Why is the Average Muslim not told about these things?

The British convert to Islam, Paul Bilal Williams, has a recent post up called, “Why are Christians not told about these things?”  (no longer there; as Williams changed his blog three different times.  See the articles I have written on him changing his blogs several times)   It contains a clip of a radio interview with Bart Ehrman, the famous agnostic and skeptic scholar of the NT.

Some Christians are told about liberal theories and viewpoints and they are usually dealt with in more in depth classes on apologetics, and actually given answers to these liberal theories of liberal scholars.

The main point that Bart Ehrman and Williams are trying to make is that these views are the majority views of “thinking people” and most credible scholars (in their opinion), and so, the average person should be told them.  They both make much of “standard NT scholarship” or “all modern scholars” or “the majority of NT scholarship”, etc.  These are the viewpoints of majority of liberal seminaries, Universities, because there is freedom in the west (since the Enlightenment in Europe – the late 1600s into the 1900s) to entertain views and theories that are not doctrinally orthodox.   There has not been that kind of 300-400 year freedom in the Islamic world to have liberal theories about the Qur’an.  This freedom in the west had grown steadily over the centuries so that the liberal viewpoint is the viewpoint that is respected in the general culture, the main-stream media and secular University world and liberal seminaries. 

Does majority opinion mean it is truth?

It is the majority opinion of all scholars, all historians, both believers and unbelievers – that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified and killed by the instigation of the Jewish leadership  under the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, around 30 AD.   (Erhman included)  Oh, except in the Muslim world, where they deny established history.

It would be interesting if Williams could document any Islamic scholar in the Majority Muslim countries (like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Egypt, Morocco, Mali, etc.)  and people groups [not Muslims living in the west or Muslim scholars living and teaching in the west ] that teach any of the questions that I bring out at the end of this article.

Williams’ questions assume a lot – one of them assumes that 1 and 2 Tim. and Titus are forgeries and they are not.  It is like the question, “when did you stop beating your wife?”

Believing pastors don’t teach their congregations that I and 2 Timothy and Titus are forgeries because they don’t believe that they are forgeries, and only some teach that they are definitely forgeries.  But in a Sunday School class, many of them mention the liberal theory that Paul didn’t write the pastorals, but offer apologetic reasons and answers that defend Pauline authorship.

I was taught that liberalism at the liberal United Methodist Church I grew up in.  Then the Lord saved me and I left that heretical and apostate church.  The view that Paul didn’t write the pastoral epistles is a liberal theory, but it has not been proven.

Some liberal pastors do teach their people some of these things– and when they do that, they loose members, and have been since the 1960s.   The same mainline denominations that teach the things you are promoting are the same ones who are accepting homosexuality as ok and ordaining homosexual ministers.  That is inconsistent, coming from a Muslim.   Ehrman and the interviewer reveal their bias by not wanting 1 Timothy to be in the canon, – but their reasons are that they want women to be ordained as pastors/elders.  That is also inconsistent with Islamic teachings on women’s roles.

Some liberal pastors believe Ehrman and those views that have been around since F. C. Bauer (1792-1860); Walter Bauer (1877-1960), Frederick Schleiermacher (1768-1834), Rudolph Bultmann (1884-1976)  and more recently, Elaine Pagels , but don’t’ teach it to the people, because the people would stop giving their tithes and offerings and they would stop coming to their churches; and they would not be able to earn a living.

The other questions are also assuming things that are not true.  Matthew and John and Paul are all compatible and there is no different teaching on salvation; there is no contradiction and a believing pastor will seek to harmonize the apparent tensions as coming from God in unity; just as you would harmonize Qur’anic passages with each other and Hadith that have tensions and contradictions.

As for the theory that in the early centuries, there are lots of different “Christianities” – this is a very distorted way of presenting historical facts.

The Gnostics denied that God is one and almighty and the creator of all things, and they denied that matter is good.   Some Gnostic groups denied that marriage and sex was good – so right off the bat, that is inconsistent with the Islamic worldview.

The Gnostic groups, and Docetists were not even Christians, so there is no such thing as “competing Christianities” in the way that Ehrman, Pagels, the Da Vinci Code fame, and Williams try to make their case for – Ignatius (107-117 AD) is very early and he writes against Docetists, so is the gospel of John (80-90 AD or pre- 70 AD) itself and the book of Colossians (60-62 AD)  – they all condemn proto-Gnosticism and Docetism.  Polycarp and Justin Martyr also (150-165  AD) And their worldview is totally against any kind of Islamic worldview, so to use them as somehow “pro-Islamic” is inconsistent and illogical.  Irenaeus and Tertullian (both of them wrote between 180-220 AD) were exposing all of these heretical groups long before any kind of supposed “Roman forcing” of Trinitarian theology on everybody, that you say.  (The Roman Empire did not make Christianity the official religion until between 380-390 AD – during the reign of Theodosius.)  Arians claimed to be Christians, but they were found to be heretical.

