A BIBLICAL CONCEPT OF THE TRINITY AND ITS DEFENSE

Posted on January 10, 2018 by Jerry

 

Both Muslims and Christians agree that there is at least one person in God, the person Christians call Father, and since we have given a defense of the Christian belief that Jesus Christ is God, the Son of God, it remains only to say a word about the Person of God the Holy Spirit, knowing that our Muslims friends deride the Person and the Work of the Holy Spirit. So it is our desire to share with our Muslim friends as to just who is God the Holy Spirit so that misconception and misunderstanding will be cleared from the minds of those who have a wrong view of the Person of God the Holy Spirit.

The same revelation from God that declares Christ to be the Son of God also mentions another member of the triunity of God called the Spirit of God or the Holy Spirit. He too is equally God just as are the Father and the Son, and he too is a distinct person. The deity of the Holy Spirit is revealed in several ways. Here I will outline it.

  1. First, he is called ‘God’ (Acts 5:3, 4).
  2. Second, he possesses the attributes of deity such as ‘omnipresence’ (cf. Ps. 139:7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12), omniscience, omnipotence.
  3. Third, he is associated with God the Father in the act of creation (Gen. 1:2).
  4. Fourth, he is involved with God the Father, with the Son in the work of redemption (John 3:5, 6, Rom. 8:8, 9, 11, 14, 16, Titus 3:5, 6, 7).
  5. Fifth, he is associated with other members of the Trinity under ‘one’ name of God (Matt 28:18, 19, 20).
  6. Finally, the Holy Spirit appears along with the Father and the Son in Christian benedictions (2 Cor. 13:14).

Not only does the Holy Spirit possess deity but He also has His own personality. He is one with God in ‘essence’ but different in person. That he is a distinct person is clear from several basic facts:

The Holy Spirit is referred to by the personal pronoun ‘he’ (John 14:26, 16:13). He does things only a person can do, such as ‘teach’ (John 14:26, 1 John 2:27), convict of sin (John 16:7, 8), and be grieved by our sin (Eph.4:30). He has all the characteristics of personality, namely ‘intellect’ (1 Cor. 2:10, 11), ‘will’ (1 Cor. 12:11), and ‘feelings’ (Eph. 4:30).

 

That the three members of the Trinity are distinct persons, and not one and the same person is clear from the fact that each person is mentioned in distinction from the other. For one thing, the Father and Son carried on conversation with each other. We call this ‘in the counsel of eternity’. The Son prayed to the Father (John 17:1). The Father spoke from heaven about the Son at his baptism (Matt. 3:15, 16, 17). Indeed the Holy Spirit was present at the same time, revealing that they are three distinct persons, coexisting simultaneously. Further, the fact that they have separate titles (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) has special functions that help us to identify them.

Some examples: The Father planned the salvation (John 3:16. Eph. 1:4), the Son accomplished it by the cross (John 17:4, 19:30, Heb. 1:1, 2) and resurrection (Rom. 4:25, 1 Cor. 15:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), and the Holy Spirit applies it to the lives of believers (John 3:3. Eph. 4:30, Titus 3:5, 6, 7). The Son submits to the Father (1 Cor. 11:3, 15:28) and the Holy Spirit glorifies the Son (John 16:14).

 

The doctrine of the Trinity cannot be proven by human reason alone (one has to be infinite). It is only known because it is revealed by special revelation in the Bible [there is no concept of special revelation in Quran]. However, just because it is beyond reason does not mean that it goes against reason. It is not irrational or contradictory as Muslim theologians believe.

The philosophical law of non-contradiction informs us that something cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same sense. This is the fundamental law of all rational thought, and the doctrine of the Trinity does not violate it. This can be shown by stating that of all what the Trinity is not. The Trinity is not the belief that God is three persons and only one at the same time and in the same sense. That would be a contradiction. Rather, it is the belief that there are three persons in one nature. That is, it may go beyond reason’s ability to comprehend completely, but it does not go against reasons’ ability to apprehend consistently.

 

The Trinity is not the belief that there are three natures in one nature or three essences in one essence. That would be a contradiction. Rather, Christians affirm that there are three persons in one essence. This is not contradictory as Muslims claim because it makes the distinction between person and essence, or to put it in terms of the law of non-contradiction, while God is one and many at the same time, he is not one and many in the same sense. He is one in the sense of his essence but many in the sense of his person. So there is no violation of the law of non-contradiction in the doctrine of the Trinity. So God is a unity of essence with a plurality of persons. Each person is different, yet they have a common nature.

 

God is one in his substance, but three in his relationship. The unity is in his essence [what God is], and the plurality is in God’s persons [how he relates]. This plurality of relationship is both natural and external. Within the Trinity, each member relates to the other in a certain way. For example, the Father is related to the Son as Father and the Son is related to the Father as Son. That is their external and internal relationship by the very makeup of the Trinity. Also, the Father sends the Spirit, and the Spirit testifies of the Son (John 15:26). These are their functions by their very participation in the unity of their Godhead, each having a different relationship to the other, but all the same essence.

 

No analogy of the Trinity is perfect, but some are better than others. First, some illustrations should be repudiated. The Trinity is not like a chain with three links. For these are three separate and separable parts, but God is neither separated or separable. Nor God is like the same actor playing three different parts in a play. For God is simultaneously three persons, not one person playing successive roles. Nor is God like the three states of water, solid liquid and gaseous. For normally water is not in all three of these states at the same time, but God is always three persons at the same time. Unlike other bad analogies, at least this one does not imply tritheism. However, it does reflect another heresy known as modalism [Hindus have their own triumvirate as well].

 

There are more false illustrations of the Trinity to support the charge that Trinitarianism is really tritheism since they contain separable parts. Since Christ is one Who (1 Tim 2:5, ‘there is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus’), and since Christ is one Who [person] with What [two natures], whenever one question is asked about him it must be separated into two questions, one applying to each nature. For example, did he get tired? The answer, as God ‘no’, as man ‘yes’. Did Christ get hungry? In his divine nature ‘No’ but in his human nature ‘Yes’. Did Christ die? In his human nature ‘Yes’ but in his divine ‘No’. The person who died was the God-man, but his Godness did not die.

 

When this same logic is applied to other theological questions raised by Muslims it yields the same kind of answer. Did Jesus know everything? As God He did, since God is omniscient. But as man Jesus said he did not know the time of his second coming (Matt 24:36) and as a child he didn’t know everything, since ‘he increased in wisdom’ (Luke 2:57).

 

Another question being asked by our Muslim friends is ‘Could Jesus sin?’. The answer is same as above, as God he could not have sinned: as a man he did not sin. God cannot sin. God cannot lie. It is impossible for God to sin (Heb. 6:18, Titus 1:2). Yet Jesus was ‘in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin’ (Heb. 4:15). That is to say, while he never sinned (2 Cor. 5:21, 1 Pet. 1:19, 1 John 3:5) he was really tempted and therefore it was possible for him to sin. Otherwise, his temptation would have been a charade. Jesus possessed the power of free choice, which means that whatever moral choice he made, he could have done otherwise.

 

Dividing every question of Christ into two and referring them to each nature unlocked a lot of theological puzzles that otherwise remain shrouded in mystery. And it makes it possible to avoid alleged logical contradictions that are urged upon Christians by Muslims and by other nonbelievers.

 

  • A Moral Illustration of the Trinity: 

 

  1. One Illustration which is suggested by Augustine [the church father], has value in illuminating the Trinity. The Bible informs us that ‘God is love’ [1 John 4:16]. But love is triune since it involves a lover, the loved one [beloved] and a spirit of love between them. To apply this to the ‘Trinity’, the Father is the Lover, the Son is the Beloved [i.e. The One Loved] and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of love. Yet love is one—three in one. This illustration has the advantages of being personal since it involves love, a characteristic that follows only from persons. In the Quran, one does not see any love of this kind. Allah has never said ‘I loved my Muslims’.

 

  • An Anthropological Illustration:

Since man is made in the image of God (Gen 1:27), it should be no surprise that he bears some kind of similarity to the Trinity in human beginnings.

First, we disown trichotomy [that man is body, soul, and spirit] as an appropriate illustration of the Trinity. For even if true [and many Christians reject it for a dichotomy of just body and soul], it would be a bad illustration. Body and soul can be and are separated at death (2 Cor. 5:8, Phil. 1:23) but the nature and persons of the Trinity cannot be separated.

 

  • Islamic Illustration of Plurality in Unity
  1. Some have pointed to the fact that Muhammad was simultaneously a prophet, a husband, and a leader. Why then should a Muslim reject the idea of a plurality of functions [persons] in God? Within the Islamic system the very proof that plurality within unity, as it relates to God, is not unintelligible. By the same token, then, there is no reason Muslims should reject the doctrine of the Trinity as nonsensical.
  2. Perhaps the best illustration of a plurality in deity for the Muslim mind is, as we can see as what is the relation between God [Bible] and Quran. As one Islamic Scholar stated it, the Quran ‘is an expression of divine Will. If you want to compare it with anything in Christianity, you must compare it with Christ himself. Christ was the expression of the divine among men, the revelation of the Divine Will. That is what the Quran is. Orthodox Muslims believe the Qur’an is eternal and uncreated, yet it is not the same as God but is an expression of God’s imperishableness as God himself. Surely, there is here the plurality within unity, something that is other than God but is nonetheless one with God. Indeed the very fact that Muslim scholars see an analogy with the Christian doctrine of the deity of Christ reveals the value of this illustration. For Muslims hold that there are two eternal and uncreated things, but only one God. And Christians hold to three uncreated and eternal persons but only one God.

