Earliest Islamic biographer of Muhammad’s life affirms that John the apostle of Jesus and eyewitness of the crucifixion and resurrection, was the human writer of the fourth gospel

Manuscript p52, the John Rylands fragment, from John chapter 18, dated around 120 AD.

Eric, a Muslim wrote:  (in the comboxes of Paul Bilal Williams blog) [ No longer there, as Paul B. Williams has changed his blogs several times over the last few years.]

I wonder how can a piece of literature which is not authored either by God, Jesus (p) or his disciples became ultimately accepted as the word of God by lay Christians and It is now the favorite gospel of many Christians…?

Ibn Ishaq, (died around 767 AD), who wrote the oldest biography (called the “Sira” or “Sirat” سیره  or  سیرت ) of the prophet of Islam, quotes John 15:23-16:1 and says that it is taken from the Gospel (Injeel) of Jesus Al Masih, which the apostle John wrote down for Jesus’ followers, without a word of it being corrupted or unreliable!  Ibn Ishaq affirms the apostle John as the author of the fourth gospel. (see below)

How is it accepted as the word of God?  Because the final product, which goes back to either 69 AD or 80-96 AD, with evidence of manuscript P-52 from 120 AD, – because the words, the written words are “God-breathed” – “all Scripture is God-breathed” (2 Tim. 3:16).

John himself tells us this – in John chapters 14 and 16 – that the Holy Spirit will lead them and guide them into all the truth; that is the Holy Spirit give inspire the words that will write down in the future.    Since the Holy Spirit is God, the Spirit of Truth, it was authored by God, testified by Jesus there in John 14 and 16, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit guiding the writers of the 27 books of the NT.  Many conservative scholars believe the apostle John wrote the gospel of John (so Paul B. Williams is wrong to keep on writing things like, “all scholars reject John the apostle as the author of the fourth gospel”);  There are other conservative scholars who believe that a student or students of John may have written the final product.  Either way, it is all still through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Sprit of Truth.

A bigger problem for Paul Bilal Williams and Eric and other Muslims who try to cast doubt on the gospel of John is that the oldest extant document on Muhammad’s life clearly says that John’s Gospel is the very Gospel which God revealed to Jesus, and was written down by his faithful, believing disciple!  Since the Qur’an says the disciples of Jesus were true believers and helpers of God, and that they would be victorious until the day of resurrection; then, it is wrong for Muslims to accuse them, or a student of them, of corrupting the gospel. (Surah 3:52, 55; 61:14)

“Among the things which have reached me about what Jesus the Son of Mary stated in the Gospel which he received from God for the followers of the Gospel, in applying a term to describe the apostle of God, is the following. It is extracted from what John the apostle set down for them when he wrote the gospel for them from the testament 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 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” (i.e. without reason). But when the Comforter has come whom God will send to you from the Lord’s presence, and the spirit of truth 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 ye should not be in doubt.’

“The Munahhemana (God bless and preserve him!) in Syriac is Muhammad; in Greek he is the paraclete.”

The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, with introduction and notes by Alfred Guillaume [Oxford University Press, Karachi, Tenth impression 1995], pp. 103-104)

There is no textual variant evidence nor any contextual evidence, nor any logical thought evidence in the gospel of John that Muhammad was the “paraclete”.  Only the Holy Spirit, who would indwell the followers of Jesus, “He will be in you”.  (John 14:17) The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth, the Helper, and comforter, counselor, the 3rd person of the Trinity.  (John 14:16-17, 26; 15:26; 16:12-15), not Muhammad, who was just a man.

But, even with that popular Muslim claim, Ibn Ishaq still affirms the gospel of John as written by the apostle John!

Ibn Ishaq, the oldest biographer of the prophet of Islam, quotes John 15:23-16:1 and says that it is taken from the Gospel (Injeel) of Jesus Al Masih, which John wrote down for Jesus’ followers, without a word of it being corrupted or unreliable!

For more defense of the gospel according to John, see here.  Thanks to Sam Shamoun, who wrote an excellent article defending the gospels and the gospel of John, who first showed me the Ibn Ishaq passage -the affirmation of the apostle John by an early Muslim.