Williams’ questions would be similar to:

Why are average Muslims not told these things?  – 

1.  The Qur’an has textual variants and at least 3 different streams of evidences of variants between the texts of 1.  Ubai Ibn Kaab, 2.  Ibn Masood and 3. Uthman

2.  Why are average Muslims not told that some of the stories about Jesus in the Qur’an are obviously from Aprocyphal gospels and heretics?   (like the Infancy Gospel of Thomas)  and why are they not told that some other stories come from fables and legends?  (like the Cave of the Seven Sleepers ?)

3.  Why are average Muslims not told about the obvious error of the Qur’an confusing Mary the mother of Jesus with Maryam, the sister of Aaron and Moses in the OT?

4.  Why are average Muslims not told about the Qur’an’s lack of understanding the doctrine of the Trinity ? (Quran 5:115; 5:72-75)

5.  Why are average Muslims not told about the Qur’an’s lack of understanding the established Christian meaning of the phrase, “the Son of God” in 6:101-102 and 19:88-92 and many other passages?

6.  Why are average Muslims not told that the Qur’an and Islam denies real established historical fact in the crucifixion and death of Jesus?

7.  Why are average Muslims not told that the Qur’an never teaches that the text of the Bible has been corrupted?

[It only claims that Christians and Jews distorted the meaning of the text; it never says or teaches that the text has been changed.]

Advertisements

About Ken Temple

I am a follower of Jesus Christ. I am a sinner who has been saved by the grace of God alone (Ephesians 2:8-9), through faith alone (Galatians 2:16; Romans 3:28; 4:1-16), in Christ alone (John 14:6). But a true faith does not stay alone, it should result in change, fruit, good works, and deeper levels of repentance and hatred of my own sins of selfishness and pride. I am not better than you! I still make mistakes and sin, but the Lord is working on me, conforming me to His character. (Romans 8:28-29; 2 Corinthians 3:16-18) When I do sin, I hate the sin as it is an affront to God, and seek His forgiveness in repentance. (Mark 1:15; 2 Corinthians 7:7-10; Colossians 3:5-16 ) Praise God for His love for sinners (Romans 5:8), shown by the voluntary coming of Christ and His freely laying down His life for us (John 10:18), becoming flesh/human (John 1:1-5; 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8), dying for sins of people from all nations, tribes, and cultures (Revelation 5:9), on the cross, in history, rising from the dead (Romans 10:9-10; Matthew 28, Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24; John 20-21; 1 Corinthians chapter 15). His resurrection from the dead proved that Jesus is the Messiah, the eternal Son of God, the word of God from eternity past; and that He was all the gospels say He was and that He is truth and the life and the way to salvation. (John 14:6)
This entry was posted in Apologetics, church history, Islam, Muslims, Paul Bilal Williams, Reliability of the Bible. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Why is the Average Muslim not told about these things?

  1. Sam Shamoun says:

    Brother Ken, I saw your question regarding the hadith calling Allah a person. Here you go:

    http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/badawi/shakhs.html
    http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zawadi/allah_shakhs.html

    Let me know what you think.

  2. Ken Temple says:

    Thank you Sam – I had forgotten about your articles on the issue of شخص – I think I saw them before. But now I have more details on this issue. I am going to read them again more carefully and want to make more comments about that.

    Thanks for keeping up with what is going on at Paul Williams site. He is one that I wish that would agree to debate Dr. White, since the other Muslims who are probably the best of the debators have debated him – Shabir Ally, Bassam Zawadi, Abdullah Kunde, Abdullah Al Andolousi. In my opinion those are top 5 of their side, in content, style and demeanor.

