C.A. Qadir, Philosophy and Science in the Islamic World, London and New York: Routledge 1990: 15-6; Qadir
comments on this Hadith: ‘In the eyes of the Prophet, knowledge ranked higher than worship.’

[6] al-Tabari vol.1 p.235-236 (Astronomy and the Qur’an, 2005 http://www.muslimhope.com/AstronomyAndTheQuran.htm)

[7] Richard Hooker, World Civilizations: Islam: Pre-Islamic Arabic culture, 1996
(http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ISLAM/PRE.HTM)

[8] D.M. Dunlop, Arab Civilization to AD 1500, Longman, Librairie du Liban, Beirut, 1971: 6-7; musnad means
uncertain, perhaps, set up; which implies their inability to read it; the Delos alters existed already in 2nd century BC
and reveals virtually centuries of trade and interaction between these civilisations. These alters were built to Wadd an
Arabic deity, mentioned in the Qur’an (Sura 71: 23).

[9] Dunlop, 1971: 10; Dunlop states that Meccah was prosperious by contemporary standards, but less significant than
e.g. southern cities such Ma’rib and Ma’in; hence Muhammad was used to city life, not the nomad life.

[10] Qadir, 1990: 34; Greek, Syriac and Persian were the official languages used for administration even beyond the
inauguration of Islam. It was only much later that Muslims demanded Arabic to supplement it with Arabic.

[11] The oasis might have been dominated by the south at least until the sudden decline of political power in Mesopotamia
and South Arabia in the first millennium BC, which not only gave the north Arabians control over these centres but
also mobilized the tribes to expand their control beyond their territory. Later as the Ancient Seleucids Syria turned
politically and militarily weak, the northern Arabs took their advantage and occupied its territories all way north to
Petra and toward the south to Najran; initially they collided with Roman militia (65 BC), who arrived mainly to take
provincial control over Syria; this caused the Arabs to retreat back south (Richard Hooker, World Civilizations:
Islam: Pre-Islamic Arabic culture, 1996; see also O’ Leary, Chapter II: Hellenism in Asia: (1) Hellenization of Syria,
1979

[12] O’ Leary, Chapter II: Hellenism in Asia: (1) Hellenization of Syria, 1979

[13] Richard Hooker, World Civilizations: Islam: Pre-Islamic Arabic culture, 1996

[14] Dunlop, 1971: 7-8; Dunlop refers to the centres of Lakhmids (al-Hira) and Ghassanids (Syria)

[15] Richard Hooker, World Civilizations: Islam: Pre-Islamic Arabic culture, 1996

[16] O’ Leary mentions the city of Hira which had become a centre of great significance; it was the most influential Arab
city located by the Persian border. At the time of Muhammad, the king of Hira, Nu’man embraced the Nestorian type
of Christian faith; see O’Leary, Chapter 3 (3) The Nestorian Schism, 1979) (http://evans-/
experientialism.freewebspace.com/oleary02.htm) (http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/oleary03.htm)

[17] See Qadir, 1990: 31-33 & Iqbal, 2002: 172

[18] Dunlop, 1971: 219 (see also Iqbal, 2002: 39-41): The Persian Jundishapur, is also of importance here as it became a
centre in which Christian and Zoroastrian schools of thought as well as Greek, Syrian, Persian, Hindu and Jewish,
culture and science was accumulated, and its written works translated into various languages. When the school of
Edesse was closed down in the middle of the fifth century, the students fled to e.g. Nisibis in Persia, these impacted
Jurundishapur and the community. Initially in 531-79 AD, ‘Jundishapur was the principal intellectual centre of the
world.’ While no direct connection to Muhammad’s environment has been recorded, it is highly likely due to its
international impact and its proximity, that the intellectuals of Northern Arabia and Christians communities and
monasteries gained a hold on its insight.

