Skip to main content

There was an unexpected issue forwarding you to "Twitter" for authentication. Please try again later.
×

Two things. The point I was making is that Luke admitted that he was not writing his account of Jesus because he was inspired by the Holy Spirit to do so. He admitted that he did it because he thought he was more capable than those who did before. This also showed that he thought they did so on their own too and not because they were inspired by the Holy Spirit to do so.

Secondly, there goes your condescending attitude again suggesting that unlike you, I don't have a job I get paid to do. For your information, I get paid to be a Financial Controller. I don't know how you feel about that job but I do see it as a responsible one.

The following passage deals with a current activity. It states, "O believers, fasting was prescribed for you as it was prescribed for those before you so you can develop self control". Notice how the passage tells what to do and why? Now your task is to explain why Samson and Judah's having sex on the roadside with a prostitute in the case of Samson and in the case of Judah, he mistook his daughter in law for a prostitute. How do those two passages fit into 2 Timothy 3:16-17?

ksazma posted:

Two things. The point I was making is that Luke admitted that he was not writing his account of Jesus because he was inspired by the Holy Spirit to do so. He admitted that he did it because he thought he was more capable than those who did before. This also showed that he thought they did so on their own too and not because they were inspired by the Holy Spirit to do so.

My Response:
First, lets address the "Holy Spirit" before we go any further to get an understand of it purpose. In a nutshell Holy spirit is a teacher of rightness one who enable us with understanding of all things, things that we need to know.

Sorry about be so length but the point is to get a clear understand of the Holy Spirit. Jesus said He would send the Spirit to us to be our Helper, Comforter, and Guide. โ€œAnd I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you foreverโ€ (John 14:16). The Greek word translated here โ€œCounselorโ€ means โ€œone who is called alongsideโ€ and has the idea of someone who encourages and exhorts. The Holy Spirit takes up permanent residence in the hearts of believers (Romans 8:9; 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, 12:13). Jesus gave the Spirit as a โ€œcompensationโ€ for His absence, to perform the functions toward us which He would have done if He had remained personally with us.

The Spiritโ€™s presence within us enables us to understand and interpret Godโ€™s Word. Jesus told His disciples that โ€œwhen He, the Spirit of Truth, comes, He will guide you into all truthโ€ (John 16:13). He reveals to our minds the whole counsel of God as it relates to worship, doctrine, and Christian living. He is the ultimate guide, going before, leading the way, removing obstructions, opening the understanding, and making all things plain and clear. He leads in the way we should go in all spiritual things. Without such a guide, we would be apt to fall into error. A crucial part of the truth He reveals is that Jesus is who He said He is (John 15:26; 1 Corinthians 12:3).

Now lets look at the verse in question.
Luke 1:3
"It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,"


Luke is writing what he experience and know about Jesus. His experience like the ones before him such as, Matthew, Mark, and John just to name a few, was lead by the holy spirt which bring all those things into remembrance to write about. Notice the "also" in the verse you seem so fixated about, when there is an "also" we need to look and see what was stated before. Lets examine the verses before Luke 1:3. 

Luke 1:1-2
"Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;"

Among Us, disciples of Jesus (Matthew, Mark, John, Luke, Peter, James, etc.)
In the verses above Luke is saying many before him being eyewitnesses have given their written account about the life of Jesus. Hence his statement below.

"It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write......"

Here Luke is saying he also will give his account of the things he witness.


ksazma posted:
Secondly, there goes your condescending attitude again suggesting that unlike you, I don't have a job I get paid to do. For your information, I get paid to be a Financial Controller. I don't know how you feel about that job but I do see it as a responsible one.

My Response:
I apologize my comment was not meant to be condescending. I thought you mention somewhere before about being self employed hence my statement. I'm an IT Security Engineer and yes I do understand how responsible our jobs can be.

Keith posted:
ksazma posted:

I am glad that you brought it back to it all being inspired by God and you ended with 2 Timothy, 3:16-17. Now my friend, please explain the story about Samson meeting a whore on the road to Gaza and had sex with her. We also have the story of Judah having sex with his daughter-in-law on the roadside. Please explain how 2 Timothy, 3:16-17 applies to these two instances. There are many more but I don't care to add them.

Will address later busy at the moment unlike you I've a job I get paid to do all the best.

The simple explanation I can offer you is despise man's short coming God still find a way to used man to edify others in their short coming and to bring forth his purpose and plan. King David, the man after God's own heart, was a murdering adulterer. Abraham, the father of nations, lived a lie using his wife as a pawn to save his own skin. Peter denied Jesus cursing the One who loved him most. Did you know in Jesus linage the woman Rahab was a prostitute?

The list goes on and on of men and women who loved God, men who were greatly used by God almost driven to the ground by their weaknesses. Yet, God was always there saying, "I called you; I will be with you! I will take away the evil of your heart! I will accomplish my will, regardless!"

Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 1 Corinthians 1:25.

When I Say Weakness, I Do Not Mean Sensuality. God does not use people weak in righteousness. A man's weakness can lead him into adultery, gambling, drinking and all kinds of indulgences. God is not referring to that kind of weakness. When He calls the base, He is not referring to the wicked.

The weakness God speaks about is our human inability to obey His commandments in our own strength. God calls us to a life of holiness and separation. He tells us we can be free from the bondage of sin. He Word promises freedom from sin's power, as well as forgiveness. God's Word comes to us with some impossible challenges "Resist the devil. Walk in the Spirit. Come out from among them. Do not commit adultery. Love your enemies. Enter into rest. Leave behind all your fears. Put down your lustful desires. Let not sin have dominion over you. As He was in this world so be ye. Overcome self, pride and envy. Sin not!"

Have a great weekend. Peace and Love.

Last edited by Keith
ksazma posted:

The following passage deals with a current activity. It states, "O believers, fasting was prescribed for you as it was prescribed for those before you so you can develop self control". Notice how the passage tells what to do and why? Now your task is to explain why Samson and Judah's having sex on the roadside with a prostitute in the case of Samson and in the case of Judah, he mistook his daughter in law for a prostitute. How do those two passages fit into 2 Timothy 3:16-17?

Dem people used to live in tents, unlike mortar and bricks, dem movable. Roadside is like where the tents were raised, even though roadside din exist then.

Dey were ppl who misbehave. And they have a history of illicit sex, and to the point where mohammad recognised it. After thousand of years, he decreed one man can have several wimem. So he solved the problem of prostitution. Besides, Judah and Samson were muslims, considering it is believed that Adam was also muslim. And those two Johns were ater Adam.

Deliah was not a prostitute, neither was Tamar. Both cases were entrapment.

seignet posted:
ksazma posted:

The following passage deals with a current activity. It states, "O believers, fasting was prescribed for you as it was prescribed for those before you so you can develop self control". Notice how the passage tells what to do and why? Now your task is to explain why Samson and Judah's having sex on the roadside with a prostitute in the case of Samson and in the case of Judah, he mistook his daughter in law for a prostitute. How do those two passages fit into 2 Timothy 3:16-17?

Dem people used to live in tents, unlike mortar and bricks, dem movable. Roadside is like where the tents were raised, even though roadside din exist then.

Dey were ppl who misbehave. And they have a history of illicit sex, and to the point where mohammad recognised it. After thousand of years, he decreed one man can have several wimem. So he solved the problem of prostitution. Besides, Judah and Samson were muslims, considering it is believed that Adam was also muslim. And those two Johns were ater Adam.

Deliah was not a prostitute, neither was Tamar. Both cases were entrapment.

Truthfully, no one even know if Samson or Judah even existed. They could be made up people like so many made up people and stories in the Bible.

But I agree that Adam was a Muslim and so was Jesus.

Keith posted:
ksazma posted:

Two things. The point I was making is that Luke admitted that he was not writing his account of Jesus because he was inspired by the Holy Spirit to do so. He admitted that he did it because he thought he was more capable than those who did before. This also showed that he thought they did so on their own too and not because they were inspired by the Holy Spirit to do so.

My Response:
First, lets address the "Holy Spirit" before we go any further to get an understand of it purpose. In a nutshell Holy spirit is a teacher of rightness one who enable us with understanding of all things, things that we need to know.

Sorry about be so length but the point is to get a clear understand of the Holy Spirit. Jesus said He would send the Spirit to us to be our Helper, Comforter, and Guide. โ€œAnd I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you foreverโ€ (John 14:16). The Greek word translated here โ€œCounselorโ€ means โ€œone who is called alongsideโ€ and has the idea of someone who encourages and exhorts. The Holy Spirit takes up permanent residence in the hearts of believers (Romans 8:9; 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, 12:13). Jesus gave the Spirit as a โ€œcompensationโ€ for His absence, to perform the functions toward us which He would have done if He had remained personally with us.

The Spiritโ€™s presence within us enables us to understand and interpret Godโ€™s Word. Jesus told His disciples that โ€œwhen He, the Spirit of Truth, comes, He will guide you into all truthโ€ (John 16:13). He reveals to our minds the whole counsel of God as it relates to worship, doctrine, and Christian living. He is the ultimate guide, going before, leading the way, removing obstructions, opening the understanding, and making all things plain and clear. He leads in the way we should go in all spiritual things. Without such a guide, we would be apt to fall into error. A crucial part of the truth He reveals is that Jesus is who He said He is (John 15:26; 1 Corinthians 12:3).

Now lets look at the verse in question.
Luke 1:3
"It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,"


Luke is writing what he experience and know about Jesus. His experience like the ones before him such as, Matthew, Mark, and John just to name a few, was lead by the holy spirt which bring all those things into remembrance to write about. Notice the "also" in the verse you seem so fixated about, when there is an "also" we need to look and see what was stated before. Lets examine the verses before Luke 1:3. 

Luke 1:1-2
"Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;"

Among Us, disciples of Jesus (Matthew, Mark, John, Luke, Peter, James, etc.)
In the verses above Luke is saying many before him being eyewitnesses have given their written account about the life of Jesus. Hence his statement below.

