Tuesday, 29 November 2016

She Says She Heard Jesus Telling Her The Trinity Is Incorrect

This person claims they heard Jesus tell them the Trinity doctrine is NOT correct. Here's a comment I received from a YouTube user:

This is exactly what I heard the other night. Jesus told me that "Humans got the trinity all wrong." He gave me the understanding that the Trinity doctrine that there are three ENTITIES in one God is incorrect. There is God, His Word, His Spirit. God sent Jesus to us as the WORD made flesh. Jesus told us he would not leave us orphans and God's Spirit was sent to us. Ultimately, not three entities, just our Father giving us his WORD as the lamb of God and much more, and his Spirit to comfort and guide us. So simple yet religion and it's scholars cannot figure it out. It takes God to make something clear to us..

Interesting, for Trinitarian Christians - Dreams

There is no statement in Scripture that says, “God is three Persons in one being"

Notes from Sean Finnegan's interview with Patrick Navas: Is the Trinity Biblical

Thursday, 24 November 2016

Was Jay Smith of Pfander Films fabricating Stories at Speakers Corner?

Jay Smith specifically claimed he had video evidence to back his shocking claim up. He's being asked for that video footage now!

I've looked for the video evidence which he claims is available on the internet. I can't find it. All I could find is him talking about the third caliph who burnt Quranic manuscripts

This is odd. He claimed 40/50 Muslims said it was OK to kill random people upon seeing some Christian burn a copy of the Quran and they all threatened to kill him if he burnt a copy in London.

Posting footage of all this would be propaganda gold for him, his organisation and his friends (the David Wood types).It would go viral. Where is the video of this purported incident?

Jay Smith of Pfander Films has a reputation for dishonesty. Did he make this up?

Jay Smith of Pfander Films on video making strange claims

If the video does not play, please see here

This is a transcript of one of Jay's versions of the story:

Just yesterday, in fact, I was at Speaker's Corner, and I got up there, and I don't know if you remember what happened of Friday. Nine U.N. soldiers were killed after some of the imams in the mosques there in Mazar-i-Sharif in Afghanistan remonstrated against Terry Jones who had burned the Koran, I don't know, a week or two ago down there in Florida, and crowds went on a rampage and killed nine U.N. soldiers, wounded eleven others there in Mazar-i-Sharif, and these U.N. soldiers were from, well four of them were from Nepal. They wore burkas. One was a Swedish. Two of them were beheaded.

Of course, I got up on the ladder and I wanted to bring this—and this is what we do—I get up and take what's on the news and I bring it around to the Gospel. I just got up there and said, 'Listen, you all heard the news. You all heard what happened. What in the world went wrong, and why are you Muslims killing people for your Koran? Why in the world nine young men, or whatever their ages were, why did you kill nine men who had nothing to do with the burning of the Koran that took place thousands of miles away over in Florida by a pastor who did something he shouldn't have done. Nonetheless, why do you kill people for doing this?'...

...Now, bringing that kind of thing at Speaker's Corner brings a huge crowd, and I had a huge crowd yesterday. Hundreds were there, and the Muslims came all front and center, right in front of the ladder... And then I asked, 'Should those men have been killed? Should those nine men have been killed, though they had nothing to do with the Koran? They didn't even know Terry Jones. They are hundreds, thousands of miles away.'

And what was fascinating, Brian, as I said that, about six or seven Muslims started raising their fists and yelling, 'Yes! Yes! Allahu-akbar! These men should be killed.' So I said, 'Do you all agree?' All the Muslims, there may be about 40 or 50 Muslims there... 'Do you all agree?' And almost all of them said, yes, those men should be killed.
So I turned to the crowd. The crowd was huge, and you could see the horror on the faces of the crowd. It was priceless from where I was standing to look out and said, 'Are you watching this? Are you looking at this? ... Not even looking for the guilty party or if anybody is even guilty. Nonetheless, they would kill anybody. I said, 'Why is it they should be killed?' Because they weren't Muslim.
Now that you can only do at Speaker's Corner. You can only get that kind of reaction at Speaker's Corner. And then you also can only get those kinds of crowds, and so we film it. We put that—that one, unfortunately, the fellow that does all the filming wasn't there, so that didn't get on film, although the same thing happened back in July when Terry Jones was going to do the same thing, and I did much the same kind of talk back in July. That got filmed and that's up on YouTube. You can go and see it.

He can quite easily disprove any suspicion of dishonesty on his part by providing the footage seen as he claims he has all this on video. The challenge has been set for him to provide the video footage.

If it turns out to be the case, we have no qualms in rebuking and educating the Muslims in question. But it seems awfully suspicious that this missionary does not have this footage uploaded.