[19] Dunlop, 1971: 11; this particular journey occurred in Muhammad’s early years, while he was still married to Khadija

[20] Arthur Jeffery Y, The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur’an, Oriental Institute Baroda, 1938; 71 (Isa); 219 (Qur’an); 233
(Injil). Jeffery assess hundreds Qur’anic terms and traces them back to their Syrian and Aramaic origins. The entire
book can be read on http://www.answering-islam.org/Books/Jeffery/Vocabulary/index.htm

[21] Martin Lings, Muhammad, His life based on the earliest Sources, London Unwin Paperbacks, 1986: 80-4; the
accounts describes the early Muslim connection with king Negus in Abyssinia (Ethiopia)

[22] O’Leary, Chapter 4: The Monophysites: 4 Organization of the Monophysite Church, 1979 (http://evans-/
experientialism.freewebspace.com/oleary03.htm): An additional probability of influence upon the environment of
Muhammad was the arrival of run-away Ethiopian slaves. The Ethiopian invasion of Arabia approximately AD 570,
led to the Arabian trend to obtain Ethiopian slaves as mercenaries; several of these later escaped to Medina and joined
Muhammad. Some scholars have suggested that these were the secret teachers (Sura 22: 12), who derived there by
violence and fraud (Sura 25: 5), with foreign tongues (Sura 16: 105) from whom it was suspected that Muhammad
obtained much of his Qur’anic information

[23] Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 814: Narrated Anas, Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Translator: M.
Muhsin Khan (http://www.memon.com/HTML/Islam/Bukhari/bukhari.htm)

[24] The Qur’an makes reference to seven heavens and an equal number of earths (65: 12); this number follows in line
with the Talmud; see Aboth D ’Rabbi Nathan, chapter XXXVII, A, Cohen (ed.) The minor Tractates of the Talmud,
Massektoth Ketannot, vol.2, London:
The Soncino Press, 165, 185. For further information on the influence of Greek philosophy on the Jewish community
see Stead Christopher, 1998, in (ed) Craig, Edward, Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Volume 5, London and
New York, Routledge 1998: 819 & Zeller Eduard, Outlines of the History of Greek Philosophy, USA, Cleveland and
New York, Meridian Books/The World Publishing Company, 1963: 277-84

[25] Qadir, 1990: 27; for more information see The Encyclopedia of Islam, New EDN, Vol.1 A-B, edited by an editorial
committee consisting of H.A.R. Gibb, J. H. Kramers, E. Levi-Provencal, J. Schacht, assisted by S.M. Stern as
Secretary General (pp.1-320). B. Lewis, Ch. Pellat and J Schacht, assisted by C. Dumont And R. M. Savory as
editorial secretaries (pp.321-1359), London, Luzac & Co, 1960: 52

www.Answering-Christianity.com is Virus loaded (Warning)

2009-09-27T14:37:00.000-07:00

I come across more and more individual Christians and even Muslims who now warn against accessing the website of Osama Abdallah 'Answering-Christianity'.

Some of these raise the concern after suspecting that their computers caught something after having surfed around on the website.

I have to admit that the computer I used late last year did not receive a warning from MacFee in the month of July. However, having said that, others claim still to receive warnings from virus security systems when accessing.

In recent months a number of Christian websites dealing with the religion of Islam have been hacked into and destroyed. Even a number of missionaries have experienced attacks on their own computers.

It seems that the dialogue and debate with islam online has turned into a cyber war.

In fact a number of sources have revealed that a number of well-trained Islamic internet terrorist teams are operating continueally to supress the Christian witness and response online.

The suspicion that Osama Abdallah and his website are included into this sort of internet-Jihad is not to be taken lightly; the warning of internet virsus protection systems are sufficient reason to raise the warning. Furthermore, Osama contiunally invites Christians to enter his website to check out his articles.

I you intend to do so, remember that you have been warned. When you do so, you may expose yourself to Osama and those who co-operate with him. If you are a Christian missionary or debater, you may reveal your personal data, address, phone-number, possibly bank details, etc.

This has already lead to harasment and persecution of Christians in the West.

I want to emphasise again therefore: avoid completely the internet websites of Osama Abdallah and spread the warning.

Did the Christians forget their Covenant? Does it Imply that the Injeel was Corrupted?

2009-09-22T03:37:00.000-07:00

My dear brother Ethasham has raised some good questions in some previous threads. I have decided to post some of these issues on separate threads, not to expose or attack Ethasham (in fact these are issue raised by Muslims generally), but so we can effectively deal with these issues separately; otherwise it will extend one thread so heavily that the reader will find it difficult to get along.

In this thread we will look particularly at the Christian covenant. Does the claim of the Qur’an that the Christians forgot parts of the covenant imply that they corrupted the Gospel?

Ethasam Gulam wrote:

As for the Quran 5:13-15, the Christians forgot their covenant as in, they made up certain doctrines, such as the divinity of Jesus, physical resurrection, etc. Also the original gospel was the Q Gospel-- which had sayings of Jesus and not the crucifixion or resurrection narratives. So according to Muslim Scholars-- this points out to the New Testament being corrupted.