"It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write......"

Here Luke is saying he also will give his account of the things he witness.


ksazma posted:
Secondly, there goes your condescending attitude again suggesting that unlike you, I don't have a job I get paid to do. For your information, I get paid to be a Financial Controller. I don't know how you feel about that job but I do see it as a responsible one.

My Response:
I apologize my comment was not meant to be condescending. I thought you mention somewhere before about being self employed hence my statement. I'm an IT Security Engineer and yes I do understand how responsible our jobs can be.

So basically, all you are saying is that you ASSUME that when Luke stated unequivocally that he was writing of his OWN intuition, he was being inspired to do so by the Holy Spirit.

Using this argument, you would have to accept that Muhammad making statements is also doing so through being inspired by this Holy Spirit. Likewise, you would have to accept that Muhammad's argument that Paul's doctrine is against Jesus' beliefs is also inspired by the Holy Spirit especially the same things that mattered to Jesus also mattered to Muhammad including both of them being totally against taking others as God beside the one true God. Paul and Christians associate partners with God totally going against Jesus' beliefs.

Lastly, my keen eyes did not miss your typing error above. You stated that "Jesus said He would send the Spirit to us to be our Helper, Comforter, and Guide. โ€œAnd I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you foreverโ€ (John 14:16)." Jesus did not say that he will send the Spirit as you erroneously wrote above.

Keith posted:
Keith posted:
ksazma posted:

I am glad that you brought it back to it all being inspired by God and you ended with 2 Timothy, 3:16-17. Now my friend, please explain the story about Samson meeting a whore on the road to Gaza and had sex with her. We also have the story of Judah having sex with his daughter-in-law on the roadside. Please explain how 2 Timothy, 3:16-17 applies to these two instances. There are many more but I don't care to add them.

Will address later busy at the moment unlike you I've a job I get paid to do all the best.

The simple explanation I can offer you is despise man's short coming God still find a way to used man to edify others in their short coming and to bring forth his purpose and plan. King David, the man after God's own heart, was a murdering adulterer. Abraham, the father of nations, lived a lie using his wife as a pawn to save his own skin. Peter denied Jesus cursing the One who loved him most. Did you know in Jesus linage the woman Rahab was a prostitute?

The list goes on and on of men and women who loved God, men who were greatly used by God almost driven to the ground by their weaknesses. Yet, God was always there saying, "I called you; I will be with you! I will take away the evil of your heart! I will accomplish my will, regardless!"

Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 1 Corinthians 1:25.

When I Say Weakness, I Do Not Mean Sensuality. God does not use people weak in righteousness. A man's weakness can lead him into adultery, gambling, drinking and all kinds of indulgences. God is not referring to that kind of weakness. When He calls the base, He is not referring to the wicked.

The weakness God speaks about is our human inability to obey His commandments in our own strength. God calls us to a life of holiness and separation. He tells us we can be free from the bondage of sin. He Word promises freedom from sin's power, as well as forgiveness. God's Word comes to us with some impossible challenges "Resist the devil. Walk in the Spirit. Come out from among them. Do not commit adultery. Love your enemies. Enter into rest. Leave behind all your fears. Put down your lustful desires. Let not sin have dominion over you. As He was in this world so be ye. Overcome self, pride and envy. Sin not!"

Have a great weekend. Peace and Love.

Unfortunately, the Bible did not mention lessons taught or learned from those two passages cited.

ksazma posted:
seignet posted:
ksazma posted:

The following passage deals with a current activity. It states, "O believers, fasting was prescribed for you as it was prescribed for those before you so you can develop self control". Notice how the passage tells what to do and why? Now your task is to explain why Samson and Judah's having sex on the roadside with a prostitute in the case of Samson and in the case of Judah, he mistook his daughter in law for a prostitute. How do those two passages fit into 2 Timothy 3:16-17?

Dem people used to live in tents, unlike mortar and bricks, dem movable. Roadside is like where the tents were raised, even though roadside din exist then.

Dey were ppl who misbehave. And they have a history of illicit sex, and to the point where mohammad recognised it. After thousand of years, he decreed one man can have several wimem. So he solved the problem of prostitution. Besides, Judah and Samson were muslims, considering it is believed that Adam was also muslim. And those two Johns were ater Adam.

Deliah was not a prostitute, neither was Tamar. Both cases were entrapment.

Truthfully, no one even know if Samson or Judah even existed. They could be made up people like so many made up people and stories in the Bible.

But I agree that Adam was a Muslim and so was Jesus.

If Jesus WAS a muslim, then I agree with you. No one knows what became of him as a muslim. 

As the Son of God, you most definitely hanging His Celestial Being for His piety of death and resurrection.

seignet posted:
ksazma posted:
 

Truthfully, no one even know if Samson or Judah even existed. They could be made up people like so many made up people and stories in the Bible.

But I agree that Adam was a Muslim and so was Jesus.

If Jesus WAS a muslim, then I agree with you. No one knows what became of him as a muslim. 

As the Son of God, you most definitely hanging His Celestial Being for His piety of death and resurrection.

Actually, I am not assaulting Jesus in any way. I believe Pointy pointed that out to you not very long ago. What I did is used my unique style to prove how the Bible incorrectly recorded people and their history. I began a long time ago proving to Bro. Keith that Isaac was at no time Abraham's only son. That was an interpolation by the compilers of the Bible. Interpolations in the Bible did not happen once but on many occasions as the Church and Bible publishers seek to fix problems with the Biblical message. Interpolation is described by Biblical scholars as text added to the "original" manuscripts to bring clarity to Bible. They are not in the "original" manuscripts. Take the passage involving Abraham and the sacrificial son. It stated "take your son, your only son, Isaac". If God is wise and Abraham is sane, God does not need to tell Abraham who is his only son as every sane person knows who their children are and which one is first, second, etc. "Your only son, Isaac" is an interpolation to deny Ishmael his right to existence after the birth of Isaac. This is not the only time that the Bible have sought to deny people their right to existence. You can find many cases littered throughout the Bible as writers during competing times sought to emphasize the importance of their times compared to others at other times. This mischief is the primary reason there are so many contradictions throughout the Bible. Writers maliciously trying to change history allowed their blind malice to create the contradictions we see in the Bible today. Here is another one that came up from Bro. Keith's post yesterday. It involves Jesus' statement about the Comforter.

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; - John 14:16

26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. John 14:26

Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. John 16:7

The words, "which is the Holy Ghost is an interpolation in the passage, John 14:16. Why I say that? Simple. The Holy Ghost did not need to wait until Jesus was gone before he can come as stated in John 16:7 because the Holy Ghost was already here according to multiple passages in the New Testament. The Holy Ghost was already with John, the Baptist among others. It was already with Jesus when he walked the earth. Heck, the New Testament stated that he gave up the Holy Ghost when he was on the cross. The Biblical writers inserted the words, "which is the Holy Ghost" not really realizing that the mischief of their actions will be uncovered. The biggest problem for the Biblical writers is they never foresaw the information age when passages can be quickly and competently scrutinized.

Muslims don't need this to validate Muhammad's existence but if they cared, they can see many corroboration for Muhammad in what Jesus was characterizing as the Comforter.

12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. John 16: 12-14

Start with the characterization, 'the Spirit of Truth". No one can deny that Muhammad was a very truthful person. Heck, Khatijah who was 40 when he was 25 proposed marriage to him because of his honesty and trustworthiness. Muhammad never spoke of himself. He spoke of others and events affecting other peoples' lives and existence. While there are countless recordings from others of who Muhammad was and how he lived, there are no recordings of Muhammad lamenting about his personal conditions as the one recorded in the New Testament of Jesus complaining of not even having a place to rest his head. When the people of Taif stoned the prophet and he was bleeding, his companions (who stood with him instead of "being afrightened and fled" as in the case of Jesus' disciples when Jesus was about to be crucified) told him to pray to God to curse them. His reply was classic. He stated that he did not come as a curse but as a mercy. On his dying bed, he was crying and someone asked him why he was crying. He did not say that he was crying because he thinks God has forsaken him as the Bible recorded Jesus doing when he was on the cross. His reply was that he was sadly thinking of his ummah (followers). When the woman who used to throw her garbage on him every time he passed by her place did not do it for a few days, he did not say "maybe she is not well, good for the bitch". Instead he went and enquired how she was doing. Here is a man who throughout his life did what was beneficial to others and all of it was in a simple manner free of all the celestial nonsense wrongfully associated to Jesus as you mentioned above. Jesus' role on earth was very limited. He was not a law maker like Moses and Muhammad 18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. 19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. Deuteronomy 18:18-19. Jesus was a law abider, abiding by the laws of Moses. Jesus was not a leader in the community as Moses and Muhammad were. He did not move a multitude of men as Moses and Muhammad did. He did not leave a legacy as Moses and Muhammad did. What Christians follow is Paul's doctrine. Jesus did not really have a doctrine since he was following Moses' doctrine. Muhammad's Qur'an was not his own work. He also claimed that he did not write it. He stated that the Angel Gabriel spoke it in his ears and he then dictated it to his companions who in turn recorded it. ".......for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak..... John 16:13  "......and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him." Deuteronomy 18:18

Additionally, Muhammad glorified Jesus in many passages in the Qur'an as stated in John 16:14. The speaks volumes of Jesus in a more positive light than the Bible speaks of him. It corrected Paul's lies about Jesus and removed that burden placed on Jesus by the writers of the New Testament when they chose to follow Paul's mischief. It shows him being respectful to his mother as opposed to the way the new Testament showed him being disrespectful to her. It showed him as a pure decent and honorable person as opposed to the New testament showing him as being bigoted, disrespectful and despicable. If it wasn't for Muhammad, reasonable people would be correct to consider Jesus a myth because of how the New Testament characterize him. Muhammad, through the Qur'an give Jesus a decent, honorable and normal existence and removed all the laughable Biblical characterizations of him.