  3. Sam Shamoun says:

    Hey brother, I just saw that Erik posted more lies and misinformation over at Paul’s blog since the writes concerning the Didache:

    “Interestingly “Lord” in the Didache is reserved usually for “God”, while Jesus is called “the servant” of the Father.
    See — Aaron Milavec, The Didache: faith, hope, & life of the earliest Christian communities, 50-70 C.E”

    Let me implode this lie by citing one of the very scholars that Williams loves, namely Geza Vermes, from the very book that he highly recommends ():

    “The vocabulary is immediately revealing. Paul was on the point of calling Jesus God [sic]: where does the Didache stand in this respect? The term ‘God’, once called in a definitely Jewish way the ‘God of David’ (Did. 10.6), appears ten times in the work. However, Jesus is never identified as God. The divine name ‘Father’ or ‘our Father’ also figures ten times, but God is never designated specifically the Father of Jesus. There is no equivocation with the title ‘Lord’. It is encountered twenty times, ALWAYS RELATING TO JESUS, NEVER TO THE HEAVENLY FATHER.

    “Still with the focus on the vocabulary, in the whole sixteen chapters of the Didache, containing roughly 2,000 words, the title ‘Christ’ is nowhere mentioned on its own, nor is the messiahship of Jesus anywhere stressed. This absence of the messianic, which distinguishes the Didache even from the primitive Christology of the Acts of the Apostles, is in harmony with the unwillingness of the historical Jesus to accept the designation Christ/Messiah (see Chapter 2, p. 50). The combined title ‘Jesus Christ’ appears only once in the benediction formula, ‘For the glory and the power is yours through Jesus Christ for ever’ (Did. 9.4), where ‘Christ’ may have been quasi-automatically appended to ‘Jesus’ in the course of the transmission of the Didache in antiquity. It must also be underlined that the Didache completely avoids the use of ‘Son’ or ‘Son of God’ in relation to Jesus. The idiom ‘Son of God’, as has been observed, is found only once, where it is the self-designation of the Antichrist, the ‘seducer of the world’ (Did. 16.4).” (Vermes, Christian Beginnings: From Nazareth to Nicaea, AD 30-325, p. 146: http://bloggingtheology.wordpress.com/2012/10/05/6694/; capital, italic, and underline emphasis ours)

    And here is what I wrote in regards to this quotation:

    “If we were to employ the interpretive methodology of Williams and Vermes we would be forced to conclude that the compiler(s) of the Didache not only didn’t hold to the Deity of Jesus, he/they didn’t even think that Jesus is the Christ/Messiah, or that God the Father is Lord!

    “This in itself sufficiently highlights the problem with arguing from silence which is what Vermes has basically done, i.e. just because the Didache doesn’t explicitly mention the vicarious nature of Christ’s death or speak of his prehuman existence as the eternal Logos/Word, doesn’t mean that the author(s) didn’t hold such beliefs or that they somehow held to a less developed Christology. On the contrary, he/they did believe such doctrines, as we shall see a little later.

    “More importantly, these statements from the Didache are in direct opposition to the teachings of the Quran, which states that Allah would never allow for any prophet to be served and addressed as Lord:”

    For more details you may be interested in reading my lengthy exposition of the Didache which shows how this early document obliterates Islam:

    http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/williams/didache1.html
    http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/williams/didache2.html
    http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/williams/didache3.html
    http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/williams/didache4.html

    Lord bless.

  4. Sam Shamoun says:

    Hey Brother Ken,

    I see the Muslims are trying to pull a fast one over you concerning the Quran’s relationship to the Holy Bible. Here are some articles explaining what the word muhaymin actually means in the context of the Quran:

    http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/muhaimin.htm

    http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/muhaymin2.htm

    http://answering-islam.org/authors/alfadi/quran_preserver.html

    Hope these help.

    • Ken Temple says:

      Thanks brother Sam,
      those are all excellent and I have read some of them in the past. I appreciate you helping me and pointing me to that material. The ones on Shakhs شخص and Uqnoom اقنوم for hypostasis are very important. Not many people know about the issue of “uqnoom” اقنوم and that it is a foreign word that came into Arabic (and also Farsi) from Syriac and, and it seems to be from the Greek γνομη , which means “will, opinion, judgment, mind, desire, inclination” which are all terms that point to personhood, which seems to be a good translation. I have talked to some Eastern Orthodox folks who agree with me on that.

      Thanks for all your hard work; and keep sending me any thing that you think is helpful.

  5. Sam Shamoun says:

    Brother Ken,

    I see that Williams has posted a chart misrepresenting the Biblical teach concerning marriage:

    Here are the responses to some of this garbage:

    http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm

    http://christianthinktank.com/remarkable.html

    And here are links where I prove from the Quran and hadiths that Muhammad permitted his men to rape and commit adultery with captive women whose husbands were still married, allowed his men to prostitute women under the guise of temporary marriages, and turned paradise into a place of perpetual orgies:

    http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/permit_lust.html

    http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/women_in_islam3.htm

    http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zawadi/inconsistent2.html

    http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zawadi/inconsistent1.html

    And here is a link refuting his chart on the Islamic and Christian views of Jesus:

    http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/williams/messiah_world.html

    Enjoy!