Addendum:  June 1, 2013

Paul Bilal Williams responded to my article here in the com-box and also at his web-blog.  Paul Williams –
If you read my entire article, I gave credit to Sam Shamoun for him showing me the Ibn Ishaq passage (in the earlier article about defending the Gospel according to John)  and his defense of the gospel of John. (Thanks again, Sam for that, and for all the other articles and valuable information!)

The biggest problem with your rebuttal, Paul B. Williams, is that there is no textual evidence, not even a little – of any change from a non-existent and imaginary and speculation and 600 – 700 year later anachronistic περικλυτος (periklutos) = “exalted one”, “praised one” as somehow in the original teaching of Jesus Al Masih, to παρακλητος (parakletos) = “comforter”, “helper”, “counselor”, “advocate”, the only word used in all Greek manuscript evidence that we have in many copies of the gospel of John.

Raymond Brown does not tie that anachronistic and 600-700 year late Islamic theory to his five stage redaction theory at all.  (Paul Williams mentions a “four phase” redaction theory of Raymond Brown, but Dan Wallace mentions a “five stage” redaction theory of Raymond Brown here at this article on the Gospel of John here:

http://bible.org/seriespage/gospel-john-introduction-argument-outline

so, it is possible that Raymond Brown changed his theory in other books. )

Furthermore, there is just too much evidence in the context of John 14, 15, and 16 and John 7:37-39, and all the connections with what the rest of the New Testament says about the Holy Spirit and believers in Jesus that make the Muslim claim that parakletos is about a human being coming 600 years later in Arabia and claiming to bring a message from God – and then that message contradicts the message of John’s Gospel and the rest of the NT – there is just too much on our side to make the Islamic argument a joke. John 14:16-17 alone defeats the entire Islamic argument and shows the Quran 61:6 to be completely false.

Furthermore, your way of dismissing 2 Timothy 3:16 is typical, but you are not up on good Evangelical scholarly responses to the issue.

George Knight III, in his commentary on The Pastoral Epistles and William Hendrickson in his commentary, demonstrate that 2 Timothy 3:16 and the phrase “all Scripture is God-breathed” is Paul’s way of expanding what he mentions in verse 15, which is the OT, to include all of the NT and even those books that were not written yet when Paul wrote 2 Timothy around 65 -67 AD, before he was executed by Nero. Because of what Paul says about his own message in other books, such as I Corinthians and 1 Thessalonians, etc. and his quote of Luke 10:7 and Matthew 10:7 in 1 Timothy 5:18 as “Scripture”, in parallel with a quote from the OT, Paul is saying that all his writings are Scripture and God-breathed, along with the gospels. Peter as an eyewitness and apostle of Jesus also affirms all of Paul’s writings as Scripture in 2 Peter 3:16. If John’s writings all come before 70 AD also, and Jude was the last book written that says “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (verse 3), then it is not unreasonable to see how 2 Timothy 3:16 teaches that all of the NT 27 books are envisioned here as “God-breathed”. It is too much to retype for me now, (because of time constraints) but I hope, Lord willing, to in the future, provide the details and argumentation.

So, the point still stands, Ibn Ishaq still affirmed the gospel of John as written by the disciple, apostle, and eyewitness of Jesus’ life and ministry and His crucifixion and resurrection.

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, Gospel according to John, Islam, Muslims, Paul Bilal Williams, Reliability of the Bible. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to Earliest Islamic biographer of Muhammad’s life affirms that John the apostle of Jesus and eyewitness of the crucifixion and resurrection, was the human writer of the fourth gospel

  1. Pingback: A response to comments made concerning John’s gospel and Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah | Exploring Life, The Universe and Everything

  2. Sam Shamoun says:

    Hey Ken, I just saw Williams’ pathetic rebuttal to you. Lord willing, I plan to obliterate is weak and desperate response in the not so distant future. In fact, I already have, albeit indirectly.

    Here is my response to his rather sad argument that the Quran’s denial of the crucifixion this somehow means it doesn’t endorse the Bible: http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/preserved-crucifixion.htm

    And here is obliteration of his bildfaced like that John’s Gospel doesn’t claim to be the Word of God or that 2 Timothy 3:16 cannot be referring to the inspiration of the Gospels:

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

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

    Please read these and tell me what you think.