And if you're a Muslim, don't take this type of thing lightly. Don't dismiss it as standard Christian missionary propaganda. This Christian polemicist's audience, given the type of anti-Islam/Muslim rhetoric they produce, will be jam-packed with Britain First, EDL, racist types and Islamophobic fundamentalist Christians. A bunch of folk who have a scary violent element to them.

What do you think will happen when they are told there's a bunch of Muslims in London who think it's OK to kill random people when they see Christian pastors on TV burning copies of the Koran?

It's going to feed into the fear narrative which will lead to more Islamophobic cowards attacking Muslim women and Muslim old men in Britain.

These are dangerous lies helping to further jeopardise Muslim safety and wellbeing in Britain, America, Australia, Canada and beyond.

If Jay Smith can't provide the video evidence then for this then it would appear he was peddling extremely irresponsible and dangerous lies.


Muslim Indonesian Women Tricked By Christiam Missionary Men?

This was a shocking comment from an Indonesian Muslim who explains the depth of dishonesty some Christian missionaries go to in order to try and convert Muslims to Christianity in Indonesia. One of the methods is for the Christian man to pretend to convert to Islam and then once married and with children for the purpose of getting the woman to leave Islam (or whatever other faith she happens to be) and become Christian:

In the Name of Allah the Gracious the Merciful.

It does not surprise me at all. As one who has been in counter missionary da’wah organizations for years I have witnessed this deceitful method happens in my country as well, the most populous muslim nation in the word: Indonesia, and it has been documented by many counter missionary islamic organizations.

One of the most devilish method includes marrying potential conversion (mostly muslim women) in Islamic tradition then after few years after having kids the missionary men revert back to christianity leaving the women have no choice became dependent on their husbands having no income but to follow their husband faith.

I often wonder what motivates this hyper-zealotry other than the work of satan..

Christian Missionary Propganda About Asmirandah Zantman's 'Conversion' (Indonesian Actress)

Oldest British Convert to Islam, Br Mohamed Keith-Kinglsey Cunliffe?

Faith Change: Islam rapidly grows as Christianity declines in UK

Slovakians converting to Islam

Was Winston Churchill Interested in Converting to Islam?

Muslim country ranked best at respecting women!


Tuesday, 22 November 2016

She Left Islam Because She Misunderstood Salvation in Islam

A lady wrote made this comment on Blogging Theology and Paul Williams responded:

“I left Islam because of two things: Our salvation is always regarded in terms of doubts.”

Did you not know that Muslims have a guarantee of salvation and promise from God about this?

Allah states:

Surah 9:72

Allah has promised to the believers -
men and women, – Gardens under which rivers flow to dwell therein forever, and beautiful mansions in Gardens of ‘Adn (Eden Paradise). But the greatest bliss is the Good Pleasure of Allah. That is the supreme success.

Allah also states:

Surah 3:9

Verily, Allah never breaks His Promise

Now if you ask the Muslim “are you going to paradise?” he is going to say to you “if Allah wills” (insha’allah). The well informed Muslim is not going to tell you “Yes I am going paradise for sure.” No, the Muslim hopes and prays that he will end up in paradise. It’s not because the Muslim is worried whether Allah will keep His promise, for as we have seen Allah does not break His promise. Rather, it is because the Muslim cannot be sure whether he would continue remaining on the straight path and die as a Muslim and the guarantee or promise of salvation is conditional in remaining and dying as a Muslim.

Muslim Talks About the Jesus Resurrection Story and Mike Licona's Claims

As for the resurrection story, I don’t see Mike’s claims about the resurrection of Jesus story to be convincing. In fact he does not champion the biggest resurrection story in the Gospels (that of the many saints in Matthew). If the author made such a huge resurrection story up then is it not plausible that there were people willing to fabricate resurrection stories into the oral tradition of the time? Thus is it possible the resurrection story about Jesus was fabricated to be a physical resurrection or simply some conjecture after he was seen in visions or physically after being saved from a crucifixion?

And why is Licona not trying to prove the resurrection story of the many saints is historical? It’s because his faith does not revolve around it so he marginalises it just like he does with doctrines like the Trinity. Rest assured if we found a NT manuscript saying the resurrection of the saints is integral to Christian salvation there will be a number of Christians trying to prove it to be historical in the same way Licona operates with the Jesus resurrection story!

Licona is a minimalist who has tried to reduce the amount of convincing he needs to do in his preaching to Atheists (and uncertain Christians) hence why he goes down that path. Ehrman would point to the contradictions in and around the crucifixion story and the post resurrection narratives to highlight the lack of reliability of the accounts and he would also state the historical methodology Licona claims to be using does not deliberate on miracles as likely possibilities.

Ehrman would say Christians changed their stories to try and convince people into the faith.

Did Peter Believe in the Trinity?