Lastly, the Qur'an give a clear account of what became of Jesus as a Muslim. The difficulty is with the competing and conflicting accounts given in the Bible. It reduced Jesus to a basically a nincompoop. All I do is play the role of how the Bible characterized Jesus. Pointy thinks he knows where I stand on Jesus long before I joined GNI (although I don't personally know Pointy now or prior to me joining GNI). I am using my unique style to show how ridiculous the Biblical account of Jesus is. Like the account of him entering Jerusalem riding a donkey and an ass at the same time. Two Gun kid rode one horse and had two guns. Nothing ridiculously impossible there. That Biblical passage claimed that Jesus entered Jerusalem riding on two animals at the same time. Imagine that image.

Oh, Jesus is not God or any part of God. One God means one God in Abrahamic belief. This many is a European invention that Paul concocted so I have no fear denying Jesus any divinity. In fact, Jesus would appreciate me for not putting that burden on him. Similar to how he demanded that the man who called him "good" desist from doing so pointing out that he was not good but rather only God was good.

God Has a Purpose for Storms

Psalm 119:71

Perhaps youโ€™ve seen a TV show in which a distracted person is about to step in front of a moving vehicle. Then suddenly another character races onto the scene, tackling him to prevent a catastrophe. Stunned and indignant, the near-victim fumes and swats at his rescuerโ€”that is, until realizing he has just been saved from a far worse outcome. What at first seemed like a bad thing turns out to be very good.

Storms in our life can at times serve a similar purpose. Itโ€™s easy to get so caught up in the daily grind or preoccupied with chasing a goal that we miss the good that the Lord has in mind to give us. When weโ€™re this focused on our own desires, we also become more vulnerable to making choices that donโ€™t align with His Word.

But wanting the best for His children, our heavenly Father will go to great lengths to make sure we are positioned for His blessing in our life. Thatโ€™s when we may suddenly find ourselves in the middle of a stormโ€”where life was once sunny, we are now faced with turmoil or even pain. Disappointment like that can catch us off guard and make us wonder, Why is God letting this happen to me? It just may be that Heโ€™s trying to protect us and draw us closer to Him.

Though the Lord sometimes allows storms in the form of problems and hardships, His goal isnโ€™t ever to hurt you. If youโ€™re going through a trial right now, God may be trying to draw your attention back to Him. It is possible Heโ€™s disrupting your plans so He can implement His.

ksazma posted:
Keith posted:
Keith posted:
ksazma posted:

I am glad that you brought it back to it all being inspired by God and you ended with 2 Timothy, 3:16-17. Now my friend, please explain the story about Samson meeting a whore on the road to Gaza and had sex with her. We also have the story of Judah having sex with his daughter-in-law on the roadside. Please explain how 2 Timothy, 3:16-17 applies to these two instances. There are many more but I don't care to add them.

Will address later busy at the moment unlike you I've a job I get paid to do all the best.

The simple explanation I can offer you is despise man's short coming God still find a way to used man to edify others in their short coming and to bring forth his purpose and plan. King David, the man after God's own heart, was a murdering adulterer. Abraham, the father of nations, lived a lie using his wife as a pawn to save his own skin. Peter denied Jesus cursing the One who loved him most. Did you know in Jesus linage the woman Rahab was a prostitute?

The list goes on and on of men and women who loved God, men who were greatly used by God almost driven to the ground by their weaknesses. Yet, God was always there saying, "I called you; I will be with you! I will take away the evil of your heart! I will accomplish my will, regardless!"

Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 1 Corinthians 1:25.

When I Say Weakness, I Do Not Mean Sensuality. God does not use people weak in righteousness. A man's weakness can lead him into adultery, gambling, drinking and all kinds of indulgences. God is not referring to that kind of weakness. When He calls the base, He is not referring to the wicked.

The weakness God speaks about is our human inability to obey His commandments in our own strength. God calls us to a life of holiness and separation. He tells us we can be free from the bondage of sin. He Word promises freedom from sin's power, as well as forgiveness. God's Word comes to us with some impossible challenges "Resist the devil. Walk in the Spirit. Come out from among them. Do not commit adultery. Love your enemies. Enter into rest. Leave behind all your fears. Put down your lustful desires. Let not sin have dominion over you. As He was in this world so be ye. Overcome self, pride and envy. Sin not!"

Have a great weekend. Peace and Love.

Unfortunately, the Bible did not mention lessons taught or learned from those two passages cited.

"I called you; I will be with you! I will take away the evil of your heart! I will accomplish my will, regardless!" is not a scripture reference. Anything that's in the scripture I place the Chapter and verse next too. I was only pointing out through those same folks mention above God will was still accomplish despised man short coming.

ksazma posted:
seignet posted:
ksazma posted:
 

Truthfully, no one even know if Samson or Judah even existed. They could be made up people like so many made up people and stories in the Bible.

But I agree that Adam was a Muslim and so was Jesus.

If Jesus WAS a muslim, then I agree with you. No one knows what became of him as a muslim. 

As the Son of God, you most definitely hanging His Celestial Being for His piety of death and resurrection.

He was not a law maker like Moses and Muhammad 18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. 19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. Deuteronomy 18:18-19. Jesus was a law abider, abiding by the laws of Moses. Jesus was not a leader in the community as Moses and Muhammad were. He did not move a multitude of men as Moses and Muhammad did. He did not leave a legacy as Moses and Muhammad did. What Christians follow is Paul's doctrine. Jesus did not really have a doctrine since he was following Moses' doctrine.

I took the liberty of cutting out the other things I taught was irrelevant. Just to clarify are you saying that Muhammad is like Moses and the verse you quoted above is referencing Muhammad?

By the way, we follow what's written in the bible regardless of who doctrine it is. God allow it to be there and we are obligated to following what He has instructed.

I couldn't say it any better so I took the liberty of quoting CRI.

Islam and Christianity are the two largest and most missionary-minded religions in the world. Their beliefs are very similar in many areas. They are both monotheistic, were founded by a specific individual in a definite, historically verifiable setting, are universal, and believe in the existence of angels, heaven and hell, a future resurrection, and that God has made Himself known to man via a revelation.

However, there also are many obvious differences between them, particularly in relation to the person of Jesus Christ, the way of salvation, and each faithโ€™s scripture or scriptures. These differences encompass the very foundational tenets of each religion, and therefore, while Islam and Christianity can both be false, they both cannot be true.

Our task is to examine each religionโ€™s apologetic, or defense of their faith, to see if the claims of either religion are verifiable. Particular attention will be paid to the founder and the scripture or scriptures of each faith. The reason for this should be self-evident: it is very easy for someone to make claims regarding himself, proving them is an entirely different matter.

ISLAMIC APOLOGETICS

Islam, like Christianity, believes that a personโ€™s faith must be reasonable as well as subjective, that we must worship God with our minds as well as our hearts. In sharing this common ground with Muslims let us then examine why they believe what they believe.

The Miracle of the Qurโ€™an โ€”The Islamic Claim

We must start our study of Islamic apologetics by examining their highest source of authority, the Qurโ€™an. For Muslims, this is the pure word of God with no admixture of human thought or content Indeed, many Muslims have such an intense jealousy for the Qurโ€™an that they keenly resent its being possessed by a non-Muslim.

The word โ€œQurโ€™anโ€ comes from โ€œan Arabic word meaning โ€˜readingโ€™ or โ€˜that which is to be read.โ€™โ€1 Muslims affirm that the Qurโ€™an was given to Muhammad in the Arabic language, piece by piece, over a span of 23 years until his death (Qurโ€™an 43:3; 44:58; 17:106). Muslim apologetics for the Qurโ€™an cover four main areas: its preservation, eloquence, alleged prophecies, and compatibility with modern science.

1. Preservation of the Qurโ€™an

Concerning the present authenticity of the Qurโ€™an, Maulvi Muhammad Ali makes the following grandiose statement:

As regards the authenticity of the Holy Qurโ€™an, I need not detain the reader very long. From one end of the world to the other, from China in the Far East to Morocco and Algeria in the Far West, from the scattered islands of the Pacific Ocean to the great desert of Africa, the Qurโ€™an is one, and no copy differing in even a diacritical point is met with in the possession of one among the four hundred millions of Muslims.2 There are, and always have been, contending sects, but the same Qurโ€™an is in the possession of one and allโ€ฆA manuscript with the slightest variation in the text is unknown.3

Thus Muslims not only believe that the Qurโ€™an is Godโ€™s word in toto, they also are confident that no error, alteration, or variation has touched it since its inception. This, then, is one of their โ€œproofsโ€ that the Qurโ€™an is a โ€œmiracleโ€ from God.

2. Eloquence of the Qurโ€™an

A second claim made to prove the supernatural origin of the Qurโ€™an, found in surah (chapter) 17:88, is that its beauty and eloquence is self-sufficient proof that the author is God:

Say: โ€œIf the whole Of mankind and Jinns Were to gather together To produce the like Of this Qurโ€™an, they Could not produce The like thereof, even if They backed up each other With help and support.โ€

In a footnote within his translation of the Qurโ€™an, Yusuf Ali states, โ€œNo human composition could contain the beauty, power, and spiritual insight of the Qurโ€™an.โ€4

However, Muslims do not believe that the Qurโ€™an is a miracle solely because of its eloquence and beauty, but also because in surah 7:157 Muhammad is referred to as โ€œThe unlettered Prophet.โ€ Believing that he was illiterate, they ask how such a man could produce the Qurโ€™an.