  6. Sam Shamoun says:

    BTW, here is another article respond to the gross lie that the Bible forces a woman to marry her rapist: http://answering-islam.org/authors/rogers/rebuttals/zaatari/rapist.html

  7. Uthman rahimullah says:

    Why are average Muslims not told these things?

    1. The Qur’an has textual variants and at least 3 different streams of evidences of variants between the texts of 1. Ubai Ibn Kaab, 2. Ibn Masood and 3. Uthman

    The matter is muslim has been brainwashed to believe all three have no differences , and always stupidly indoctrinated that it’s only a matter of DIALECT.

    For example, all muslim scholars agree unanimously Ibn Masud didn’t put Surah Fatiha as part of Quran within his mushaf, despite Masud is in fact the sole referential of the most Authentic and UPDATED Quran according to the Sunnah of the Prophet ; Whoever WANTS TO READ THE Qur’an as FRESH AS WHEN IT WAS REVEALED, then let him READ ACCORDING TO THE RECITATION of Ibn Umm Abd(Mas’ud).” [Mustadrak al-Haakim (2/246) No. 2893, ad-Dhahabee Classified it SAHEEH]

    Apparently Surah Al-Fatiha is the most controversial and ambiguous Chapter within the Quran


    REJECTING ONE WHOLE ENTIRE VERSE FROM QURAN IS NOT DIALECT DIFFERENCES

    –One side of Sunni ACCEPTS Basmalah as VERSE(AYAH) from Allah within Chapter of Fatiha
    –Other side of Suni REJECTS Basmalah as VERSE(AYAH)from Allah within Chapter of Fatiha

    Then do they not reflect upon the Qur’an? If it had been from [any] other than Allah , they would have found within it much contradiction(S4:82)

    This means by Quran own standard, Quran itself is NOT from Allah because of this Basmalah’s contradiction

    Even worst:
    While those who disbelieved and DENIED Our VERSES /revelations(BI-AYATTINAA), for them will be a shameful doom”(S22:57)

    And none REJECT Our VERSES except the DISBELIEVERS (S29:47)

    Sunni Muslims in a whole have directly violated Quran S22:57 and S29:47 for tolerating The Maliki Sunnis and Meccan&Medinan Imams who REJECT BASMALAH AS VERSE FROM ALLAH within Chapter of Fatiha.

    However since they believe in ‘abrogation’ then this means HUMAN CONSENSUS CAN ABROGATE QURAN (S22:57, S29:47)

    From every angle we can see Quran is not the word of God.
    .

    • Ken Temple says:

      Uthman Rahimullah – I am just curious – are you a Christian, and/or former Muslim? or agnostic or what?

      Sorry I have not been able to keep up with all your materials and responses with the Muslim who goes by θ.

  8. θ says:

    “Uthman rahimullah says: HUMAN CONSENSUS CAN ABROGATE QURAN”

    All fallible scholars who just have a very brief time – less than 100 years – to learn and to live, can never afford to recollect so many rich knowledge of Islam since 1,400 years ago, let alone to abrogate Qur’an.
    If Hadith were to abrogate Qur’an, then the scholars must have placed at least Hadith of Bukhari and Muslim into certain chapters and verses in Qur’an.
    Why?
    Because the Abrogation Theory makes it obligatory for both the abrogated verses and the new abrogating “verses” to be placed altogether in Qur’an.

  9. Uthman rahimullah says:

    ++All fallible scholars who just have a very brief time+++

    While those who disbelieved and DENIED Our VERSES /revelations(BI-AYATTINAA), for them will be a shameful doom”(S22:57)

    And none REJECT Our VERSES except the DISBELIEVERS (S29:47)

    You yourself don’t have any any gut to apply the above verses toward the Maliki Sunnis who REJECT A VERSE within A Chapter in Quran

    You are fully aware there has been CONSENSUS TO SOFTLY ABROGATE S22:57 & S29:47, because THE OPTIONS EITHER YOU VIOLATE QURAN CONSCIOUSLY OR ABROGATE IT TO JUSTIFY YOUR TOLERANCE TOWARD THE MALIKI SUNNIS

  10. θ says:

    “Article says: Mary the mother of Jesus with Maryam, the sister of Aaron and Moses in the OT?”