    • Ken Temple says:

      the typos he refers to are not in my article, but in his com-box comment –
      “bildfaced like”

      was obviously meant to be

      “bold-faced lie”

      Sam,
      You are right – Paul B. Williams’ response is pathetic and weak – as is all Islamic arguments trying to claim that Muhammad was in John 14 and 16, along with the goofy argument that he is talked about in Song of Solomon and the obvious wrong argument of trying to find Muhammad in Deut. 18.

      Thanks again for all your articles – I wish I had the time to read them all.

  3. Sam Shamoun says:

    Sorry for all the typos.

    • Ken Temple says:

      Paul Williams –
      If you read my entire article, I have credit to Sam Shamoun for him showing me the Ibn Ishaq passage and his defense of the gospel of John. (Thanks again, Sam for that, and for all the other articles and valuable information!)

      The biggest problem with your rebuttal, Paul, is that there is no textual evidence, not even a little – of any change from παρακλητος (parakletos) = “comforter”, “helper”, “counselor”, “advocate” to περικλυτος (periklutos) = “exalted one”, “praised one”. Raymond Brown does not tie that anachronistic and 600-700 year late Islamic theory to his five stage redaction theory at all.

      Furthermore, there is just too much evidence in the context of John 14, 15, and 16 and John 7:37-39, and all the connections with what the rest of the New Testament says about the Holy Spirit and believers in Jesus that make the Muslim claim that parakletos is about a human being coming 600 years later in Arabia and claiming to bring a message from God – and then that message contradicts the message of John’s Gospel and the rest of the NT – there is just too much on our side to make the Islamic argument a joke. John 14:16-17 alone defeats the entire Islamic argument and shows the Quran 61:6 to be completely false.

      Furthermore, your way of dismissing 2 Timothy 3:16 is typical, but you are not up on good Evangelical scholarly responses to the issue.

      George Knight III, in his commentary on The Pastoral Epistles and William Hendrickson in his commentary, demonstrate that 2 Timothy 3:16 and the phrase “all Scripture is God-breathed” is Paul’s way of expanding what he mentions in verse 15, which is the OT, to include all of the NT and even those books that were not written yet when Paul wrote 2 Timothy around 65 -67 AD, before he was executed by Nero. Because of what Paul says about his own message in other books, such as I Corinthians and 1 Thessalonians, etc. and his quote of Luke 10:7 and Matthew 10:7 in 1 Timothy 5:18 as “Scripture”, in parallel with a quote from the OT, Paul is saying that all his writings are Scripture and God-breathed, along with the gospels. Peter as an eyewitness and apostle of Jesus also affirms all of Paul’s writings as Scripture in 2 Peter 3:16. If John’s writings all come before 70 AD also, and Jude was the last book written that says “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (verse 3), then it is not unreasonable to see how 2 Timothy 3:16 teaches that all of the NT 27 books are envisioned here as “God-breathed”. It is too much to retype for me now, (because of time constraints) but I hope, Lord willing, to in the future, provide the details and argumentation.

      So Ibn Ishaq still affirmed the gospel of John as written by the disciple, apostle, and eyewitness of Jesus’ life and ministry and His crucifixion and resurrection.

  4. Ken Temple says:

    “I have credit to Sam Shamoun”, should have been, “I gave credit to Sam Shamoun”

    Another mistake – I am human in typos and thought process.

    Should have been:

    The biggest problem with your rebuttal, Paul, is that there is no textual evidence, not even a little – of any change from a non-existent and imaginary and speculation and 600 – 700 year later anachronistic περικλυτος (periklutos) = “exalted one”, “praised one” as somehow in the original teaching of Jesus Al Masih, to παρακλητος (parakletos) = “comforter”, “helper”, “counselor”, “advocate”, the only word used in all Greek manuscript evidence that we have in many copies of the gospel of John.

    Raymond Brown does not tie that anachronistic and 600-700 year late Islamic theory to his five stage redaction theory at all.

  5. Sam Shamoun says:

    Brother Ken, here are a few more rebuttals to Williams’ where I even use Muhammad Asad’s own definition of the Arabic phrase ma bayna yadayhi against Williams:

    http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/williams/quran_on_bible1.html

    http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/williams/quran_on_bible2.html

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

    Lord willing, we still have a second rebuttal to Ms. Kurd’s feeble attempt of a response which will be appearing in the not so distant future. So enjoy!