Muslim Explaining Exodus 3:14 I AM WHO I AM

From  Blogging Theology

In Exodus/Shemot 3:14 prophet Moses asked God what is His name, then God said to him  Ehyeh ašer ehyeh  אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה.  The common English translation of this enigmatic phrase is: “I am what I am“, often contracted in English as “I AM”   and  often thought as one of God’s name. I  probably think that the most literal translation of its meaning phrase from hebrew is “I Shall Be What I Shall Be“.
However one may wonder what this God’s Name really is?  I would  like draw the reader attention to the works of the great  Rabbi Saadia Gaon ben Yosef (882-942)  or  Saʻīd bin Yūsuf al-Fayyūmi  also known by the acronym “Rasag” who is the most famous Gaonic sage, a great Talmudic scholar,  philosopher and hebrew grammarian.
In his Arabic translation of the Torah in Exodus 3 :14 he translated Ehyeh ašer ehyeh  as  “Al Azāly alladzī lā yazūlu” الأزلي الذي لا يزول  which means
The eternal which  never perishes
Interesting to note also that great medieval commentator of the Torah from  rabbi Samuel ben Meir aka “Rashbam”, the  grandson of rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaki, “Rashi.” also wrote on Exodus 3:14:
 ויאמר אלוקים אל משה, if you do not know My name, I will tell you that I am the Eternal. This means that I can fulfill any promise I make. Now that I have told you that My name is “the Eternal,” כה תאמר, thus you shall say to the Children of Israel, “the One Who is the Eternal has sent me to you.”
It  is evident that Rashag and Rashbam rendering of the verse do away  with any possibility that God  is one being in Three Persons. The entirety of the existence of  God is that He shall always be eternal. The trinitarian truth claims that Jesus was begotten was then invalidated.  God is always ONE unseparated exclusive PERSON the ONE who never ceases to exist therefore who absolutely do not die.  If there is existence that ‘eternity’ belongs to, then there is ONE who exists and will aways exist, never begotten . If there is ONE who never perishes , then there is only ONE who does. No other “personages” can be introduced.
Thus He Shall Be What He Shall Be: “The Eternal”.

Sunday, 20 November 2016

What Does Quran 9:111 Say Is Mentioned in the Gospel and Torah?

It appears a Christian, Richard Zetter,  has had an oversight here and misunderstood the Verse. He contends the Verse teaches there's a promise of Paradise in the Gospel and the Torah for those who kill and are killed for Allah. He states:

This verse promises Paradise for those who kill and are killed, fighting in the cause of Allah. It claims that such a promise is to be found in the Gospel.

I've looked into this and I don't really see this as a theme in the commentaries. In fact the translators don't seem to indicate this either. They seem to indicate the Verse teaches God promises Paradise to those who shun the ephemeral (by submitting one's will to God).

It is explicitly stated in Maulana Muhammad Ali's commentary that the Promise mentioned in the previous Scriptures is not concerning fighting/killing for God:

It should be borne in mind that the words they fight in Allah’s way, so they slay and are slain, are not a part of the promise, but are expressive of the condition of the Companions, and show that they were true to their promise. The promise to spend one’s person and property may be carried out in various ways under different circumstances, and the Companions of the Holy Prophet were as true to this promise during the thirteen years at Makkah as during the ten years at Madinah.” [Source]

The Study Quran also appears to teach the Promise refers to the purchase by God of the souls and wealth of the believers (it does not talk about killing or being killed).

Nouman Ali Khan states the Promise includes all Muslims and is not specifically concerning those who kill or are killed for God - again indicating he would not be expecting the previous Scriptures contain a Promise of Paradise for those who kill and/or kill for God but rather a Promise for those who have given up the world for devotion to Allah. Concerning those who kill/killed for God in just warfare, Nouman Ali Khan states this is the highest manifestation of this Promise but every Muslim is included in the Promise thus it is not confined to people on the battle field fighting for what is right.

Richard used the Sahih International translation and perhaps got a little confused but I will furnish other translations which are perhaps discern the Promise (underlined) from the statement concerning those who kill or are killed thus indicating they do not believe the Verse teaches the part about killing and being killed for God is in the Torah and the Gospel:

BEHOLD, God has bought of the believers their lives and their possessions, promising them paradise in return, ,[and so] they fight in God's cause, and slay, and are slain: a promise which in truth He has willed upon Himself in [the words of] the Torah, and the Gospel, and the Qur'an. And who could be more faithful to his covenant than God? Rejoice, then, in the bargain which you have made with Him: for this, this is the triumph supreme! [Muhammad Asad trans of Q 9:111]