    1. Literal person Aaron.
    Muslim apologists postulated there’s an elder man Aaron whose daughter is Elizabeth, and whose younger sister is Mary.
    Thus, the postulate supports the assertion that “sister of Aaron” was literal.
    Whenever “sister” is used in Qur’an or Hadith in relation to people, it relates to someone alive.

    The term “sister of Aaron” is understood as literal by the people that heard it.
    Qur’an, Hadith, the NT Bible, the NT apocrypha, other Christian source materials, never use the idiom “sister of saint” when relating people to the ancestor.

    2. Idiom of Patronymic.
    The evidence shows that Prophet Muhammad was familiar with the correct idiom used by the Tanach when he wanted to relate a living person to ancestors or saints before.

    Q.19, v.28. 0, sister of Aaron, Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste.

    According the Bible, Elisabeth is a “daughter of Aaron”, even though Aaron has no daughter at all.
    If it were taken literally, it must have been anachronism of the Bible.

    Luke.1:5. His wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.

    This patronymic case is similar with the Old Testament style of record on the life of Hodiah, who is called “sister of Naham”, a father of old city Keilah.
    Hodiah (one of the two wives of Ezra, 480–440 BCE) lived in the time after the end of the 1st Temple, but yet she is called “sister of Naham”, a father of old city Keilah.
    Naham is a dead ancestor. He lived long time before, even several centuries around 1050 BC (about 600 years before Hodiah), during the time of Judah.

    1Chr 4:19. And the sons of his wife Hodiah the sister of Naham, the father of Keilah the Garmite, and Eshtemoa the Maachathite.

    Josh 15:44. And Keilah, and Achzib, and Mareshah; nine cities with their villages:

    Additional information about Hodiah and Keilah:
    //www.htmlbible.com/kjv30/nave/nave2359.htm
    Hodiah ; Also called Hodi-jah.
    1. Wife of Ezra – 1Chr 4:19
    2. A Levite – Neh. 8:7; 9:5; 10:10,13
    3. An Israelitish chief – Neh. 10:18
    Ke-i’-la (qe`ilah; Keeilam):
    A city of the Shephelah mentioned (at Joshua 15:44) along with Nezib, Aehzib and Mareshah. Among those who repaired the walls of Jerusalem was “Hashabiah, the ruler of half the district of Keilah, for his district. After him repaired their brethren, Bavvai the son of Henadad, the ruler of half the district of Keilah” (Nehemiah 3:17,18). A gentilic name applied to Keilah is Garmite.

    Qur’an claims that Mary was a Levite. She stayed in the chamber of the Jerusalem temple under teachings of the High Priest Zechariah.
    Gregory Nazianzen in 3rd century also mentioned similar view:
    //library.catholic.org/view.php?id=12101
    Anna is supposed to have been a descendant of the priestly family of Aaron; thus Christ the Eternal King and Priest sprang from both a royal and priestly family [30].
    //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus
    Some have inferred from this that Mary herself was also a Levite descended from Aaron, and thus kingly and priestly lineages were united in Jesus.[18] Gregory Nazianzen, Carmen 18.

  11. θ says:

    “Article says: Why are average Muslims not told about the Qur’an’s lack of understanding the doctrine of the Trinity ? (Quran 5:115; 5:72-75)”

    Christians of the early Islam equated Allah to the Holy Spirit.
    Q.5, v.73. Certainly, they become disbelievers who say: ‘Allah is the third of the three,’ whereas there is none worthy of worship except the One God.

    Inserting Jesus’ mother into the Trinity is impossible in Islam because Allah is placed as the “third” of the three (Spirit), not Mary.
    Mary is rather the 4th supplement apart from the Trinity. Catholics worshiped her because she is a joint-recipient of worship when the Son is brought into the world via her womb.

    Q.5, v.73. Certainly, they become disbelievers who say: ‘Allah is the third of the three,’ whereas there is none worthy of worship except the One God.
    Spirit is more similar to Allah:
    (i) He doesn’t have a Father nor a man Son.
    (ii) He doesn’t forgive blasphemy.
    (iii) He punishes Paul with sufferings for preaching a false doctrine.
    (iv) He does not need mediator.
    (v) He is called the God, not simply a god.
    Islam rejects the Trinity, so even though Allah is placed upon the status of Spirit (3rd person), Islam doesn’t believe that.

    Decotist Christ – Al-Masih – of Islam.
    A version of Al-Masih taught by Prophet Muhammad is continuation of Jewish Moshiach and Decotist Christ of early Christians of the 1st century. Similar to Decotism, Islam doesn’t deny the event of crucifixion which took place upon the body of someone’s else.

    Decotism is different way of Gnosticism. Early Christians that founded the version of “Decotist Christ” are Peter and Matthias. The later Decotists such as Basilides and Glaucus, attributed the source of Decotism to Peter (Coptic Apocalypse of Peter) and Matthias (Gospel of Matthias).

    According to the record of Philosophoumena, VII.20, Basilides quoted apocryphal discourses that he attributed to Matthias. The Basilidians laid claim to the teachings of the apostle Matthias (Clement, Strom. 7.108; Hippolytus, Haer.7.20.1).
    According to Clementine Recognitions (on discourses involving the apostle Peter), Matthias is Barnabas himself, hence it explains why the story of substitution – Jesus with Judas – also appears in the Gospel of Barnabas that was mentioned in Decretum Gelasianum along with the mentioning of Gospel of Matthias. Gospel of Barnabas and Gospel of Matthias are in same Decotist genre.

  12. θ says:

    “Article says: Why are average Muslims not told that the Qur’an never teaches that the text of the Bible has been corrupted?”

    Please compare 7th century Arabic Injil (which is lost) with the Greek Gospel of John:
    (i) The word “My Father” in Greek Gospel is replaced with “the Lord” in Injil.
    (ii) Passage “Whom I will send” is replaced with “Whom God will send” in Injil.
    (iii) Passage “From the Father” is replaced with “From the Lord’s presence” in Injil.
    (iv) “Even the Spirit” is replaced with “And the Spirit”.
    (v) “Proceedeth from the Father” is replaced with “will have gone forth from the Lord’s presence”.
    (vi) “Not be offended” is replaced with “not be in doubt”.

    Jn 15
    23 He that hateth me hateth my Father also.24 If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.25 But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.26 . But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:27 And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.
    Jn.16
    1. These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended.

    Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, A. Guillaume.
    It is extracted from what John [Yuhannis] the apostle set down for them when he wrote the Gospel for them from the Testamant of Jesus Son of Mary: ‘He that hateth me hateth the Lord. And if I had not done in their presence works which none other before me did, they had not had sin: but from now they are puffed up with pride and think that they will overcome me and also the Lord. But the word that is in the Law must be fulfilled, ‘They hated me without a cause’ (ie. without reason). But when the Comforter [Munahhemana] has come whom God will send to you from the Lord’s presence, and the spirit of truth [ruhu`l-qist] which will have gone forth from the Lord’s presence he (shall bear) witness of me and ye also, because ye have been with me from the beginning. I have spoken unto you about this that you should not be in doubt.’
    “The Munahhemana (God bless and preserve him!) in Syriac is Muhammad; in Greek he is the Paraclete [Albaraqlitis ]”
    So Heraclius ordered the Roman generals [who were Christians] to assemble in a room and commanded that the doors should be fastened. Then he looked down on them from an upper chamber (for he was afraid of them) and said: “O Romans, I have brought you together for a good purpose. This man [i.e. Muhammad] has written me a letter summoning me to his religion.
    By God, he is truly the prophet whom we expect and find in our books, so come and let us follow him and believe in him that it may be well with us in this world and the next.”

  13. θ says:

    “Article says: Why are average Muslims not told that some of the stories about Jesus in the Qur’an are obviously from Aprocyphal gospels and heretics? (like the Infancy Gospel of Thomas) and why are they not told that some other stories come from fables and legends? (like the Cave of the Seven Sleepers ?)”

    Jude borrowed his ideas from the “uninspired books”: Assumption of Moses (v.9) and the Book of Enoch (v.14-15), so this proves that the Apocryphal books can contain the canonical truth in them.
    In the Old Testament, God even speaks the truth through a donkey (Num. 22:28), hence the truth is truth, no matter where it is found.

    Paul quotes the unknown words of Jesus, which were not contained in the four Canonical Gospels (Acts 20:35), so it shows that some citations of the Apocryphal sources can be inserted or accepted as canon.

    Paul quotes 2 Greek poets Cleanthes or Epimenides and Aratus (Acts 17:28), cites Menander (1 Cor. 15:33), affirms a statement of Epimenides (Titus 1:12-13), even shockingly refers to “Jannes and Jambres” who were not mentioned anywhere else in the Tanach (2 Tim. 3:8).

Comments are closed.