  6. Ken Temple says:

    Excellent.
    Who is Ms. Kurd?

  7. Sam Shamoun says:

    Brother Ken, if you click on the last link you will see that Ms. Kurd is a professor that Williams contacted to help save him since he knew he was out of his league and couldn’t defend Asad’s assertions. Suffice it to say, Kurd’s statements showed that she was dealing with issues way out of her league as well. So enjoy.

  8. Seeker says:

    Since I am banned from Paul Williams blog for being a Bigoted Right Wing Fundamentalist Christian. I thought I would say this here. Great Job Ken, and yes Sam Shamoun does provide excellent resources. As a matter of fact you know you have given the Muslim a good solid thump when their only response is “you got that from Sam Shamoun.

    • Ken Temple says:

      Thanks Seeker – Paul W. calls me those names too. I think he banned me temporarily a couple of times (my comments wouldn’t go through for a while, a while back); but I tried again after waiting a while and he allowed me to come back, so maybe he will let you back.

  9. Ken Temple says:

    You still have several big problems:
    1. There is no textual evidence for your theory.
    2. You cannot use a foreign language translation (Syriac) (what Ibn Ishaq did, but avoided quoting from those sections about the “Holy Spirit being in you”, etc. ) of 100-200 years later to base an argument, when the original is in Greek.
    3. The context of the verses in John 14, 15, and 16 about the Holy Spirit and being “in” the disciples and all the other hundreds of verses about who the Holy Spirit is in the rest of the NT (and the OT) is just so overwhelming that it is ridiculous for a thinking Muslim like yourself to see this as a valid argument.
    4. Sometimes the NT authors include Aramaic within the Greek text (especially in Mark – 15:34 and Matthew 27:46 is very famous – Eloi, Eloi, Lama Sabakhtani ? ) “Talitha Cum” – “little girl, I say to you, rise” (Mark 5:41) There are others – John does that also, for example when he uses “Messiah” and says “which is translated “Christos” (John 1:41 and 4:25) John the disciple and apostle of Jesus also should have done that for us in John 14, 15, or 16 if he had intended to prophesy about Muhammad, or at least we would have lots of evidence of changes about the Holy Spirit (non physical being) and being “in” you, etc. to show it was about another human prophet in the future – but 600 years later is too late for those disciples in John 14, 16 and that alone destroys the Islamic argument, since the rest of the NT shows it was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2, see also John 7:37-39; Acts 1:8; I Cor. 6:19-20; Romans 5:5; 8:9, Ephesians 1:12-14; 5:18; Galatians chapter 3, chapter 5, etc. )
    If what Islam and the Qur’an claims is true (Surah 7:157) – that Muhammad is mentioned in the Torah and Injeel, we would have more evidence of that in both textual evidence and contextual evidence. As it is, there is zero evidence for that theory.
    5. Raymond Brown would certainly disagree with your theory of taking something from 600 and 700 years later and reading it anachronistically back into the period of oral tradition and preaching between 30 -48 AD when the NT started to be written.

    Your argument fails big time. It is surprising that a thinking person like yourself would believe that argument, and other Islamic arguments that try to use Deut. 18 and Song of Solomon 5:16 as somehow about Muhammad. Those arguments alone should cause you to doubt all of Islam and the decision you made.

  10. Sam Shamoun says:

    Brother Ken, the Quran itself refutes Williams’ silly and desperate appeal to the second stage of a proposed four phase development, a theory which didn’t come into existence until the 20th century and would have therefore been utterly unknown to Muhammad, for which there is not a single shred of textual or historical evidence to support it. Notice what the Quran says carefully:

    “Those who follow the messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, whom they will find described in the Torah and the Gospel (which are) WITH THEM…” S. 7:157 Pickthall

    The verse refers to the Torah and Gospel which were with the Jews and Christians AT MUHAMMAD’S TIME.

    Now Ken do you really think that Muhammad was referring to the second phase of Brown’s hypothetical four phases or stages, for which no textual or historical evidence exists? Or do you think Muhammad had in mind the Scriptures which were being read by the Jews and Christians of his day? We all know the answer. So here is my question to you Ken. On the basis of the textual, historical and archaeological data, can and do we know what the Gospel was during that time? I think you know the answer since Ibn Ishaq even identified that Gospel for us.