GOD has bought from the believers their lives and their money in exchange for Paradise. Thus, they fight in the cause of GOD, willing to kill and get killed. Such is His truthful pledge in the Torah, the Gospel, and the Quran - and who fulfills His pledge better than GOD? You shall rejoice in making such an exchange. This is the greatest triumph. [Rashad trans. of Q 9:111]

God has purchased from the believers their persons and their goods, for (in return) theirs is the Garden. They shall fight in the cause of God, and shall slay and be slain. It is a promise that is binding on Him in the Torah and the Gospel, and the Qur’an. Who can fulfill a promise better than God? Rejoice then in the bargain you have made, for that is the Supreme Triumph. [Shabir Ahmed trans. of Q 9:111]

There's extra significance to Shabir Ahmed's translation as it carries a footnote in which he does offer Biblical verses which he believes Q 9:111 references. Interestingly enough he does not try and offer anything about killing or being killed for Paradise but rather verses about willingly submitting one's will to God. He cites Deut 6:4-5:

4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.[a] 5 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.

In addition to this there are other reference I reckon he cites from the NT, Matthew. I can't be 100% here as the formatting leaves it uncertain but you can check it for yourself. I think it's reasonable to assume he refers to Matthew 6:32-33 which I think is an instruction to prioritize God and the Hereafter over everything worldly.

32For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. 33But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.

Here's another I think he references. This seems to be close to the money, a Promise to compensate, with Paradise, those who have sacrificed this world for God. Matthew 19:29:

29And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.

I also think he refers to Matthew 10:39 which I believe Christians would interpret as whoever shuns this life will get the Hereafter (ever lasting life):

39Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.

Syed Abul A'ala Maududi in his commentary talks about what the Promise is (again note the absence of talk concerning being killed/killing):

In this verse that aspect of the Islamic faith which determines the nature of the relationship between Allah and His servants has been called a transaction. This means that faith is not merely a metaphysical conception but is, in fact, a contract by which the servant sells his life and possessions to Allah and in return for this accepts His promise that He would give him the Garden in the life after death

Then he discusses parts of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament which allude to the Promise (notice he's not looking for verses about fighting or martyrdom) but rather a renouncement of the lower life in submission to God for the Eternal Life:

Some critics say that the statement of promise in the Torah and the Gospel is not confirmed by these Books. Their objection in regard to the Gospel is obviously wrong for even in the existing Gospels there are sayings of Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) that confirm this verse. For instance:

“Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” (MAT. 5: 10).

“He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.” (MAT. 10: 39).

“And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold and shall inherit everlasting life.” (MAT. 19: 29).

It is, however, true that the matter of this transaction is not confirmed in its entirety by the existing Torah. For instance, there is a mention of the first part of the bargain at several places in one forth or the other: “Is not He thy father that hath bought thee? hath He not made thee, and established thee?" (DEUT. 32: 6).

"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." (DEUT. 6: 4-5).

But as regards the other part of the bargain, that is, the promise of the Gardens, they applied it to the land of Palestine:

“Hear therefore, O Israel, and observe to do it; that it may be well with thee, and that ye may increase mightily, as the Lord God of thy fathers hath promised thee, in the land that floweth with milk and honey.” (DEUT. 6: 3).

This is because the Torah does not give any conception of the life-after-death, the Day of Judgment, rewards and punishments in the Hereafter, though this creed has always been an inseparable part of the right way. This does not, however, mean that the Torah did not originally contain this creed. The fact is that the Jews had become so materialistic during the period of their degeneration that they had no other idea of a reward from God than the wellbeing and prosperity in this world. Therefore they perverted all the promises made by God in return for man’s service and obedience to Him and applied those to the land of Palestine.

In this connection, it should also be noted that the above mentioned changes became possible because the original Torah had been tampered with in several ways. Some portions were taken away from it and others were added to it. Thus, the Torah in the existing form is not purely the word of God but also contains the comments, etc. of the Jewish scholars mixed up with it. So much so that at some places it becomes difficult to distinguish the word of God from the Jewish traditions, their racial prejudices, their superstitions, their ambitions and, wishes, their legal interpretations, etc. all of which have gotten mixed with the word of God. (See E.N. 2 of Aal-Imran).

Abdullah Yusuf Ali's commentary also indicates the Promise (that was in the Torah and the Injeel) is that concerning the covenant of redemption: one must surrender oneself completely in exchange for ever lasting life (Paradise). He goes on to say this surrender may include fighting for the cause, but again he does not seem to think the Promise mentioned in the previous Scripture was that concerning killing or being killed for God

C1362. We offer our whole selves and our possessions to Allah, and Allah gives us Salvation. This is the true doctrine of redemption: and we are taught that this is the doctrine not only of the Quran but of the earlier Revelations, -the original Law of Moses and the original Gospel of Jesus.

Any other view of redemption is rejected by Islam, especially that of corrupted Christianity, which thinks that some other person suffered for our sins and we are redeemed by his blood. It is our self-surrender that counts, not other people's merits.