Conclusion:

At the heart of the difference between Islam and Christianity stands the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Muslims protest that it is neither biblical nor intelligible. Yet we have seen that in order to maintain the former they have twisted scriptural texts out of context. And to hold the latter, to be consistent, they must reject not only clear logical distinctions but their own view of the relation of the Qur’an to God. In brief, there is no good reason to reject the doctrine of the Trinity. Furthermore, we provided evidence that Christ is indeed the Son of God. Thus Christian Trinitarianism, with all its richness of interpersonal relations within the Godhead and with God’s creatures, is to be preferred over the barren and rigid Muslim-monotheism.

Surprisingly the Qur’an mentions the Holy Spirit. The question is asked if our Muslim friends do not believe in the Trinity then why is it in the Qur’an?

 

[Thank you to Vijay Chandra for writing this informative article and granting me permission to post it here.]

Posted in Apologetics Issues--Other Faiths, Doctrinal Discussions, Vijay Chandra Articles | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

A Muslim challenge to Christian belief

Posted on January 9, 2018 by Jerry

The Nugget:

Rev 3:14　 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

My Comment:

Revelation 3:14 is often misunderstood and misapplied. I have seen it misinterpreted by Jehovah Witnesses in person and in their literature. Today I saw it misapplied and misinterpreted by a very skilled and knowledgeable Muslim poster for whom I have great respect. Let me share his challenge and my answer.

The Muslim Challenge:

Jesus was in the womb of his mother for nine months therefore he was a creation of God.
Jesus assured that in the Bible and said
[KJV][Jn.3.6][That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.]

This is also what Jesus said about God
[KJV][Jn.4.24][God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.]

Jesus stated that the spirit doesn’t have flesh and bones.
[KJV][Lk.24.39][Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.]

Jesus according to the Bible is a creation of God.
[KJV][Col.1.15][Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:]
[KJV][Rv.3.14][And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;]

I just hope Christians will study their Bible to make sure that what they believe is the truth.

This is what Christians are going to say on judgement day!
[KJV][Mt.7.21][Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.]
[KJV][Mt.7.22][Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?]

This is what Jesus is going to answer you on that day!

[KJV][Mt.7.23][And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.]

My Response:

Your understanding of these verses may fall short of what they actually say.
 
Jesus was surely born in the form of a man, a human being. That is what has been labeled in Christian and Bible doctrine the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. Thus the Bible teaches that Jesus Christ has a genuine human nature.
 
An accurate understanding of Bible doctrine includes the understanding that Jesus Christ also possessed a divine nature. He always possessed His divine nature, and so pre-existed in eternity past as a divine being, true deity, that is, as God. Read John 1:1 with John 1:14 with understanding and you will begin to see the truth of this assertion.
 
Joh 1:1  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 
 
Joh 1:14  And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. 
 
That Jesus had a pre-existence is asserted by John the Baptist, as recorded in the very next verse, John 1:15, where John the Baptist asserted “for he was before me.” Yet we know from the historical record that John the Baptist was born about six months before Jesus was born.
 
Jesus Himself asserted His pre-existence quite plainly in John 17:5.
 
Joh 17:5  And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
 
Jesus indeed said that a spirit does not have flesh and bones:
 
Luk 24:39  Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. 
 
Jesus said this because the disciples were frightened, supposing they had seen a disembodied spirit.
 
Luk 24:36  And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. 
Luk 24:37  But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. 
 
Of course, spirits are invisible, so Jesus emphatically corrects their misconception by affirming that what they now saw was indeed Himself, now bodily resurrected from the dead. He showed them His hands and His feet and ate food before them.
 
 
Colossians 1:15 is misinterpreted when it is taken to mean that “firstborn” has any reference to a birth or origin. It rather has to do with office or position. And that Jesus is the firstborn of every creature does not make Him a creation, for in context we read in Colossians 1:16 that “by him were all things created” and in the very next verse, Colossians 1:17,  we read “And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.”
 
Revelation 3:14, where we read “the beginning of the creation of God,” this is better read and understood to mean “the beginner” or the source or the origin of the creation of God. It hardly means that Jesus was created, for to make such an assertion would contradict all the other things said of Jesus in the book of Revelation, not to mention the rest of the Bible.
 
Some of us have studied the Bible most carefully, and we do not fall into the mistaken interpretations you have suggested.
 
Those who have placed their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and are believing in Him for salvation have no fear of meeting Jesus Christ on Judgment Day. He will never say to them “I never knew you.” Jesus will say “I never knew you” only to those who were caught up in false belief, those who depended upon their good works to be saved, those who followed false world religions, and those who refused to “repent and believe the Gospel” (Mark 1:15).
 
Jesus Himself guaranteed the destiny of true believers in Him:
 
Joh 10:27  My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 
Joh 10:28  And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

Posted in Apologetics Issues--Other Faiths, Doctrinal Discussions, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Is the Bible the Final Revelation from God?

Posted on January 8, 2018 by Jerry

I would argue that the New Testament of the Bible teaches that there is no further divinely inspired written revelation to come.

The Bible is God’s final and complete divine revelation to mankind.

Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

The word “spoken” is in Greek the aorist tense, indicative mood, and is a third person singular verb. The aorist tense is similar to the past tense in English. The indicative mood is the grammatical mood of reality. This revelation was final because made by one who in all He is and does, reveals the Father.

Jud 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

“Once” is literally “once for all.”

The faith was complete and entire in Jude’s day; it is now contained in the written Scriptures of the New Testament, with no need for additional revelation or doctrinal development.

Remember that Jude identifies himself as the brother of James (Jude 1:1), and both were sons of Mary the mother of Jesus (Mark 6:3). This places very high authority upon what Jude has declared.

Since the faith was declared complete as to its doctrinal content by Jude in his day, there is no need and no expectation for any supposed further divine revelation. All claims to such further revelation from whatever source must be false.

This means that no church, denomination, or even world religion can make a true claim to have further written divine revelation that supplants or even supplements what we already have from God recorded in the Bible.

Muslims believe their holy book, the Koran, supersedes what is given in the New Testament. They claim that Mohammed is the final prophet from God. That does not square or agree with what the New Testament teaches.

Roman Catholics sometimes make the claim that their church has traditions which preserve truths from the time of Christ that were not included in the writings of the New Testament (John 20:30;  21:25). Sometimes they claim that there has been further doctrinal or theological development since New Testament times and they are the custodians of that new body of truth. Such claims do not square with the fact that Jude claimed to possess the full body of truth in his day, “the faith once [for all] delivered unto the saints” (Jude 1:3).

Mormons claim to have new divine revelation received by their prophet Joseph Smith now recorded in the Book of Mormon. Once again, such a claim contradicts what is declared in the New Testament, and so must be false.

We need to take care that we go by the Bible alone. The Bible declares it is the complete and perfect revelation from God. It contains all the divine revelation God intends for us to have until the return of our Lord Jesus Christ in person at His promised (John 14:1, 2, 3) second coming (2 Timothy 3:15, 16, 17;  Isaiah 8:20;  Psalm 19:7, 10;  1 Peter 1:24, 25;  1 Peter 2:2;  2 Peter 3:18).

 

 

Posted in Bible Historicity and Validity, Doctrinal Discussions, What the Bible says about itself | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Islam and Understanding The Trinity

Posted on December 31, 2017 by Jerry

 

As Christian doctrine, the deity of Christ and the Trinity are inseparable. If one accepts the biblical doctrine about the deity of Christ, then he has already acknowledged that there is more than one person in the Godhead. If the doctrine of the Trinity is received, then the deity of Christ is already part of it. This is precisely why Muslims reject both, since to accept either is to them the denial of the absolute unity of God.

 

The Muslim ideas of God consist not only in what is asserted of deity, but also, and more emphatically, in what is denied. Our Muslim friends deny the Triune God—that is, God the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit. We see this in Sura’s Miriam [vv 91-92] which says

 

‘They say the Merciful has taken Himself a son—ye have brought A monstrous thing! The Heavens well-nigh burst asunder thereat, and the earth is riven and the mountains fall down broken, that they attribute to the Merciful a son! But it becomes not the Merciful to take to Himself a son.

‘Praise belongs to God who has not taken to Himself a son and has not had a partner in His kingdom, nor had a patron against such abasement’-The Night Journey vs 112].

 

One scholar calls attention to this important fact regarding all false faith in these pregnant words, ‘Of all the systems of belief which had a widespread hold on mankind, this may be posited, that they are commonly true in what they affirm, false in what they deny. The error in every false faith is usually found in the denials, that is, its limitations. What it sees is substantial and real; what it does not see is a mark only of its limited vision.