    You see now why I said that Williams’ reply is desperate and that I plan on decimating it by the grace of God to show once again that he has no concern for truth or consistency.

  11. Ken Temple says:

    As usual, you are correct Sam – the Qur’an confirms the Bible of the time of Muhammad, Thanks for that, an additional point; point # 6 – “that is with them” at that time around 650-750 AD. Good one!

  12. Sam Shamoun says:

    Brother Ken, Wallace isn’t the only one to speak of Brown’s five-stage hypothesis to formation of John’s Gospel. Even Shabir Ally brings that up in his debates. To make this all the more hilarious, Bassam Zawadi quotes Brown’s Introduction to the New Testament to prove that the Gospel of John went through three stages!

    Raymond Brown agrees with the view that the Beloved Disciple was a minor figure during Jesus’ (peace be upon him) ministry and was too unimportant to be remembered in the official synoptic tradition (p. 369). After a discussion on this issue he concludes (p. 371):

    “Such development may be explained best if tradition about Jesus stemming from the Beloved Disciple has been reflected upon over many years and expanded in the light of Johannine community experiences. Beginning with the acceptance of Jesus as the final prophet and the Messiah of Jewish expectations (1:40-49), the tradition has gone on to “greater things” (1:50) … The Beloved Disciple may have lived through the historical development of the community … and so there may have been a certain symbiosis between him and the Gospel that committed to writing a tradition that not only had its roots in his experience of Jesus but also embodied decades of ongoing reflection on that experience. The evangelist, who wove the theologically reflected tradition into a work of unique literary skill, would presumably have been a disciple of the Beloved Disciple, about whom he writes in the third person. And the redactor, if there was one, may have been another disciple. (Raymond E. Brown, S.S, An Introduction To The New Testament (The Anchor Bible Reference Library), 1997, Doubleday)

    Thus, we see that there were three stages in the authorship of the Gospel of John:

    1. The disciple of Jesus (peace be upon him) – his memories.
    2. The community then adds its own interpretive take on it.
    3. The redactor(s) who then gives the product the final touches.

    So these are the three stages of production of the fourth Gospel. The end product – the gospel as we have it – is not simply the work of Jesus’ (peace be upon him) apostle. While it may contain elements which ultimately go to the apostle, it also consists of later elaborations of the community and the work of the redactor(s).” http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/is_the_trinity_logically_coherent_in_light_of_biblical_teachings__part_2__a_rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun

    Isn’t sad that these Muslim polemicists can’t even get their lies… err, I mean, facts straight? 😉

    Anyway, if you can ignore Brown’s fanciful theories which he manufactures out of thin air, and his liberal biases and presuppositions which affect his handling of the Biblical text, then you should enjoy his introduction. In fact, you know what makes this rather ironic? Brown actually defends the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles in his introduction! You can read my article where I provide a lengthy quote from his book proving this: http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/bravo_r3a.htm

    In light of this, do you think Williams will change his position and agree with Brown that Paul did write 1 and 2 Timothy along with Titus? If not, why not when he literally swears by Brown’s Introduction as if it were the fifth Gospel? You and I know both know the answer to that question since Williams is not interested in consistency or truth, but is only interested in using the most liberal and destructive criticisms of the Holy Bible in his crusade (better yet, jihad) against Christianity.

    I hope that all of these articles and information will prove to be a blessing to you my brother. Please keep me and my family in your prayers always.

  13. Sam Shamoun says:

    Williams, because you seek to imitate your prophet’s sunna and therefore choose to be illiterate CAN YOU PLEASE QUOTE WHERE I EVER SAID THAT BROWN DIDN’T SAY THERE WERE FOUR STAGES? Moreover, can you deny the fact that your fellow ikhwaan Zawadi and Ally attributed different stages to Brown? So now you got busted for perverting my words, just like you do with everything and everyone else.

  14. Sam Shamoun says:

    Your comment concerning Brown not dissenting with the majority in regards to the PE shows that you do not know how to lie straight since this is what you yourself wrote in one of your own blog posts:

    BEGIN
    Paul Williams
    December 23, 2011 at 5:55 am

    ‘Raymond Brown is a liberal Roman Catholic and was wrong on saying that Paul didn’t write 1-2 Timothy and Titus.’

    I NEVER SAID RAYMOND BROWN CLAIMED PAUL DIDN’T WRITE 1 Timothy, I quoted him saying that “80-90% of critical scholarship” believe that the work is a late first century (or early second century) forgery.

    secondly, for all your endless quotes from Paul (who never met Jesus) it remains the case that you believe that a human sacrifice atones for our sins.. This is morally grotesque.
    END

    Source: http://bloggingtheology.wordpress.com/2011/12/22/how-good-logic-leads-to-good-theology/#comment-2429

    So the readers can see the context of your reply here, you stated this in response to the following comment MADE BY KEN!

    “Paul was a true apostle of Jesus Christ and wrote inspired Scripture. Raymond Brown is a liberal Roman Catholic and was wrong on saying that Paul didn’t write 1-2 Timothy and Titus.”

    Because you can’t keep your lies straight, here you say that Brown didn’t go against the majority, but in your above post you deny saying that Brown rejected Pauline authorship of the PE. http://bloggingtheology.wordpress.com/2011/12/22/how-good-logic-leads-to-good-theology/#comment-2428

    Now do I really need to post the quotation from my article where Brown refutes the 12 reasons which liberal scholars raise against Pauline authorship in order to further embarrass you? it will be my pleasure to do so.

    Williams this is the real reason why you won’t debate me since you realize that I will subject you to major embarrassment by decimating your lies and blasphemies against the faith by the grace of the Lord Jesus.

  15. Ken Temple says:

    Yeah, the way Williams framed his section on Raymond Brown’s comments on the Pastoral Epistles, it looks like he was saying that he also agrees with the liberal scholarship that denies the apostle Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles.

    It appears that Raymond Brown changed his theory from “5 stages” (in his commentary on John) to “4 stages” – since Paul Williams is quoting from his last book written before he died. D. A. Carson also mentions his “5 stage theory” (like Dan Wallace), and Carson’s commentary on John and interaction is based on R. Brown’s works pre-1991.

    It is interesting and hypocritical that Paul Bilal Williams won’t debate you or Dr. White – 2 people who have studied intensely, and read widely, and are familiar with lots of Hadith and have read lots of liberal scholarship, and quote people like Dunn and Ehrman and Raymond Brown in their apologetics and articles; while at the same time calling us all backwards fundamentalists – he only engages someone until he runs up against a wall, and cannot answer our questions. When he cannot answer my sincere questions, he moderates my comments and deletes them so that they don’t go through. Interesting and hypocritical.

  16. Ken Temple says:

    Really ?
    You guys need to set that up NOW.

  17. Ken Temple says:

    I wrote my above post before I saw Paul Williams latest post.

    If you will debate Sam Shamoun, why won’t you debate James White?

  18. 96of98 says:

    Paul Williams debating Sam Shamoun, that would be a excellent debate. I wonder if Paul Williams would also debate Anthony Rogers

  19. Sam Shamoun says:

    Ken, he is lying through his teeth. What he means is that he will debate on the condition that I get a doctor’s note saying that I am mentally stable to debate. So he is mocking and belittling me as always. Ask himself yourself if this isn’t his condition which he insists I meet in order for me to debate him.

    • Ken Temple says:

      Oh yeah; I remember that now; I think he said that at the other blog, that I contribute to, “Beggars All Reformation”. Bummer.

      I wish he would put his money where his mouth his and debate both you and Dr. White and Jay Smith and David Wood and Anthony Rogers and Samuel Green over a period of 2 years with several months in between for preparation.

  20. Pingback: Debate: “Is Jesus only a prophet or is He also God?” (Sam Shamoun vs. Anjem Choudary) | Apologetics and Agape

  21. θ says:

    Hopefully, Sam Shamoun will prove to be a man of integrity and do the honest thing by rejecting his stance on incorruptible Gospel. After all, if he is going to consistently apply his own criticisms of the Holy Bible to the Qur’an then he has no choice but to abandon Christianity and stop being a Christian. Maybe he would try being an atheist or Buddhist or else, but it is his choice.

    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.”

Comments are closed.