Our complete self-surrender may include fighting for the cause, both spiritual and physical. As regards actual fighting with the sword there has been some difference in theological theories at different times, but very little in the practice of those who framed those theories...

...The monkish morality of the Gospels in their present form has never been followed by any self-respecting Christian or other nation in history. Nor is it common-sense to ignore lust of blood in unregenerate man as a form of evil which has to be combated "within the limits, set by Allah" (9:112). (R). [Source]

I think there's a lot here for Richard to consider, I trust he is sincere enough to look into this and make the relevant corrections if he is convinced by the evidence to do so.

There is no statement in Scripture that says, “God is three Persons in one being"

Notes from Sean Finnegan's interview with Patrick Navas: Is the Trinity Biblical

Christians Can't Refute Islam's Claims About the Crucifixion Story

The distinguished Christian philosopher and believer in the crucifixion Rev Professor John Hick, was honest enough to admit,
‘Historically it is very difficult to dispute the qur’anic verse since presumably it would not be possible for observers at the time to tell the difference between Jesus being crucified and his only appearing to be crucified – unless what is suggested is that someone else was crucified in his place.’
Religious Pluralism and Islam, Lecture delivered to the Institute for Islamic Culture and Thought, Tehran, February 2005.

There is no statement in Scripture that says, “God is three Persons in one being"

Notes from Sean Finnegan's interview with Patrick Navas: Is the Trinity Biblical

Tuesday, 8 November 2016

How Jay Smith, Nabeel Qureshi, Sam Shamoun and David Wood Contriubute to the Apostasy of Christians

Muslims have refuted ad nauseum the claim that Islam allows rape of concubines (see here and here for examples) so I am not looking at refuting this claim. This is a focus on the idea of consistency (or rather a lack of it) when it comes to the Bible.

In this video we see a Christian apologist give a standard response to the idea of the Old Testament (yes, that's the Bible) allowing women to be captured and used as concubines or married off to the captors. His answer seems pretty straight forward to semi-smart people.

James White's comments condemn Jay Smith, Sam Shamoun, David Wood and Beth Grove

If the video does not play, please see here

Anybody who can process the idea of context, judgement of God, and understand the fallacy of presentism can argue against Western secular humanist critique of Abrahamic religions and religious figures.

Sadly, what I'm noticing on the Muslim-Christian apologetics/polemics scene is a tendency to ignore such factors and argue as Western secular humanists against the other religion. This happens amongst the Christian camp. Westernized Christians go so far as to adopt an inconsistent standard of argumentation to attack Islam whilst ignoring or being unaware of their indirect attack on the Old Testament and the Trinitarian view of Jesus.

Glaring examples would include polygamy, capital punishment, violence and concubinage. The example of concubinage takes a life of its own as Christian polemics propagandize in order to equate that to rape and even introduce new, misleading and emotive terminology for concubines - "sex slaves"!

For the serious-minded and smart Christian evangelist there are two problems:

1. The argument is inconsistent as the Old Testament allowed soldiers to take captured women (Num 31:16-18, Num 31:31-40, Deut 21:10-14). The Old Testament is the word of Jesus along with the Father according to Trinitarian theology thus, for the Trinitarian, to argue this is rape is to indirectly accuse Jesus of allowing rape.

2. The Christian polemicist is setting Christians up to stumble out of the Church with premises which aren't couched in consistent Biblical thought. Think about it, a young Western millennial Christian is effectively being taught by Christian polemicists like David Wood, Nabeel Qureshi, Sam Shamoun and Jay Smith that polygamy, concubines, warfare and capital punishment make a religion false. These millennials are being set up to stumble out of Christianity as they later build up their knowledge base of the Old Testament. This is all because "feel good Christian" polemicists like Wood and Smith don't appear to have the intellectual honesty or foresight to factor in consistency with the Bible.

Christians are quite often scoring own goals. That desire for the quick buck, quick convert or quick boost in personal popularity can quite easily assist the undoing of some young Christian's faith further down the line.

Surely smart Christians can see this. Sadly for Christianity there are less and less smart Christians operating in this arena and even fewer have the fortitude, or regard for Christianity, to take on their "feel good Christian" missionaries.

A Question of James White's Consistency Re Prof. JR Daniel Kirk and Bart Ehrman

Muslim Imam Response to Paris Terrorist Attacks

Similarities Between Catholic Terrorist Group IRA and Muslim Terrorist Group ISIS

Explanation: Zaynab Bint Jahsh's Marriage to Prophet Muhammad p Dr Yasir Qadhi

Dhul Qarnayn and the Exegetes' Speculation of Alexander The Great

Murder Rates in Muslim Countries Compared to Non Muslim Countries.