 

Our Muslim friends should understand that the doctrine of Trinity has always been confessed by the church, and all who opposed it were thrown off by the church [like Arius, the church father and a heretic who denied the doctrine of Trinity]. He was excommunicated out of the church. For Christians, the doctrine of Trinity, in its widest sense, includes that of the Incarnation and of the Holy Spirit.

 

In studying what the Quran teaches and speaks on this subject, therefore, we must examine not only what it tells of the Trinity, but also those passages that speak of the nature of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit. We will divide this article into three sections so that when our Muslim friends read it they will understand it better.

 

Muslims misunderstand the Biblical Data on the Doctrine Of Trinity:

 

One can understand that there are obstacles in the mind of our Muslim friends that hinder accepting the Christian doctrine of Trinity. Some are philosophical and others are Biblical. Muslim scholars are very selective in their use of the biblical texts that suit their purposes in their discussion of Trinity (Jehovah Witnesses do the same, SDA, Mormon and other cults do the same). But even the texts they [Muslim scholars] pronounce ‘authentic’ are twisted (or used out of context making it pretext) and misinterpreted in support of their teaching. I will examine several of the more important ones to illustrate my point for the benefit of our Muslim friends.

 

No concept in all of Christian terminology receives such a violent or strong reaction from Muslims as the claim that Jesus is the only begotten son of God. This raises flags in the Islamic mind. They understand it in a greatly anthropomorphic manner. Clearing away this misunderstanding is important to open the Muslim mind to the concept of the Trinity. It is important to refute the mistaken Muslim view of what the Bible means when it refers to Christ as the ‘only begotten’ Son of God (John 1:18; cf. John 3:16). Muslim scholars often misconstrue this expression in a fleshly, carnal sense of someone literally begetting children. For them, to beget implies a physical act. They believe it is absurd since God is a Spirit with no body parts. As one Muslim exegete contends, “He [God] does not beget because begetting is an animal act. It belongs to the lower animal act of sex. We do not attribute such an act to God, for to the Islamic mind begetting is creating and God cannot create another God, he cannot create another uncreated”. The foregoing statements reveal the degree to which the Biblical concept of Christ’s sonship is misunderstood and misapplied by Islamic theologians. No Christian scholar believes that ‘beget’ is to be equated with ‘made’ or ‘create’. No wonder the Muslims deem that this doctrine of the eternal birth or generation of the Son is blasphemy, just like the Jehovah Witnesses who deny the doctrine of the Trinity, saying that God created Christ as he created humans. Surely Muhammad was influenced by the heretical sects which existed in his days in the Middle East.

 

Refuting this view, this extreme reaction to Christ’s eternal Sonship is both unnecessary and unfounded. The phrase ‘only begotten’ does not refer to physical generation but to a special relationship with the Father. Like the biblical phrase ‘Firstborn’ (Colossians 1:15), it means priority in rank, not in time (cf. Colossians 1:16-17). It could be translated as ‘God’s One and Only’ Son. It does not imply creation by the Father but the unique relation to him. It does not refer to The Word of God in the sense of any physical generation but to an eternal procession from the Father. Just as for the Muslims [Quran] is not identical to God but eternally proceeds from him, even so for Christians, God’s Word, Christ [Sura 4:171] eternally proceeds from him. Words like ‘generation’ and ‘procession’ are used by Christians of Christ in a filial and relational sense, not in a carnal and physical sense.

 

Muslims confuse Christ’s sonship with the virgin birth. One Muslim scholar says ‘in the Muslim mind the generation of the Son often means his birth of Virgin Mary. As Shorrosh notes, many Muslims believe Christians have ‘made Mary a goddess, Jesus her son, and God Almighty her husband’ (like in the teaching of Mormonism).

 

Also, the misunderstanding of the doctrine of the Trinity was encouraged by the writings of Muhammad who said ‘O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind, Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah’ [Sura 5:116]. Every Christian living hundreds of years before Muhammad condemned such as a gross misunderstanding of the sonship of Christ. In summary, the Muslim misunderstanding of the Christian concept of what it means for Christ to be God’s Son should be resolved when ‘Son’ is understood in figurative sense [Like Arabic word [ibn], not in a physical sense [as in the Arabic word, walad, which means ‘son’].

 

Another text which proclaims Christ’s deity that Muslim scholars twist is “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). Without textual support from any of the thousands of available Greek manuscripts, they render the last phrase “and the Word was God’s”, Muslim scholars claim, without any warrant whatsoever, “the Greek form of the genitive case, Theou” i.e, [God’s] was corrupted into ‘Theos’, that is ‘God’ in the nominative form of the name.

 

Refuting: This translation is arbitrary and without any basis in fact, since in the nearly 5,700 manuscripts there is no authority for it whatsoever; it is contrary to the rest of the message of John’s Gospel where the claims that Christ is God are repeated over and over (John 8:58, 10:30, 12:41, 20:28).

 

When Jesus challenged Thomas to believe, after Thomas saw him in his physical resurrection body, Thomas confessed Jesus’ deity, declaring His deity by saying “My Lord and My God” (John 20:28). May Muslim writers arbitrarily diminish this declaration of Christ’s deity by reducing it to mere exclamation, “My God!”? One Muslim commentator: “What? He was calling Jesus his Lord and His God? No, This is an exclamation people call out.” He adds, “If I said to Anis, ‘my God’, would I mean Anis is my God?, No. This is a particular expression”.

 

But there are several clear indications that this is the Muslim’s misunderstanding of Thomas’s proclamation:

  1. First, in an obvious reference to the content of Thomas’s confession of Jesus as “my Lord and God,” Jesus blessed him for what he had correctly ‘seen’ and ‘believed’ (John 20:29).
  2. Second, Thomas’ s confession of Christ’s deity comes at the climax of the Gospel where Jesus’ disciples are said to gain increasing belief in Christ based on his miraculous signs (John 2:11, 12:37).
  3. Third, Thomas’s confession of Christ’s deity fits with the stated theme of the Gospel of John, “that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have eternal life in His Name” (John 20:31).

No doubt there was an exclamatory note in Thomas’s declaration of Christ’s deity, but to reduce it to a meaningless emotional ejaculation both misses the point of the passage and borders on claiming that Jesus blessed Thomas for profanity [i.e. using God’s name in vain].

 

In Matt 24:43, citing Psalm 110, Jesus says, ‘How then does David in the Spirit call Him [the Messiah] ‘Lord’. According to the Muslim scholars ‘By his expression that the ‘Lord’ or the ‘Adon’ could not be a son of David, Jesus excludes himself from that title [Muslim scholars are wrong and they have twisted the verse here. If one looks at the context, this passage reveals just the opposite].

 

Refuting this false exegesis: Here Jesus stumped his skeptical Jewish questioners by putting them in a dilemma. How could David call the Messiah “Lord”[as he did in Psalm 110:1], when the Scriptures also say the Messiah would be the “Son of David”[which they do in 2 Samuel 7:12 ff]? The only answer to this is that the Messiah must be both man to be David’s son [offspring] and God to be David’s Lord. In other words, in affirming these two truths from the Scripture, Jesus is claiming to be both God and man. The Islamic mind should have no more difficulty understanding how Jesus can unite in one person both divine and human natures than their own belief that human beings combine both spirit and flesh, the enduring and the transient, in one person [Sura 89:27,30; cf. 3:185]. For even according to Muslim beliefs, whatever Almighty God, the Creator and Ruler of all things, wills in his infinite Wisdom he is also able to accomplish for ‘he is the irresistible’ [Sura 6:61][10].

 

Many Islamic scholars claim that Jesus denied being God when he rebuked the rich young ruler (Mark 10:18), “why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone”; If one looks carefully at this verse Jesus never denied his deity here according to the context of the whole passage. Here Muslim scholars take the verses out of the context and make it pretext or they use their own reasoning [like, I think this is what the verses mean].

Christ simply rebuked him for making this careless appellation without thinking through its implication. Nowhere did Jesus say, ‘I am not God, as you claim’, nor did he say ‘I am not good’. Indeed, both Quran and Bible teach that Jesus is sinless (John 8:46, Heb. 4: 15). Jesus challenged this rich young ruler to examine what he was really saying when he called Jesus ‘Good Master’. In essence, Jesus was saying, “Do you realize what you are saying when you call me, ‘Good Master’? Only God is good. Are you calling me God? ”. The fact that the young ruler refused to do what Jesus said, proves that he did not really consider Jesus his master. But nowhere did Jesus deny that he was either the master or God of the rich younger ruler. Indeed, elsewhere Jesus freely claimed to the both Lord and Master of all (Matt 7:21, 28:18, John 12:40).

 

The assertion by Jesus that “My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28) is misunderstood by Muslims. They do not like the term ‘MY Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). It is taken out of its actual context [bad exegesis on the part of the Muslim exegetes] to mean that the Father is greater in nature, but Jesus meant only that the Father is greater in office.

This is evident from the fact that in this same Gospel of John Jesus claims to be the “I Am” [or Yahweh of the OT (Exodus 3:14)]. He also claimed to be ‘equal with God’ (John 10:30-33). In addition, he received worship on many occasions (John 9:38; cf. Matthew 2:11, 8:2, 9:11, 14:33, 28:9,17, Luke 24:52). He also said, “he who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him” (John 5:23). There are seven of the I Am’s in the Gospel of John.