A final claim concerning the Qurโ€™anโ€™s literary achievement is that it is so consistent throughout that no human could have devised it Suzanne Haneef asks โ€œhow the whole Qurโ€™an could be so utterly consistentโ€ if it did not originate from God.5

3. Prophecies In the Qurโ€™an

The Qurโ€™an speaks prophetically very little, if indeed it does prophesy at all. Hence, few Muslim apologists use fulfilled prophecy as a proof for their faith. However, there is a series of verses in the Qurโ€™an which promise that the Muslims will be victorious, both at home and abroad.6 Maulana Muhammad Ali discusses these prophecies at length in his work The Religion of Islam:

โ€ฆwe find prophecy after prophecy announced in the surest and most certain terms to the effect that the great forces of opposition should be brought to naughtโ€ฆthat Islam should spread to the farthest corners of the earth and that it should ultimately he triumphant over all religions of the world.7

4. Science and the Qurโ€™an

Finally, there is one recent work, written by a French surgeon named Maurice Bucaille, that attempts to vindicate the divine origin of the Qurโ€™an by showing its supposedly remarkable affinity with modem science. After citing a number of examples, Dr. Bucaille concludes that

โ€ฆit is inconceivable for a human being living in the seventh century A.D. to have made statements in the Qurโ€™an on a great variety of subjects that do not belong to his period and for them to be in keeping with what was to be known only centuries later. For me, there can be no human explanation to the Qur an.8

The โ€œMiracleโ€ of the Qurโ€™an โ€” The Christian Response

1. Preservation of the Qurโ€™an?

Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, in The Meaning of the Glorious Koran, tells us that at the time of Muhammadโ€™s death the surahs (or chapters) of the Qurโ€™an had not yet been collated. This was accomplished during the Caliphate of Abu Bakr.9

The second Caliph, Omar, โ€œsubsequently made a single volume (mushaf) that he preserved and gave on his death to his daughter Hafsa, the Prophetโ€™s widow.โ€10 Finally, under the Caliphate of Uthman all copies of the Qurโ€™an were ordered to be brought in and any that deviated from Uthmanโ€™s text were burned.

We have no quarrel with the Islamic position that since the Recension of Uthman the Qurโ€™an has remained intact. However, because of the destruction of all deviant copies no one can know with any certainty if the present Qurโ€™an is exactly the same as what Muhammad gave them.

Islam teaches that the only reason Uthman had all the other collections of the Qurโ€™an burned except his was that there were slight dialectical variations in the different texts. However, there is some evidence which tends to refute this.

First of all, it is very significant that the Qurra, the Muslims who had memorized the entire Qurโ€™an, were vehemently opposed to the Recension. And second, the Shiโ€™ites, who are the second-largest Islamic sect in the world, claim that the Caliph Uthman intentionally eliminated many passages from the Qurโ€™an which related to Ali and the succession of leadership which was to occur after Muhammadโ€™s death.

L. Bevan Jones, in his work The People Of the Mosque, succinctly answers the Muslim argument for the alleged miraculous preservation of the Qurโ€™an: โ€œBut while it may be true that no other work has remained for twelve centuries with so pure a text, it is probably equally true that no other has suffered so drastic a purging.โ€11

2. Eloquence of the Qurโ€™an?

Concerning the Qurโ€™anโ€™s beauty, style, and eloquence, any unbiased reader would have to admit that this is certainly true of much of the Qurโ€™an. However, eloquence itself is hardly a logical test for inspiration. If this were the criteria used to judge a work, then we would have to say that the authors of many of the great works of antiquity were inspired by God. Homer would have to have been a prophet for producing the magnificent Iliad and the Odyssey. In the English language Shakespeare is without a peer as a dramatist, but it would be ludicrous to say that because of this his tragedies were of divine origin. Likewise for the eloquence of the Qurโ€™an.

But what about the consistency of the Qurโ€™an โ€” can it be used to show that this Muslim scripture was inspired? To begin with, it can be shown that the Qurโ€™an is not totally consistent, but rather has some major contradictions in it.12 Even if we granted the thesis that the Qurโ€™an was totally consistent this still would not prove anything. In an essay entitled โ€œHow Muslims Do Apologetics,โ€ Dr. John Warwick Montgomery demonstrates this for us:

This apologetic is likewise of little consequence, for the self-consistency of a writing does not prove that it is a divine revelation. Euclidโ€™s Geometry, for example, is not self-contradictory at any point, but no one claims that this work is therefore divinely inspired in some unique sense.13

And finally, what about Muhammadโ€™s alleged illiteracy? First of all, there is a good deal of evidence against it. But even if we granted the fact that Muhammad could not read or write this still would not make the Qurโ€™an miraculous. Why? Because all Muslims know that he had at least several amanuenses or scribes: and therefore, he could easily have composed the Qurโ€™an in this fashion. This would not be unique, as there are precedents for this. One that most people will be familiar with concerns Homer. He was blind and thus, in all likelihood, could not write. Yet he was the author of the Iliad and the Odyssey, the two greatest epics of the ancient world. In like fashion the question of whether or not Muhammad was illiterate really has no hearing on the case in question.

3. Prophecies in the Qurโ€™an?

Can we say that Islamโ€™s vast expansion, predicted by Muhammad, is a fulfillment of prophecy? If we think this through for just a moment, I believe we can easily answer no.

To begin with, a leader promising his troops or followers a victory is not the least bit unique. Every commander or general does this in order to inspire his army and build up their morale. If they are then victorious, he is vindicated; if they lose then we never hear of his promises because they, along with his movement, are forgotten.

Also, the Muslim had several important incentives to consider while fighting to further the cause of Islam. If he died, he was promised to be allowed into paradise. If he lived and they were victorious in battle, the Muslim soldiers would divide up four-fifths of all the booty.

There is another reason why Islam initially expanded so rapidly. If we look at some of the Qurโ€™anic injunctions about what the non-believers could expect at the hands of the Muslims, it is easy to understand why so many โ€œsubmitted,โ€ as found in surah 5:36:14

The punishment of those Who wage war against God And his Apostle, and strive With might and main For mischief through the land Is: execution, or crucifixion,Or the cutting off of hands And feet from opposite sides,Or exile from the land.

The polytheists had two choices, submit or die. The Christians and the Jews had a third alternative, paying heavy tribute (Qurโ€™an 9:5, 29).

A final point to be considered is that if the fast and far reaching growth of a movement indicated divine favor, then what about such conquerors as Genghis Khan? He consolidated the Mongol tribes and in a time span shorter than early Islamโ€™s conquered a much larger geographic area. Was his military success evidence that he was led of God? And what of Islamโ€™s own growth which was stopped in the West by Charles Martel A.D. 732) and in the East by Leo III (A.D. 740)? Does this mean that they lost favor with Allah? What of the later history of many Islamic countries who suffered the indignity of becoming colonies of the then world powers? No, we can find nothing mysterious or supernatural about Islamโ€™s amazing early growth or subsequent fall.

4. Science and the Qurโ€™an?

A very recent Islamic polemic. The Bible, the Qurโ€™an and Science by Dr. Maurice Bucaille, attempts to demonstrate that the Qurโ€™an must have been divinely inspired because it allegedly states many things that were unknown in the seventh century and have subsequently become known only in our twentieth century.

In answering Dr. Bucaille it must first be pointed out that the bulk of the book does not deal with the Qurโ€™an and science. Rather, most of it is an attempt (using the techniques of higher criticism) to disgrace the Bible. The portions of his book which do attempt to show that the Qurโ€™an is in amazing agreement with twentieth-century scientific knowledge are very vague.

However, what if we were to grant his thesis that the statements in the Qurโ€™an are in total agreement with modern science? Dr. Bucaille states that if this were true, then โ€œit is unthinkable that a man of Muhammadโ€™s time could have been the author of them.โ€15 I agree with his conclusion, assuming his thesis is true. If the Qurโ€™an has detailed scientific statements which we have only recently discovered to be true, and yet it was written in the seventh century A.D., then it could not have been merely the product of Muhammad. But this does not identify the source of the information, it only shows that no human being could have written it without superhuman help.

If indeed the Qurโ€™an had a supernatural origin, then we are still left with the task of finding out who its source was. Dr. Bucaille assumes that it must be God, but why? If we pause and think for just a moment, we realize that there are other supernatural beings besides God. One of these beings is referred to as Satan in the Bible, as well as in the Qurโ€™an. The Bible tells us that he has been on the earth as long as man has, that he has powers and intelligence far superior to ours, and that he is โ€œthe father of liesโ€ (John 8:44). To whisper some scientific facts into someoneโ€™s ear would be no great feat for him. As a matter of fact the Bible says that he does appear to men from time to time: โ€œFor even Satan disguises himself as an angel of lightโ€ (2 Cor. 11:14). It is interesting that this is exactly the initial fear that Muhammad had the first time he heard the voice speak to him.16

5. Sources of the Qurโ€™an

In concluding this section on the Qurโ€™an the reader may be interested to know that many of the stories or accounts found within the Qurโ€™an are traceable to very similiar (sometimes almost identical) stories found in pre-Islamic writings. I would direct the reader to Clair-Tisdallโ€™s classic The Sources of Islam, Rev. W. Goldsackโ€™s The Origins of the Qurโ€™an, and Samuel M. Zwernerโ€™s Islam: A Challenge to Faith.

Is Muhammad Prophesied in the Bible?

Virtually every religion that began after Christianity attempts to show that it is compatible with the Bible. They also endeavor, usually quite laboriously, to show that their founder or faith is referred to in the Bible.17 Thus it comes as no surprise to find that Muslims also claim that their founder was prophesied in both the Old and New Testaments.

Our question still needs to be answered: Although Islam is not unique in claiming to be verified by the Bible, might not its claims be nonetheless true? There are some minor, less detailed verses which Muslims claim are โ€œpropheciesโ€ related to Muhammad. However, the verses which most Muslims cite as the most explicative are Deuteronomy 18:15-18 and John 14:16; 15:26; and 16:7.

1. Deuteronomy 18:15-18

The Lord your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear.

According to all you desired of the Lord your God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, โ€œLet me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, nor let me see this great fire anymore, lest I die.โ€

And the Lord said to me: โ€œWhat they have spoken is good.

I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him.โ€

This is universally held by Muslims as a prophesy pertaining to Muhammad.18 There are a number of reasons why they believe it cannot be referring Jesus.