The Hitler Propaganda on Muslims

Sharia Law against terrorism

Christians having dreams and converting to Islam

Learn about Islam

Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk

Sunday, 6 November 2016

The Epilepsy Lie

Who first invented this lie about the Prophet?

The claims that the Prophet Muhammad suffered from epilepsy rests on a number of shaky assumptions not supported by medical research. They are based solely on the many different descriptions of his state during his reception of revelation. First, the Prophet first received revelation when he was forty years old. This would mean that the Prophet suddenly developed epilepsy later in life as it has never been reported that he suffered from such experiences before.  This is highly unlikely from a medical perspective.

Moreover, epilepsy is seen as one way of explaining the Prophet’s visions and spiritual experiences. The Prophet was not reported to have suffered from any such physical or mental conditions except during his reception of revelation. This would mean that the Prophet’s epilepsy occurred only when he was inspired by verses from the Qur’an. This would be a medical anomaly as epilepsy is not consistently associated with such experiences.

Untreated epilepsy also leads to mental damage and difficulties. The Prophet Muhammad received revelation for 23 years and it was never reported that his memory or mental faculties suffered in any way.

If we consider the entire life history of the Prophet, one sees very clearly the integrity and consistency of his personality and qualities. He transformed the belief, practice and mindset of a corrupt and backward people to a moral and civilized one. He became the father of a nation in a manner unparalleled in human history.

From his family life to his public persona, the details of his life were transparent. And what emerges from a fair-minded look at his personality is that all his achievements cannot be reduced to some single medical reason. Unlike many of the great figures of history, what the Prophet did, said and sanctioned is recorded authentically and even more so after he received revelation.  Indeed the thousands of pages that have been written on his life reveal not a trace of erratic or irrational behavior.  

The idea of the Prophet being an epileptic was first advanced by Orientalists whose arguments both from a scientific and historical view are very flimsy. Since then, the argument has been rehashed by propagandists and critics who care little for the basis of their claims. From the above, it is clear that when one looks fairly at the life of the Prophet, it is hard to take such an argument seriously.
Taken from: http://mercyprophet.org/mul/node/3313

Also see Yusuf Estes on the claim Prophet Muhammad had epilepsy

Flat Earth Polemic - Yasir Qadhi

Muslim Imam Response to Paris Terrorist Attacks

Similarities Between Catholic Terrorist Group IRA and Muslim Terrorist Group ISIS

Explanation: Zaynab Bint Jahsh's Marriage to Prophet Muhammad p Dr Yasir Qadhi

Dhul Qarnayn and the Exegetes' Speculation of Alexander The Great

Murder Rates in Muslim Countries Compared to Non Muslim Countries.

The Hitler Propaganda on Muslims

Sharia Law against terrorism

Christians having dreams and converting to Islam

Learn about Islam

Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk

Thursday, 20 October 2016

A Question of James White's Consistency Re Prof. JR Daniel Kirk and Bart Ehrman

Is Prof. Bart Ehrman really having such a debilitating effect on Christian apologist James White's to the extent it's waning his desire for serious discernment and consistency? It appears so. Well, more plausibly, it's more like the assistance Prof. Bart Ehrman has given Muslims is really grinding on James' gears (cycling pun intended assuming White has a proper bicycle and not some babyish pushbike or tricycle!).
In his response to Ijaz Ahmad, James abandoned common sense, consistency and basic decency in trying to slander Bart Ehrman AGAIN. Oh yeah, White has a history of attacking Bart Ehrman - he did it out of resentment to paying Bart a load of cash just to be able to debate him and he did it before Bart publicly denounced him as an unpleasant fella  with a string of mean spirited comments towards Bart
So what was his motive this time round? Perhaps it was just an attempt to distance Muslims from Bart Ehrman. James claims Bart disrespects Islam based on him joking his life would be at risk if he wrote a critical book about the Quran. As highlighted in the video - James really should know better as Bart effectively told James the real reason why Bart doesn't write books about the Quran - he has no knowledge about the Quran.
A possible demonstration that Bart is living in James' mind rent-free; James condemns himself in that slander of Bart. James, only a matter of hours after his attack on Bart does exactly the SAME thing as Bart but not in a jocular manner. White was serious when he wrote this in response to Muslims using New Testament Professor JR Daniel Kirk's material:
Notice that Paul Williams identifies Kirk’s liberal meanderings as being “honest.” I wonder if he does the same for liberal interpreters of the Qur’an? I’d love to see him publicly post in defense of unorthodox, liberal interpretations of Islamic theology. Even he knows he would probably not be safe at Speaker’s Corner if he did so—not from danger from Christians, of course, but from his co-religionists!
And, I wonder if James will be consistent and call out all his wild-eyed buddies who do exactly the same thing - Shamoun and Wood come into mind. In fact, a non-Calvinist Christian missionary James recommends, Jay Smith did the same thing when Justin Brierley pushed him on why we don't get to see all his alleged converts to Islam. 
For James White, it appears consistency matters but only when it's not close to your neck of the woods.
Can we have a cheesy Dividing Line type of line? Sure, one of the reasons why I do what I do is because I'm looking for that consistent Christian, to this day I'm yet to find one, I will continue looking for that Christian.
Here's the video highlighting some of the problems with James' attack on Bart Ehrman 

If the video doesn't play please see here
So I've been asked to turn a response comment to James' blog post on the Muslim use of Prof. J.R. Daniel Kirk into a separate post. I will do it here - let's kill two birds with one stone.
James White recently blogged in response to this blog post on his website. I’m not too sure why he didn’t link to this blog page – perhaps he sees a lot of difficult arguments for the Trinitarian Christian coming from this side of the internet.
Anyways, for those interested White wasn’t that cantankerous or vituperative (same with his latest response to Ijaz – I think he’s learning that his tone and constant gnarling is off putting and does him no favours with serious minded folk) so no need for any of us to hide behind our duvets.
Here’s what he wrote:
I’ll be honest, it would be humorous, if it wasn’t so sad. Muslim apologists in general are fascinated by apostates. You see it on the Deen Show all the time, where some kid who was once a summer intern at a church is touted as a “former Christian minister” and “expert on Christian theology.” Bart Ehrman, apostate par-excellence, is their favorite, of course, since he has embraced his role as critic-in-chief of the New Testament. And I told everyone that Daniel J. Kirk, who became known primarily for his coming out in support of the profanation of marriage (I would think even the Muslims would cringe at his arguments there, but, of course, that would require them to actually be concerned about consistency, and only a small handful of them are) and the embracing of LGBTQRSTUV etc. movements as “the move of the Spirit in our day.” Part and parcel of Kirk’s apostasy is his abandonment of the faith in regards to the person of Jesus, and, of course, since Islam likewise denies the Bible’s teaching on the subject, well, Kirk, despite the glaring conflict in worldviews he brings to the NT text, is now one of their favorites. I predicted this, of course, and obligingly, Yahya Snow has provided the evidence. Notice that Paul Williams identifies Kirk’s liberal meanderings as being “honest.” I wonder if he does the same for liberal interpreters of the Qur’an? I’d love to see him publicly post in defense of unorthodox, liberal interpretations of Islamic theology. Even he knows he would probably not be safe at Speaker’s Corner if he did so—not from danger from Christians, of course, but from his co-religionists! But note their praise: “He should be commended for being bold enough to make the admission the NT is not reliable and is contradictory. He joins Bart Ehrman and Mike Licona in teaching it is contradictory.” Well, there is a confluence of names you never expected to see! Kirk, Ehrman, and Licona. But I have said for a very long time, your bibliology is a key dividing line, and Licona only has himself to blame for being listed in the group.
Of course, I really doubt almost any of our Muslims friends have ever even heard of, let alone read, Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism. If they would, they would realize they are all excited about the news from…long, long ago.
A few thoughts on this,there’s a fascination with ex-Christians WHO have become MUSLIMS on the Deen Show. James misses that out – the Deen Show really couldn’t care to feature Christian apostates who have become Mormons or Atheists. James misses that crucial dividing line and moves across that line into territory that is unfair and misrepresenting. In fact White’s colleagues and friends regularly feature and use material from wild-eyed ex-Muslims who aren’t even Christians! Not to mention the use of Nabeel Qureshi – styling him as a former Muslim. It seems as though the fascination with apostates is closer to White’s home than the home of the Deen Show or anybody on this side of the internet (the cool side)
As for James’ mentioning of Kirk’s views on gay marriage – it’s irrelevant. Muslims are leaning on Kirk's NT scholarship and research here - not about his views on gay marriage. Note my comment directed to our Christian friend Ken. White, if consistent with this line of thinking, would have to shout from the roof top to all the Christian apologists around him who reject the idea of Limited Atonement (some whom James promotes or is friendly with like Jay Smith) “STOP CITING ME” and “STOP USING MY BOOKS” because you don’t agree with my views in other areas. James has not done that to the Pfander Films crowd.
Consistency matters. But when it will alienate all your buddies and a bulk of your consumer base it doesn't matter as much on the James White bike.
James also uses the old "oh you're using that guy (Prof. Kirk) but you won't use liberals talking about the Quran" argument. Erm, is Kirk coming out with wild theories that are being used by Muslims concerning the Bible?  All he said was the NT is contradictory and unreliable. Is that really such a liberal statement? I don't think so. Origen believed the NT contained errors too! Prof. Richard Baukham believes the sermon on the mount is not historical - is he a liberal too? Prof. William Lane Craig has issues with the biggest resurrection story in the Gospels? Is he a liberal? What about Prof. Larry Hurtado who as for doesn't seem to believe the New Testament sayings can be reliably attributed to Jesus?
So James is guilty of a fallacy - he's comparing apples and oranges. But again, James has another problem as James does promote missionaries like Jay Smith and David Wood who do promote Dan Gibson's wild-eyed revisionist material.
What's that you're mumbling dear reader? You've never heard James rebuke such antics and you're wondering why he promotes such men? Well, it's because consistency gets swept under the rug when it may affect one of James' buddies and his consumer base.
Consistency matters when James wants it to matter. He's consistent on that front.
White suggests Kirk is an apostate – what is an apostate in Christianity? I’ve seen Nick Peters (whose co-authored book on inerrancy I’ve read) state Christians can still be Christians even if they reject whole books in the NT. Is that guy more Christian than Kirk? Folk like Dr Gagnon (IIRC) believe Christians have compromised on the teaching that it is a sin to re-marry after divorce – what of the Christians who reject this because of modern day society, are they Christians? What of the other gay marriage supporting churches - the Anglican church I observe at is such – are they all apostates too? What about the 70% of Christians who believe Jesus was created by God, are they Christian? What about folk like David Wood who openly say parts of the OT troubles them and get into their wife’s undies, are they Christian?  What about folk who say one doesn’t have to believe in a Trinity doctrine to be a Christian (no early Christian had an earthly clue what it was but hey this is the tradition the evangelicals in America try to usher folk towards)
Consistency and Theology matter but, James, PLEASE don't insult the intelligence of your audience by setting up impractical standards of consistency: one can use Kirk in some regard and disagree with him on other issues as long as it is done with intellectual honesty.
But again, to stress who cares if Dr Kirk has such views as a Christian whilst using his scholarship in other areas. I use Wayne Grudem, Bruce Ware, FF Bruce, Tuggy, Edgar G Foster, Hurtado, Calvin, Michael Holmes and Bart Ehrman AND James White (yep, I love using a bit of White to show how some of the Islamophobes around White are inconsistent or just plainly making stuff up) but I don’t think hold on, these guys don’t agree with all my views so I can't use them. It would be a strange way to do scholarship to only use folk who agree with you – White doesn’t even do this!
Consistency matters but let’s not take it to an absurd, impractical and extreme level, James. That's just insulting the intelligence of your audience (mind you, given some of the James White Onlyists I've come across - you've got a few blunt tools in that tool box bro!)
James is right in that it is an odd bunching – Licona (who Cross Examined,org’s Jonathan McLatchie and AM’s David Wood use), Kirk, and Ehrman. And a public statement from Licona will be of use in understanding his views but hasn’t he made enough public statements for us to understand where he is at? He’s at inconsistency and confused central right now. How can Licona even deign to look at anybody with a straight face while propagating his minimal facts theory expecting folk to become believers in the Trinity doctrine and the Bible. If he was serious about consistency in methodology he would know the serious historical methodology he claims to be using sincerely would leave him to reject the Bible as a group of books chosen without any authority (unless you call Church tradition authority, I don’t!) by Christians who took it upon themselves to decide (and disagree with each other on) on what constituted a canon. He would also have to reject the Trinity idea as historically that doctrine is clearly a development where even after the Council of Nicea Christians did not know what to believe about the Holy Spirit as late as 380 CE as per Gregory of Nazianzus’ statement. Not to mention the extremely useful comments coming from Prof. William Lane Craig on the development of the Trinity doctrine – I hope to showcase those. In private discussion with a colleague I’ve noticed I’m not the only one who is aware of such.
Let’s wait for his new book to come out. I think Licona will really open the door for Christians to start seeing a new perspective which God willing will point them to the conclusion Islam is right; the Bilbe is unreliable and the Trinity doctrine never came from Jesus p. I’ve written some thoughts on Mike’s new book – pre-release:
I’ve only really got into discussions about Christianity because I saw White’s buddies literally lying or being wildly ignorant and reckless when talking about my faith: Shamoun, Wood, Smith, Beth Grove, Nabeel Qureshi (even White himself has made reckless comments which he has had to be corrected on by myself and others). For years I just refuted polemics against my faith – after I thought the critics were just getting repetitive and more folk were at the helm of dealing with polemics against Islam I thought I’d dabble with looking into their faith. I know a colleague has recently made similar remarks and I’d imagine it is the same for many Muslims. All this because Christians did not have a huddle to say hey guys we need to be more careful in talking about Muslims and Islam – let’s stop the lies, inconsistencies and distortions.
Theology and consistency matter.
May God guide us all.