 

Another verse which the Muslim exegetes understand in a wrong way is John 17:21, where Jesus said to his disciples, “that they may be one, as You, Father are in Me and I in You: that they may also be one in Us” [One Muslim scholar says the following: if Jesus is God because he is in GOD, why are the disciples not God, as they are, like Jesus, also in God—this is a foolish argument].

 

The misunderstanding here is simple but basic: Jesus is speaking relationally not essentially. That is, we can have an intimate relationship with God as Jesus did, for he shared God’s eternal glory “before the world was” (John 17:5). Jesus is in God because he is God. However, we are not in God because we are God, but only because we have a relationship with him.

 

This summary of some of the key biblical passages misinterpreted by our Muslim friends illustrates an important point made by an Islamic scholar: he correctly noted that ‘Christian missionaries, who are either themselves theologians, or who are well deposed to Christian theology— overestimate the role of Jesus in the Quran. They are misled by their way of understanding Jesus which they retain from their Christian Tradition. It is no surprise that, under such circumstance, they arrive at false conclusions and evaluations. But this cuts both ways. For many Muslim scholars do the same with the Bible, reading their own misunderstanding into the text rather than seeking to understand what the text actually teaches. This is true when it comes to understanding what the Bible claims about God and Christ as the Son of God. So just as Christians should allow Muslims to interpret their own Book [the Quran] on these matters, even Muslims should allow Christians to interpret their own book [the Bible]. For example, just as it is wrong-headed for Christians to twist verses in the Quran to teach the deity of Christ, likewise it is misdirected for Muslims to distort verses of the Bible to deny the deity of Christ. For someone to read the New Testament and not to see the deity of Christ is like a person looking up on a bright and cloudless day claiming that he cannot see the sun.

[Thank you, Vijay Chandra, for contributing this most informative article.]

 

Posted in Apologetics Issues--Other Faiths, Doctrinal Discussions, Vijay Chandra Articles | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Daily Bible Nugget #470, Matthew 10:24

Posted on December 24, 2017 by Jerry

The Nugget:

Mat 10:34　 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.　

My Comment:

Here it is Christmas Eve! Now just what could be the connection of Matthew 10:34 with Christmas?

Christmas is the celebration of the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ. In Luke chapter 2 we find the account of many events that surrounded the birth of Christ, including the witness of an elderly man named Simeon. He prophesied of a number of things to come that would affect Mary, the mother of Jesus, and Jesus Himself. Among the things Simeon said was this:

Luk 2:35　 (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.

A careful reading and study of the Gospel record will show that our Lord Jesus Christ was resisted by many during His ministry. His miracles upset the religious leaders, and so did His teaching. The Scribes and Pharisees set about to murder Jesus, they were so upset. This surely fulfilled the divinely inspired prediction given by Simeon, a prediction that reveals a very dark side to the wonderful Christmas story, a dark side frequently seen throughout the New Testament account of the life of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Even the family of Jesus did not believe in Him (John 7:5). Even Mary the mother of Jesus was involved in a plot to capture Jesus and turn Him over to the religious authorities, as described in the Gospel of Mark, Mark 3:31 and context and associated cross references.

Briefly addressing Matthew 10:34, when Jesus said “I came not to bring peace, but a sword” He used a Figure of Speech for emphasis. What Jesus said means that the object of His coming was peace, but the effect of His coming was war.

One of the great wonders of the Christmas season are the many Bible prophecies that were fulfilled by the first coming of Jesus Christ. These fulfilled prophecies prove Jesus is the Messiah promised in the Old Testament. I believe these prophecies demonstrate the divine inspiration of the Bible, the only Book in the world that contains detailed and specific predictions of events ahead of time, events which have been fulfilled in history.

Posted in Bible Historicity and Validity, Bible Promises, Bible Prophecy, Daily Bible Nuggets, How to Study the Bible | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Daily Bible Nugget #469, John 17:3

Posted on December 19, 2017 by Jerry

The Nugget:

John 17:3　 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.　

My Comment:

John 17:3 is a striking statement near the very beginning of the longest recorded prayer of our Lord Jesus Christ. This is a most misunderstood verse by those who follow false religions, including the Jehovah Witnesses and the Moslems. These two groups are anti-Trinitarian so they choose this text to prove that Jesus, praying to His Father, called His Father the “only true God,” thus excluding Himself and so denying that He, Himself, is God.

This is the ancient Arian heresy now dressed up in modern garb, as if such arguments against the doctrine of the Trinity have never been answered. However, as I made a search of this site, apparently I have never discussed John 17:3 here before. Well, it is time for me to discuss and carefully explain it, so here it comes!

First of all, Jehovah Witnesses make much of this verse, focusing upon the idea that to receive eternal life we must know the Father, the only true God. They focus upon “knowledge” as a matter of being properly taught information in an intellectual sense. Perhaps that is why they are so diligent in providing literature to supposedly help their members and the public understand the Bible more accurately.

This is actually a mistaken understanding of what Jesus prayed for. Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible gets it right when it translates the word “know” here as “get to know.” The emphasis is upon knowing a person as in a personal relationship, not merely knowing about someone. If the intended emphasis had been to know accurately, another form of the word in Greek would have been used here, but it is not. I suspect the last thing the Jehovah Witnesses would want to teach is the subject of knowing Jesus Christ as your personal Savior, for they do not believe in being “saved,” and they do not believe anyone can be “born again” (John 3:7) today.

The issue Jesus is addressing has to do with knowing Him in the sense of a personal relationship, as may be seen clearly by what Jesus said in answer to Philip:

Joh 14:6　 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.　

Joh 14:7　 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.　

Joh 14:8　 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.　

Joh 14:9　 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?　

THE BIG QUESTION:

When Jesus prayed, “that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent,” does Jesus necessarily exclude Himself from being “the only true God”?  Muslims and Jehovah Witnesses say “Yes.” Knowledgeable Christians who understand the Scriptures say “No.”

Daniel Waterland (Works, Vol. 2, p. 427) has it right when he writes: “[T]he giving the name sometimes to one singly, is no argument that the same name may not also justly belong to both together. On the contrary, it is certain, that if both are joined in the same one common Godhead, either of them singly has a  right to be called the one God, not excluding the other from the same right.”

Waterland turns the tables on those who would misuse John 17:3. He states, clarifying Novatian’s assertion, that “when our Lord said, ‘They might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent,’ his joining himself to the Father in that manner shews that he must be God also. The strength of his argument lies only in the conjunction and: there are but two constructions of it; either thus, Know thee, and also know Jesus Christ, (according to which there is nothing like an argument, at least not according to Novatian), or else thus, Thee the only true God, and also Jesus Christ. Thus indeed the text does afford an argument of Christ’s being God, and only God too. For it comes  to this, that the Father, and also Christ, is the only true God.”

John, author of the Gospel of John, makes a similar statement about Jesus Christ in his first letter:

1 John 5:20　 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

Daniel Waterland makes a very significant observation about 1 John 5:20, stating “And I have not yet met with so much as one ancient writer that ever understood those words in 1 John 5:20 of God the Father.” He refers to the words, “This is the true God” as a reference to our Lord Jesus Christ being directly called “the true God.”

Posted in Apologetics Issues--Other Faiths, Daily Bible Nuggets, Doctrinal Discussions, False Religions, How to Study the Bible | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Do you know what the Bible says about Justice?

Posted on December 14, 2017 by Jerry

The Nugget:

Exo 22:22 Do not mistreat widows or orphans.

Exo 22:23 If you do, they will beg for my help, and I will come to their rescue.

Exo 22:24 In fact, I will get so angry that I will kill your men and make widows of their wives and orphans of their children.

I have used the God’s Word (GW) translation to help modern-day readers understand what is being said more clearly.

My Comment:

I might just as well have titled this Bible study “Do you know what the Bible says about politics?”

For you to get an accurate understanding of what the Bible has to say, you MUST become aware of how the Bible uses figures of speech. When the Bible makes reference to “widows and orphans” (which it does very frequently), it is NOT referring only to widows and orphans or the fatherless. Widows and orphans (by the figure of speech called Synecdoche of the Species) are put for every kind of afflicted, namely, all who suffer injustice or wrongdoing at the hands of anyone else. “Anyone else” includes criminals, bullies, unjust judges, the government, media, and politicians.

The Bible is the most relevant and up-to-date Book on the planet. When what is said is stated in modern English its relevance is not only very clear, but most shocking.

But to begin to understand and appreciate what the Bible has to say you MUST study it, not just read it! One most essential way to study the Bible is by using what are called cross references. Cross references are verses found elsewhere in the Bible that shed light on or clarify or say something more about the subjects found in the verse you are studying. When you read cross references you will gain insight beyond what you ever had before, and gain it from the Bible itself.

The point of the “Daily Nugget” passage given above (Exodus 22:22, 23, 24) is that if someone is wronged, and they cry out to the Lord in prayer, God promises to hear that prayer and render justice in that case Himself. As the Bible elsewhere says, “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Hebrews 10:31).