First, the Promised Prophet was to be a Lawgiving Prophetโ€ฆ. Jesus laid no claim to giving a new lawโ€ฆ. Secondly, the Promised Prophet was to be raised not from among Israel but from among their brethren and Jesus was an Israeliteโ€ฆ. Thirdly, the prophecy was: โ€œI will put my words in his mouth.โ€ But the gospels do not consist of words which God put in Jesusโ€™ mouth. They only tell us the story of Jesus and what he said in some of his public addresses and what his disciples said or did on different occasions. Fourthly, the Promised One was to be a Prophet, while the Christian view is that Jesus was not a Prophet, but the son of God.19

The Muslim will then point out the many ways in which Muhammad and Moses were alike. Each appeared among idolaters. They were both lawgivers who were initially rejected by their people and had to flee into exile, only to return later to lead their nations. They both married and had children, and were military leaders as well as spiritual leaders. After both of their deaths their successors conquered Palestine.

The Muslim conclusion is that this prophecy was fulfilled only by Muhammad: โ€œIf these words do not apply to Muhammad, they still remain unfulfilled.โ€20

Before we continue any farther, let us first analyze these points. The first objection raised against this prophecy having been fulfilled in Jesus was that Jesus was not a lawgiver. Muslims who claim this only show their own lack of understanding of the New Testament, as shown in John 13:34 and Galatians 6:2:

A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love another.

Bear one anotherโ€™s burdens, and thus fulfill the law of Christ

The next objection to this prophecy having been fulfilled in Jesus was that โ€œbrethrenโ€ must refer to the Ishmaelites, not to the Israelites themselves. This argument can easily be refuted by simply looking at how the term โ€œbrethrenโ€ is used in the Bible. One cogent example is found in Deuteronomy 17:15. Moses instructs the Israelites:

โ€œYou shall surely set a king over you whom the Lord your God chooses; one from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother.โ€

Now, did Israel ever appoint a foreigner as king over them? More specifically, was an Ishmaelite ever appointed king over Israel? Of course not. To choose a king โ€œfrom among your brethrenโ€ refers to choosing someone from one of the 12 tribes of Israel. Likewise, the prophet spoken of in Deuteronomy 18 was to be an Israelite.

Another objection to Deuteronomy 18:15-18 being fulfilled in Jesus is that the Gospels allegedly do not consist of words which God gave Jesus, vitally important in light of verse 18. However, to say that Jesus did not speak what God the Father gave Him again betrays an abysmal ignorance of the New Testament: โ€œFor I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speakโ€ (John 12:49)21

The final objection raised against Jesusโ€™ fulfilling these verses is that Christians supposedly only view Jesus as the Son of God, not as a prophet. Once again we see that the Muslim too often has little familiarity with the New Testament. Jesus Himself, prophesying His impending death, said that He must continue His journey to Jerusalem โ€œfor it cannot be that a prophet should perish outside of Jerusalemโ€ (Luke 13:33).22

The Muslim will point out that I still have not explained the many similarities between Moses and Muhammad. It is true that they have many correspondences, but there are also many differences. For example, if Muhammad was illiterate as virtually all Muslims assert, then he was not like Moses who โ€œwas learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptiansโ€ (Acts 7:22). Muhammad is said to have received his revelations from the angel Gabriel, while Moses received the Law directly from God. Muhammad performed no signs or miracles to verify his calling, yet Moses performed many signs. Also, Muhammad was Arabic, while Moses was of Jewish origin.

If one were to peruse the Gospels, he would see that although Jesus was unlike Moses in some ways, in other ways He was very much like him. They were both Jewish, which is very important in light of what we have learned about the term โ€œyour brethren.โ€ They both left Egypt to minister to their people (Heb. 11:27; Matt 2:15). Both also forsook great riches in order to better identify with their people (Heb. 11:24-26; John 6:15; 2 Cor. 8:9).

So we see that both Jesus and Muhammad had similarities with Moses. In what special way then was this coming prophet to be โ€œlike unto Mosesโ€? The answer is found in Deuteronomy 34:8-10 where two distinguishing characteristics of Moses are listed:

But since then there has not arisen in Israel a prophet like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face,

In all the signs and wonders which the Lord sent him to do in the land of Egypt, before Pharaoh, before all his servants, and in all his land,

And by all that mighty power and all the great terror which Moses performed in the sight of all Israel.

This is a direct reference to Deuteronomy 18:15-18. Notice that two specific things are mentioned about Moses here in referring back to the earlier prophecy. The first is that the Lord knew Moses โ€œface to face. โ€œ23 Muhammad never had this type of relationship with God; indeed, in Islam God is so transcendent that except for the unique case of Moses He never spoke directly with men.

Jesus, โ€œthe Word made fleshโ€ (John 1:14), is the only one who ever had a relationship with God like Moses had. In fact, Jesusโ€™ relationship far surpasses that of Moses: โ€œIn the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was Godโ€ (John 1:1).

The second characteristic feature of Moses, that he came with many โ€œsignsโ€ and โ€œwonders,โ€ hardly needs to be expounded on. The many miracles that both Moses and Jesus worked are well known. The Qurโ€™an itself testifies that Muhammad worked no miracles.24

And finally, Jesus Himself tells us who the prophet is that Deuteronomy 18:15-18 is prophesying: โ€œFor if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Meโ€ (John 5:46).25

2. John 14:16; 15:26; 16:7

Muslims claim that the verses speaking of the coming โ€œComforterโ€ (โ€œParacletosโ€ in the original Greek) are actually references to the coming of Muhammad. The reason for this is that in the Qurโ€™an Jesus is made to say that after Himself an apostle would be sent, โ€œWhose name shall be Ahmadโ€ (Qurโ€™an 61:6). The following is Yusuf Aliโ€™s commentary on this verse:

โ€œAhmad,โ€ or โ€œMuhammad,โ€ the Praised One, is almost a translation of the Greek word Periclytos. In the present Gospel of John, xiv. 16, xv. 26, and xvi. 7, the word โ€œComforterโ€ in the English version is for the Greek word โ€œParacletos,โ€ which means โ€œAdvocate,โ€ โ€œone called to the help of another, a kind friendโ€ rather than โ€œComforter.โ€ Our doctors contend that Paracletos is a corrupt reading for Periclytos, and that in their [sic] original saying of Jesus there was a prophecy of our holy Prophet Ahmad by name.26

Thus Muslims believe that all of our Bibles have been corrupted and that the apostle John really used the word โ€œPericlytosโ€ in these verses, not the word โ€œParacletos.โ€

In examining the Muslim claim that the text has been corrupted the textual critic would quite rightly look to the actual textual evidence. There are over 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament which date from before A.D. 350. Not once in any of the manuscripts which contain these passages do we find the word โ€œPericlytosโ€ used. The word that we find used every time is โ€œParacletos.โ€ Thus, there is absolutely no textual evidence which would back up their contention that the text was corrupted.

The Muslim position is even more lamentable when we carefully read these verses to see what Jesus was saying. There is a great deal which could be said about each verse; however, we will limit our review to the obvious discrepancies between the Islamic position and what is actually being said: โ€œAnd I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Comforter,27 that He may abide with you foreverโ€ (John 14:16). First of all, Jesus said that the Father โ€œwill give you another Comforter.โ€ Who was Jesus addressing in these verses? The Arabs, or more specifically, the Ishmaelites? Of course not. He is speaking to Jewish believers. Hence the โ€œComforterโ€ would be sent initially to them. This cannot be referring to Muhammad.

Second, this verse states that the โ€œParacletos,โ€ the โ€œComforter,โ€ would โ€œabide with you forever.โ€ How can this apply to Muhammad? The Muslim prophet has been dead and buried for over 1,300 years.

โ€œEven the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in youโ€ (John 14:17). Here โ€œthe Spirit of Truthโ€ is used as another title or synonym for the โ€œParaclete.โ€ We see from this verse that the โ€œParacleteโ€ would be โ€œin you.โ€ Again, it is impossible to reconcile this statement with the Islamic position.

John 14:26 completely devastates the Muslim hypothesis that Muhammad was actually the one being prophesied in the verses dealing with the coming โ€œComforterโ€ (or โ€œParacleteโ€): โ€œBut the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.โ€ Jesus said that the โ€œComforterโ€ is โ€œthe Holy Spirit.โ€ This is the reason why all of the Muslim apologists stay away from this verse, only quoting the verses they like. Jesus commanded His disciples โ€” in Acts 1:4-5 โ€” not to โ€œdepart from Jerusalem,โ€ for they would โ€œbe baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.โ€

Do these verses really apply to Muhammad appearing 600 years later in Mecca? Only a person already biased and completely credulous could believe this. The fulfillment of Jesusโ€™ words occurred 10 days later on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4), not six centuries later, hundreds of miles from Jerusalem.

Prof. โ€˜Abdu โ€˜L-Ahad Dauud, in Muhammad in the Bible, states that this alleged prophecy โ€œis one of the strongest proofs that Muhammad was truly a Prophet and that the Qurโ€™an is really a divine revelationโ€28 (emphasis added). If these verses constitute one of their โ€œstrongest proofs,โ€ then I will not belabor the reader with โ€œlesser proofs.โ€ I believe that Blaise Pascal succinctly summarized the situation: โ€œAny man can do what [Muhammad] has done; for he performed no miracles, he was not foretold. No man can do what Christ has done.โ€29

In the remaining space it will be impossible to give more than an overview of the evidences for the Christian faith.30 The two areas we will examine are the evidences for the reliability of the Bible and the person of Jesus Christ.

The Reliability of the Bible

For Muslims the Bible is virtually worthless as far as being an authentic revelation from God. They believe it has been totally corrupted and is therefore not trustworthy. However, if we examine the biblical documents, using the same thorough standards any historiographer would use, we discover that its reliability is unimpeachable.

The New Testament documents, for example, have more manuscript authority than any 10 works of antiquity put together. As mentioned earlier, we have over 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament dating from before A.D. 350. In comparison, the number two book in all of ancient history for manuscript authority is the Iliad with 643 manuscripts.