Elijah replies:

Firstly Ethasham implies that forgetting some of the covenant implies that the Gospel was corrupted.

Before we look at the covenant let me just raise a few pointers here:

Firstly, the Qur’an is here stating that the Christians forgot some parts of the covenant, it does not say Scripture; there is a clear distinction in Jewish and Christians cicles between these two. God gave scripture to both the Jews and the Christians, yet to forget that covenant or parts of it is not tantamount to forget the Scripture.

Secondly, the Qur’an states that the Christians 'forgot', it does not state that the Christians corrupted. If forgetting is corrupting, how does the Muslim explain Sura 87: 6-7:

• By degrees shall we teach thee (Muhammad) to declare (the message), so thou shalt not forget, except as God wills ... (Sura 87:6-7, Yusuf Ali).

In other words parts of the Qur’an were also forgotten; hence if forgotten is corruption, then the Qur’an is corrupt. In fact forgetting seems to have been a major problem among the early Muslims even in case of Muhammad:

• Narrated Abdullah: The Prophet said, "Why does anyone of the people say, 'I have forgotten such-and-such Verses (of the Qur'an)?' He, in fact, is caused (by Allah) to forget." (Bukhari: volume 6, book 61, number 559, Khan)

Even Muhammad forgot revelation

• Narrated 'Abdullah: ... (Muhammad said) I am a human being like you and liable to forget like you. So if I forget remind me ... (Bukhari: volume 1, book 8, number 394, Khan)

According to Sahih Muslim 300 reciters had forgotten an entire chapter of the Qur’an which is still missing (Muslim: book 5, number 2286)

Thirdly, the Qur’an states that Christians only forgot a part of the covenant and even though the passage referred to the Injeel it implies that what was not forgotten was retained, which then implies that the Injeel we have today consists of those remaining parts, which then applies that the Injeel we have today is the truth, which would include Jesus death, resurrection and divinity.

Now lets turn to the actual meaning of covenant.

Ethasham claims that the covenant that was partly forgotten was totally corrupted, but can you (Ethasham) define covenant here, what covenant did the Christians supposedly forget?

Let me point out the problem here:

We only read of one covenant, and it is recorded in what you believe to be the earliest gospel, namely Mark’s Gospel.

Notice that many scholars believe Mark to be written 30-35 years after Jesus death, resurrection and ascencion. Some scholars say that Mark was written after years 70 AD, however this conclusion is based upon the humanist notion that miracles cannot occur and since Jesus in all the Synoptic Gospels predicts the fall of Jerusalem, many scholars date them late otherwise miracles occurs and pure naturalism is therefore questionable. These scholars have no other basis behind the conclusion except their own philosophical paradigm of the world, which renders liberal theology a practice of philosophy not as a basis historical studies.

Many Christians would not have a problem believing that Mark was written 60 AD, thirty years after Jesus, however, early tradition states that Mark was written in 50-55 AD, 25 years after Jesus.

So imagine we are here 25-30 years after Jesus ascended to heaven. Peter, Paul, John and many others are still alive; in fact most of the eyewitnesses are still alive at this time.

Furthermore, the church at this time is organised, much like Muslims, Christians are at this time memorizing their tradition (the gospel) orally under the influence of successors, who are either apostles or apostolic disciples (they will do so until 200 AD alongside the written transmission).

In addition the churches worldwide are united and are interactive even at this time.

At this time based upon Papias account who writes in 110 AD (based upon the living and abiding word of Aristion and John the Elder) Peter, the apostle of Jesus is giving his own personal account of the Gospel account in Rome and Mark records it.

Interestingly enough amid all this there is a covenant recognised among Peter and the Christians at this time, only 25-30 years after Jesus’ ascencion. It is recorded in this earliest written gospel, in chapter 14: 23-24:

‘Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it “This is my blood of the covenant ,” he said to them “which is poured out for many”’.

See Gulam this is the covenant and it is based upon the earliest written account of the gospel; it refutes the Qur'anic allegation Christians ever forgot their covenant partly or entirely.

It is interesting because we do based upon early church history know how Christians presereved their information through succession and transmission and how everything was controlled by the apostles and their disciples.

However we also know as Helmut Koester claims in his review of ‘Written gospels or oral traditions’ (Journal of Biblical Literature, Summer94, Vol. 113 Issue 2, p.293) that a third factor was always utilized in early transmission namely a tangible object, which in the Christian circle would be the Eucharist or the consummation of bread and wine to remember Jesus the doctrines, which is what we read off in Mark 14: 23-24.The Christian covenant is therefore according to Jesus' own words as recorded by a the apostle Peter in 55-60 AD based upon the death of Jesus Christ.

That was the covenant as understood by the early apostles. The Qur’an as every Muslim is aware of ascribes great honour to the apostles and describes them as victorious, hence their wording from 60 AD ought to be considered factual and reliable by the Muslim community, that is if they adhere to the Qur'anic teaching.

Revelation Art

2009-09-22T01:21:00.000-07:00

I have in the recent months decided to get more into art. To be quite honest I find painting to be the most effective means to let the brain have a break and let the daily stress and tiredness that drains run out of your body.

This my first painting, not completed at all, but at least I got this far. I find the greatest challenge to be mixing the colours and escape the ussual ones. I have to say: considering this being my first actual attempt, I am pretty proud of myself.

Since I am a keen student of the Revelation and the endtime study in the Bible, I somehow decided to draw an endtime event, and I intend to draw a number of endtime events both negative and positive ones; this is certainly a negative one.

It depicts a deep impact from space as recorded in the Book of Revelation, chapter 8, verses 8-10, which records two such events:

'The second angel sounded his trumpet and something like a huge mountain, all ablaze, was thrown into the sea. A third of the sea turned into blood...The third angel sounded his trumpet, and a great star, blazing like a torch, fell from the sky...'

Scary right. Pretty much the picture we get when we watch movies such as Deep Impact, Armageddon and the yet to come 2012. Well, the impact in the Revelation will however not be of that calibre yet fairly destructive, particularly to the water, sea and sealife.

But I am interested, are there any comments on this picture, on the colours, shadows, I wonder what to do with the background, I guess I have to give the sea a slightly more green colour, and that poor man (well he has had it), I guess his nose became too large.

Then the most important question of all: will it sell? Are you perhaps willing to be the lucky owner, what shall we say 100 pounds, yeah right, lol.

A question for the Muslim

2009-09-21T04:20:00.000-07:00

I am puzzled over the use of 'WE' in the Qur'an in which Allah refers to himself in plural form.

I would appreciate it if a Muslim could elaborate on this matter and educate us all where this use of 'WE' originally comes from, what it means, if it was used as such prior to Islam?

Debunking Islam: Islam and the Apostles of Jesus

2009-09-10T03:09:00.000-07:00

This will be only a short point made on the modern Muslim view on the Biblical-Christian apostles.

I continue to be amazed by the inconsistency of Islamic apologetics and argumentation. I guess Muslims are aware of the danger posed upon Islam by the fact that early Christianity was organised and led by invidiuals who knew Jesus, who were trained by Jesus and appointed by Jesus.

Particularly damaging for Islam is the fact that the teaching and account of Jesus that we possess today (which is the only Gospel=Injeel) derives from these very individuals, the apostles.

Hence when Christians quote Matthew's Gospel or John's Gospel or the Epistle of First Peter, Muslims are often quick to point out that the apostles were failures and therefore unsuitable as candidates for the transmission of Jesus.

Already here, lays the first problem for the religion of Islam, namely that the information that we possess and that has existed in history that transmits the teaching of Jesus was conveyed to us by these very apostles.

Thus if these were unsuitable, we conclude that the Injeel referred to by the Qur'an is not even worthy of consideration. This is obvious considering that the Qur'an is referring to the same Gospel information that Christians have always possessed; for example it is obvious that the Qur'an mistakenly refers to councelor in John 14: 16 as Muhammad, who then existed in Jesus' time, the Muhammad who lived in the apostles, the Muhammad who is omnipresent, the Muhammad who in the same chapter is joined with the Father and the Son, and the Muhammad who was sent by Jesus.

If the Gospels went through seventy years of corruptive process and were embellished as Shabir Ally so often exclaims I find it funny that this very passage is not found in Mark's Gospel but rather in the Gospel to which Muslims ascribe the ultimate corruption (Another serious blunder for the Qur'an and modern Islamic apologists).

Hence we know that the Qur'an is here referring to e.g. John's Gospel, which Muslims consider a fabrication, lol, don't ask me how they manage to thrive in such confusion.

Secondly, Muslims tend to reject the apostles due to their immaturity as described in the Gospels. A Muslim I argued with lately referred to Mark 8: 33 where Jesus says to Peter: 'Get behind me satan...you do not have in mind the things of God but the things of men'.

This particular Muslim assumed that Peter was develish and his epistles and contribution to the Gospel transmission would therefore have to be categorized invalid, after all how are we to take a individual seriously whom Jesus himself has named 'devil'.

Three problem arise here with this methodology:

Firstly, Muhammad himself can hardly be considered mature prior to or while being a prophet of God. He doubted God's revelation, attempted suicide (Al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 87, Number 111), received and transmitted revelation from Satan demanding worship of idols (Sura 22: 52-53), not to speak of the illicit behaviour on the maritial and sexual level.

If Muslims have no problem in seeing Muhammad as a valid prophet, I am astonished that they can reject Peter as an apostle of God.

Secondly, the passage describes Peter while still being instructed as a disciple, in other words Peter is still immature and slightly ignorant. In fact the immaturity of the apostles was a favorite argument of the second century Gnostic adheres, an argument that was effectively refuted by Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and Origin.

Thirdly, why is Peter categorized as a devil in this passage, I guess my Muslim friend failed to read the passage fully. Well, Peter was in this context harshly rebuked by Jesus since he objected to Jesus' death and resurrection which both contradict the teachings of the Qur'an.

In other words the passage describes here every Muslim and any individual who objects to the death and suffering of Jesus. I must say utilizing this argument from a Muslim point of view is shooting the entire foot off.

I remember Ayaz in our Birmingham Debate in 2008 qouted Thomas in John 14, where Thomas appears not to know the way to God. I find it funny that here we have yet another Muslim debater who fails to realize that the disciples of Jesus at this point do not possess the fullness of understanding which they were to possess later.

Fourthly, I guess Muslims not only fail to understand the Bible, they either deliberately or out of ignorance fail to understand their own book, the Qur'an.

According to the Qur'an the Apostles were not at all invalid or unsuccessful or failures; the Qur'an declares that the apostles of Jesus were Muslims:

The Apostles according to this passage are those who bear witness and the Gospels we possess today and which the Qur'an (but not the follower of the Qur'an) confirms as valid is their testimony (How can Muslims today reject these previous revelations and still claim to be believers and faithful students devoted to the Qur'an?).

Secondly, the Qur'an declares that the followers of Jesus in contrast to the rest of Israel were victorious:

O you who believe! Be you helpers of Allah: as said Jesus the son of Mary to his disciples, “who will be my helpers (to the work) Allah?” Said the disiciples, “We are Allah’s helpers!” Then a portion of the children of Israel believed, and a portion disbelieved: but we gave power to those who believed, against their enemies, and they became the ones that prevailed (Sura 6: 14)

Conclusion:

The apostles when succeeding the Jesus in transmitting his teaching and account had matured in every way in stark contrast to the Gospels

The immaturity of the disciples in the Gospels is tantamount to the adherer of the Islamic doctrine.

The Qur'an praises the contribution of the apostles.

There to my Muslim readers, if you deprive the apostles of Jesus off the status ascribed upon them by both the Bible and the Qur'an you object to the Qur'an. On the other hand if you choose obedience to your book you accept their testimony, which is the Gospels and hence you cannot be a Muslim.

Oh come on, that cant be so difficult or is it?

Islam on Decline

2009-09-08T01:43:00.000-07:00

Is Islam on decline?

It has become a normalcy to portray Islam as a growing religion, yet my own observation reveals that Islam may also be heading toward serious era of decline. This is hardly mentioned in todays assessments of Islamic statistics.

Why do I say this? Well among Muslims secularism is seriously on the rise, many of the Muslims I speak to here in the UK complain that mosque attendance is declining, furthermore it is heartbreaking to see the hight percentage of Muslim youth ending up in drugs and crime. The only individual ever trying to sell me drugs was an Arabic Muslim. Muslim youth in my area behave as indicently as the secular youth, sleeping around, following the worldly path and selling drugs for sex with white girls.

We may also take into consideration conversion and apostacy in Islam. It is estimated that two- thirds or more of those embracing Islam leave Islam unsatisfied or unsuccessful. On the other hand, as Christians we see currently a flux into the Christian fold from the Muslim community.

Recent statistic reveals that currently there are 20 million ex-Muslims who have embraced the Christian faith and this is only the beginning. This is also the impression I get here in UK. Only four years ago you hardly met or heard of Muslim converts to Christianity in UK, now we meet them everywhere, and that's not all, even more surprisingly is the number of Muslims we meet who are interested in becoming followers of Jesus Christ.

This begs the question: were missionary experts correct in their prediction that the world is now heading toward a Christian revival among the muslims, both within the Western Muslim community and in the Muslim world? Is God at the moment preparing the way for such a global occurance?

Well, consider this, not only is it the number of converts to Christianity, which on the rise everywhere in the Muslim world, but there is also a common experience shared by hundreds of thousands of Muslims globally in which they receive dreams and visions of the Biblical Jesus Christ revealing to them that he is the Son of God and that their faith in Islam is false.

Missionaries have recently discovered this phenomena among entire groups of Muslim children who experience this mutually.

My conclusion, Islam may decline or expand its growth and influence, it may even be the fulfilment of the Beast predicted in the Book of Revelation whose influence and powers were triggered by a false prophet, however, God and his people will remain victorious and influential even as lambs among the wolves to the very end of age, and the Christian harvest among the one billion global Muslim community has just begun.

It also concludes that the actual real muslims among the over all Muslim community might soon be as tiny as the hard core evangelical population of UK compared to the over all population.

It is needless for me to say however, that nobody can be a real Muslim as should be obvious to anyone engaging in a indepth study of the Qur'an.

Short Summer report

2009-08-19T02:30:00.000-07:00

Brothers and sisters

To me personally it's been a great summer. It was a privilege to meet David Wood and Nabeel this summer and I was happy to be present for at least three of the Christian-Muslim debates in London in July. It was great to see debators from both factions not only debating each others but also be friends; I believe this is the way ahead. I was particuarly great to met Yahya Seymour and converse in a normal and friendly matter.

I have managed to take a number of church meetings while in Denmark. This time I decided that my overall topic should focus on God and the problem of evil; its been a blessing and the response from Christians has been overwhelming and positive. Funny, to me personally evil and suffering so far has not caused any doubt as to God's existence or more correctly God being.

I would appreciate your prayers for 22 and 30 August as I have taken it upon myself to do four lecturs focusing on a number of issues related to apologetics such as: 'God's existence', 'The problem of evil', 'Is the Bible the Word of God' and 'Science'. As far as I know a number of non-Christians might be present.

God willing I am back in the UK in September and will resume my studies and debate ministry. I have a number of projects ahead for this year in which I appreciate your prayers.

God bless you all

Debate: The Bible and the Qur'an Which is the Word of God?

2009-06-17T03:15:00.000-07:00

Hi Everyone

My debate with Ayaz October last year can now be viewed here:

http://www.theonlyway.org.uk/index.php?option=com_seyret&Itemid=54

Lecture on the Qur'an and Modern Science

2009-06-11T06:22:00.000-07:00

Dear readers and participants we are preparing a one and a half hour session this month on the Qur'an and modern science. In the session we will debunk the famous claims of modern Muslim missionaries that the Qur'an predicts modern science.

This first lecture will concentrate on the Qur'an and cosmology in particular. God willing a lecture on the Qur'an, biology and earth science will follow later.

And God willing the lecture will be available on the internet in July.

The topics include:

The Qur'an and the Big Bang theory
The Qur'an insight into the gasseous universe
The Qur'an and the Expansion of the Universe
The Qur'an and the world of atoms
The Seven heavens and seven earths in the Qur'an
The Solar orbit in the Qur'an
The Qur'an and stellar objects and their movements

The Fabrication and Corruption of the Qur'an

2009-05-11T23:48:00.000-07:00

Dear readers, students and participaters

This seminar will be held on Wednesday 13 May related to the Qur'an and why Christians reject it as the Word of God.

This is list below contains the variaty of topics we will assess under our session:

The Qur'anic Testimony to the Bible
The Inability of Allah to protect the Qur'an while revealed
Short introduction to the Satanic verses
Humans who influenced the Qur'anic information
Passages in the Qur'an revealed to benefit the prophet above others
The sources of the Qur'an: Greek philosophy, the Talmud and other Jewish sources, the Gospel of John and Gnosticism
The Fact that Muslims in Muhammad's time failed to preserve the Qur'an in its oral and written form.
The state of the Qur'an after Muhammad's death and prior to its written composition
The variaty of Qur'ans and their variaties
The conspiracy: the burning and revision of the Qur'an, its purpose and political motive
The attempt to clear away all traces of the conspiracy
Contradictions and errors in the Qur'an