If you should ever be the object of injustice, unfair dealing, even oppression or the denial of your rights, it is obvious what you should do first. Let God hear your complaint. Leave it to Him to take action on your behalf. Ask for His assistance and guidance in determining what to do. One thing you must never do:  do not take vengeance upon anyone or anything yourself. God clearly tells us to stand to the side to make room for Him to wreak the vengeance as required (Romans 12:19).

Rom 12:19 Dear friends, don’t try to get even. Let God take revenge. In the Scriptures the Lord says, “I am the one to take revenge and pay them back.” (CEV)

Rom 12:19　 Don’t take revenge, dear friends. Instead, let God’s anger take care of it. After all, Scripture says, “I alone have the right to take revenge. I will pay back, says the Lord.” (GW)

If you have suffered injustice, the first thing is to pray to God and let Him know. Of course He already knows everything, but if you want an answer to prayer, you must actually pray (James 4:2, “Ye have not because ye ask not”). Then do not neglect the normal avenues of recourse available to you. If these normal avenues do not succeed, continue praying to God about the matter until you see His answer.

What has any of this to do with politics? I noticed today while studying the cross references I have gathered in The Ultimate Cross Reference Treasury or The Cross Reference Guide to the Bible that they led to many other passages, and several passages got my attention:

Jer 22:13　 “How horrible it will be for the person who builds his house dishonestly and his upper rooms through injustice. He makes his neighbors work for nothing and doesn’t pay them for their work.” (GW)

Isa 10:1　 How horrible it will be for those who make unjust laws and who make oppressive regulations.　

Isa 10:2　 They deprive the poor of justice. They take away the rights of the needy among my people. They prey on widows and rob orphans.　

Isa 10:3　 What will you do on the day you are called to account for these things, when the disaster comes from far away? Where will you run for help? Where will you leave your wealth?　

Our economy is stifled because of unjust laws and oppressive regulations. What good laws we have are not properly enforced. If the laws were enforced as written, the cost of everything related to medical care would be reduced by as much as 80%. If that were the case, you could pay the full cost of medical care and medicine out of pocket for what the deductible or required copayment costs now. And you would not have to buy insurance, or you could purchase it for much less. Monopolies are structured such that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. And why are things kept this way? Follow the money. Politicians are being bribed to pass health care legislation to benefit the monopoly interests that in turn pay for the cost of election campaigns of the politician.

Psa 94:20 But you are opposed to dishonest lawmakers (CEV)

I read on Facebook the other day where one of the moderators of a closed group stated that the Bible and Christianity have nothing to do with politics. In context, the issue was that the moderators did not want anyone to post comments about political issues. That is the group administrators’ prerogative. But you can see that the general assertion that Christians should have nothing to do with politics because the Bible does not address those issues is clearly mistaken. The Bible addresses far more than I have been able to present here.

Posted in How to Study the Bible, Justice and the Bible, Politics and the Bible | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Attributes of Allah analyzed, compared with the attributes of the God of the Bible

Posted on December 10, 2017 by Jerry

My Comment:

I must express my thanks to Vijay Chandra, missionary to the Fiji Islands, for contributing this article.

The Article:

THE ATTRIBUTES OF ALLAH ANALYZED, COMPARED WITH THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD OF THE BIBLE:

Sura 13:13. “The thunder hymneth His praise and (so do) the angels for awe of Him. He launcheth the thunderbolts and smiteth with them whom He will while they dispute (in doubt) concerning Allah, and He is mighty in wrath”.

Sura 19:94 “There is none of all that are in the heaven, and on earth but he shall come unto the Compassionate as a SLAVE”.

 

Muslims claim that their Allah of the Quran is superior, powerful, merciful, compassionate, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient—but as one reads the Quran there is no indication of his power [no miracles ] or of Allah being Compassionate (Allah takes vengeance) and the Allah of the Quran cannot be compared with the God of the Bible.

The verses referred to above, namely Suras 13:13 and 19:94, are a fitting introduction to the doctrine of Allah’s attributes. They express the effect these attributes are intended to have and do have on His faithful ones and explain in a measure the reason for the usual Muslim classification of Allah’s attributes (His 99 names as seen in the Quran).

 

Through fear, manipulation, forceful conversion, terror, and lies, every Muslim lives all their lives subject to bondage to Muhammad and his evil intentions and lustful desire. Muslims are forced to submit to Muhammad and not to Allah. Islam is a reign of fear. We want to look at the Attributes of Allah as to whether Allah is the true God:

 

Islamic theologians divide the attributes of Allah into three classes:

The attributes of wisdom, of power, and of goodness.

But the more common division is divided into two classes:

  1. Terrible attributes.
  2. Glorious attributes.

 

The former [terrible attributes] are more numerous and more emphasized than the latter, not only in the Quran but in the Tradition and in daily life.

 

If one tries to classify the names given to Allah [99 names of Allah], we find the following.

  1. Seven names [Suras 66, 67, 72-74, and 86] describe Allah’s unity and His Absolute Being.
  2. Five names speak of Him as Creator or Originator of all nature [Suras 11, 12, 13, 62, 63]
  3. There are 24 titles which characterizes Allah as merciful and gracious to his believers [Suras 1, 2, 5, 6, 14, 16, 32, 34, 38, 42, 47, 56, 78, 79, 81, 82, 89, 92, 94, 98, 99].

All are glad to acknowledge that these are indeed wonderful titles or names used in the Quran.

But on the other hand, there are 36 names or titles to describe Muhammad’s uses of Allah’s power, pride, and absolute sovereignty [7, 77, 84]. And in addition to those ‘terrible attributes’, there are five which describes Allah as ‘hurting’ and ‘avenging’. According to these ‘terrible attributes’, He is a God (monotheism). Note the article [a]. The Bible in John 1:1-3 states “…was the Word and [the] Word was with God.” [Notice that the article ‘a’ is not there].

 

He is a God who ‘abases, leads astray, avenges, withholds His mercies and works harm’. Finally, there are four terms used which may be said in a special sense to refer to the ‘moral or forensic’ in deity [Suras 4, 29, 51 and 85], although we do admit the merciful attributes are in a sense moral attributes.

There are only two occasions in the Quran that reference the moral attributes of Allah and both are doubtful in Islamic theology. We find that the ‘terrible attributes’ of God’s power are repeated many times in the Quran. The net total of the moral attributes is only found in two verses of the Quran which mention that Allah is Holy and Truthful in the Islamic sense of these words. [What a contrast to the Word of God, the Bible].

 

 

The Quran shows and traditions illustrate that Muhammad had in a measure a correct idea of ‘the physical attributes’ [used in the theological sense of Deity], but he had a false conception of His moral attributes or no conception at all [Muhammad was not educated at all]. He saw Allah’s power in nature but did not have even a glimpse of His holiness and justice. Romans 1:18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 describes God, His eternal Godhead, and power as the Creator. His holiness is clearly seen, but man does not see the error of worshipping the creature more than the Creator, worshipping men more instead of worshipping God. The so-called prophet has no conception of the holiness of God, not any idea at all. Why is this? Since he did not have any idea of holiness, hence in the Quran holiness is ignored. Everything in the Quran put forward concerning ‘the purity’ and holiness of Him who is represented Thrice Holy in the Bible can be applied to any unbeliever or a respectable person. The Quran is silent on the nature of sin. Not only is the Quran silent as to sin’s nature, the Quran tells next to nothing about sin’s origin, result, and remedy.

 

In this respect, the sacred book of the East stands in marked contrast with all other sacred books of the pagans and the Word of God in the Old and New Testaments. According to Melanchthon [the German reformer in the days of Martin Luther], in his introduction to a Latin Quran, Melanchthon thinks Muhammad “was inspired by Satan, because he does not explain what ‘sin’ is and shows not the reason of human misery.”

The verses of the Quran that treat sin are following [Suras 4:30, 2:80, 4:46, 14:39, 2:284-286, 9:116, 69:35, 86:9, 70:19-25, 47:2,3].

[Sura 47:2] And those who believe and do good works and believe in that which is revealed unto Muhammad – and it is the truth from their Lord – He riddeth them of their ill-deeds and improveth their state. Pickthall, M. M. (Ed.). (n.d.). The Quran. Medford, MA: Perseus Digital Library.

The nearest approach to a definition that can be seen from these verses is that sin is a ‘willful violation of known law’, sin according to most Islamic theologians ‘is a conscious act committed against known law’, wherefore sins of ignorance are not numbered in the catalog of crimes. This idea of sins gives rise to the later Judaic distinction of sins small and great [Matt 22:36, “Master, which is the great commandment in the law?” The Scribes divided them all up: 248 affirmative ones (the number of the members of the body); 365 negative (the number of days in the year): 248 + 365 = 613 = the number of letters in the Decalogue. Some were great and some were small (or heavy and light). The question was as to great and small (as in Mat 22:38); not the greatest and least (CB). cf. Sura 4:30-31, “[30] Whoso doeth that through aggression and injustice, we shall cast him into Fire, and that is ever easy for Allah. [31] If ye avoid the great (things) which ye are forbidden, We will remit from you your evil deeds and make you enter at a noble gate.”] on which are based endless speculations of Muslim commentators. Some say there are seven great sins; idolatry, murder, false charge of adultery, wasting substance of orphans, usury, etc. Others say there are seventeen, still, others catalog seven hundred, without entering into the fruitless discussion as to just what constitutes a ‘great sin’ or ‘small sins’.