Dr. John Warwick Montgomery, dean of the Simon Greenleaf School of Law and a noted theologian, comments on this: โ€œTo be skeptical of the resultant text of the New Testament books is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament.โ€31

When we turn to the text of the New Testament itself we see that the writers of the New Testament books claimed that they were eyewitnesses, or close associates of eyewitnesses, of the events they narrated.32 We also have excellent external evidence confirming this. Papias, a disciple of the apostle John, confirms the fact that Mark did indeed write the Gospel which is ascribed to him, obtaining his information from the apostle Peter.33 Polycarp, another disciple of the apostle John, taught his own disciple Irenaeus that the men to whom the four Gospels are ascribed were in truth their real authors.34

In addition to these evidences we can also add the findings of modern archaeology. Time after time archaeology has vindicated biblical accounts which had previously been ridiculed as being grossly inaccurate.35 Concerning this, Nelson Glueck, a world-famous Jewish archaeologist, went so far as to say that โ€œit may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference.โ€36

In any responsible examination of the biblical documents the evidence for their reliability comes out positive. Even well-known secular historians accept the biblical accounts as being historically reliable. A.N. Sherwin-White, a non-Christian, accepts without question the essential reliability of the Gospels and the Book of Acts:

For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelmingโ€ฆany attempt to reject its historicity in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.37

It is very interesting to note that Yusuf Ali, in his widely used English translation of the Qurโ€™an, twice cites Sir Frederick Kenyon as a renowned authority.38 Kenyon, formerly the principal curator of the British Museum, was one the worldโ€™s greatest authorities on textual criticism of ancient works. Concerning the textual reliability of the Bible, he concluded that โ€œthe Christian can take the whole Bible in his hand and say without fear or hesitation that he holds in it the true Word of God.โ€39

The Death and Resurrection of Christ

Muslims, denying that Jesus died on the cross, hold that no resurrection occurred. They do this not on the basis of the historical evidence but because the Qurโ€™an simply denies that Jesus was crucified.โ€™ However, once again their beliefs fly in the face of all the evidence.

The following references are a listing of just some of the Old Testament prophecies concerning the sufferings of the Messiah and of their fulfillment in Jesus. We are told the Messiah would come in humility (Zech. 9:9; Matt. 21:6-9), would be sold for 30 pieces of silver (Zech. 11:12; Matt. 26:15), would suffer tremendously (lsa. 50:6; Matt. 26:67), would be pierced and scourged (Isa. 53:5; Matt. 27:26: John 19:34), would not speak in His own defense (Isa. 53:7; Matt. 27:12-14), would be slain (Isa. 53:8; Luke 23:46), would die among thieves and intercede for the transgressors (Isa. 53:12; Matt. 27:38; Luke 23:34), would be mocked (Ps. 22:7-8; Matt. 27:31, 39-40), would have his hands and feet pierced (Ps. 22:16; John 20:25-28), would have lots cast for his garments (Ps. 22:18; John 19:23-24), and would not have his bones broken (Ps. 34:20; John 19:33).

In the New Testament Jesus claimed to be God (John 8:58). Those closest to Him made the same claim for Him (1 John 5:20; 2 Pet. 1:1). Jesus said that the ultimate proof validating His claims would be His resurrection from the dead (Matt 16:21; 17:9; John 2: 18-21).

If these events did not occur (Jesusโ€™ death and resurrection), one is faced with tremendously difficult questions. What accounts for the change in Peter, from being a coward who denied even knowing Jesus, into being a martyr? What accounts for the change of Saul, the greatest persecutor of the early church, into the apostle Paul, the greatest missionary of the early church (who also suffered martyrdom)? What accounted for the birth of the Christian church itself? Christianity was not spread by force. The first Christians had no worldly incentives to preach Jesusโ€™ death and resurrection. Conversely, all they could expect were revilements, persecution, and martyrdom. The only satisfactory answer that can be given to these questions is that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead, just as He promised.

Near the end of the eighteenth century La Revelliere-Lepeaux, a determined non-Christian, was attempting to replace Christianity with Theophilanthropy (a form of deism) as the religion of France. When he told Talleyrand his plans, โ€œthe cynical politician replied, โ€˜All you have to do is get yourself hanged, and revive the third day.โ€™โ€41

Indeed, Talleyrand very perceptively showed the main difference between Christianity and every other religion of the world. Jesus Christ raised Himself from the dead, thus verifying His claims to deity. Muhammad and all of the other founders of the various religions are still in the grave. Only Jesus has the power of life over death, as He said in John 11:25-26:

I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me shall live even if He dies, and everyone who lives and believes In Me shall never die.

There were several Qurans that existed. A documentary was aired a few years ago on the subject. After the death of Mohammad, words compiled by others were issued as qurans. Somewhat like the Gospels. 

At the time Islam planned the invasion of Christendom, the Caliphate was quite aware of the different sects of christians and how they interpreted the the wriiten words of the Apostles. There was no Bible at that time.

Islam, as an organized faith, perhaps the first, ever. And long before the Catholic Church. Heretics were banished, put to death and have their works(qurans) burnt. Thus remaining supposedly, Mohammad's version.

The Caliphate was not going have none of the supposedly confusion as the Christians were having.  Other thoughts and thinking were suppressed into the idea that the writings from Mohammad was from God himself.

I doan think God is a confused Being. He had already given Enoch, the seventh from Adam, His commands, explanations, statutes and His plans for the atonement of mankind sins in the personage of the Elect One. Enoch saw the fire that inscribed the words, today it may be interpreted as laser technology. Methuselah was handed thebooks by his father and given specific instructions to be sure it was handed down all the way to Noah.

Islam can boast of the millions who read the authentic Arabic words. How many understand the langauge? Are they just mouthing the beauty of the chants? They cannot question anything. They are programmed like the children in the madrasahs. They read only the Quran. It is the same as just listen, you do not  have to read.

Just accept what is given.

The Holy Roman Catholic Church was like that too. Only Latin was the language of the Holy Book. To have the Book in another language was unheard of and the those who listened only listened. The masses followed the motions, listened to the chants, can't read only repeated. Fearing the scorch of fire at the stake, many cardinals just followed the church doctrines.

For centuries, the Roman Catholic Church behaved as if they spoke for God.

Then a Catholic Priest in England, Wycliffe would translate the Latin into Old English for the English People. Today, his efforts has paid off in the thousands of languages the Bible has been printed into. Perhaps, there are some wrong interpretation, but the essence of God doan need volumes of incantations. God is always present in the hearts of mankind, He doan need to be studied. 

Ofcourse the Catholic Church din let Wycliffee get away with it. Labelled  a

heretic they hounded him. Persecution of his parishers for daring to want the Holy Book for their edification. 

The Catholic Church prevailed.

After another 100 years Hurt was burnt at the stake for demanding parishers be preached to in their language.

The Catholic Prevailed again.

Another 100 years came Martin Luther, he also was a Catholic Priest. 

Just like the prophets before Christ, Christ came as fulfillment of scriptures.

The same way, after thousands of years, Gods words to Enoch is given in thousand of langauges. No conversion is necessary, anyone can commune with God. He did say, the human body is a temple.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Keith posted:
ksazma posted:
seignet posted:
ksazma posted:
 

Truthfully, no one even know if Samson or Judah even existed. They could be made up people like so many made up people and stories in the Bible.

But I agree that Adam was a Muslim and so was Jesus.

If Jesus WAS a muslim, then I agree with you. No one knows what became of him as a muslim. 

As the Son of God, you most definitely hanging His Celestial Being for His piety of death and resurrection.

He was not a law maker like Moses and Muhammad 18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. 19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. Deuteronomy 18:18-19. Jesus was a law abider, abiding by the laws of Moses. Jesus was not a leader in the community as Moses and Muhammad were. He did not move a multitude of men as Moses and Muhammad did. He did not leave a legacy as Moses and Muhammad did. What Christians follow is Paul's doctrine. Jesus did not really have a doctrine since he was following Moses' doctrine.

I took the liberty of cutting out the other things I taught was irrelevant. Just to clarify are you saying that Muhammad is like Moses and the verse you quoted above is referencing Muhammad?

By the way, we follow what's written in the bible regardless of who doctrine it is. God allow it to be there and we are obligated to following what He has instructed.

What I said is that Muhammad does not need the help of the Bible to validate his existence. He is not regarded as a myth the way Jesus is. However, if you were to be liberal, Muhammad had many of the same roles and responsibilities as Moses.

Secondly, While you may be following what is written in the Bible, you are not following what Moses or Jesus followed. Both Moses and Jesus knew nothing about a triune God. Both of them follow one God and if you take Jesus at his word, he told the man asking him about everlasting life to pay particular heed to the 1st commandment. When you worship Jesus and the Holy Ghost as co-equal God to God, you are going against what Jesus stood for.

Lastly, you stated that God has allowed what is in the Bible to be there so you are obligated to follow them. Similarly, God has allowed the Qur'an to be in existence to you must feel equally obligated to follow the Qur'an. Interesting, the God described in the Qur'an is the one that Jesus would recognize and the one he worshipped.

Last edited by Former Member
Keith posted:

 

The โ€œMiracleโ€ of the Qurโ€™an โ€” The Christian Response

1. Preservation of the Qurโ€™an?

Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, in The Meaning of the Glorious Koran, tells us that at the time of Muhammadโ€™s death the surahs (or chapters) of the Qurโ€™an had not yet been collated. This was accomplished during the Caliphate of Abu Bakr.9

The second Caliph, Omar, โ€œsubsequently made a single volume (mushaf) that he preserved and gave on his death to his daughter Hafsa, the Prophetโ€™s widow.โ€10 Finally, under the Caliphate of Uthman all copies of the Qurโ€™an were ordered to be brought in and any that deviated from Uthmanโ€™s text were burned.

We have no quarrel with the Islamic position that since the Recension of Uthman the Qurโ€™an has remained intact. However, because of the destruction of all deviant copies no one can know with any certainty if the present Qurโ€™an is exactly the same as what Muhammad gave them.

Islam teaches that the only reason Uthman had all the other collections of the Qurโ€™an burned except his was that there were slight dialectical variations in the different texts. However, there is some evidence which tends to refute this.

First of all, it is very significant that the Qurra, the Muslims who had memorized the entire Qurโ€™an, were vehemently opposed to the Recension. And second, the Shiโ€™ites, who are the second-largest Islamic sect in the world, claim that the Caliph Uthman intentionally eliminated many passages from the Qurโ€™an which related to Ali and the succession of leadership which was to occur after Muhammadโ€™s death.

L. Bevan Jones, in his work The People Of the Mosque, succinctly answers the Muslim argument for the alleged miraculous preservation of the Qurโ€™an: โ€œBut while it may be true that no other work has remained for twelve centuries with so pure a text, it is probably equally true that no other has suffered so drastic a purging.โ€11

 

Bro Keith, it would really be good if you can present your own argument instead of posting a who piece which a discussion board will never be able to justify. However, I will try to cut your (actually it is from Christian Research Institute) presentation up so that I can respond to it separately. Anyone who knows anything about the origins of the Qur'an will acknowledge that it was an oral revelation to Muhammad over a span of 23 years. As he received them, he would dictate them to his companions some of them entrusted with writing it down. Since it was an oral revelation, emphasis was placed on memorizing it even more than compiling it into a book. Nonetheless, some people used to record passages more applicable to them rather than following a uniform approach to compiling a book. However, the select few who were charged with the proper preservation of the Qur'an put together the one that Umar gave to his daughter, Hafzah. Actually that was only one of three copies that were compiled under the supervision of Umar who was the second leader after the Prophet. Those three copies still exist today. During the Caliphate of Uthman, people were compiling their own records that were not done as meticulously as those three copies. Under his direction, those were all destroyed so as not to create the kind of confusion that exist today with the Bible. Umar was very wise to do so. I don't know why any Christian would make a deal out of this in light of the role of the Council of Nicea in the canonization of the Bible.

Secondly, there was no Shiite at the time of any of the Caliph. Not even when Ali (who the Shiite revere) was Caliph was there any Shiite. So CRI making that argument is baseless.

Lastly, the Qur'an has no direction for any succession. If the Shiite are making this claim which I suspect they are not and it is actually CRI seeking to present a controversy, Uthman would have never been able to remove all references to any succession. The Bible is obsessed with lineage. The Qur'an is more focused on being a guide to mankind.

And yes, L. Bevan Jones only halfway correct. The Qur'an in circulation today is the same one compiled by Umar, not Uthman. And Uthman never burned any Qur'an. He destroyed those documents which while still being correct passages of the established Qur'an, they were not compiled in a uniform manner and had the potential of missing bits and pieces.

seignet posted:

There were several Qurans that existed. A documentary was aired a few years ago on the subject. After the death of Mohammad, words compiled by others were issued as qurans. Somewhat like the Gospels. 

At the time Islam planned the invasion of Christendom, the Caliphate was quite aware of the different sects of christians and how they interpreted the the wriiten words of the Apostles. There was no Bible at that time.

Islam, as an organized faith, perhaps the first, ever. And long before the Catholic Church. Heretics were banished, put to death and have their works(qurans) burnt. Thus remaining supposedly, Mohammad's version.

The Caliphate was not going have none of the supposedly confusion as the Christians were having.  Other thoughts and thinking were suppressed into the idea that the writings from Mohammad was from God himself.

I doan think God is a confused Being. He had already given Enoch, the seventh from Adam, His commands, explanations, statutes and His plans for the atonement of mankind sins in the personage of the Elect One. Enoch saw the fire that inscribed the words, today it may be interpreted as laser technology. Methuselah was handed thebooks by his father and given specific instructions to be sure it was handed down all the way to Noah.

Islam can boast of the millions who read the authentic Arabic words. How many understand the langauge? Are they just mouthing the beauty of the chants? They cannot question anything. They are programmed like the children in the madrasahs. They read only the Quran. It is the same as just listen, you do not  have to read.

Just accept what is given.

The Holy Roman Catholic Church was like that too. Only Latin was the language of the Holy Book. To have the Book in another language was unheard of and the those who listened only listened. The masses followed the motions, listened to the chants, can't read only repeated. Fearing the scorch of fire at the stake, many cardinals just followed the church doctrines.

For centuries, the Roman Catholic Church behaved as if they spoke for God.

Then a Catholic Priest in England, Wycliffe would translate the Latin into Old English for the English People. Today, his efforts has paid off in the thousands of languages the Bible has been printed into. Perhaps, there are some wrong interpretation, but the essence of God doan need volumes of incantations. God is always present in the hearts of mankind, He doan need to be studied. 

Ofcourse the Catholic Church din let Wycliffee get away with it. Labelled  a

heretic they hounded him. Persecution of his parishers for daring to want the Holy Book for their edification. 

The Catholic Church prevailed.

After another 100 years Hurt was burnt at the stake for demanding parishers be preached to in their language.

The Catholic Prevailed again.

Another 100 years came Martin Luther, he also was a Catholic Priest. 

Just like the prophets before Christ, Christ came as fulfillment of scriptures.

The same way, after thousands of years, Gods words to Enoch is given in thousand of langauges. No conversion is necessary, anyone can commune with God. He did say, the human body is a temple.

 

Sagga bai, yuh nah making sense. The first Qur'an word uttered by Muhammad was READ! ุงู‚ู’ุฑูŽุฃู’

ุงู‚ู’ุฑูŽุฃู’ ุจูุงุณู’ู…ู ุฑูŽุจู‘ููƒูŽ ุงู„ู‘ูŽุฐููŠ ุฎูŽู„ูŽู‚

ุฎูŽู„ูŽู‚ูŽ ุงู„ู’ุฅูู†ุณูŽุงู†ูŽ ู…ูู†ู’ ุนูŽู„ูŽู‚ู

ุงู‚ู’ุฑูŽุฃู’ ูˆูŽุฑูŽุจู‘ููƒูŽ ุงู„ู’ุฃูŽูƒู’ุฑูŽู…ู

ุงู„ู‘ูŽุฐููŠ ุนูŽู„ู‘ูŽู…ูŽ ุจูุงู„ู’ู‚ูŽู„ูŽู…ู

ุนูŽู„ู‘ูŽู…ูŽ ุงู„ู’ุฅูู†ุณูŽุงู†ูŽ ู…ูŽุง ู„ูŽู…ู’ ูŠูŽุนู’ู„ูŽู…ู’

Read: In the name of thy Lord who createth

Createth man from a clot

Read: And thy Lord is the Most Bounteous

Who teacheth by the pen

Teacheth man that which he knew not.

 

Reading and researching has always been the culture of the Qur'an. Why do you think more Muslims are more familiar with other religions than the other way around? How do you think I can navigate myself around the Bible the way I do if it wasn't because of natural curiosity? If you want to see where that culture began, just read Muhammad's own words, "seek knowledge even if you have to travel to China". And that is only one example. It was because of the high esteem that the Arabs had for academia that drove them to preserve all the writings of old that people still use today. You are living in an outdated circumstance which was able to make false claims that there was no higher learning outside of Europe but the world has chance and the truth is out that there was indeed higher learning outside of Europe and in fact some of Europe records was preserved by others previously portrayed as useless. Wake up my brother.

Keith posted:

 

The โ€œMiracleโ€ of the Qurโ€™an โ€” The Christian Response

2. Eloquence of the Qurโ€™an?

Concerning the Qurโ€™anโ€™s beauty, style, and eloquence, any unbiased reader would have to admit that this is certainly true of much of the Qurโ€™an. However, eloquence itself is hardly a logical test for inspiration. If this were the criteria used to judge a work, then we would have to say that the authors of many of the great works of antiquity were inspired by God. Homer would have to have been a prophet for producing the magnificent Iliad and the Odyssey. In the English language Shakespeare is without a peer as a dramatist, but it would be ludicrous to say that because of this his tragedies were of divine origin. Likewise for the eloquence of the Qurโ€™an.

But what about the consistency of the Qurโ€™an โ€” can it be used to show that this Muslim scripture was inspired? To begin with, it can be shown that the Qurโ€™an is not totally consistent, but rather has some major contradictions in it.12 Even if we granted the thesis that the Qurโ€™an was totally consistent this still would not prove anything. In an essay entitled โ€œHow Muslims Do Apologetics,โ€ Dr. John Warwick Montgomery demonstrates this for us:

This apologetic is likewise of little consequence, for the self-consistency of a writing does not prove that it is a divine revelation. Euclidโ€™s Geometry, for example, is not self-contradictory at any point, but no one claims that this work is therefore divinely inspired in some unique sense.13

And finally, what about Muhammadโ€™s alleged illiteracy? First of all, there is a good deal of evidence against it. But even if we granted the fact that Muhammad could not read or write this still would not make the Qurโ€™an miraculous. Why? Because all Muslims know that he had at least several amanuenses or scribes: and therefore, he could easily have composed the Qurโ€™an in this fashion. This would not be unique, as there are precedents for this. One that most people will be familiar with concerns Homer. He was blind and thus, in all likelihood, could not write. Yet he was the author of the Iliad and the Odyssey, the two greatest epics of the ancient world. In like fashion the question of whether or not Muhammad was illiterate really has no hearing on the case in question.

Nothing Christian Research Institute wrote here makes any sense. They make several proclamations but provide any evidence to support them. They are not like me who usually present the Biblical passage that I am commenting on. I was looking forward to them listing these "major" contradictions but they never did. In fact, the Qur'an itself proclaimed that had it not been from God, it would have many contradictions. It is now some 1500 years later with us living in the information age where any document can be quickly and easily scrutinized through computer programming and still no contradictions in the Qur'an. The other proclamation is that Muhammad was not illiterate but then again no evidence of this. So far, CRI don't seem too committed to their work here. You need better materials, Bro. Keith.

Keith posted:

 

The โ€œMiracleโ€ of the Qurโ€™an โ€” The Christian Response

3. Prophecies in the Qurโ€™an?

Can we say that Islamโ€™s vast expansion, predicted by Muhammad, is a fulfillment of prophecy? If we think this through for just a moment, I believe we can easily answer no.

To begin with, a leader promising his troops or followers a victory is not the least bit unique. Every commander or general does this in order to inspire his army and build up their morale. If they are then victorious, he is vindicated; if they lose then we never hear of his promises because they, along with his movement, are forgotten.

Also, the Muslim had several important incentives to consider while fighting to further the cause of Islam. If he died, he was promised to be allowed into paradise. If he lived and they were victorious in battle, the Muslim soldiers would divide up four-fifths of all the booty.

There is another reason why Islam initially expanded so rapidly. If we look at some of the Qurโ€™anic injunctions about what the non-believers could expect at the hands of the Muslims, it is easy to understand why so many โ€œsubmitted,โ€ as found in surah 5:36:14

The punishment of those Who wage war against God And his Apostle, and strive With might and main For mischief through the land Is: execution, or crucifixion,Or the cutting off of hands And feet from opposite sides,Or exile from the land.

The polytheists had two choices, submit or die. The Christians and the Jews had a third alternative, paying heavy tribute (Qurโ€™an 9:5, 29).

A final point to be considered is that if the fast and far reaching growth of a movement indicated divine favor, then what about such conquerors as Genghis Khan? He consolidated the Mongol tribes and in a time span shorter than early Islamโ€™s conquered a much larger geographic area. Was his military success evidence that he was led of God? And what of Islamโ€™s own growth which was stopped in the West by Charles Martel A.D. 732) and in the East by Leo III (A.D. 740)? Does this mean that they lost favor with Allah? What of the later history of many Islamic countries who suffered the indignity of becoming colonies of the then world powers? No, we can find nothing mysterious or supernatural about Islamโ€™s amazing early growth or subsequent fall.

 

It is always a mistake for Muslims to become distracted by prophesy. The Qur'an claims to be a guide for mankind. It cares little if any about prophesy. This is more a Christian obsession but while they obsess about prophesy, we see them making up things to fit into earlier prophesy. Take for instance how they always call Jesus king yet he was never a king. He was born in a barn and live poor so where is this evidence of him ever being a king. In fact, it was another king who decreed his death on the cross and no Christian regards that king as greater than Jesus.

Getting Out of Step

1 Samuel 13:5-14

Saul had everything going for him. Besides being the son of a highly respected man, he had good looks and a nice physique (1 Samuel 9:1-2). Since God chose him to lead Israel at a time when the nation had some formidable enemies, we can surmise that he was also a courageous and charismatic leader. Even the prophet Samuel was impressed and spoke admiringly at Saulโ€™s coronation: โ€œSurely there is no one like him among all the peopleโ€ (1 Samuel 10:24).

But despite Saulโ€™s many positive attributes, he tragically spent much of his reign out of step with God. The kingโ€™s errors in judgment were mostly due to an inflated sense of self-importance. One blunder would set off a sin-filled chain reaction, as we see in his desperate quest to kill David (chapters 18-26).

The Lord hates arrogance. When people think more highly of themselves than they should (Rom. 12:3), they stop relying upon divine guidance in making decisions. Terrible consequences result from such wrong thinking. For example, the king thought so much of himself that he ignored the law and offered a pre-battle sacrifice in Samuelโ€™s place. Because Saul refused to submit himself to Godโ€™s command, the Lord handed the kingdom over to a man who would (1 Samuel 16:13-14).

Pride always drives a person away from Godโ€™s path. With each misstep, an arrogant man or woman wanders farther into a spiritual wilderness. Nothing of lasting value can be found in such a desolate place. But the Lord will gladly welcome back the wayward. Blessing and joy await those who walk in step with Him

Ksazma numerous time I have posted my own response. Yesterday instead I posting something you might not understand. I quotes CRI who poke holes in your interpretation of Deuteronomy 18:18. In case you missed the point:

If Muhammad was illiterate as virtually all Muslims assert, then he was not like Moses who โ€œwas learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptiansโ€ (Acts 7:22). Muhammad is said to have received his revelations from the angel Gabriel, while Moses received the Law directly from God. Muhammad performed no signs or miracles to verify his calling, yet Moses performed many signs. Also, Muhammad was Arabic, while Moses was of Jewish origin.

If one were to peruse the Gospels, he would see that although Jesus was unlike Moses in some ways, in other ways He was very much like him. They were both Jewish, which is very important in light of what we have learned about the term โ€œyour brethren.โ€ They both left Egypt to minister to their people (Heb. 11:27; Matt 2:15). Both also forsook great riches in order to better identify with their people (Heb. 11:24-26; John 6:15; 2 Cor. 8:9).

So we see that both Jesus and Muhammad had similarities with Moses. In what special way then was this coming prophet to be โ€œlike unto Mosesโ€? The answer is found in Deuteronomy 34:8-10 where two distinguishing characteristics of Moses are listed:

But since then there has not arisen in Israel a prophet like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face,

In all the signs and wonders which the Lord sent him to do in the land of Egypt, before Pharaoh, before all his servants, and in all his land,

And by all that mighty power and all the great terror which Moses performed in the sight of all Israel.

This is a direct reference to Deuteronomy 18:15-18. Notice that two specific things are mentioned about Moses here in referring back to the earlier prophecy. The first is that the Lord knew Moses โ€œface to face. โ€œ23 Muhammad never had this type of relationship with God; indeed, in Islam God is so transcendent that except for the unique case of Moses He never spoke directly with men.

Jesus, โ€œthe Word made fleshโ€ (John 1:14), is the only one who ever had a relationship with God like Moses had. In fact, Jesusโ€™ relationship far surpasses that of Moses: โ€œIn the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was Godโ€ (John 1:1).

The second characteristic feature of Moses, that he came with many โ€œsignsโ€ and โ€œwonders,โ€ hardly needs to be expounded on. The many miracles that both Moses and Jesus worked are well known. The Qurโ€™an itself testifies that Muhammad worked no miracles.24

And finally, Jesus Himself tells us who the prophet is that Deuteronomy 18:15-18 is prophesying: โ€œFor if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Meโ€ (John 5:46).25"

I was going to get to the Moses response next as that was next CRI's list that you cited. Jesus was nothing like Moses because if he was you wouldn't be worshipping him so I wouldn't bore you with arguing over that. As I stated before, Muhammad does not need the Bible to assert his existence. Last night I pointed out that Homer may be no more than a figment of people's imagination. But it is good that you posted that verse about since Moses there has not been IN ISRAEL a prophet like Moses who God knew face to face. This denies Jesus and similarly with Jesus but it also excludes that prophet from being an Isrealite. Secondly, Muhammad did meet God face to face when he made his night journey to heaven. In fact even the angel Gabriel was not allowed to go to the highest heaven A's Muhammad so CRI's argument is completely flawed. Lastly, Muhammad did perform miracles and they can be better verified than those of any other person.

I will address the others one by one.

ksazma posted:
Keith posted:

 

The โ€œMiracleโ€ of the Qurโ€™an โ€” The Christian Response

2. Eloquence of the Qurโ€™an?

Concerning the Qurโ€™anโ€™s beauty, style, and eloquence, any unbiased reader would have to admit that this is certainly true of much of the Qurโ€™an. However, eloquence itself is hardly a logical test for inspiration. If this were the criteria used to judge a work, then we would have to say that the authors of many of the great works of antiquity were inspired by God. Homer would have to have been a prophet for producing the magnificent Iliad and the Odyssey. In the English language Shakespeare is without a peer as a dramatist, but it would be ludicrous to say that because of this his tragedies were of divine origin. Likewise for the eloquence of the Qurโ€™an.

But what about the consistency of the Qurโ€™an โ€” can it be used to show that this Muslim scripture was inspired? To begin with, it can be shown that the Qurโ€™an is not totally consistent, but rather has some major contradictions in it.12 Even if we granted the thesis that the Qurโ€™an was totally consistent this still would not prove anything. In an essay entitled โ€œHow Muslims Do Apologetics,โ€ Dr. John Warwick Montgomery demonstrates this for us:

This apologetic is likewise of little consequence, for the self-consistency of a writing does not prove that it is a divine revelation. Euclidโ€™s Geometry, for example, is not self-contradictory at any point, but no one claims that this work is therefore divinely inspired in some unique sense.13

And finally, what about Muhammadโ€™s alleged illiteracy? First of all, there is a good deal of evidence against it. But even if we granted the fact that Muhammad could not read or write this still would not make the Qurโ€™an miraculous. Why? Because all Muslims know that he had at least several amanuenses or scribes: and therefore, he could easily have composed the Qurโ€™an in this fashion. This would not be unique, as there are precedents for this. One that most people will be familiar with concerns Homer. He was blind and thus, in all likelihood, could not write. Yet he was the author of the Iliad and the Odyssey, the two greatest epics of the ancient world. In like fashion the question of whether or not Muhammad was illiterate really has no hearing on the case in question.

Nothing Christian Research Institute wrote here makes any sense. They make several proclamations but provide any evidence to support them. They are not like me who usually present the Biblical passage that I am commenting on. I was looking forward to them listing these "major" contradictions but they never did. In fact, the Qur'an itself proclaimed that had it not been from God, it would have many contradictions. It is now some 1500 years later with us living in the information age where any document can be quickly and easily scrutinized through computer programming and still no contradictions in the Qur'an. The other proclamation is that Muhammad was not illiterate but then again no evidence of this. So far, CRI don't seem too committed to their work here. You need better materials, Bro. Keith.

Not surprise what mention you don't understand or it doesn't make sense to you especially when discrediting what you were trying to claim. It just doesn't fit your belief. We get it