It is noted that to the Muslim ‘all sins expect the Kebira’, ‘great sins’ are regarded with carelessness and no qualm of conscience. Lying, deception, anger, lust and such like are all smaller and lighter offenses, all these will be ‘forgiven easily if men keep clear from great sins’. Muslims have a very poor view of sin. It may be that Muhammad must have got all these kinds of sins from the everyday lives in Arabia. The Quran has a defective view of sin while the Bible gives the description of sin in a proper way—and explains the result of sin—death [Rom 3:23].

 

Another important distinction between the scriptural doctrine of sin and Muslim teaching which has a direct bearing on our interpretation of Allah’s attributes are the terms used for sin.

  1. The most common word used in Quran for sin is ‘thanib’, although other terms are used [haram], forbidden.
  2. The words ‘permitted’ and ‘forbidden’ have superseded the use of ‘guilt’ and ‘transgression’. The reason is found in the Quran: nothing is right or wrong by nature but becomes so by the fiat of the Almighty [Muslims believe in ‘the fiat’]. What Allah forbids is sin, even should he forbid what seems to the human conscience right and lawful. What Allah allows is not sin and cannot be sin at the same time he allows it, though it may have been sin before or become sin after.
  3. There is no distinction between the moral and ceremonial law. While the Bible speaks about moral and ceremonial laws this distinction is not even implied in the Quran. The lack of distinction between moral and ceremonial is to be seen most of all in the traditional sayings of the prophet [the question is this: ‘is his word inspired or he is simply giving his own thoughts on these ceremonial and moral laws’]. These traditions to a Muslim have equal authority as the Quran. Two examples:

 

  1. The prophet, upon whom be prayers and peace, said, one dishes of ‘usury which a man eats, knowing it is sin, is more gracious than 36 fornications and whatsoever has been so nourished is worthy of hell fire’.
  2. The taking of interest has seventy parts of guilt, the least of which is as if a man commits incest with his mother: ‘the trousers of a man must be to the middle of his leg—but whatever is below that is in hell-fire’. [Allah of the Quran does not understand the degrees of sin].

According to the Quran, it is the repetition of the creed that counts more and not the reformation of the character; and all other considerations are of less importance. For Muslims, repeating the creed is the door into the religion of Muhammad:

The Quran teaches that the first sinner was Adam [Sura 2:35], and yet the belief of Muslims today is that all the prophets, including Adam, were without sin [another contradiction]. The portion of unrepentant sinners is eternal [Sura 43:74-78] and there is no repentance possible [Sura 26:91-105]. But the Word of God says much about repentance and forgiveness [Christ preached repentance in the Gospel of Mark 1:15, Matthew 3:2, Luke 13:3, Acts 2:38, 3:19. 17:30, 2 Peter 3:9], while the Quran provides no provision for ‘repentance or forgiveness’ by Allah. All the wealth of Arabic vocabulary is exhausted in Muhammad’s fearful descriptions of the awful torments of the doom.

The conclusion one comes to from the study of the Quran is that Allah does not appear bound by any standard of justice. For Muslims, the worship of the creature is heinous to the mind and yet Allah punished Satan for not being willing to worship Adam [Sura 2:28-34, “[34] And when We said unto the angels: Prostrate yourselves before Adam, they fell prostrate, all save Iblis. He demurred through pride, and so became a disbeliever.”]. Why is this? It is because Allah is merciful in winking at the sins of His favorites such as the prophets and those who fight in His battles, but is the quick avenger of all the infidels. He reveals the truth to his prophets, but also abrogates it, changes the message or makes them forget [Sura 2:105, 106, “[106] Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?”]. The whole teaching of Muslim exegetes on the subject of Nasilch and Manoolch, or the Abrogated verses of the Quran, is opposed to the idea of God’s immutability and truth. According to this teaching, Allah can change, while the God of the Bible does not change [Mal. 3:6, Ps. 102:27, Num 23:19, Lam 3:22]. Muslims should call upon the Lord God and repent of their sins. This is the Gospel, the good news. There are at least 20 cases given in which one revelation superseded, contradicted, or abrogated previous revelation to Muhammad. Allah’s moral law changes, like his ceremonial laws, according to times and circumstances. Allah can do what he pleases whether right or wrong. The Quran says he is the best plotter, he mocks and deceives, he is easy upon those who accept the prophet’s message [Suras 8:29, 3:53, 27:51, 16:4, 14:15, 9:51].

 

Yet He [Allah] rewards those who worship Him for their obedience on account of His promise and beneficence, not on their merit or of necessity, since there is nothing which He can be tied to perform, nor can any justice be supposed in Him nor can He be under any obligation to any person whatsoever. According to the Tradition, the seven attributes of the Deity are life, knowledge, purpose, power, hearing, sight, and speech. Even granted they are used in a superlative sense they would still describe only an Intelligent Giant.

 

What must have been Muhammad’s Idea of the character of Allah when he named Him the Proud, The All-compelling, The Slayer, the Deferrer, The Indulgent and The Harmful. Nor can the mind reconcile such attributes with those of goodness and compassion without violence to the text of the Quran itself. According to these attributes, Allah is two-faced. The attributes of Allah can no more be made to agree than can the Suras which he sent down to Muhammad. But in neither case does this lack of agreement, according to Muslims, reflect on Allah’s character.

 

When God is once called The Holy in the Quran [Sura 59:23],

[23] He is Allah, besides Whom there is no god; the King, the Holy, the Giver of peace, the Granter of security, Guardian over all, the Mighty, the Supreme, the Possessor of every greatness Glory be to Allah from what they set up (with Him). Shakir, M. H. (Ed.). (n.d.). The Quran. Medford, MA: Perseus Digital Library.

the term does not signify moral purity or perfection. One Muslim commentator on the word ‘holy’ states it means “the complete absence of anything that would make Him less than He is.” This leaves out the idea of moral purity and uses at the most the word [tahir] as a synonym, a word which means ceremonially clean, circumcised etc. In the Muslim dictionaries too, the idea of holiness [for kuddus] in the Old Testament sense is absent. If one studies the word [tahir] it simply means an ‘outward purity of the body’. Muslims, when they go to their prayers, wash their ears, eyes, hands, and feet: they are more focused on the external than internal.

It is a hopeless case to look for the doctrine of the holiness of God and the necessity of purity. The whole idea of moral purity and utter separation from sin is unknown to the Quran’s vocabulary. One further thought we get from the study of Muslim ideas of God’s attributes: “it is the key to the ‘Pantheism of Force’”.

 

The seventy-second, third, fourth and fifth names on the list of attributes are called ‘mother’s of the attributes’: i.e. they are fundamental ideas in the conception of God’s ‘Essence and Substance, the First and the Last’. This is to Muslim’s “the verse which all the names of Allah holds, As in one sky the silver stars all sit”. Whether Muhammad himself intended to teach the ideas of pantheism or had any idea of the import of these terms does not alter the fact that they spell pantheism to many of his followers. If pantheism is the doctrine of one substance, it is taught here. God is inside and outside of everything. He is the phenomena [Dhahir] and the power behind the phenomena [Batin]. Sufis delight in this verse. On this revelation of God, they built their philosophy after the Vedanta school of the Hindus.

Looking at the Attributes of Allah, one does not find consistency in what the Quran says about Allah—is he really a god or created by the distorted mind of Muhammad.

 

When one looks at the Attributes of God as he is revealed in the Bible, we find a vast difference as compared to what is seen in the Quran.

 

  1. The Attributes of God may be classified into two categories

 

  1. His infinite power.
  2. His Personality attributes, like Holiness and Love.
  3. Aseity—it means God is so independent that He does not need us [Acts 17:25, “Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things”]. This verse is often related to God’s self-existence and His self-sufficiency.
  4. Eternity. He has no beginning and no ending, in contrast to Allah, The eternity of God concerning his existence beyond time [Ps 90:2, “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.”]. God has no beginning, no ending or succession of moments in his own being and he sees all time equally yet God sees events in time and acts in time. He is not confined to time because He is the creator of time. Time does not rule Him but he rules the time.
  5. Goodness

The graciousness of God is a key tenet of Christianity [Ex 34:5-6, it is one of his attributes: “Yahweh, Yahweh, The Compassionate and gracious God” [1 Peter 2:2-4].

  1. Holiness

The Holiness of God is that He is separate from sin and incorruptible [Isa 6:3, Rev 4:8].

 

  1. Immutability—it means God cannot change [James 1:17, Mal 3:6], while the Quran says Allah changes. Love is another attribute of our God [1 John 4:16, John 3:16] while in the Quran love is not mentioned.
  2. Omnipotent—which means God is all powerful [Matt 19:26]. The God of the Bible is Omniscient: He is the all-knowing God [Acts 15:18, Romans 16:27]. The God of the Bible is Omnipresent: He is everywhere at the same time [Jeremiah 23:24].
  3. Oneness. The oneness or unity of God refers to his Being One and only. Christianity is monotheistic [Deut 6:4, Mark 12:29]. The Trinity of God refers to Him being three in One. God is understood to be a unity of Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit [Matt 28:19, 1 John 5:7]. He is sovereign [Isa 46:10] while Allah is the god of Muslims only.

In conclusion:

The word God has different meaning with Allah’s. God means to ‘invoke’ or call upon. While Allah means deity or god. God promises salvation for those who believe on Him while Allah wants followers to do good work, even to kill others, lie, use deceptions—then they will be in Allah’s paradise.

God has three representations: the Father, Son, Holy Spirit while Allah is the lone god of every Muslim. God preaches the forgiveness and removal of sin while Allah wants his followers who sin to be punished.

 

Posted in Apologetics Issues--Other Faiths, Doctrinal Discussions, Vijay Chandra Articles | Tagged | Leave a comment

Daily Bible Nugget #468, Psalm 122:6

Posted on December 7, 2017 by Jerry

The Nugget:

Psa 122:6　 Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: they shall prosper that love thee.　

My Comment:

President Trump is most correct when he determined to regard and declare Jerusalem to be the capital city of Israel and will place our embassy there.

Criticism of this move is misplaced. The enemies of Israel don’t like this new stance on the part of the United States of America. But get this straight: the enemies of Israel are the enemies of God.

There are too many utterly misguided and misinformed Christians who fail to stand for Israel. These Christians are ignorant of the Bible, the Word of God. I have even come across a few Christians that are for North Korea and against their own country, the United States of America, claiming the United States is in the wrong. They would also claim, no doubt, that Israel is in the wrong. I suppose all would agree that no nation is entirely in the right. We ought to support what is right and withhold our support from what is not right.

Some Christians mistakenly believe that the nation of Israel in our day has nothing to do with the Israel of Bible times. They are against so-called Jewish Zionists and against Zionist Christians. That shows that if these Christians have been reading the Bible at all, they have been reading it with blinders on. Many Christians who fail to see present day Israel as the fulfillment of Bible prophecy are Amillennialists–they do not believe that Jesus Christ will return to this earth to set up His kingdom to literally reign as king over the whole earth from Jerusalem upon the Throne of David. Many Calvinists are woefully ignorant and misinformed about Bible prophecy pertaining to the nation of Israel. And yes, I dare to call them out on this!

God plainly declares that He regards Israel as “the apple of His eye.”

Deuteronomy 32:10

10　 He found him in a desert land, and in the waste howling wilderness; he led him about, he instructed him, he kept him as the apple of his eye.

Zechariah 2:8

8　 For thus saith the LORD of hosts; After the glory hath he sent me unto the nations which spoiled you: for he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye.

These utterly mistaken interpreters of the Bible would have us believe that God has replaced natural Israel with the Christian Church, transferring the blessings promised to Israel spiritually to the Church, but conveniently leaving the curses to Israel. That is just so much nonsense. The promises of the great Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants are still in force and are yet to be fulfilled. God is not finished yet. God is not finished with Israel. Have Calvinists and others forgotten Malachi 3:6? They and everyone else need to get their Bibles out, shake the dust off them, and start searching the Scriptures carefully to see what they actually say:

Mal 3:6　 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

Here are the cross references I have collected for this important verse:

I am the Lord. Gen 15:7; Gen 15:18; Gen 22:16, Exo 3:14-15; Exo 6:2, Lev 18:5, Neh 9:7-8, Isa 41:13; Isa 42:5-8; Isa 43:11-12; Isa 44:6; Isa 45:5, 6, 7, 8; Isa 46:4, Jer 32:27, Hos 11:9.

I change not. God the Father is immutable (Psa 33:11, %Mat 12:32; +*Mat 28:19 note. Heb 6:17; %Heb 13:8). Gen 6:6, *Num 23:19 <rp. 1Sa 15:29, Psa 102:26-27, +*Isa 31:2; Isa 59:1, Dan 6:26, Hos 13:14, +*Rom 11:29, Heb 1:12; *Heb 6:17; *Heb 6:18; +*Heb 13:8, **Jas 1:17, +*Rev 1:8; Rev 22:13.

therefore ye sons of Jacob. Lev 26:42 note. Num 23:27, **1Ki 8:23, Neh 9:19, Psa 78:38; Psa 78:57; Psa 103:17; Psa 105:7-10, Isa 40:28-31, Lam 3:22-23, Rom 5:10; **Rom 8:28-32; Rom 11:28-29, *Php 1:6, **2Th 2:13; **2Th 2:14.

are not consumed. +**Lev 26:42; +**Lev 26:44; +**Lev 26:45, **Psa 89:34, +Isa 1:28; +*Isa 41:8; +*Isa 41:9; +**Isa 54:7-10; +**Isa 55:3; Isa 64:5, +*Jer 33:20; +*Jer 33:21 note. **Lam 3:22, Eze 16:60, Amos 9:9, **Zec 10:6.

Notice especially the references to Leviticus 26:42, 44, 45,

Lev 26:42　 Then will I remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the land.　

Lev 26:44　 And yet for all that, when they be in the land of their enemies, I will not cast them away, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break my covenant with them: for I am the LORD their God.　

Lev 26:45　 But I will for their sakes remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the heathen, that I might be their God: I am the LORD.　

And no, these promises have NOT been fulfilled already! Stephen, the first Christian martyr on record in the Bible, tells us plainly in his final sermon that Abraham has not yet received what God had promised him,

Act 7:5　 And he gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on: yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child.　

The point is, that the promise was made personally to Abraham that he would himself inherit the promised land, but Abraham himself never personally possessed the land God promised to him. It is for this reason that God, who cannot lie, must resurrect Abraham and bring him personally into the promised land in order for the Abrahamic Covenant to be fulfilled. How many Bible scholars have failed to notice the explicit statement of Scripture here, which declares that Abraham did not receive the inheritance, and have taught the opposite, and worse, have spiritualized and transformed the covenants into something they were never meant to be, taking to themselves or the church the blessings promised to Abraham and the Jews, but very carefully leaving the curses to Israel, literally interpreted at that.

The author of Hebrews declares the same thing that Stephen did:

Heb 11:13　 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

Heb 11:39　 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:　

Back to the issue I started with. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. That has always been the case. I am thankful that President Trump has kept his promise to support Israel. From the standpoint of the Bible, that may be one of the most important things Mr. Trump ever did:

Gen 12:3　 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.　

It is very unwise to take a position against Israel, as our former President did. It is better to place our country on the path to God’s blessing, not His curse.

Posted in Bible Prophecy, Daily Bible Nuggets, Doctrinal Discussions, Politics and the Bible | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Part Two: The Structure of Quran and Contradictions in the Quran

Posted on December 6, 2017 by Jerry

Part Two: The Structure of Quran and Contradictions in the Quran:

 

The Islamic scholar Ali Dashti comments on the defects of the Quran. He says, “Unfortunately the Quran was badly edited and its contents are very obtusely arranged. All students of Quran wonder why the editors did not use the natural and logical method of ordering by date of revelation as in ‘Alib’ Abi Talebi’s lost copy of the text.” It is very strange that a Muslim scholar says this.

 

The standard Islamic reference work, Concise Islamic Encyclopedia of Islam, refers to the “disjointed and irregular character” of the text of the Quran. There are no original manuscripts of the Quran. Due to Muhammad’s unexpected and sudden death, there was made no preparation of his writing to be taken down. Instead, this was taken up by his followers. We do not know who his followers were, and if they were educated followers; we hardly know the names of his followers, though some are known. They only could write down what they could remember of what he said or prophesied.

 

Again, the Concise Encyclopedia of Islam says that “The Quran was collected from the charred surfaces on which it had been inscribed, from pieces of papyrus, flat stones, palm leaves, the shoulder blades and ribs of animals, pieces of leather, wooden boards, and the hearts of men.” The Muslim scholar Mandudi admits that the Quran was originally recorded “on leaves of date palm, the bark of trees, bones,” etc. This strange combination of materials on which the Quran was written is verified by all general reference works and encyclopedias and by the standard reference works of Islamic scholars. When there was nothing around which could be written on, the attempt was made to memorize Muhammad’s revelation as closely as possible. [The Bible was not written like the Quran].

According to Mandudi the task that confronted the followers of the so-called prophet after his death was to gather together the scattered sermons of Muhammad, some of which were written on perishable materials, and others which were not written down were committed only to memory [The Bible was not written like this; the disciples of Jesus wrote the Gospels. Matthew’s Gospel was written by Matthew. Dr. Luke wrote the Gospel and Acts as he was an eyewitness to the events of the book of Acts. Apostle Paul wrote his epistles, etc.].

 

This introduced problems or created difficulties as some of the tree bark crumbled or got broken by the heat of the Middle Eastern hot sun and some stones were lost. Ali Dashit notes that animals at times ate the palm leaves or material on which the Suras had been recorded. And some of those who were the only ones who remembered certain Suras died in the battle before they had the chance to commit to writing what they heard. Much confusion remained as the memory of one person did not match the memory of another.

 

  1. Looking at the order of the Suras [Quran].

 

  1. There are 114 Suras, or revelations given by Muhammad, and they are not arranged in the chronological order in which Muhammad received them. There are no dates or years mentioned. There are many contradictions and mistakes in the Quran. Instead, they are laid out from the longest Sura to the shortest without regard to any other kind of order.

Muslims claim that the Quran is always written in 1st person, i.e., that Allah himself is always speaking to man. Such a claim does not fit the text of the Quran. There are many sections in which it is clear that it is not Allah but Muhammad who is speaking. In the Bible, by contrast, we see that God is speaking to His prophets, and God spoke as Christ was being baptized and also on the mount of transfiguration.

 

The Bible is written from chronological order—starting with creation, the fall of man into sin, the great flood, the Tower of Babel, the calling of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, accounts in Exodus, etc., and right to the NT—to Revelation. The Bible gives us the complete picture; the Bible is complete and perfect with no contradiction. But when one has a look at the Quran, because of its disjointed and disordered condition, we are left with the feeling of incompleteness. We are left hanging after each Sura because there is no longer any connection from one Sura to another Sura.

 

An example of this disjointed and disordered issue of Quran

 

One Sura will deal with some pedestrian matter such as Allah wanting Muhammad’s wives to stop arguing and bickering in his presence while the next Sura attacks the idols of the Arabians. Contrast the 66 books of the Bible written over a period of more than one thousand years by at least 40 different authors with the Quran which only came through one man, Muhammad. The Quran has lots of biblical materials. Since Islam claims that the Quran was ‘handed down from heaven and that Muhammad can not be viewed as its human author,’ it is interesting to point out the Arabic of the Quran is the dialect and the words of someone who was a member of the Quraysh tribe living in the city of Mecca. If the Quran were written in some heavenly perfect Arabic, why then does it clearly reveal that it was spoken by someone who was a member of the Quraysh residing in Mecca? The Quran in its dialect, vocabulary, and content reflects the style of its author Muhammad and not Allah. Thus it needs to be asked, did Allah speak an Arabic dialect? If he did, where is the proof? One sees Muhammad’s fingerprint over all the Suras. The Quran is not written in perfect Arabic. It contains many grammatical errors as one sees in the following Suras: [Sura 2v17,192/3v59/4v16,5v16, 7v160 13v28, 20v66, 63v10].

 

Ali Dashti says the following, which is very important for Muslims to know:

 

“The Quran contains sentences which are incomplete and not fully intelligible without the aid of commentaries, as well as foreign words, unfamiliar Arabic words and words used with other than normal meaning, adjectives and verbs inflected without observance of the concord of gender and number, illogically and ungrammatically applied pronouns which sometimes have no referent and predicates which in rhymed passages are often remote from the subject.” To sum up, more than 100 Quranic aberrations from the normal structure of Arabic have been noticed. There are over 100 words found in the Quran that are not even in the Arabic language: there are Egyptian, Hebrew, Greek, Syriac, Ethiopian and Persian words and phrases in the Quran. The question is asked how Muhammad who was illiterate could write? Did he know all these languages, or did he simply copy from other sources including the Bible, twisting its words, abusing and misusing them for his own convenience?

Some of the original verses of the Quran were lost. For example, one Sura originally had 200 verses in the days of Ajesh but by the time Utham standardized the text of the Quran, it had only 73 verses, a total of 127 verses had been lost. As John Burton’s book, The Collection of the Quran, states concerning Muslim claims that the Quran is perfect, that the Muslim account of the history of Quran texts is a mass of confusion, contradiction, and inconsistencies.

 

One interesting way that some of the original verses of the Quran were lost is that a follower of Muhammad named Abdullah Sarah would make suggestions to Muhammad about rephrasing, adding, or subtracting from Suras. Muhammad took his advice as Sarah suggested.

 

Again Ali Dashti explains what happened:

“Abdullah renounced Islam on the ground that the revelations from God [Allah] could not be changed at the prompting of a Scribe such as he. After his apostasy, he went to Mecca and joined the Qurayshite. It is no wonder that when Muhammad conquered Mecca one of the first people killed was Abdullah, for he knew too much and opened his mouth too often.” Not only have parts of the Quran been lost but entire verses and chapters have been added to it after the prophet had died.

 

Example:

Ubai had several Suras in his manuscript of the Quran which Uthman omitted from his standardized text. Thus, where the Quran was in circulation before Uthman’s text which contained additional revelations from Muhammad that Uthman did not find or approve of, he failed to place them in his text. So the following can be said about the Quran, that there was never a single manuscript of the Quran. When the prophet died there existed no singular codex of the codex text—writes Casper Farah in his book on Islam. The older copies of the Quran differed much from Caliph Uthman’s later copy. He ordered the older ones to be destroyed, some of which had many more Suras than others.

 

Some of the older materials have survived and have been received by scholars. Arthur Jeffery, a Western scholar, has shown beyond all reasonable doubt that Uthman’s text did not contain all the Quran, neither was what it did contain correct in all its wording.

 

As to the Muslim claim that the Quran cannot be translated, it is amazing to us that English Muslim Mohammad Pickthal could state in the very introduction to his translation,

“The Koran can not be translated” [page 7]. He translated the Quran into the English language. The claim that the Quran cannot be translated is clearly refuted by the existence of many such translations. The Quran was written by man and Muhammad continued to add to the Quran as he saw fit. Since the Quran claims to be free from all error as a proof of its inspiration [Sura 85v 21-22], the presence of just one error in the Quran is enough to cast serious doubt on that claim. Muhammad came 600 years after the Lord Jesus Christ. The Quran thus comes after the completion of the N.T. The Quran itself claims that it is the continuation of the Bible and it will not contradict [Sura 2v136].

 

What it means in logic is that wherever the Bible and the Quran have a conflict or contradiction the Quran is to give way, NOT the Bible. This is particularly true when the text of the Quran contradicts the text of the Bible. The Muslim position is that the ‘same’ God [Allah] revealed the Bible and the Quran. Thus the Quran will never contradict the Bible, otherwise Allah would be contradicting himself. It is obvious that if Allah contradicted himself, he is not perfect and if he is not prefect, then he cannot be God [Allah].

 

THE MANY ERRORS IN THE QURAN

 

There are errors regarding the days of creation. When one adds up all the days mentioned in Sura 41v9+10-12 the Quran says that it took God eight days to create the world [4 days+2+2] but the Bible says God created the whole world and everything in six days [Gen1,2]. Also in Sura 7v51 and 10v3 the Quran agrees with the biblical account of only 6 days. If 8 days is correct then the Quran in Sura’s 7 and 10 are wrong; if 6 days is correct, then the Quran in Sura 41 is wrong. This is clearly a mistake.

 

The Quran says that one of the sons of Noah refused to go in the ark and was drowned in the flood [Sura 11v32-48], but according to the Bible all 3 sons of Noah went into the ark with him and were saved from the flood [Gen 7:1-3,7]. And Sura 11v44 claims that the ark rested on the top of Mount Judi while the Bible says Mount Ararat.

 

MISTAKES ABOUT ABRAHAM:

 

The Quran says that Abraham’s father’s name was Azar, but the Bible says his name was Terah [Sura 6v24/Gen 11:26]. Abraham did not live and worship in the valley of Mecca [Sura 14v37-40] but in Hebron [Gen 13:18]. Sura 37v100-112 says that it was Ishmael who was sacrificed but the Bible says it was Isaac Abraham went to sacrifice [Gen 22:2].

Abraham did not build Kabha as the Quran says in Sura 125v25-127. And he was not thrown into the fire by Nimrod as the Quran says in [Sura 21v68-69 9v69]. This error is very serious because Nimrod lived many centuries before Abraham. How then did Nimrod manage to throw Abraham into the Fire when Nimrod had been dead for centuries?

 

ERRORS CONCERNING MOSES:

 

It was not Pharaoh’s wife who adopted Moses as the Quran claims in Sura 28v8-9. It was Pharaohs’ daughter [Exo 2:5]. Noah’s fold did NOT take place in Moses’s day [Sura 7v136 compare 7v59. The Quran says Haman lived in Egypt during the time of Moses building the Tower of Babel [Sura 27v4-6, 28-38, 29v39, 4v23-24, 36v37. But Haman lived actually in Persia [Book of Esther].

 

ERRORS CONCERNING MARY:

 

Her father’s name was not Imran as Quran claims in Sura 66v12, She did not give birth to Jesus under the palm tree [Sura 19v22] but in a stable [Luke 2:1-30]. Muhammad clearly made up fraudulent speeches and miracles for her [Sura 19v 23-26].

 

The only way a Muslim can find peace, salvation, and joy is in Jesus Christ [John 14:6].

Islam is the fear of religion by forceful submission to Muhammad. It manipulates, oppresses and plays with minds of people, using threats and coerced conversion by way of brutal force. Muslims can have hope when they submit to the Lord Jesus Christ that they will be in a heaven where they will dwell eternally and not in a paradise where, as the Quran says, Muslims will enjoy sex with virgins, etc. This religion is false and will not advance because Muslims are killing Muslims these days.

 

Posted in Apologetics Issues--Other Faiths, Vijay Chandra Articles | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment