16
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
17
GENERAL TOPICS | BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS / Concept of salvation between Islam and Christianity:
« on: February 24, 2020, 02:16:22 PM »Concept of salvation between Islam and Christianity:
This article shall compare the concept of salvation between Islam and Christianity. It shall discuss how Muslims and Christians view salvation and which is the right way to God.
Salvation in Islam is by Both Faith and Works:
In Islam, it is neither work alone nor faith alone get man to Paradise. It’s both actually, Allah says in the Quran:
But as for those who believe and do good works, for them are the Gardens of Retreat – a welcome (in reward) for what they used to do.(Sura 32:19)
See, belief is mentioned before good works, because actually good works alone do nothing if they were without belief, and belief without good works is not a serious belief. So actually good works are an indication of belief and that’s why in Islam we are accounted on our good and bad deeds, where bad deeds negate good deeds and the rank of every man in Paradise is dependent on his score of good and bad deeds, so actually good and bad deeds distinguish between believers in Paradise rather than meaning that man shall enter Paradise because of his deeds:
47. And We shall set up balances of justice on the Day of Resurrection, then none will be dealt with unjustly in anything. And if there be the weight of a mustard seed, We will bring it. And Sufficient are We as Reckoners. (Holy Quran 21:47)
Associate this verse with this hadith:
Jabir reported that the Prophet of Islam said: “No good works of yours can ever secure heaven for you, nor can they save you from hell – not even me, without the grace of God.”
God promised us that if we believed and obeyed Him, we shall go to Paradise:
9. Allah has promised those who believe (in the Oneness of Allah – Islamic Monotheism) and do deeds of righteousness, that for them there is forgiveness and a great reward (i.e. Paradise). (Holy Quran 5:9)
God is All Merciful, that’s why He says in the Quran:
160. Whoever comes [on the Day of Judgement] with a good deed will have ten times the like thereof [to his credit], and whoever comes with an evil deed will not be recompensed except the like thereof; and they will not be wronged. (Holy Quran 6:160)
How Did Islam Deal with Sins?
Now concerning sins, what if a man is a sinner? If he repented, God shall forgive him:
110. And whoever does evil or wrongs himself but afterwards seeks Allah’s Forgiveness, he will find Allah Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. (Holy Quran 4:110)
If the sin was against God,then God will forgive him, if the sin was against someone else as murder or insult for example, God won’t forgive it unless the one whom was sinned against forgives the sinner, otherwise, he shall take from his good deeds, if the sinner has no good deeds, he will receive the sins of the one whom he sinned against.
What if the sinner didn’t repent and doesn’t have good works that outweigh these sins?
116. Verily! Allah forgives not (the sin of) setting up partners in worship with Him, but He forgives whom he pleases sins other than that, and whoever sets up partners in worship with Allah, has indeed strayed far away. (Holy Quran 4:116)
The only sin that shall let someone be eternally in Hell is Shirk which is associating partners with Allah and not believing Islam is the right religion. Other sins are either forgiven by God’s mercy or by going to Hell for some time till they are cleaned from the sins and enter Heaven afterwards.
So if they are Muslims even if they are sinners, they shall enter Paradise, but after being cleansed of their sins in Hell.
Faith is Essential, Deeds Distinguish Between People
So simply salvation in Islam is first through faith, so that actually all Muslims shall go to Paradise, based on their deeds, they shall distinguish, some will be in the higher ranks of Heaven, some will be in lower ranks, some shall go to Hell first till he is cleansed out of his sins, then he shall go to Paradise. Deeds doesn’t mean that man can fulfill God’s blessings by his good deeds, but they are a sign of loyalty to God as long as they are associated with real faith, so that he gains God’s mercy that shall let him go to Paradise. But good deeds without faith shall not be accepted by God:
97. Whoever does righteousness, whether male or female, while he is a believer – We will surely cause him to live a good life, and We will surely give them their reward [in the Hereafter] according to the best of what they used to do. (Holy Quran 16:97)
“Verily, Allah accepts only from the pious” (Holy Quran 5:27)
Salvation in Christianity:
When I ask Christians, what is the need that God becomes a man and dies for our sins? The answer I always receive is: because God is just, He made an atonement for people to repent in the OT so forgiving people’s sins without an atonement is against His justice.
God Needs To Die For our Sins Because He is Just?
God has the right to forgive those who sinned against Him as I have the right forgive anyone who insulted me, that has nothing with me being just or not, but actually people consider this as something good I do, so it has nothing to do with God’s justice, but it actually poses a couple of questions.
What About Atonement in the The Old Testament?
Christians cite this point of Jesus’ death with the atonement in the OT. According to Christian belief, who put the rule that there must be an atonement for blood so that the sins are forgiven? who put this rule? Isn’t He God? So how can this be a sacrifice? What Jesus did is not a sacrifice, but he just gave a solution to the problem God in Christianity caused? He is the one who put the rule and it was found to be impractical, he did what he did to solve the problem. So either God didn’t know the consequences of this rule, so he made a problem and solved it, which is against God’s omniscience as God knows the consequences of everything, or that he actually knew and did what he did to make a show that he loves you.
The second thing, what I know is that people are accounted for their intention, if you do something and this deed gives consequences other than who you intended it to be, then you are actually accounted for your intention not for the consequences, for example if I robbed a guy walking in the street and gave what I stole as a gift to a friend of mine, then I discovered that the guy I robbed actually stole this stuff from my friend, am I a thief or a noble guy who wanted to help my friend? For sure a thief, as my intention was just to rob a guy and I didn’t know the other part of the story. That’s exactly what the death of Jesus was about, it wasn’t intended by the Jews to make a sacrifice or atonement so that Jesus takes away their sins, they were just looking to him as someone who shall destroy their leadership and positions and they wanted to get rid of him. So the whole action cannot be accounted as an atonement, but as a murder crime, and this has nothing with what Jesus himself intended, because he is not the one who implemented the action, otherwise he would have killed himself..
https://www.facebook.com/SeekingJesusFindingAllah/photos/a.379840139435960/658205301599441/
18
GENERAL TOPICS | BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS / How Muslims treated Christens when Saladin conquered Jerusalem.
« on: February 22, 2020, 10:28:00 AM »19
Hadiths & Sunna, and Prophet Muhammad's Person / Meccan Polytheists Declare war against Muslims in Medina
« on: March 07, 2019, 03:15:34 PM »
By ‘Ali Muhammad As-Sallabee
As soon as the Muslims, under the leadership of the Prophet, achieved a sense of stability in Al-Madeenah, they had to prepare for a long and hard struggle against both the Quraish and other enemies. The leaders of the Quraish were not satisfied with persecuting Muslims within Makkah; they also didn’t want Muslims to establish a presence and to become strong outside of Makkah. Quraish’ s leaders feared that if Islam spread throughout Arabia, it would mean an end to their rule in Makkah, an end to the tribal system of law that dominated Arabia, an end to their religion and to the customs of their forefathers. In short, they knew that, if Islam gained a strong foothold in Al-Madeenah, somewhere down the road Muslims would set their sights on Makkah.
We have hitherto discussed the many attempts the Quraish made to prevent the Prophet from even reaching Al-Madeenah, and as soon as he arrived there, they made it amply clear that they were as much the enemies of those who harboured the Prophet – the native inhabitants of Al-Madeenah – as they were enemies of the Prophet himself.
One incident that clearly establishes their attitude towards Al- Madeenah’ s inhabitants involves Sa’d ibn Mu’aadh one of the leaders of the Ansaar. Prior to the advent of Islam, Sa’d ibn Mu’aadh was a friend of Ummayyah ibn Khalaf, one of Makkah’s chieftains. Whenever Ummayyah visited Al- Madeenah, he stayed there as a guest of Sa’d and vice-versa. Their cordial friendship continued until the early days of Islam. For when the Messenger of Allah arrived in Al-Madeenah, Sa’d set out towards Makkah, with the intention to perform ‘Umrah (the lesser pilgrimage); once he arrived there, he stayed in the house of Umayyah ibn Khalaf. Sa’d & said to Umayyah, “See if you can find a time when (the Masjid) is empty, so that I might perhaps make Tawaf around the House (i.e., the Ka’bah).” Umayyah took him out during the middle of the day, and they were met on the way by Abu Jahl, who said, “O Abu Safwaan (i.e., Umayyah), who is this with you?” He said, “This is Sa’d" Abu Jahl said to Sa’d
“How is it that I see you walking around Makkah in safety, when you have granted refuge to those that have changed their religion! You claim that you will support and help them. Lo! By Allah, had it not been for the fact that you are with Abu Safwaan, you would not have safely returned to your family.”
Raising his voice, Sa’d responded, “By Allah, if you prevent me from this (from performing pilgrimage here in Makkah), I will prevent you from that which you will find even more severe upon you than that: Your road through Al-Madeenah (i.e., I will prevent you from passing through Al-Madeenah on your way to doing business in Ash-Sham)” According to the narration of Al-Baihaqee, Sa’d responded to Abu Jahl’s threat with the following words: “By Allah, if you prevent me from performing circuits around the Ka’bah, I will cut off your trade (routes) to Ash-Sham (Syria and surrounding regions).” This narration proves that Abu Jahl considered Sa’d ibn Mu’aadh to be an enemy of the Quraish, for he made it amply clear that had he not arrived in Makkah under the protection of a Makkan chieftain, he would have been killed. Abu Jahl was announcing a policy shift regarding how Makkah’s chieftains treated the people of Al-Madeenah; for prior to the establishment of a Muslim country in Al-Madeenah, no native of Al-Madeenah needed a guarantee of protection in order to enter Makkah. Quite the opposite, the leaders of the Quraish loathed even the idea of there being any hostility between them and the people of Al-Madeenah, since they depended on cordial relations with them in order to safely traverse their lands on their way to doing business in Ash-Sham, which they relied on for their livelihood. In fact, the leaders of the Quraish were known to have said, “By Allah, we do not detest fighting any Arab people as much as we detest (the idea of) fighting you (i.e., the people of Al-Madeenah) .” This story also proves that, until Abu Jahl showed open hostility to the people of Al-Madeenah, Makkan trading caravans would travel safely through Al-Madeenah on their way to Ash-Sham. The newly-formed Muslim country made no attempts to stop them from passing through, which means that they didn’t initially treat them as enemies, overtake any of their caravans, or place any economic embargo upon them. Therefore, it was the leaders of the Quraish who first declared war on the people of Al-Madeenah, and not the other way around. They treated Muslims as enemies of war, forbidding them entry into Makkah, unless they entered under the protection of a Makkan chieftain. But that was not the only incident which proves that the Quraish were the first to declare war.
On another occasion, but still only shortly after the Prophet arrived in Al-Madeenah, the Quraish tried to incite a civil war in Al-Madeenah. ‘Abdur-Rahmaan ibn Ka’ab ibn Maalik related from one of the Prophet’s Companions & that the disbelievers of the Quraish wrote a letter to ‘Abdullah ibn Ubai and other members of the Aus and Khazraj tribes that still worshipped idols. This occurred when ibn Ubai and others like him still professed their polytheistic beliefs, for a short while later those among this group that didn’t sincerely embrace Islam, professed to embrace Islam while still harbouring disbelief in their hearts; hence they became known as “the Hypocrites.” In their letter, which was sent prior to the Battle of Badr, Quraish’ s leaders wrote the following message:
“You have indeed granted refuge to our companion (i.e., the Prophet), and we indeed swear by Allah that you will fight him and expel him (from Al-Madeenah) or we will all come to you (with a large army), until we fight those among you who fight, and take captive (as slaves) your women.”
‘Abdullah ibn Ubai and his fellow polytheists then gathered all the men they could find in order to fight the Prophet. When news of their intentions reached the Prophet, he went to them and said, ” Quraish’ s threat has had a profound effect upon you, but (know this): what they have planned for you (in terms of them coming to fight you) is not greater than the plotting that you are doing against your own selves (i.e., by fighting Muslims, among whom are your own relatives), for you want to fight your children and your brothers!” When they heard this from the Prophet they dispersed, abandoning the idea of fighting the Prophet and his Companions
Here is a wonderful example of what a great leader and teacher the Prophet was, in terms of how he was able to bring an end to an incipient rebellion in its very early stages. He reached with his words the very depths of their hearts, for hewas appealing to that which they valued most: tribal and familial loyalty. He wanted to make them understand the shame involved in the internecine fighting that they wanted to instigate. After the Quraish declared war – both in speech and in action – on the Islamic country of Al-Madeenah, and after they stole all of the wealth that Makkah’s Muslims left behind once they migrated to Al-Madeenah, Allah permitted Muslims to fight. It was only natural, considering the open hostility that the Quraish showed, for Muslims to do what was necessary to both ensure the stability of Al-Madeenah and to take decisive action against the Quraish.
As soon as the Muslims, under the leadership of the Prophet, achieved a sense of stability in Al-Madeenah, they had to prepare for a long and hard struggle against both the Quraish and other enemies. The leaders of the Quraish were not satisfied with persecuting Muslims within Makkah; they also didn’t want Muslims to establish a presence and to become strong outside of Makkah. Quraish’ s leaders feared that if Islam spread throughout Arabia, it would mean an end to their rule in Makkah, an end to the tribal system of law that dominated Arabia, an end to their religion and to the customs of their forefathers. In short, they knew that, if Islam gained a strong foothold in Al-Madeenah, somewhere down the road Muslims would set their sights on Makkah.
We have hitherto discussed the many attempts the Quraish made to prevent the Prophet from even reaching Al-Madeenah, and as soon as he arrived there, they made it amply clear that they were as much the enemies of those who harboured the Prophet – the native inhabitants of Al-Madeenah – as they were enemies of the Prophet himself.
One incident that clearly establishes their attitude towards Al- Madeenah’ s inhabitants involves Sa’d ibn Mu’aadh one of the leaders of the Ansaar. Prior to the advent of Islam, Sa’d ibn Mu’aadh was a friend of Ummayyah ibn Khalaf, one of Makkah’s chieftains. Whenever Ummayyah visited Al- Madeenah, he stayed there as a guest of Sa’d and vice-versa. Their cordial friendship continued until the early days of Islam. For when the Messenger of Allah arrived in Al-Madeenah, Sa’d set out towards Makkah, with the intention to perform ‘Umrah (the lesser pilgrimage); once he arrived there, he stayed in the house of Umayyah ibn Khalaf. Sa’d & said to Umayyah, “See if you can find a time when (the Masjid) is empty, so that I might perhaps make Tawaf around the House (i.e., the Ka’bah).” Umayyah took him out during the middle of the day, and they were met on the way by Abu Jahl, who said, “O Abu Safwaan (i.e., Umayyah), who is this with you?” He said, “This is Sa’d" Abu Jahl said to Sa’d
“How is it that I see you walking around Makkah in safety, when you have granted refuge to those that have changed their religion! You claim that you will support and help them. Lo! By Allah, had it not been for the fact that you are with Abu Safwaan, you would not have safely returned to your family.”
Raising his voice, Sa’d responded, “By Allah, if you prevent me from this (from performing pilgrimage here in Makkah), I will prevent you from that which you will find even more severe upon you than that: Your road through Al-Madeenah (i.e., I will prevent you from passing through Al-Madeenah on your way to doing business in Ash-Sham)” According to the narration of Al-Baihaqee, Sa’d responded to Abu Jahl’s threat with the following words: “By Allah, if you prevent me from performing circuits around the Ka’bah, I will cut off your trade (routes) to Ash-Sham (Syria and surrounding regions).” This narration proves that Abu Jahl considered Sa’d ibn Mu’aadh to be an enemy of the Quraish, for he made it amply clear that had he not arrived in Makkah under the protection of a Makkan chieftain, he would have been killed. Abu Jahl was announcing a policy shift regarding how Makkah’s chieftains treated the people of Al-Madeenah; for prior to the establishment of a Muslim country in Al-Madeenah, no native of Al-Madeenah needed a guarantee of protection in order to enter Makkah. Quite the opposite, the leaders of the Quraish loathed even the idea of there being any hostility between them and the people of Al-Madeenah, since they depended on cordial relations with them in order to safely traverse their lands on their way to doing business in Ash-Sham, which they relied on for their livelihood. In fact, the leaders of the Quraish were known to have said, “By Allah, we do not detest fighting any Arab people as much as we detest (the idea of) fighting you (i.e., the people of Al-Madeenah) .” This story also proves that, until Abu Jahl showed open hostility to the people of Al-Madeenah, Makkan trading caravans would travel safely through Al-Madeenah on their way to Ash-Sham. The newly-formed Muslim country made no attempts to stop them from passing through, which means that they didn’t initially treat them as enemies, overtake any of their caravans, or place any economic embargo upon them. Therefore, it was the leaders of the Quraish who first declared war on the people of Al-Madeenah, and not the other way around. They treated Muslims as enemies of war, forbidding them entry into Makkah, unless they entered under the protection of a Makkan chieftain. But that was not the only incident which proves that the Quraish were the first to declare war.
On another occasion, but still only shortly after the Prophet arrived in Al-Madeenah, the Quraish tried to incite a civil war in Al-Madeenah. ‘Abdur-Rahmaan ibn Ka’ab ibn Maalik related from one of the Prophet’s Companions & that the disbelievers of the Quraish wrote a letter to ‘Abdullah ibn Ubai and other members of the Aus and Khazraj tribes that still worshipped idols. This occurred when ibn Ubai and others like him still professed their polytheistic beliefs, for a short while later those among this group that didn’t sincerely embrace Islam, professed to embrace Islam while still harbouring disbelief in their hearts; hence they became known as “the Hypocrites.” In their letter, which was sent prior to the Battle of Badr, Quraish’ s leaders wrote the following message:
“You have indeed granted refuge to our companion (i.e., the Prophet), and we indeed swear by Allah that you will fight him and expel him (from Al-Madeenah) or we will all come to you (with a large army), until we fight those among you who fight, and take captive (as slaves) your women.”
‘Abdullah ibn Ubai and his fellow polytheists then gathered all the men they could find in order to fight the Prophet. When news of their intentions reached the Prophet, he went to them and said, ” Quraish’ s threat has had a profound effect upon you, but (know this): what they have planned for you (in terms of them coming to fight you) is not greater than the plotting that you are doing against your own selves (i.e., by fighting Muslims, among whom are your own relatives), for you want to fight your children and your brothers!” When they heard this from the Prophet they dispersed, abandoning the idea of fighting the Prophet and his Companions
Here is a wonderful example of what a great leader and teacher the Prophet was, in terms of how he was able to bring an end to an incipient rebellion in its very early stages. He reached with his words the very depths of their hearts, for hewas appealing to that which they valued most: tribal and familial loyalty. He wanted to make them understand the shame involved in the internecine fighting that they wanted to instigate. After the Quraish declared war – both in speech and in action – on the Islamic country of Al-Madeenah, and after they stole all of the wealth that Makkah’s Muslims left behind once they migrated to Al-Madeenah, Allah permitted Muslims to fight. It was only natural, considering the open hostility that the Quraish showed, for Muslims to do what was necessary to both ensure the stability of Al-Madeenah and to take decisive action against the Quraish.
20
Quran Morality and Moral Code, Laws & QA / The stolen armor !
« on: January 10, 2019, 04:31:50 AM »
It was narrated that an armor was stolen from the house of a Muslim man from Medina. This incident shaked the whole city. Who could have done such evil in the city of Prophet Muhammad ?
While the investigation was in progress, the thief put the armor in the house of a Jew.
Someone said that he saw a man named Tuma bin Ubayriq steal the armor. Its owner approached the Prophet (peace be on him) and expressed his suspicion about Tumah. But Tuma and his kinsmen colluded to ascribe the guilt to the Jew.
To ascertain the truth, the Prophet sent people to look in Tuma’s house. The armor was not there.
The armor was found in the house of the Jew !
When the Jew concerned was asked about the matter he pleaded that he was not guilty. Tuma's supporters, on the other hand, waged a vigorous propaganda campaign to save Tuma's skin. They argued that the Jew, who had denied the Truth and disbelieved in God and the Prophet (peace be on him), was absolutely untrustworthy, and his statement ought to be rejected outright.
But something happened. God sent the Angel Gabriel to the Prophet to declare that the Jewish man was innocent, and it was indeed Tuma who stole the armor. God revealed in the Qur’an:
“(O Messenger!) We have revealed to you this Book with the Truth so that you may judge between people in accordance with what Allah has shown you. So do not dispute on behalf of the dishonest"4:105
While the investigation was in progress, the thief put the armor in the house of a Jew.
Someone said that he saw a man named Tuma bin Ubayriq steal the armor. Its owner approached the Prophet (peace be on him) and expressed his suspicion about Tumah. But Tuma and his kinsmen colluded to ascribe the guilt to the Jew.
To ascertain the truth, the Prophet sent people to look in Tuma’s house. The armor was not there.
The armor was found in the house of the Jew !
When the Jew concerned was asked about the matter he pleaded that he was not guilty. Tuma's supporters, on the other hand, waged a vigorous propaganda campaign to save Tuma's skin. They argued that the Jew, who had denied the Truth and disbelieved in God and the Prophet (peace be on him), was absolutely untrustworthy, and his statement ought to be rejected outright.
But something happened. God sent the Angel Gabriel to the Prophet to declare that the Jewish man was innocent, and it was indeed Tuma who stole the armor. God revealed in the Qur’an:
“(O Messenger!) We have revealed to you this Book with the Truth so that you may judge between people in accordance with what Allah has shown you. So do not dispute on behalf of the dishonest"4:105
21
THE BIBLE | TRINITY & JESUS | CRUCIFIXION vs CRUCIFICTION | HISTORY | CANONS | REBUTTALS / “Jesus Loves All” is a Christian Missionary Deception
« on: July 22, 2018, 02:01:11 PM »
Anti-Muslim demagoguery relies on the demonization of the Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam), who is characterized by Islam-hating liars as being especially violent and warlike. This propaganda has certainly gained currency in the “Judeo-Zionist-Freemasonic-Christian West”. When it is pointed out that the Biblical prophets–including Moses, Joshua, Samson , Saul , David , among many others–were far more violent and warlike (and even engaged in religiously sanctioned genocide ), anti-Muslim pro-Christian ideologues will respond by disregarding or downplaying the Old Testament and will instead focus on the personality of Jesus (‘Eesa alaihissalaam) in the New Testament.
Didn’t Jesus preach nonviolence and “loving one’s enemies”? The anti-Muslim ideologues use this idea to assault the religion of Islam with. For example, the Catholic apologist shaitaan Robert Spencer compares Islam to Christianity by juxtaposing carefully selected quotes from Jesus to Islamic texts. In his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) , Spencer includes a “Muhammad vs Jesus” section. He cites the following sayings of Jesus in the Bible:
“Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you”
“If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also”
“Blessed are the peacemakers”
“Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy”
“But love your enemies, and do good”
These so-called “peaceful” verses of the Bible are compared to select battle revealed-Quranic verses. The violent verses of the Bible “don’t count” and are craftily excluded from the comparison (“that’s just the Old Testament!”). To tighten the noose, peaceful verses of the Glorious Qur’an are also excluded from the heavily biased analysis, the shaitaan gives his evil reason for that: these “don’t count” since they are supposedly from when Muhammad was still in Mecca.
To understand the last point, one needs to have a basic understanding of the Prophet Muhammad’s (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) biography: he first declared his prophethood in the city of Makkah. Only a very small segment of society accepted him (mostly the weak and poor), whereas the masses–especially the powerful leaders of the city–not only rejected him but actively persecuted him. The chapters of the Qur’an that were revealed during this period are known as the Makkan chapters. Eventually, Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) was commanded by God to fled to the city of Madinah, whose people accepted him as their ruler. He went from persecuted prophet to ruler and commander-in-chief of a fledgling city-state.
The anti-Muslim ideologues claim that the peaceful and tolerant verses of the Qur’an come from when Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) was weak and persecuted in Mekkah. According to this islamophobe Baboon, These verses are “cancelled”, they argue, by the violent-sounding verses in the Medinan chapters.
Robert Spencer writes in his book:
Islamic theology divides the Qur’an into “Meccan” and “Medinan” suras [chapters]. The Meccan ones come from the first segment of Muhammad’s career as a prophet, when he simply called the Meccans to Islam. Later, after he fled to Medina, his positions hardened. The Medinan suras [are]…filled with matters of law and ritual–and exhortations to jihad warfare against unbelievers. The relatively tolerant verses quoted above and others like them generally date from the Meccan period, while those with a more violent and intolerant edge are mostly from Medina.
The Islamophobe deceivers portray Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) as opportunistic:
when he was weak and under the rule of the pagans, he called for peace. Without being in a position of authority, Muhammad was hardly in a position to do otherwise. As soon as he came to power, however, he waged “jihad warfare” (what a strange phrase!) against them. This is why, they argue, the peaceful verses of the Quran simply “don’t count”.
For now, however, we will demonstrate that, using such logic, it is equally possible to invalidate the “peaceful” sayings of Jesus. While he was a persecuted prophet, Jesus advocated nonviolence and peaceful resistance. He was hardly in a position to do otherwise, right? Once in power, however, this changes dramatically and violent warfare becomes the new
modus operandi .
The Messiah
Just as Prophet Muhammad’s (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) biography can be divided into a Mekkan and Medinan period, so too can Jesus’s (‘Eesa alaihissalaam) lifestory be divided into a First and Second Coming. (Likewise can Moses’ (Musa alaihissalaam) lifestory be divided into pre- and post-Exodus: prior to Exodus, Moses (Musa alaihissalaam) was largely peaceful, but after Exodus, Moses became the leader of the emerging Jewish state–and subsequently engaged in holy wars and even genocide against other nations.)
In the First Coming of Jesus (‘Eesa alaihissalaam), only a small segment of society (mostly from the weak and poor) accepted Jesus, whereas the leaders and authorities persecuted him. During this time period, Jesus (‘Eesa alaihissalaam) advised his followers to engage in nonviolent resistance only, perhaps even pacifism. Jesus advised his followers to “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” According to the Bible, this didn’t stop his Jewish and Roman persecutors from making an attempt to kill him.
Yet, the Second Coming of Jesus (‘Eesa maseeh alaihissalaam) is a central theological belief of Christianity as well as Islam. When Jesus (‘Eesa alaihissalaam) returns to earth, the gloves will be off: no longer will he practice non-violence or pacifism. Enemies will be mercilessly killed, not loved. In this manner, Jesus will fulfill the messianic prophecies found in the Bible–both in the Old and New Testaments. To Christians, Jesus is the Messiah (the Greek word “Christ” has the same meaning as the Hebrew word “Messiah”)–the same Messiah that the Jews had been in anticipation of.
It is important to understand how the concept of Messiah developed. According to the Bible, Moses (Musa alaihissalaam) and his followers fled persecution in Egypt to find refuge in the land of Canaan. They believed that God had bequeathed this land to them, which would come to be known as Israel. Unfortunately, there were already peoples who lived in Canaan, a problem that Moses (Musa alaihissalaam) and his followers rectified via military might. The native Canaanites were subsequently occupied, exterminated, or run off their ancestral lands. When the natives fought back, the Israelites attributed this to their innate and infernal hatred of the Jewish people.
After ruling the “promised land” for a time, the Israelites were themselves conquered by outsiders. The Babylonian Empire captured the Kingdom of Judah and expelled the Jews. Though the Israelites felt no remorse over occupying, slaughtering, and running off the native inhabitants of Canaan, they were mortified when they received similar (albeit milder) treatment. In exile, the Jews prayed for vengeance, as recorded in a divine prayer in the Bible:
Psalm 137:8 O Babylon, you will be destroyed. Happy is the one who pays you back for what you have done to us.
137:9 Blessed is the one who grabs your babies and smashes them against a rock.
(We can hardly imagine the glee that an Islamophobe devil would feel had such a violent passage, one that blesses those who smash infidel babies against rocks, been found in the Qur’an instead of the Bible.)
It was during the time of exile that the Jewish concept of Messiah was first born. Dutch historian Jona Lendering writes:
It was believed that the Messiah (the Anointed One) would receive God’s personal help against the enemies of Israel; the Messiah would defeat the Babylonians and reestablish the Jewish state of Israel. Cyrus the Great, king of Persia, fulfilled this role by conquering Babylon and releasing the Jews from exile. Israel Smith Clare writes:
Prof. Martin Bernal of Cornell University writes:
The first Messiah in the Bible was Cyrus, the king of Persia who released the Jews–at least those who wanted to leave–from Exile in Babylon.
As for this passage in the Bible:
Psalm 137:8 O Babylon, you will be destroyed. Happy is the one who pays you back for what you have done to us.
137:9 Blessed is the one who grabs your babies and smashes them against a rock.
Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible comments on this verse:
The Jews thereby returned to the promised land and rebuilt their nation. According to Jewish tradition, however, this did not last long: the Roman Empire conquered the land, destroyed the Temple, and exiled the Jews once again. As a result, as Lendering puts it, “the old prophecies [about Messiah] became relevant again.” Although in Jewish tradition there is a messiah for each generation, there is also the Messiah, which is what is commonly thought of when we hear the word. The Messiah would fulfill the task of destroying all of Israel’s enemies.
JewFaq.org says of the Messiah, which they spell as mashiach (emphasis is ours):
KosherJudaism.org states:
The Second Coming of Christ
Around 4 B.C., a prophet by the name of Jesus was born. He claimed to be the Messiah, and some Jews followed him. The followers of Christ eventually split into numerous sects, and eventually one triumphed over all others. These became what are today known as Christians. As for the majority of Jews, they rejected Jesus. Why? The Jews rejected (and continue to reject) Jesus because he did not fulfill the prophecies pertaining to the Messiah. How could Jesus be the Messiah when he not only did not defeat or conquer Israel’s enemies, but he never even led an army into a single war? On the contrary, didn’t Jesus preach nonviolence and “loving one’s enemies”?
Instead of rejecting these militaristic aspects of the Messiah, Christians attribute them to Jesus during his Second Coming. No longer will Jesus be a weak and persecuted prophet. Instead, he will hold governmental authority, and is depicted as powerful and mighty. This Jesus will certainly not love his enemies or turn the other cheek to them. In fact, the Bible tells us that Jesus will wage violent warfare against his enemies, and he will mercilessly kill them all.
Many Christians talk about how Jesus Christ will bring peace to the world, once and for all. But they often neglect to mention how this world “peace” is obtained. It is only after slaughtering his opponents and subduing “the nations” (the entire world?) under the foot of the global Christian empire that the world will have “peace”. Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible explains:
In other words, there will be peace for the simple reason that there will be nobody left to fight, all opponents having been slaughtered or subdued. This world “peace” is the same “peace” that any conqueror dreams of: after utterly defeating and conquering all of one’s neighbors and enemies, what is there left but “peace”, insofar as the non-existence of violence? In the accidentally insightful words of the Evangelist Wayne Blank : “Put another way, humans aren’t going to have anything left to fight about.”
Following conquest, a foreign occupier would obviously want the occupied peoples to be peaceful, as this would eliminate the nuisance of having to fight off freedom-fighters. The absence of violence would allow the conquering force to effortlessly sustain its occupation.
The events of the Second Coming of Christ are found in the Bible, including the Book of Revelation–which is the last book in the New Testament. Jesus will “judge and wage war” (Rev. 19:11), his robe will be “dipped in blood” (19:13), and he will be accompanied by “armies” (19:14) with which he will “strike down the nations” (19:15), . Furthermore: “ including “the Gentiles” in general and “the nations that were opposed to him” in specific. This will result in the “utter destruction of all his enemies” In his second coming[,] he will complete their destruction, when he shall put down all opposing rule, principality, and power.”
Once he conquers the infidels, Jesus “will rule them with an iron rod” (19:15). Wayne Blank writes:
Jesus will “will release the fierce wrath of God” (19:15) on them, and “he shall execute the severest judgment on the opposers of his truth” . Because of this, “every tribe on earth will mourn because of him” (Rev. 1:7), and they will “express the inward terror and horror of their minds, at his appearing; they will fear his resentment” . Just as the people of Canaan were terrified by the Israelite war machine , so too would the unbelievers “look with trembling upon [Jesus]” . This is repeated in the Gospels, that “the Son of man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn” (Matthew 24:30).
“All the nations of the world shall wail when he comes to judgment” and the enemies of Jesus “shall mourn at the great calamities coming upon them” .
Far from the meek prophet of the First Coming, Jesus on his return will command a very strong military force that will “destroy[] every ruler, authority, and power”. Not only is this consistent with the legacy of conquests by the Biblical prophets, it is actually a fulfillment or completion of the task that Moses initiated: holy war and conquest in the name of God. In First Corinthians (part of the New Testament) it is prophesied that instead of loving his enemies, Christ will subdue and humble them under his feet:
1 Corinthians 15:24 [Jesus] will turn the Kingdom over to God the Father, having destroyed every ruler and authority and power.
15:25 For Christ must reign until he humbles all his enemies beneath his feet.
Pastor and Biblical scholar Ron Teed explains that Jesus Christ brought “comfort and salvation at His first coming” but will bring “vengeance on God’s enemies” during his Second Coming. There are thus “two comings of Christ, the first to save, the second to judge”–yet in debates with Muslims it seems that Christians play up the First Coming and completely ignore the Second. The popular Teed Commentaries explains how “vengeance” is for Christ’s enemies (the “unbelievers”) and “comfort” only for his followers (the believers):
The Messiah will bring both comfort and
vengeance. He will take vengeance on God’s enemies and bring comfort to His people. This is a summary of the mission of Christ. He brought comfort and salvation at His first coming during His earthly ministry according to Luke…
However, He said nothing of taking vengeance on God’s enemies at that time, for that part of his mission will not be fulfilled till He returns triumphant…
[There are] two comings of Christ, the first to save, the second to judge.
In His First coming He did the things mentioned in Isaiah 61:1-2; in His Second Coming He will do the things in verses 2-3. When He returns He will bring judgment on unbelievers. This will be the day of God’s “vengeance.”
The ever popular Evangelical site GotQuestions.org sums it up nicely:
Jesus’ second coming will be exceedingly violent.
Revelation 19:11-21 describes the ultimate war with Christ, the conquering commander who judges and makes war “with justice” (v. 11). It’s going to be bloody (v. 13) and gory. The birds will eat the flesh of all those who oppose Him (v. 17-18). He has no compassion upon His enemies, whom He will conquer completely and consign to a “fiery lake of burning sulfur” (v. 20).
It is an error to say that God never supports a war. Jesus is not a pacifist.
Will the Real Messiah Please Stand Up?
Whereas the Second Coming of Christ is curiously forgotten in debates with Muslims, it is conveniently remembered during debates with Jews. One of the primary (if not the
primary) functions of the promised messiah in the Judeo-Christian tradition is, after all, vengeance against Israel’s enemies and global dominance. Indeed, the entire concept of Messiah emerged following the conquest of Jewish lands with the subjugation and exile of its inhabitants. The Messiah stood as hope for the redemption of Israel as well as revenge against her enemies.
Jewish polemical tracts against Christians reveal to us how militarism is a fundamental characteristic of the Messiah. The Christian response in turn reveal how Jesus Christ will indeed be militaristic (during his Second Coming). David Klinghoffer, an Orthodox Jewish author, writes in his book Why the Jews Rejected Jesus :
There were certainly those among [Jesus’] followers who saw him as the promised Messiah. This was natural. The first century produced messiahs the way our own time produces movie stars. There was always a hot new candidate for the role emerging from obscurity, whose glory faded either as he was slaughtered by the Romans or as his followers lost interest when he failed to produce the goods promised by the prophets.
“The goods” refer to the military conquest of Israel’s enemies and world domination. The fact that Jesus failed to produce these “goods” proves that he is not the promised messiah. Klinghoffer continues:
Let him do what the “son of man,” the promised Messiah, had been advertised as being destined to do from Daniel back through Ezekiel and Isaiah and the rest of the prophets. Let him rule as a monarch, his kingship extending over “all peoples, nations, and languages.” Let him return the exiles and build the Temple and defeat the oppressors and establish universal peace, as the prophets also said…
Let Jesus come up with the real messianic goods–visible to all rather than requiring us to accept someone’s assurance that, for example, he was born in Bethlehem–and then we’ll take him seriously
This point is reiterated in his book numerous times:
Hearing Jesus preach, a Jew might reasonably have crossed his arms upon his chest and muttered, “Hm, intriguing, but let’s see what happens.” After all, the scriptures themselves common-sensically defined a false prophet as someone whose prophecies fail to come true. According to Deuteronomy, this was the chief test of a prophet.
Klinghoffer writes elsewhere:
The Hebrew prophets describe the elements of a messianic scenario that could not easily be overlooked: an ingathering of the Jewish exiles, the reign of a messianic king, a new covenant with the Jews based on a restored commitment to observance of the commandments, a new Temple, the recognition of God by the world’s peoples. The future Davidic king was expected to radically change the world.
The “radical change” involves the “subjugation” of the nations:
The Messiah would be a military and political leader. Philo, whose views have sometimes been taken as foreshadowing Christian teachings, is clear on this: “For ‘there shall come forth a man’ (Num. 24:7), says the oracle, and leading his host of war he will subdue great and populous nations.”
The Gospel writers thus faced the challenge that Jesus never raised an army, fought the Romans, returned any Jewish exiles, ruled over any population, or did anything else a king messiah would do.
The subjugated nations would then “prostrate” themselves to the Messiah and “serve” him (perpetual servitude?):
The promised royal scion of David, the Messiah, would surely inspire veneration and awe beyond that accorded even to David himself…The nations will “prostrate” themselves before God, says one psalm; but so will they “prostrate” themselves (same Hebrew verb) before the Davidic king , says another psalm…As Daniel puts it…“[The Messiah] was given dominion, honor, kingship, so that all peoples, nations, and languages would serve him.”
Klinghoffer defines the Messiah as he “who conquers and rules the nations and liberates the Jews” and describes him as
“ a mighty warrior”. He rhetorically asks:
Was there in Jewish tradition any room for a dead Messiah? Didn’t Jesus’s death tend to cast doubt on his ability to accomplish all the world-transforming things the Messiah was supposed to do?
Again, the “world-transforming things” include violent holy war against the heathen nations and their subjugation under his rule. Klinghoffer answers his own question:
But was Jesus a ruler over Israel? On the contrary, the younger Kimchi pointed out, “He did not govern Israel but they governed him.”
Christians reply by arguing that Jesus will fulfill these prophecies, just during his Second Coming. The Good News, a Christian magazine with a readership of nearly half a million subscribers, responds to the Jewish criticism by arguing that Jesus returns “a second time” as a “conquering King” who will “slay the great armies of those who opposed Him”. Jesus will be “the promised Messiah whom the prophets claimed would rule all nations ‘with a rod of iron’” and “all nations would come under His rule”.
Klinghoffer, the Orthodox Jewish interlocutor, cries foul:
Christians respond by saying that “the famously unfulfilled prophecies (for instance, that the messianic era will be one of peace) apply to the second and final act in Jesus’s career, when he returns to earth. This is a convenient and necessary dodge: The Bible itself never speaks of a two-act messianic drama.
The interesting dynamic is thus established: Jews accuse Jesus of not being militaristic enough, and Christian apologists respond by eagerly proving the militaristic nature of Jesus during his Second Coming.
Christians Affirm Militant Old Testament Prophecies
Far from saying “it’s just the Old Testament!”, Christians routinely–and as a matter of accepted fundamental theology–use the Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah to validate their belief in Jesus–prophecies that have militaristic overtones. The Book of Isaiah, for example, has numerous prophecies in it that Christians routinely attribute to Jesus Christ. For example:
Isaiah 35:4 Say to those with fearful hearts, “Be strong, do not fear; your God will come, he will come with vengeance; with divine retribution he will come to save you.”
Matthew Henry’s commentary of this verse says:
This will be “a day of vengeance, a year of retribution, to uphold Zion’s cause” (34:8) against the “nations at enmity with the church” and “those found opposing the church of Christ”, which will result in “the destruction of [the church’s] enemies.” Likewise do Christians claim that the Book of Micah foretells the Second Coming of Christ:
Micah 15:5 I will execute vengeance in anger and fury on the heathen, such as they have not heard.
One Biblical commentary helpfully explains this verse:
Christ will give his Son either the hearts or necks of his enemies, and make them either his friends or his footstool.
[NassirH, a reader of our website, astutely commented: I suppose this is what JihadWatch writer Roland Shirk meant when he said “Islam is a religion of fear and force, and its adherents can only be at your feet or at your throat.”]
Another Biblical commentary notes: “Here no mention is made of Mercy, but only of executing vengeance; and that, with wrath and fury.” Yet another states that this is “a prophecy of the final overthrow of all the enemies of pure and undefiled religion” and that this is “a threatening of vengeance to the Heathens” .
When we published articles comparing the Judeo-Christian prophets of the Hebrew Bible to the Prophet Muhammad, an anti-Muslim bigot by the name of Percey (formerly known as Cassidy) claimed that the genocides of the Old Testament were “not supported by Christ’s teachings.” This hardly seems the case, however, when we consider that Jesus will bring to a climax the holy war first initiated by Moses against the enemies of Israel. Jesus will fulfill , not repudiate, Old Testament holy wars against Israel’s foes. In fact, the war will be expanded to heathen nations in general, or at least those that reject Jesus.
Conclusion
We could reproduce violent Christian texts ad nauseum …What is clear is that the Christian conception of Jesus can very easily be characterized as violent. Prof. Melancthon W. Jacobus writes in A Standard Bible Dictionary:
[Jesus] excluded from the Messiah’s character the main elements of the popular ideal, i.e. that of a conquering hero, who would exalt Israel above the heathen, and through such exclusion He seemed to fail to realize the older Scriptural conception. The failure, however, was only apparent and temporary. For in the second coming in glory He was to achieve this work.
Accordingly, His disciples recognized a twofoldness in His Messiahship: (1) They saw realized in His past life the ideal Servant of Jehovah, the spiritual Messiah, the Christ who teaches and suffers for the people, and (2) they looked forward to the realization of the Davidic and conquering Messiah in His second coming in power and glory to conquer the nations and reign over them
How then do we reconcile the seemingly peaceful and pacifist sayings of Jesus with the violent and warlike Second Coming of Christ? There are numerous ways to do this, but perhaps the most convincing is that Jesus’ peaceful and pacifist sayings were directed towards a resident’s personal and local enemies–usually (but not always) referring to fellow co-religionists. It did not refer to a government’s foreign adversaries, certainly not to heathen nations. Prof. Richard A. Horsley of the University of Massachusetts argues:
The cluster of sayings keynoted by “love your enemies” pertains neither to external, political enemies nor to the question of nonviolence or nonresistance…The content of nearly all the sayings indicates a context of local interaction with personal enemies, not of relations with foreign or political foes…
“Love your enemies” and the related sayings apparently were understood by [Jesus’] followers…to refer to local social-economic relations, largely within the village community, which was still probably coextensive with the religious community in most cases…[although sometimes referring] to persecutors outside the religious community but still in the local residential community—and certainly not the national or political enemies.
This is consistent with the ruling given by the Evangelical site
GotQuestions.org , which permits governments to wage war whilst forbidding individuals from “personal vendettas”:
God has allowed for just wars throughout the history of His people. From Abraham to Deborah to David, God’s people have fought as instruments of judgment from a righteous and holy God. Romans 13:1-4 tells us to submit ourselves to government authorities and that nations have the right to bear the sword against evildoers, both foreign and domestic.
Violence occurs, but we must recognize the difference between holy judgment on sin and our own personal vendettas against those we dislike, which is the inevitable outcome of pride
As for the “turning the other cheek” passage, it is known that the slap on the cheek that was being referred to here was in that particular culture understood as an insult, not as assault. The passage itself has to do with a person responding to a personal insult, and has nothing to do with pacifism. In any case, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary clarifies: “Of course, He applied this to personal insults, not to groups or nations.”
Some Christians maintain that fighting the enemies on the battlefield does not exclude loving them. This begs the question: how absolutely irrelevant is this strange form of “love” for enemies that does not proscribe killing them?
Whatever the reason for the contradiction between loving enemies on the one hand and killing them on the other, the point is that the comparison between a supposedly peaceful Jesus and “violent” Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) is not just a vapid oversimplification but pure falsity. It is only through a very selective and biased analysis–a carefully crafted comparison between the most peaceful sounding verses of the New Testament (a handful of quotes from Jesus that constitute a small fraction of the Bible overall) with the most violent sounding verses of the Quran.
Anything that doesn’t fit this agenda simply “doesn’t count” (and indeed, the anti-Muslim pro-Christian readers will furiously rack their brains to figure out ways to make the violent Jesus verses “not count”). The Islamophobic logic is thus: If we exclude all violent verses from the Bible and all the peaceful verses from the Quran, then aha! See how much more violent the Quran is compared to the Bible! Anti-Muslim Christians scoff at Islam and exalt their religion by informing Muslims of how Jesus, unlike Muhammad, loved his enemies. Let the Muslims reply back ever so wryly: Jesus loved them so much that he kills them.
Addendum I:
Anti-Muslim Christians often chant “Muhammad was a prophet of war, whereas Jesus was the Prince of Peace”. A few points about this are worthy of being mentioned: First, Muhammad never used the title “prophet of war” nor is this mentioned in the Quran or anywhere else. In fact, one of the most common epithets used for Muhammad, one found in the Quran no less, was “A Mercy to All Humanity”.
Jesus, on the other hand, will be a “Warrior King” and a “Conquering King.” Should it then be “Muhammad is A Mercy to All Humanity, whereas Jesus is the Warrior King”?
As for Jesus being the Prince of Peace, this epithet comes from Isaiah 9:6:
Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
9:7 There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace. He will rule with fairness and justice from the throne of his ancestor David for all eternity.
The passionate commitment of the LORD of Heaven’s Armies will make this happen.
One Christian website paraphrases this succinctly: “Israel’s enemies will be destroyed. Peace will flow to the four corners of the earth, as the Prince of Peace rules and reigns.” Again, this is the “peace” that conquerers dream of. Jesus is the Prince of Peace because he declares war, slaughters and subjugates all possible enemies to the point where nobody is left to fight, and voila! there is peace!
This brings us to the commonly quoted (and oft-debated) verse of the Bible, in which Jesus says:
Matthew 10:34 Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
Most debates focus on whether or not the word “sword” here is metaphorical or not. Leaving aside the fact that even if this is a metaphor it is certainly a very violent sounding one, it would actually behoove us to focus on the word “peace” in this verse. Jesus told the Jews: “do not think I have come to bring peace on earth” as a way to explain his failure to produce “the goods”: “ the Jews believed that when the Messiah comes, there would be a time of world peace. ” Naturally, this world “peace” would be brought about through war. Of course, in his Second Coming will Jesus bring this “peace on earth” (and by “peace”, what is meant is war, slaughter, and subjugation). As we can see, this verse confirms the militant nature of the Messiah (and thus Jesus), regardless of if it is metaphorical or not.
Addendum II:
Here is another hotly debated verse, in which Jesus says:
Luke 19:27 But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and kill them in my presence.
Robert Spencer dismisses this verse, saying: “These are the words of a king in a parable.” Yes, this was a parable that Jesus told his disciples. But what was his intention in narrating this parable? Gill’s Explanation to the Entire Bible explains that it was to explain what will happen to the Jews “when Christ shall come a second time”: Jesus will “destroy the Jewish nation” for rejecting him “and then all other enemies will be slain and destroyed” as well.
Death and destruction will be the fate of whoever does not accept Jesus’ reign as Warrior King.
This was hardly an innocuous story. It reminds us of a scene in the movie Gladiator when the evil Roman emperor Commodus tells his nephew a story about an “emperor” who was betrayed by his sister (“his own blood”) and how he “struck down” her son as revenge. (Watch it here.) The story was a thinly veiled threat, as was Jesus’ parable.
One can only hardly imagine how Islamophobes like Robert Spencer would react had it been the Prophet Muhammad who had used such a violent parable, threatening to return to earth in order to “slay” anyone who “did not want me to reign over them”! This would certainly “count” since all violence in the Quran “counts” whereas whatever is peaceful in the Quran “doesn’t count”, and whatever is violent in the Bible “doesn’t count” and whatever is peaceful in the Bible “counts”. Heads I win, tails you lose.
Source: https://islamreigns.wordpress.com/2016/02/04/jesus-loves-all-is-a-christian-missionary-deception/
Didn’t Jesus preach nonviolence and “loving one’s enemies”? The anti-Muslim ideologues use this idea to assault the religion of Islam with. For example, the Catholic apologist shaitaan Robert Spencer compares Islam to Christianity by juxtaposing carefully selected quotes from Jesus to Islamic texts. In his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) , Spencer includes a “Muhammad vs Jesus” section. He cites the following sayings of Jesus in the Bible:
“Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you”
“If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also”
“Blessed are the peacemakers”
“Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy”
“But love your enemies, and do good”
These so-called “peaceful” verses of the Bible are compared to select battle revealed-Quranic verses. The violent verses of the Bible “don’t count” and are craftily excluded from the comparison (“that’s just the Old Testament!”). To tighten the noose, peaceful verses of the Glorious Qur’an are also excluded from the heavily biased analysis, the shaitaan gives his evil reason for that: these “don’t count” since they are supposedly from when Muhammad was still in Mecca.
To understand the last point, one needs to have a basic understanding of the Prophet Muhammad’s (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) biography: he first declared his prophethood in the city of Makkah. Only a very small segment of society accepted him (mostly the weak and poor), whereas the masses–especially the powerful leaders of the city–not only rejected him but actively persecuted him. The chapters of the Qur’an that were revealed during this period are known as the Makkan chapters. Eventually, Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) was commanded by God to fled to the city of Madinah, whose people accepted him as their ruler. He went from persecuted prophet to ruler and commander-in-chief of a fledgling city-state.
The anti-Muslim ideologues claim that the peaceful and tolerant verses of the Qur’an come from when Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) was weak and persecuted in Mekkah. According to this islamophobe Baboon, These verses are “cancelled”, they argue, by the violent-sounding verses in the Medinan chapters.
Robert Spencer writes in his book:
Islamic theology divides the Qur’an into “Meccan” and “Medinan” suras [chapters]. The Meccan ones come from the first segment of Muhammad’s career as a prophet, when he simply called the Meccans to Islam. Later, after he fled to Medina, his positions hardened. The Medinan suras [are]…filled with matters of law and ritual–and exhortations to jihad warfare against unbelievers. The relatively tolerant verses quoted above and others like them generally date from the Meccan period, while those with a more violent and intolerant edge are mostly from Medina.
The Islamophobe deceivers portray Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) as opportunistic:
when he was weak and under the rule of the pagans, he called for peace. Without being in a position of authority, Muhammad was hardly in a position to do otherwise. As soon as he came to power, however, he waged “jihad warfare” (what a strange phrase!) against them. This is why, they argue, the peaceful verses of the Quran simply “don’t count”.
For now, however, we will demonstrate that, using such logic, it is equally possible to invalidate the “peaceful” sayings of Jesus. While he was a persecuted prophet, Jesus advocated nonviolence and peaceful resistance. He was hardly in a position to do otherwise, right? Once in power, however, this changes dramatically and violent warfare becomes the new
modus operandi .
The Messiah
Just as Prophet Muhammad’s (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) biography can be divided into a Mekkan and Medinan period, so too can Jesus’s (‘Eesa alaihissalaam) lifestory be divided into a First and Second Coming. (Likewise can Moses’ (Musa alaihissalaam) lifestory be divided into pre- and post-Exodus: prior to Exodus, Moses (Musa alaihissalaam) was largely peaceful, but after Exodus, Moses became the leader of the emerging Jewish state–and subsequently engaged in holy wars and even genocide against other nations.)
In the First Coming of Jesus (‘Eesa alaihissalaam), only a small segment of society (mostly from the weak and poor) accepted Jesus, whereas the leaders and authorities persecuted him. During this time period, Jesus (‘Eesa alaihissalaam) advised his followers to engage in nonviolent resistance only, perhaps even pacifism. Jesus advised his followers to “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” According to the Bible, this didn’t stop his Jewish and Roman persecutors from making an attempt to kill him.
Yet, the Second Coming of Jesus (‘Eesa maseeh alaihissalaam) is a central theological belief of Christianity as well as Islam. When Jesus (‘Eesa alaihissalaam) returns to earth, the gloves will be off: no longer will he practice non-violence or pacifism. Enemies will be mercilessly killed, not loved. In this manner, Jesus will fulfill the messianic prophecies found in the Bible–both in the Old and New Testaments. To Christians, Jesus is the Messiah (the Greek word “Christ” has the same meaning as the Hebrew word “Messiah”)–the same Messiah that the Jews had been in anticipation of.
It is important to understand how the concept of Messiah developed. According to the Bible, Moses (Musa alaihissalaam) and his followers fled persecution in Egypt to find refuge in the land of Canaan. They believed that God had bequeathed this land to them, which would come to be known as Israel. Unfortunately, there were already peoples who lived in Canaan, a problem that Moses (Musa alaihissalaam) and his followers rectified via military might. The native Canaanites were subsequently occupied, exterminated, or run off their ancestral lands. When the natives fought back, the Israelites attributed this to their innate and infernal hatred of the Jewish people.
After ruling the “promised land” for a time, the Israelites were themselves conquered by outsiders. The Babylonian Empire captured the Kingdom of Judah and expelled the Jews. Though the Israelites felt no remorse over occupying, slaughtering, and running off the native inhabitants of Canaan, they were mortified when they received similar (albeit milder) treatment. In exile, the Jews prayed for vengeance, as recorded in a divine prayer in the Bible:
Psalm 137:8 O Babylon, you will be destroyed. Happy is the one who pays you back for what you have done to us.
137:9 Blessed is the one who grabs your babies and smashes them against a rock.
(We can hardly imagine the glee that an Islamophobe devil would feel had such a violent passage, one that blesses those who smash infidel babies against rocks, been found in the Qur’an instead of the Bible.)
It was during the time of exile that the Jewish concept of Messiah was first born. Dutch historian Jona Lendering writes:
It was believed that the Messiah (the Anointed One) would receive God’s personal help against the enemies of Israel; the Messiah would defeat the Babylonians and reestablish the Jewish state of Israel. Cyrus the Great, king of Persia, fulfilled this role by conquering Babylon and releasing the Jews from exile. Israel Smith Clare writes:
Prof. Martin Bernal of Cornell University writes:
The first Messiah in the Bible was Cyrus, the king of Persia who released the Jews–at least those who wanted to leave–from Exile in Babylon.
As for this passage in the Bible:
Psalm 137:8 O Babylon, you will be destroyed. Happy is the one who pays you back for what you have done to us.
137:9 Blessed is the one who grabs your babies and smashes them against a rock.
Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible comments on this verse:
The Jews thereby returned to the promised land and rebuilt their nation. According to Jewish tradition, however, this did not last long: the Roman Empire conquered the land, destroyed the Temple, and exiled the Jews once again. As a result, as Lendering puts it, “the old prophecies [about Messiah] became relevant again.” Although in Jewish tradition there is a messiah for each generation, there is also the Messiah, which is what is commonly thought of when we hear the word. The Messiah would fulfill the task of destroying all of Israel’s enemies.
JewFaq.org says of the Messiah, which they spell as mashiach (emphasis is ours):
KosherJudaism.org states:
The Second Coming of Christ
Around 4 B.C., a prophet by the name of Jesus was born. He claimed to be the Messiah, and some Jews followed him. The followers of Christ eventually split into numerous sects, and eventually one triumphed over all others. These became what are today known as Christians. As for the majority of Jews, they rejected Jesus. Why? The Jews rejected (and continue to reject) Jesus because he did not fulfill the prophecies pertaining to the Messiah. How could Jesus be the Messiah when he not only did not defeat or conquer Israel’s enemies, but he never even led an army into a single war? On the contrary, didn’t Jesus preach nonviolence and “loving one’s enemies”?
Instead of rejecting these militaristic aspects of the Messiah, Christians attribute them to Jesus during his Second Coming. No longer will Jesus be a weak and persecuted prophet. Instead, he will hold governmental authority, and is depicted as powerful and mighty. This Jesus will certainly not love his enemies or turn the other cheek to them. In fact, the Bible tells us that Jesus will wage violent warfare against his enemies, and he will mercilessly kill them all.
Many Christians talk about how Jesus Christ will bring peace to the world, once and for all. But they often neglect to mention how this world “peace” is obtained. It is only after slaughtering his opponents and subduing “the nations” (the entire world?) under the foot of the global Christian empire that the world will have “peace”. Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible explains:
In other words, there will be peace for the simple reason that there will be nobody left to fight, all opponents having been slaughtered or subdued. This world “peace” is the same “peace” that any conqueror dreams of: after utterly defeating and conquering all of one’s neighbors and enemies, what is there left but “peace”, insofar as the non-existence of violence? In the accidentally insightful words of the Evangelist Wayne Blank : “Put another way, humans aren’t going to have anything left to fight about.”
Following conquest, a foreign occupier would obviously want the occupied peoples to be peaceful, as this would eliminate the nuisance of having to fight off freedom-fighters. The absence of violence would allow the conquering force to effortlessly sustain its occupation.
The events of the Second Coming of Christ are found in the Bible, including the Book of Revelation–which is the last book in the New Testament. Jesus will “judge and wage war” (Rev. 19:11), his robe will be “dipped in blood” (19:13), and he will be accompanied by “armies” (19:14) with which he will “strike down the nations” (19:15), . Furthermore: “ including “the Gentiles” in general and “the nations that were opposed to him” in specific. This will result in the “utter destruction of all his enemies” In his second coming[,] he will complete their destruction, when he shall put down all opposing rule, principality, and power.”
Once he conquers the infidels, Jesus “will rule them with an iron rod” (19:15). Wayne Blank writes:
Jesus will “will release the fierce wrath of God” (19:15) on them, and “he shall execute the severest judgment on the opposers of his truth” . Because of this, “every tribe on earth will mourn because of him” (Rev. 1:7), and they will “express the inward terror and horror of their minds, at his appearing; they will fear his resentment” . Just as the people of Canaan were terrified by the Israelite war machine , so too would the unbelievers “look with trembling upon [Jesus]” . This is repeated in the Gospels, that “the Son of man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn” (Matthew 24:30).
“All the nations of the world shall wail when he comes to judgment” and the enemies of Jesus “shall mourn at the great calamities coming upon them” .
Far from the meek prophet of the First Coming, Jesus on his return will command a very strong military force that will “destroy[] every ruler, authority, and power”. Not only is this consistent with the legacy of conquests by the Biblical prophets, it is actually a fulfillment or completion of the task that Moses initiated: holy war and conquest in the name of God. In First Corinthians (part of the New Testament) it is prophesied that instead of loving his enemies, Christ will subdue and humble them under his feet:
1 Corinthians 15:24 [Jesus] will turn the Kingdom over to God the Father, having destroyed every ruler and authority and power.
15:25 For Christ must reign until he humbles all his enemies beneath his feet.
Pastor and Biblical scholar Ron Teed explains that Jesus Christ brought “comfort and salvation at His first coming” but will bring “vengeance on God’s enemies” during his Second Coming. There are thus “two comings of Christ, the first to save, the second to judge”–yet in debates with Muslims it seems that Christians play up the First Coming and completely ignore the Second. The popular Teed Commentaries explains how “vengeance” is for Christ’s enemies (the “unbelievers”) and “comfort” only for his followers (the believers):
The Messiah will bring both comfort and
vengeance. He will take vengeance on God’s enemies and bring comfort to His people. This is a summary of the mission of Christ. He brought comfort and salvation at His first coming during His earthly ministry according to Luke…
However, He said nothing of taking vengeance on God’s enemies at that time, for that part of his mission will not be fulfilled till He returns triumphant…
[There are] two comings of Christ, the first to save, the second to judge.
In His First coming He did the things mentioned in Isaiah 61:1-2; in His Second Coming He will do the things in verses 2-3. When He returns He will bring judgment on unbelievers. This will be the day of God’s “vengeance.”
The ever popular Evangelical site GotQuestions.org sums it up nicely:
Jesus’ second coming will be exceedingly violent.
Revelation 19:11-21 describes the ultimate war with Christ, the conquering commander who judges and makes war “with justice” (v. 11). It’s going to be bloody (v. 13) and gory. The birds will eat the flesh of all those who oppose Him (v. 17-18). He has no compassion upon His enemies, whom He will conquer completely and consign to a “fiery lake of burning sulfur” (v. 20).
It is an error to say that God never supports a war. Jesus is not a pacifist.
Will the Real Messiah Please Stand Up?
Whereas the Second Coming of Christ is curiously forgotten in debates with Muslims, it is conveniently remembered during debates with Jews. One of the primary (if not the
primary) functions of the promised messiah in the Judeo-Christian tradition is, after all, vengeance against Israel’s enemies and global dominance. Indeed, the entire concept of Messiah emerged following the conquest of Jewish lands with the subjugation and exile of its inhabitants. The Messiah stood as hope for the redemption of Israel as well as revenge against her enemies.
Jewish polemical tracts against Christians reveal to us how militarism is a fundamental characteristic of the Messiah. The Christian response in turn reveal how Jesus Christ will indeed be militaristic (during his Second Coming). David Klinghoffer, an Orthodox Jewish author, writes in his book Why the Jews Rejected Jesus :
There were certainly those among [Jesus’] followers who saw him as the promised Messiah. This was natural. The first century produced messiahs the way our own time produces movie stars. There was always a hot new candidate for the role emerging from obscurity, whose glory faded either as he was slaughtered by the Romans or as his followers lost interest when he failed to produce the goods promised by the prophets.
“The goods” refer to the military conquest of Israel’s enemies and world domination. The fact that Jesus failed to produce these “goods” proves that he is not the promised messiah. Klinghoffer continues:
Let him do what the “son of man,” the promised Messiah, had been advertised as being destined to do from Daniel back through Ezekiel and Isaiah and the rest of the prophets. Let him rule as a monarch, his kingship extending over “all peoples, nations, and languages.” Let him return the exiles and build the Temple and defeat the oppressors and establish universal peace, as the prophets also said…
Let Jesus come up with the real messianic goods–visible to all rather than requiring us to accept someone’s assurance that, for example, he was born in Bethlehem–and then we’ll take him seriously
This point is reiterated in his book numerous times:
Hearing Jesus preach, a Jew might reasonably have crossed his arms upon his chest and muttered, “Hm, intriguing, but let’s see what happens.” After all, the scriptures themselves common-sensically defined a false prophet as someone whose prophecies fail to come true. According to Deuteronomy, this was the chief test of a prophet.
Klinghoffer writes elsewhere:
The Hebrew prophets describe the elements of a messianic scenario that could not easily be overlooked: an ingathering of the Jewish exiles, the reign of a messianic king, a new covenant with the Jews based on a restored commitment to observance of the commandments, a new Temple, the recognition of God by the world’s peoples. The future Davidic king was expected to radically change the world.
The “radical change” involves the “subjugation” of the nations:
The Messiah would be a military and political leader. Philo, whose views have sometimes been taken as foreshadowing Christian teachings, is clear on this: “For ‘there shall come forth a man’ (Num. 24:7), says the oracle, and leading his host of war he will subdue great and populous nations.”
The Gospel writers thus faced the challenge that Jesus never raised an army, fought the Romans, returned any Jewish exiles, ruled over any population, or did anything else a king messiah would do.
The subjugated nations would then “prostrate” themselves to the Messiah and “serve” him (perpetual servitude?):
The promised royal scion of David, the Messiah, would surely inspire veneration and awe beyond that accorded even to David himself…The nations will “prostrate” themselves before God, says one psalm; but so will they “prostrate” themselves (same Hebrew verb) before the Davidic king , says another psalm…As Daniel puts it…“[The Messiah] was given dominion, honor, kingship, so that all peoples, nations, and languages would serve him.”
Klinghoffer defines the Messiah as he “who conquers and rules the nations and liberates the Jews” and describes him as
“ a mighty warrior”. He rhetorically asks:
Was there in Jewish tradition any room for a dead Messiah? Didn’t Jesus’s death tend to cast doubt on his ability to accomplish all the world-transforming things the Messiah was supposed to do?
Again, the “world-transforming things” include violent holy war against the heathen nations and their subjugation under his rule. Klinghoffer answers his own question:
But was Jesus a ruler over Israel? On the contrary, the younger Kimchi pointed out, “He did not govern Israel but they governed him.”
Christians reply by arguing that Jesus will fulfill these prophecies, just during his Second Coming. The Good News, a Christian magazine with a readership of nearly half a million subscribers, responds to the Jewish criticism by arguing that Jesus returns “a second time” as a “conquering King” who will “slay the great armies of those who opposed Him”. Jesus will be “the promised Messiah whom the prophets claimed would rule all nations ‘with a rod of iron’” and “all nations would come under His rule”.
Klinghoffer, the Orthodox Jewish interlocutor, cries foul:
Christians respond by saying that “the famously unfulfilled prophecies (for instance, that the messianic era will be one of peace) apply to the second and final act in Jesus’s career, when he returns to earth. This is a convenient and necessary dodge: The Bible itself never speaks of a two-act messianic drama.
The interesting dynamic is thus established: Jews accuse Jesus of not being militaristic enough, and Christian apologists respond by eagerly proving the militaristic nature of Jesus during his Second Coming.
Christians Affirm Militant Old Testament Prophecies
Far from saying “it’s just the Old Testament!”, Christians routinely–and as a matter of accepted fundamental theology–use the Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah to validate their belief in Jesus–prophecies that have militaristic overtones. The Book of Isaiah, for example, has numerous prophecies in it that Christians routinely attribute to Jesus Christ. For example:
Isaiah 35:4 Say to those with fearful hearts, “Be strong, do not fear; your God will come, he will come with vengeance; with divine retribution he will come to save you.”
Matthew Henry’s commentary of this verse says:
This will be “a day of vengeance, a year of retribution, to uphold Zion’s cause” (34:8) against the “nations at enmity with the church” and “those found opposing the church of Christ”, which will result in “the destruction of [the church’s] enemies.” Likewise do Christians claim that the Book of Micah foretells the Second Coming of Christ:
Micah 15:5 I will execute vengeance in anger and fury on the heathen, such as they have not heard.
One Biblical commentary helpfully explains this verse:
Christ will give his Son either the hearts or necks of his enemies, and make them either his friends or his footstool.
[NassirH, a reader of our website, astutely commented: I suppose this is what JihadWatch writer Roland Shirk meant when he said “Islam is a religion of fear and force, and its adherents can only be at your feet or at your throat.”]
Another Biblical commentary notes: “Here no mention is made of Mercy, but only of executing vengeance; and that, with wrath and fury.” Yet another states that this is “a prophecy of the final overthrow of all the enemies of pure and undefiled religion” and that this is “a threatening of vengeance to the Heathens” .
When we published articles comparing the Judeo-Christian prophets of the Hebrew Bible to the Prophet Muhammad, an anti-Muslim bigot by the name of Percey (formerly known as Cassidy) claimed that the genocides of the Old Testament were “not supported by Christ’s teachings.” This hardly seems the case, however, when we consider that Jesus will bring to a climax the holy war first initiated by Moses against the enemies of Israel. Jesus will fulfill , not repudiate, Old Testament holy wars against Israel’s foes. In fact, the war will be expanded to heathen nations in general, or at least those that reject Jesus.
Conclusion
We could reproduce violent Christian texts ad nauseum …What is clear is that the Christian conception of Jesus can very easily be characterized as violent. Prof. Melancthon W. Jacobus writes in A Standard Bible Dictionary:
[Jesus] excluded from the Messiah’s character the main elements of the popular ideal, i.e. that of a conquering hero, who would exalt Israel above the heathen, and through such exclusion He seemed to fail to realize the older Scriptural conception. The failure, however, was only apparent and temporary. For in the second coming in glory He was to achieve this work.
Accordingly, His disciples recognized a twofoldness in His Messiahship: (1) They saw realized in His past life the ideal Servant of Jehovah, the spiritual Messiah, the Christ who teaches and suffers for the people, and (2) they looked forward to the realization of the Davidic and conquering Messiah in His second coming in power and glory to conquer the nations and reign over them
How then do we reconcile the seemingly peaceful and pacifist sayings of Jesus with the violent and warlike Second Coming of Christ? There are numerous ways to do this, but perhaps the most convincing is that Jesus’ peaceful and pacifist sayings were directed towards a resident’s personal and local enemies–usually (but not always) referring to fellow co-religionists. It did not refer to a government’s foreign adversaries, certainly not to heathen nations. Prof. Richard A. Horsley of the University of Massachusetts argues:
The cluster of sayings keynoted by “love your enemies” pertains neither to external, political enemies nor to the question of nonviolence or nonresistance…The content of nearly all the sayings indicates a context of local interaction with personal enemies, not of relations with foreign or political foes…
“Love your enemies” and the related sayings apparently were understood by [Jesus’] followers…to refer to local social-economic relations, largely within the village community, which was still probably coextensive with the religious community in most cases…[although sometimes referring] to persecutors outside the religious community but still in the local residential community—and certainly not the national or political enemies.
This is consistent with the ruling given by the Evangelical site
GotQuestions.org , which permits governments to wage war whilst forbidding individuals from “personal vendettas”:
God has allowed for just wars throughout the history of His people. From Abraham to Deborah to David, God’s people have fought as instruments of judgment from a righteous and holy God. Romans 13:1-4 tells us to submit ourselves to government authorities and that nations have the right to bear the sword against evildoers, both foreign and domestic.
Violence occurs, but we must recognize the difference between holy judgment on sin and our own personal vendettas against those we dislike, which is the inevitable outcome of pride
As for the “turning the other cheek” passage, it is known that the slap on the cheek that was being referred to here was in that particular culture understood as an insult, not as assault. The passage itself has to do with a person responding to a personal insult, and has nothing to do with pacifism. In any case, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary clarifies: “Of course, He applied this to personal insults, not to groups or nations.”
Some Christians maintain that fighting the enemies on the battlefield does not exclude loving them. This begs the question: how absolutely irrelevant is this strange form of “love” for enemies that does not proscribe killing them?
Whatever the reason for the contradiction between loving enemies on the one hand and killing them on the other, the point is that the comparison between a supposedly peaceful Jesus and “violent” Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) is not just a vapid oversimplification but pure falsity. It is only through a very selective and biased analysis–a carefully crafted comparison between the most peaceful sounding verses of the New Testament (a handful of quotes from Jesus that constitute a small fraction of the Bible overall) with the most violent sounding verses of the Quran.
Anything that doesn’t fit this agenda simply “doesn’t count” (and indeed, the anti-Muslim pro-Christian readers will furiously rack their brains to figure out ways to make the violent Jesus verses “not count”). The Islamophobic logic is thus: If we exclude all violent verses from the Bible and all the peaceful verses from the Quran, then aha! See how much more violent the Quran is compared to the Bible! Anti-Muslim Christians scoff at Islam and exalt their religion by informing Muslims of how Jesus, unlike Muhammad, loved his enemies. Let the Muslims reply back ever so wryly: Jesus loved them so much that he kills them.
Addendum I:
Anti-Muslim Christians often chant “Muhammad was a prophet of war, whereas Jesus was the Prince of Peace”. A few points about this are worthy of being mentioned: First, Muhammad never used the title “prophet of war” nor is this mentioned in the Quran or anywhere else. In fact, one of the most common epithets used for Muhammad, one found in the Quran no less, was “A Mercy to All Humanity”.
Jesus, on the other hand, will be a “Warrior King” and a “Conquering King.” Should it then be “Muhammad is A Mercy to All Humanity, whereas Jesus is the Warrior King”?
As for Jesus being the Prince of Peace, this epithet comes from Isaiah 9:6:
Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
9:7 There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace. He will rule with fairness and justice from the throne of his ancestor David for all eternity.
The passionate commitment of the LORD of Heaven’s Armies will make this happen.
One Christian website paraphrases this succinctly: “Israel’s enemies will be destroyed. Peace will flow to the four corners of the earth, as the Prince of Peace rules and reigns.” Again, this is the “peace” that conquerers dream of. Jesus is the Prince of Peace because he declares war, slaughters and subjugates all possible enemies to the point where nobody is left to fight, and voila! there is peace!
This brings us to the commonly quoted (and oft-debated) verse of the Bible, in which Jesus says:
Matthew 10:34 Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
Most debates focus on whether or not the word “sword” here is metaphorical or not. Leaving aside the fact that even if this is a metaphor it is certainly a very violent sounding one, it would actually behoove us to focus on the word “peace” in this verse. Jesus told the Jews: “do not think I have come to bring peace on earth” as a way to explain his failure to produce “the goods”: “ the Jews believed that when the Messiah comes, there would be a time of world peace. ” Naturally, this world “peace” would be brought about through war. Of course, in his Second Coming will Jesus bring this “peace on earth” (and by “peace”, what is meant is war, slaughter, and subjugation). As we can see, this verse confirms the militant nature of the Messiah (and thus Jesus), regardless of if it is metaphorical or not.
Addendum II:
Here is another hotly debated verse, in which Jesus says:
Luke 19:27 But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and kill them in my presence.
Robert Spencer dismisses this verse, saying: “These are the words of a king in a parable.” Yes, this was a parable that Jesus told his disciples. But what was his intention in narrating this parable? Gill’s Explanation to the Entire Bible explains that it was to explain what will happen to the Jews “when Christ shall come a second time”: Jesus will “destroy the Jewish nation” for rejecting him “and then all other enemies will be slain and destroyed” as well.
Death and destruction will be the fate of whoever does not accept Jesus’ reign as Warrior King.
This was hardly an innocuous story. It reminds us of a scene in the movie Gladiator when the evil Roman emperor Commodus tells his nephew a story about an “emperor” who was betrayed by his sister (“his own blood”) and how he “struck down” her son as revenge. (Watch it here.) The story was a thinly veiled threat, as was Jesus’ parable.
One can only hardly imagine how Islamophobes like Robert Spencer would react had it been the Prophet Muhammad who had used such a violent parable, threatening to return to earth in order to “slay” anyone who “did not want me to reign over them”! This would certainly “count” since all violence in the Quran “counts” whereas whatever is peaceful in the Quran “doesn’t count”, and whatever is violent in the Bible “doesn’t count” and whatever is peaceful in the Bible “counts”. Heads I win, tails you lose.
Source: https://islamreigns.wordpress.com/2016/02/04/jesus-loves-all-is-a-christian-missionary-deception/
22
In the Bible / The bible: Christian woman must wear hijab during prayers !
« on: July 15, 2018, 09:33:21 AM »
Women are commanded by the author of the bible to cover their head and submit during prayers.
Let's have a look on what bible experts think about this:
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary:
The woman was made subject to man, because made for his help and comfort. And she should do nothing, in Christian assemblies, which looked like a claim of being equal. She ought to have power, that is, a veil, on her head, because of the angels. Their presence should keep Christians from all that is wrong while in the worship of God.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
With her head uncovered - That is, with the veil removed which she usually wore. It would seem from this that the women removed their veils, and wore their hair disheveled, when they pretended to be under the influence of divine inspiration. This was the case with the pagan priestesses; and in so doing, the Christian women imitated them. On this account, if on no other, Paul declares the impropriety of this conduct. It was, besides, a custom among ancient females, and one that was strictly enjoined by the traditional laws of the Jews, that a woman should not appear in public unless she were veiled.
Dishonoureth her head - Shows a lack of proper respect to man, to her husband, to her father, to the sex in general. The veil is a token of modesty and of subordinaion. It is regarded among Jews, and everywhere, as an emblem of her sense of inferiority of rank and station. It is the customary mark of her sex, and that by which she evinces her modesty and sense of subordination. To remove that, is to remove the appropriate mark of such subordination, and is a public act by which she thus shows dishonor to the man. And as it is proper that the grades and ranks of life should be recognized in a suitable manner, so it is improper that, even on pretence of religion, and of being engaged in the service of God, these marks should be laid aside.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
dishonoureth … head—in that she acts against the divine ordinance and the modest propriety that becomes her: in putting away the veil, she puts away the badge of her subjection to man, which is her true "honor"; for through him it connects her with Christ, the head of the man. Moreover, as the head-covering was the emblem of maiden modesty before man (Ge 24:65), and conjugal chastity (Ge 20:16); so, to uncover the head indicated withdrawal from the power of the husband, whence a suspected wife had her head uncovered by the priest (Nu 5:18). Alford takes "her head" to be man, her symbolical, not her literal head; but as it is literal in the former clause, it must be so in the latter one.
The penalty for those who break this rule:
" If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. "
1 Corinthians 11:5[/b]
But every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
But every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
Let's have a look on what bible experts think about this:
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary:
The woman was made subject to man, because made for his help and comfort. And she should do nothing, in Christian assemblies, which looked like a claim of being equal. She ought to have power, that is, a veil, on her head, because of the angels. Their presence should keep Christians from all that is wrong while in the worship of God.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
With her head uncovered - That is, with the veil removed which she usually wore. It would seem from this that the women removed their veils, and wore their hair disheveled, when they pretended to be under the influence of divine inspiration. This was the case with the pagan priestesses; and in so doing, the Christian women imitated them. On this account, if on no other, Paul declares the impropriety of this conduct. It was, besides, a custom among ancient females, and one that was strictly enjoined by the traditional laws of the Jews, that a woman should not appear in public unless she were veiled.
Dishonoureth her head - Shows a lack of proper respect to man, to her husband, to her father, to the sex in general. The veil is a token of modesty and of subordinaion. It is regarded among Jews, and everywhere, as an emblem of her sense of inferiority of rank and station. It is the customary mark of her sex, and that by which she evinces her modesty and sense of subordination. To remove that, is to remove the appropriate mark of such subordination, and is a public act by which she thus shows dishonor to the man. And as it is proper that the grades and ranks of life should be recognized in a suitable manner, so it is improper that, even on pretence of religion, and of being engaged in the service of God, these marks should be laid aside.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
dishonoureth … head—in that she acts against the divine ordinance and the modest propriety that becomes her: in putting away the veil, she puts away the badge of her subjection to man, which is her true "honor"; for through him it connects her with Christ, the head of the man. Moreover, as the head-covering was the emblem of maiden modesty before man (Ge 24:65), and conjugal chastity (Ge 20:16); so, to uncover the head indicated withdrawal from the power of the husband, whence a suspected wife had her head uncovered by the priest (Nu 5:18). Alford takes "her head" to be man, her symbolical, not her literal head; but as it is literal in the former clause, it must be so in the latter one.
The penalty for those who break this rule:
" If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. "
23
Ahteism & Agnosticism / How Do We Know There's a God When We Can't See Him?
« on: June 09, 2018, 07:23:44 AM »
Hamza Myatt at Hyde Park:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpjrzNPSEb8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpjrzNPSEb8
24
Jihad & Terrorism / US general makes Takfir of Taliban !
« on: May 03, 2018, 05:18:03 PM »
US Marine Corps General Robert Neller makes Takfir of the Taliban and says "We Are the Mujahideen"
https://twitter.com/AHudhayfah/status/992031462915543042?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fdisqus.com%2Fhome%2Fdiscussion%2Fchannel-thefarreachingargument%2Ftakfir_of_the_khawarijite_us_general_robert_neller%2F&tfw_site=disqus
https://twitter.com/AHudhayfah/status/992031462915543042?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fdisqus.com%2Fhome%2Fdiscussion%2Fchannel-thefarreachingargument%2Ftakfir_of_the_khawarijite_us_general_robert_neller%2F&tfw_site=disqus
25
Bible History, Canons, alleged Lost Scriptures, alleged Contradictions & Errors, and general Text QA / Missing Books in the Bible
« on: April 23, 2018, 03:57:50 PM »
“God had taken a Covenant from the Children of Israel… But they broke their Covenant, so I cursed them and made their hearts hard. They changed the words from their original places and have forgotten a huge piece of what they were told to remember over and over again, so you will continue to find treachery against you or cheats from a few of them. Overlook this and forgive them because God loves those who excel in doing good. I had also took a Covenant from those who say: “We’re Christians,” but they too forgot part of what they were told to remember. So I released animosity and hatred among themselves until the Day of Judgement, when God will tell them what they used to manufacture.”
– The Quran, Surah Maidah 5:13-14
This will be a short and sweet post this time. In the verse of the Qur’an quoted above, God says that the Jews and Christians have forgotten a piece of the Scripture. Dr. Joel Hoffman in his book “The Bible’s Cutting Room Floor” states (emphasis mine):
“The Bible you usually read is the abridged version. Its contents were culled from a much larger selection of holy scriptures when new realities forced religious leaders to discard some of their most cherished and sacred books, resulting in what we now call the Bible. Some writings were left out for political or theological reasons, others simply because of the physical restrictions of ancient bookmaking technology. At times, the compilers of the Bible skipped information that they assumed everyone knew. Some passages were even omitted by accident. For these reasons and more, your Bible doesn’t give you a complete picture. […]
In the end, correct answers to the question, How many books are in the Bible? range from thirty-three to seventy-eight. Yet even with seventy-eight books, more material was left out than was included. Additionally, different groups of people order the books of the Bible differently. The modern Jewish order is different from the traditional Jewish order. Christians put the Old Testament books into a third order yet. (For instance, Christians put Daniel near the other famous prophets like Ezekiel and Isaiah, to underscore his centrality. Jews marginalize Daniel by grouping him with the other “writings.”) The Apocrypha, too, appear variously as part of the Old Testament, as an addition to the Old Testament, or—as we just saw—not at all. Underlying all of these differences is the simple fact that there used to be lots of holy writings, and different groups of people compiled different collections of them to form a single book.”[1]
Today we’re going to look into various places in the Torah where references will be made to books that don’t exist in the present day Bible. Here are a few examples:
Moses (peace be upon him) quotes a verse to comfort Aaron (peace be upon him) that doesn’t exist in the Bible.[2]
The Book of the Wars of the Lord.[3]
The Chronicles of the Kings of Israel and Chronicles of the Kings of Judah.[4]
The “Book of Shemaiah, and of Iddo the Seer” (also called Story of the Prophet Iddo or The Annals of the Prophet Iddo.[5]
The Acts of Solomon.[6]
The Annals of King David.[7]
The Book of Nathan the Prophet.[8]
The book of Samuel the seer and the Book of Gad the Seer.[9]
The Story of the Book of Kings.[10]
The Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel.[11]
The Sayings of the Seers (or Sayings of Hozai, in the Masoretic Text).[12]
The Book of Jasher.[13]
The Laments for Josiah.[14]
So this leaves an interesting issue. Jews and Christians might argue that these are apocryphal books or that they don’t matter to the Bible’s overall message. There are two points to make:
If they are “apocryphal books” as some might claim, then why would the canon mention them?
We don’t know the impact the books would have to the message because we don’t have said books.
The Bible’s preservation as a whole is seriously called into question because as we have seen, lost texts are clearly mentioned within the official canon itself. And keep in mind these are only books we know of because as Dr. Hoffman stated:
“Some writings were left out for political or theological reasons…”
God however will not allow mankind to remain unguided. After He tells of how the Jews and Christian forgot pieces of the Scripture, in the next verse of the Qur’an, He gives hope saying:
“People of the Scripture! My Messenger has come to you; clarifying what you used to keep hidden of the Scripture and who overlooks much of what you changed. A light has now come to you from God, along with a Scripture making things clear, which God uses to guide to the ways of peace, all who are looking to follow what pleases Him. Leading them from their various shades of darkness into the Light, by His will, and onto one straight path.”[15]
For anyone interested in more detail about this subject, I highly recommend Hoffman’s book. Check it out at your local library.
With that being said, I’m going to give a choice for what you guys want to hear about next. Leave a comment with your vote below.
The foretelling of the Caliphate in the Bible
Did the Prophet copy from the Bible?
Contentions against the story of the Crucifixion (aka The Passion of the Christ).
[1] Dr. Joel E. Hoffman, The Bible’s Cutting Room Floor: The Holy Scriptures Missing From Your Bible (New York: Thomas Dunne Books, 2014). Kindle Edition.
[2] Leviticus 10:3.
[3] Numbers 21:14.
[4] 1 Kings 14:19, 29.
[5] 2 Chronicles 9:29; 2 Chronicles 12:15; 2 Chronicles 13:22.
[6] 1 Kings 11:41.
[7] 1 Chronicles 27:24.
[8] 1 Chronicles 29:29; 2 Chronicles 9:29.
[9] 1 Chronicles 29:29.
[10] 2 Chronicles 24:27.
[11] 2 Chronicles 32:32.
[12] 2 Chronicles 33:19.
[13] 2 Samuel 1:18, Joshua 10:13.
[14] 2 Chronicles 35:25.
[15] Surah Maidah, 5:16-17.
https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2018/04/21/missing-books-in-the-bible/
– The Quran, Surah Maidah 5:13-14
This will be a short and sweet post this time. In the verse of the Qur’an quoted above, God says that the Jews and Christians have forgotten a piece of the Scripture. Dr. Joel Hoffman in his book “The Bible’s Cutting Room Floor” states (emphasis mine):
“The Bible you usually read is the abridged version. Its contents were culled from a much larger selection of holy scriptures when new realities forced religious leaders to discard some of their most cherished and sacred books, resulting in what we now call the Bible. Some writings were left out for political or theological reasons, others simply because of the physical restrictions of ancient bookmaking technology. At times, the compilers of the Bible skipped information that they assumed everyone knew. Some passages were even omitted by accident. For these reasons and more, your Bible doesn’t give you a complete picture. […]
In the end, correct answers to the question, How many books are in the Bible? range from thirty-three to seventy-eight. Yet even with seventy-eight books, more material was left out than was included. Additionally, different groups of people order the books of the Bible differently. The modern Jewish order is different from the traditional Jewish order. Christians put the Old Testament books into a third order yet. (For instance, Christians put Daniel near the other famous prophets like Ezekiel and Isaiah, to underscore his centrality. Jews marginalize Daniel by grouping him with the other “writings.”) The Apocrypha, too, appear variously as part of the Old Testament, as an addition to the Old Testament, or—as we just saw—not at all. Underlying all of these differences is the simple fact that there used to be lots of holy writings, and different groups of people compiled different collections of them to form a single book.”[1]
Today we’re going to look into various places in the Torah where references will be made to books that don’t exist in the present day Bible. Here are a few examples:
Moses (peace be upon him) quotes a verse to comfort Aaron (peace be upon him) that doesn’t exist in the Bible.[2]
The Book of the Wars of the Lord.[3]
The Chronicles of the Kings of Israel and Chronicles of the Kings of Judah.[4]
The “Book of Shemaiah, and of Iddo the Seer” (also called Story of the Prophet Iddo or The Annals of the Prophet Iddo.[5]
The Acts of Solomon.[6]
The Annals of King David.[7]
The Book of Nathan the Prophet.[8]
The book of Samuel the seer and the Book of Gad the Seer.[9]
The Story of the Book of Kings.[10]
The Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel.[11]
The Sayings of the Seers (or Sayings of Hozai, in the Masoretic Text).[12]
The Book of Jasher.[13]
The Laments for Josiah.[14]
So this leaves an interesting issue. Jews and Christians might argue that these are apocryphal books or that they don’t matter to the Bible’s overall message. There are two points to make:
If they are “apocryphal books” as some might claim, then why would the canon mention them?
We don’t know the impact the books would have to the message because we don’t have said books.
The Bible’s preservation as a whole is seriously called into question because as we have seen, lost texts are clearly mentioned within the official canon itself. And keep in mind these are only books we know of because as Dr. Hoffman stated:
“Some writings were left out for political or theological reasons…”
God however will not allow mankind to remain unguided. After He tells of how the Jews and Christian forgot pieces of the Scripture, in the next verse of the Qur’an, He gives hope saying:
“People of the Scripture! My Messenger has come to you; clarifying what you used to keep hidden of the Scripture and who overlooks much of what you changed. A light has now come to you from God, along with a Scripture making things clear, which God uses to guide to the ways of peace, all who are looking to follow what pleases Him. Leading them from their various shades of darkness into the Light, by His will, and onto one straight path.”[15]
For anyone interested in more detail about this subject, I highly recommend Hoffman’s book. Check it out at your local library.
With that being said, I’m going to give a choice for what you guys want to hear about next. Leave a comment with your vote below.
The foretelling of the Caliphate in the Bible
Did the Prophet copy from the Bible?
Contentions against the story of the Crucifixion (aka The Passion of the Christ).
[1] Dr. Joel E. Hoffman, The Bible’s Cutting Room Floor: The Holy Scriptures Missing From Your Bible (New York: Thomas Dunne Books, 2014). Kindle Edition.
[2] Leviticus 10:3.
[3] Numbers 21:14.
[4] 1 Kings 14:19, 29.
[5] 2 Chronicles 9:29; 2 Chronicles 12:15; 2 Chronicles 13:22.
[6] 1 Kings 11:41.
[7] 1 Chronicles 27:24.
[8] 1 Chronicles 29:29; 2 Chronicles 9:29.
[9] 1 Chronicles 29:29.
[10] 2 Chronicles 24:27.
[11] 2 Chronicles 32:32.
[12] 2 Chronicles 33:19.
[13] 2 Samuel 1:18, Joshua 10:13.
[14] 2 Chronicles 35:25.
[15] Surah Maidah, 5:16-17.
https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2018/04/21/missing-books-in-the-bible/
26
Bible History, Canons, alleged Lost Scriptures, alleged Contradictions & Errors, and general Text QA / Some Contradictions in the Bible
« on: April 08, 2018, 02:51:29 PM »
1- Where is Yahweh?
(a) In Heaven
Matthew 6:9 So then, this is how you should pray: ‘Our Father in heaven, hallowed be Your name,
Matthew 23:9 NASB “Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
(b) Some unknown dwelling place
1 Timothy 6:16 NIV who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.
(c) In the disciples
1 Corinthians 3:16 NIV Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in your midst?
(d) In the Jewish temple
Matthew 23:21 NIV And anyone who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it.
Psalm 26:8 LORD, I love the house where you live, the place where your glory dwells.
Isaiah 8:18 Here am I, and the children the LORD has given me. We are signs and symbols in Israel from the LORD Almighty, who dwells on Mount Zion.
(e) On a Throne in heaven
Hebrews 8:1 NLT Here is the main point: We have a High Priest who sat down in the place of honor beside the throne of the majestic God in heaven.
Hebrews 12:2 NLT We do this by keeping our eyes on Jesus, the champion who initiates and perfects our faith. Because of the joy awaiting him, he endured the cross, disregarding its shame. Now he is seated in the place of honor beside God’s throne.
2- Is Yahweh the Only Protector?
(a) yes, Yahweh is the Only one who protect
2 Samuel 22:32 NIV For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God?
Psalm 18:31 For who is God, save the LORD? And who is a Rock, except our God?
Isaiah 43:11 “I, even I, am the LORD, And there is no savior besides Me.
(b) No/Angels Protects as well, Angels even protect God (As the Christians believe Jesus is god in flesh LoL)
Genesis 48:16 ESV the angel who has redeemed me from all evil, bless the boys; and in them let my name be carried on, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.”
Psalm 91:11 NIV For he will order his angels to protect you wherever you go.
(c) Kings Protect as well:
Ezra 8:22 NIV I was ashamed to ask the king for soldiers and horsemen to protect us from enemies on the road
(d) Wise people also protects:
Proverbs 14:3 A fool’s mouth lashes out with pride, but the lips of the wise protect them.
(e) One’s own righteousness and faith protect him
Psalm 25:21 May integrity and uprightness protect me…
(f) the Law protects as well
Galatians 3:24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith.
3- Is Yahweh the Only Ruler and Commander?
(a) Yes, only ruler is Yahweh
Isaiah 44:8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.”
Isaiah 45:6 so that from the rising of the sun to the place of its setting people may know there is none besides me. I am the LORD, and there is no other.
Isaiah 45:21 Declare what is to be, present it– let them take counsel together. Who foretold this long ago, who declared it from the distant past? Was it not I, the LORD? And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me.
1 Timothy 6:15 which God will bring about in his own time–God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords,
(b) No, there are other gods and Yahweh is their ruler and commander!
Deuteronomy 10:17 “For the LORD your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God who does not show partiality nor take a bribe.
Psalm 82:6 I say, ‘You are gods; you are all children of the Most High.
(c) Angels are also commanders.
Psalm 91:11 NIV For he will order his angels to protect you wherever you go.
(d) Messiah as a Commander:
Isaiah 55:4 NIV See, I have made him a witness to the peoples, a ruler and commander of the peoples.
Joshua 5:44 “Neither,” he replied, “but as commander of the army of the LORD I have now come.” Then Joshua fell facedown to the ground in reverence, and asked him, “What message does my Lord have for his servant?”
(Some Christians believe this Man is Messiah, some says it is Arch-angel Michael)
4- Only Yahweh can forgive Sins?
(a) Yes, Only Yahweh can forgive sins.
Isaiah 43:25“I, even I, am the one who wipes out your transgressions for My own sake, And I will not remember your sins.
Luke 5:21 Who can forgive sins but God alone?”
(b) No, Messiah, also can forgive sins
Luke 7:49 But those at the table began to say to themselves, “Who is this who even forgives sins?”
(c) Disciples of Christ can also forgive sins!
John 20:23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”
(d) Everyone can forgive sins
Luke 17:3 So watch yourselves. “If your brother or sister sins against you, rebuke them; and if they repent, forgive them.
5- Can Yahweh be seen?
(a) Yes, Yahweh can be seen on this earth!
Exodus 24:9–10 Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up, and saw the God of Israel. 10 Under his feet was something like a pavement made of lapis lazuli, as bright blue as the sky.
(b) Only Isaiah has seen God!
Isaiah 64:4 Since ancient times no one has heard, no ear has perceived, no eye has seen any God besides you, who acts on behalf of those who wait for him.
(c) Only Jesus has seen God!:
John 6:46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.
(d) No One has seen God!
1 John 4:12 No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.
(e) No Man can see God!
Exodus 33:20 But He said, “You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!”
Peace be upon the Prophets of Allah
Praise be to Allah the LORD of the Worlds
(By: outreachislam.org)
(a) In Heaven
Matthew 6:9 So then, this is how you should pray: ‘Our Father in heaven, hallowed be Your name,
Matthew 23:9 NASB “Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
(b) Some unknown dwelling place
1 Timothy 6:16 NIV who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.
(c) In the disciples
1 Corinthians 3:16 NIV Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in your midst?
(d) In the Jewish temple
Matthew 23:21 NIV And anyone who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it.
Psalm 26:8 LORD, I love the house where you live, the place where your glory dwells.
Isaiah 8:18 Here am I, and the children the LORD has given me. We are signs and symbols in Israel from the LORD Almighty, who dwells on Mount Zion.
(e) On a Throne in heaven
Hebrews 8:1 NLT Here is the main point: We have a High Priest who sat down in the place of honor beside the throne of the majestic God in heaven.
Hebrews 12:2 NLT We do this by keeping our eyes on Jesus, the champion who initiates and perfects our faith. Because of the joy awaiting him, he endured the cross, disregarding its shame. Now he is seated in the place of honor beside God’s throne.
2- Is Yahweh the Only Protector?
(a) yes, Yahweh is the Only one who protect
2 Samuel 22:32 NIV For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God?
Psalm 18:31 For who is God, save the LORD? And who is a Rock, except our God?
Isaiah 43:11 “I, even I, am the LORD, And there is no savior besides Me.
(b) No/Angels Protects as well, Angels even protect God (As the Christians believe Jesus is god in flesh LoL)
Genesis 48:16 ESV the angel who has redeemed me from all evil, bless the boys; and in them let my name be carried on, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.”
Psalm 91:11 NIV For he will order his angels to protect you wherever you go.
(c) Kings Protect as well:
Ezra 8:22 NIV I was ashamed to ask the king for soldiers and horsemen to protect us from enemies on the road
(d) Wise people also protects:
Proverbs 14:3 A fool’s mouth lashes out with pride, but the lips of the wise protect them.
(e) One’s own righteousness and faith protect him
Psalm 25:21 May integrity and uprightness protect me…
(f) the Law protects as well
Galatians 3:24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith.
3- Is Yahweh the Only Ruler and Commander?
(a) Yes, only ruler is Yahweh
Isaiah 44:8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.”
Isaiah 45:6 so that from the rising of the sun to the place of its setting people may know there is none besides me. I am the LORD, and there is no other.
Isaiah 45:21 Declare what is to be, present it– let them take counsel together. Who foretold this long ago, who declared it from the distant past? Was it not I, the LORD? And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me.
1 Timothy 6:15 which God will bring about in his own time–God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords,
(b) No, there are other gods and Yahweh is their ruler and commander!
Deuteronomy 10:17 “For the LORD your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God who does not show partiality nor take a bribe.
Psalm 82:6 I say, ‘You are gods; you are all children of the Most High.
(c) Angels are also commanders.
Psalm 91:11 NIV For he will order his angels to protect you wherever you go.
(d) Messiah as a Commander:
Isaiah 55:4 NIV See, I have made him a witness to the peoples, a ruler and commander of the peoples.
Joshua 5:44 “Neither,” he replied, “but as commander of the army of the LORD I have now come.” Then Joshua fell facedown to the ground in reverence, and asked him, “What message does my Lord have for his servant?”
(Some Christians believe this Man is Messiah, some says it is Arch-angel Michael)
4- Only Yahweh can forgive Sins?
(a) Yes, Only Yahweh can forgive sins.
Isaiah 43:25“I, even I, am the one who wipes out your transgressions for My own sake, And I will not remember your sins.
Luke 5:21 Who can forgive sins but God alone?”
(b) No, Messiah, also can forgive sins
Luke 7:49 But those at the table began to say to themselves, “Who is this who even forgives sins?”
(c) Disciples of Christ can also forgive sins!
John 20:23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”
(d) Everyone can forgive sins
Luke 17:3 So watch yourselves. “If your brother or sister sins against you, rebuke them; and if they repent, forgive them.
5- Can Yahweh be seen?
(a) Yes, Yahweh can be seen on this earth!
Exodus 24:9–10 Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up, and saw the God of Israel. 10 Under his feet was something like a pavement made of lapis lazuli, as bright blue as the sky.
(b) Only Isaiah has seen God!
Isaiah 64:4 Since ancient times no one has heard, no ear has perceived, no eye has seen any God besides you, who acts on behalf of those who wait for him.
(c) Only Jesus has seen God!:
John 6:46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.
(d) No One has seen God!
1 John 4:12 No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.
(e) No Man can see God!
Exodus 33:20 But He said, “You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!”
Peace be upon the Prophets of Allah
Praise be to Allah the LORD of the Worlds
(By: outreachislam.org)
27
THE BIBLE | TRINITY & JESUS | CRUCIFIXION vs CRUCIFICTION | HISTORY | CANONS | REBUTTALS / Christ vs Christianity !
« on: March 27, 2018, 02:21:24 PM »
28
Rebuttals & Polemics / Why does the Qur'an Call the Jews 'Apes'? Rabbi Tovia Singer
« on: March 25, 2018, 11:13:41 AM »29
THE BIBLE | TRINITY & JESUS | CRUCIFIXION vs CRUCIFICTION | HISTORY | CANONS | REBUTTALS / Moon reverence is found in the Bible, not in the Quran
« on: March 12, 2018, 04:14:16 PM »Significance of Moon in Islam:
In the Name of Allah Most Gracious Most Beneficent
Peace and Blessings of Allah be upon the Prophet Muhammad his family and
companions
In Islam ‘moon” Represents authority and supremacy, the Light that shine in the
darkness. When ottoman Khalifa ruled there were three crescents in the flag to
symbolise three continents.
Moon has nothing to do with religious doctrine or theology.
As you read the Prophesy about Islam in Psalm:
Psalm 89:37 it will be
established forever like the moon, the faithful witness in the sky.”
LUNAR CALENDAR :
Muslims use Lunar Calendar, even Jewish faith follows Lunar Calendar. There is a
great wisdom in Lunar Calendar. It brings a rotation of religious festivals and
Holy days around the world in different weather seasons . Those who follow solar
Calendar, they have their religious festivals in the same seasons every year!
For example, Christians in the Norway has to celebrate Christmas in every harsh
winter. But in Islam, the special days occur in different weather seasons,
giving ease and different seasons’s experience to people around the world
during their holidays (each year is about 2 weeks less)
. A Muslim special day such as Ramadan fasting, Hajj etc rotate in the months of
Solar calendar when it is observed according to the Lunar calendar.
MOON WORSHIP IN THE BIBLE:
In the Christian Bible, there are moon festivals. But Islam does not
celebrate moon festivals. Muslims do not worship or revere Moon as part of
the religious life. So it is in Biblical religion the moon has a special status
and relationship to their faith. Not in Islam!
See references below :
1 Samuel 20:18 Then Jonathan
said to David, “Tomorrow is the New Moon feast. You will be
missed, because your seat will be empty.
1 Samuel 20:24 So David hid
in the field, and when the New Moon feast came, the king sat down
to eat.
Psalm 81:3 Sound the ram’s
horn at the New Moon, and when the moon is full, on the day of our
festival;
Ezra 3:5 After that, they
presented the regular burnt offerings, the New Moon sacrifices and
the sacrifices for all the appointed sacred festivals of the LORD, as well as
those brought as freewill offerings to the LORD.
Ezekiel 46:1 “‘This is what
the Sovereign LORD says: The gate of the inner court facing east is to be shut
on the six working days, but on the Sabbath day and on the day of the New
Moon it is to be opened.
2 Chronicles 8: 13 according
to the daily requirement for offerings commanded by Moses for the Sabbaths, the
New Moons and the three annual festivals–the Festival of
Unleavened Bread, the Festival of Weeks and the Festival of Tabernacles
Numbers 10:10 Also at your
times of rejoicing–your appointed festivals and New Moon feasts–you
are to sound the trumpets over your burnt offerings and fellowship offerings,
and they will be a memorial for you before your God. I am the LORD your God.”
Isaiah 1:13 Stop bringing
meaningless offerings! Your incense is detestable to me. New Moons,
Sabbaths and convocations– I cannot bear your worthless assemblies
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT :
There is no rat race escape tactics for the Missionary to say it was a Jewish
tradition and they (the Jews) innovated new practices.
Earlier Christians celebrated Moon Festival:
Colossians 2:16 Therefore do
not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious
festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.
CONCLUSION :
So it is baseless arguments to say Muslims Worshiping moon gods. Islam says
there is no God Except Allah. Who is the Creator of sun Moon and everything in
existence.
David’s Star actually
Hindu exorcism star Tantric star. Jeremiah
8:2-8, Acts 7:42
Muslims use Lunar Calendar to determine months and years as ordered by Allah
Subhana Wa Ta’ala. The rulers used crescents symbols n flag to establish their
authority.
There are no moon festivals or special worship for new moon in Islam. Such
practices are found in Judaism, Christianity (see
Colossians 2:16) Hinduism (see Makhara Sankranthi) and Paganism (see
Spirit worships) check encyclopedia of religions.
In Buddhism:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/holydays/wesak.shtml
In Hinduism:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/holydays/mahashivratri.shtml
The Jewish deity “YAHWEH” (JEHOVA) is found matching with Hindu Deities!.
Jewish Bible Confirm Jews Adopt foreign religion and deities.
See Deuteronomy 17:3 and
contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the
sun or the moon or the
stars in the sky,
The coming of “David Star”
which is Actually “Tantric
Star” from Hinduism is further evidence that shows Israelites adopted
foreign religions, similar to the Christianisation of the Pagan festivals, the
inter-religious customs were exchanged. It is also evident that many of the
Jewish tribes lived in North-India all the way to Persia (Iran) and Afghanisran!
So whatever bigotry and false accusations you bring against Islam, is coming
from your own ignorance hypocrisy and double standards.
Then you will know the truth and truth will set you free.
(c) Outreachislam.org 14 January 2017
https://outreachislam.org/2018/03/11/moon-reverence-is-found-in-the-bible-but-not-in-the-quran/
30
Bible History, Canons, alleged Lost Scriptures, alleged Contradictions & Errors, and general Text QA / Calvin on Errors in the Scriptures (Calvin’s Commentaries)
« on: February 03, 2018, 04:17:34 PM »
Calvin on Errors in the Scriptures (Quotations from Calvin’s Commentaries)
In this long article the author demonstrates with many evidences from Calvin’s own writings that he recognised that the Bible contains ‘intentional and unintentional misquotations, technical inaccuracies, historical errors, scientific errors, cultural accommodations and even theological errors’!
Contemporary followers of Calvin call themselves ‘Calvinists’ (people like James White) and they all claim that Scripture is inerrant and infallible. Calvin it seems was not a Calvinist.
67493.jpg
Reblogged from The PostBarthian by Wyatt Houtz
At many times, John Calvin’s describes the ontology of Scripture using the same vernacular as contemporary statements such as the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy, as well as dictation theories such as Plenary Verbal Inspiration that makes strong assertions about the Scripture’s inerrancy, infallibility, and identity with the Word of God. Despite the similarities at times, when reading Calvin’s voluminous commentaries, there are many times when Calvin makes conclusions that these statements and theories would never allow. This is especially true in that Calvin is willing to identify and work through certain kinds of errors he encounters in the scriptures, and is comfortable understanding the Scriptures being both human writings and the divine Word of God — where these modern statements and theories strive endlessly to deny that any errors, as such, exist. Among the categories of errors in Scriptures, Calvin includes intentional and unintentional misquotations, technical inaccuracies, historical errors, scientific errors, cultural accommodations and even theological errors! All of these types of errors do not undermine or discredit Calvin’s firm belief that although the Scriptures are a human document, they are also the inspired Word of God, and working through these difficulties are matters of little consequence to him and do not undermine or disable the Word of God revealed in them.
I’ve provided a selection of quotations, where John Calvin allows for and identifies errors in the Scriptures that recent dictations theories would never allow. The importance of these quotations are not to prove that the Scriptures contain errors, but to demonstrate that John Calvin considered these examples to be errors in Scripture. It’s a helpful example to demonstrate how the Reformers understood the Inspiration of the Scriptures (2 Tim 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21) and how it is much different than in conservative American Evangelicalism today, even to the point that many people today would be deeply offended by Calvin’s conclusions. Even John Murray, who rigorously attempts to harmonize Calvin with these modern theories concludes that Calvin should not have used the language he did when discussing these scriptures.
“2. We need not doubt that it was this distinction between the demands of pedantic precision, on the one hand, and adequate statement, that is, statement adequate to the situation and intent, on the other, that Calvin had in mind when he said that “the apostles were not so punctilious as not to accommodate themselves to the unlearned.” We are not necessarily granting that Calvin’s remarks are the best suited to the solution of the questions that arise in connection with Acts 7:14 and Heb. 11:21. We may even grant that the language used by Calvin in these connections is ill-advised and not in accord with Calvin’s usual caution when reflecting on the divine origin and character of Scripture. But, if so, we should not be surprised if such a prolific writer as Calvin should on occasion drop remarks or even express positions inconsistent with the pervasive and governing tenor of his thinking and teaching. In Calvin we have a mass of perspicuous statement and of lengthened argument to the effect that Scripture is impregnable and inviolable, and it would be the resort of desperation to take a few random comments, wrench them from the total effect of Calvin’s teaching, and build upon them a thesis which would run counter to his own repeated assertions respecting the inviolable character of Scripture as the oracles of God and as having nothing human mixed with it.” (John Murray’s “Calvin’s Doctrine of Scriptures“).
However, Calvin scholars such as John T. McNeill, Ronald Wallace, François Wendel, Wilhelm Niesel, J.K.S. Reid, etc. all say that Calvin cannot be harmonized with recent dictation theories, and it is only those who have agenda to prove these theories that make such assertions about Calvin, and all of these Calvin scholars say that Calvin’s understanding of Scripture is quite different than what they considered modern “fundamentalism” because Calvin has a clear understanding that the Scriptures are both human writings and simultaneously the Word of God.
Romans 3:4 ~ Example of Paul misquoting Psalms
In Romans 3:4, when Calvin indicates that Paul intentionally followed the incorrect translation in the Greek version of Psalm 51:4, to express his purpose, “But Paul has followed the Greek version, which answered his purpose here even better. We indeed know that the Apostles in quoting Scripture often used a freer language than the original; for they counted it enough to quote what was suitable to their subject: hence they made no great account of words.”
“Against thee have I sinned; justly then dost thou punish me.” And that Paul has quoted this passage according to the proper and real meaning of David, is clear from the objection that is immediately added, “How shall the righteousness of God remain perfect if our iniquity illustrates it?” For in vain, as I have already observed, and unseasonable has Paul arrested the attention of his readers with this difficulty, except David meant, that God, in his wonderful providence, elicited from the sins of men a praise to his own righteousness. The second clause in Hebrew is this, “And that thou mightest be pure in thy judgment;” which expression imports nothing else but that God in all his judgments is worthy of praise, how much soever the ungodly may clamor and strive by their complaints disgracefully to efface his glory. But Paul has followed the Greek version, which answered his purpose here even better. We indeed know that the Apostles in quoting Scripture often used a freer language than the original; for they counted it enough to quote what was suitable to their subject: hence they made no great account of words.
The application then of this passage is the following: Since all the sins of mortals must serve to illustrate the glory of the Lord, and since he is especially glorified by his truth, it follows, that even the falsehood of men serves to confirm rather than to subvert his truth. Though the word κρίνεσθαι, may be taken actively as well as passively, yet the Greek translators, I have no doubt, rendered it passively, contrary to the meaning of the Prophet.
~John Calvin, “Commentary on Romans”,
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom38.vii.ii.html#Bible:Rom.3.4
Hebrews 11:21 ~ Example of Apostle of Hebrews Misquoting 1 Kings 1:47
In John Calvin’s commentary on Hebrews 11:21, he demonstrates that the author of Hebrews quoted the Greek Septuagint, that contained an error in its translation of the Hebrew original source. Calvin notes that the Apostle did not correct the error, but allowed it to remain as an accommodation. Calvin says that the Apostle’s in their use of the Old Testament, “were not so scrupulous in this respect, as not to accommodate themselves to the unlearned [..] and in this there is no danger”.
“And worshiped on the top, etc. This is one of those places from which we may conclude that the points were not formerly used by the Hebrews; for the Greek translators could not have made such a mistake as to put staff here for a bed, if the mode of writing was then the same as now. No doubt Moses spoke of the head of his couch, when he said על ראש המטה but the Greek translators rendered the words, “On the top of his staff” as though the last word was written, mathaeh. The Apostle hesitated not to apply to his purpose what was commonly received: he was indeed writing to the Jews; but they who were dispersed into various countries, had changed their own language for the Greek. And we know that the Apostles were not so scrupulous in this respect, as not to accommodate themselves to the unlearned, who had as yet need of milk; and in this there is no danger, provided readers are ever brought back to the pure and original text of Scripture. But, in reality, the difference is but little; for the main thing was, that Jacob worshiped, which was an evidence of his gratitude. He was therefore led by faith to submit himself to his son.”
~ John Calvin, Commentary on Hebrews,
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom44.xvii.vii.html#xvii.vii-p32
1 Corinthians 10:8 ~ Example of Factual Errors by Paul when quoting Numbers 25:9
John Calvin identifies a factual error in 1 Corinthians 10:8, where Paul records 23,000 but the source value is 24,000. Calvin says such inaccuracies are inconsequential, “Though they differ as to number, it is easy to reconcile them, as it is no unusual thing, when it is not intended to number exactly and minutely each head, to put down a number that comes near it [..] Moses has set down the number above the mark, and Paul, the number below it, and in this way there is in reality no difference.”
8. Neither let us commit fornication Now he speaks of fornication, in respect of which, as appears from historical accounts, great licentiousness prevailed among the Corinthians, and we may readily infer from what goes before, that those who had professed themselves to be Christ’s were not yet altogether free from this vice. The punishment of this vice, also, ought to alarm us, and lead us to bear in mind, how loathsome impure lusts are to God, for there perished in one day twenty-three thousand, or as Moses says, twenty-four. Though they differ as to number, it is easy to reconcile them, as it is no unusual thing, when it is not intended to number exactly and minutely each head, to put down a number that comes near it, as among the Romans there were those that received the name of Centumviri, (The Hundred,) while in reality there were two above the hundred. As there were, therefore, about twenty-four thousand that were overthrown by the Lord’s hand — that is, above twenty-three, Moses has set down the number above the mark, and Paul, the number below it, and in this way there is in reality no difference. This history is recorded in Numbers 25:9
~ John Calvin, “Commentary on Corinthians, Vol 2″
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom39.xvii.ii.html#Bible:1Cor.10.8
Acts 7:16 ~Example of a Historical Error in Scripture by Luke
In Calvin’s commentary on Acts 7:16, the name Abraham is wrongly placed in the text, and Calvin specifically attributes this error to Luke, “it is manifest that there is a fault [mistake] in the word Abraham [..] I can affirm nothing concerning this matter for a certainty, save only that this is either a speech wherein is synecdoche, or else that Luke rehearseth this not so much out of Moses, as according to the old fame; as the Jews had many things in times past from the fathers, which were delivered, as it were, from hand to hand [..] Wherefore this place must be amended.“.
16. Stephen saith, that the patriarchs were carried into the land of Canaan after they were dead. But Moses maketh mention only of the bones of Joseph, (Genesis 1:13.) And Joshua 24:32, it is reported, that the bones of Joseph were buried without making any mention of the rest. Some answer, that Moses speaketh of Joseph for honor’s sake, because he had given express commandment concerning his bones, which we cannot read to have been done of the rest. And, surely, when Jerome, in the pilgrimage of Paula, saith, that she came by Shechem, he saith that she saw there the sepulchres of the twelve patriarchs; but in another place he maketh mention of Joseph’s grave only. And it may be that there were empty tombs erected to the rest. I can affirm nothing concerning this matter for a certainty, save only that this is either a speech wherein is synecdoche, or else that Luke rehearseth this not so much out of Moses, as according to the old fame; as the Jews had many things in times past from the fathers, which were delivered, as it were, from hand to hand. And whereas he saith afterward, they were laid in the sepulcher which Abraham had bought of the sons of Hemor, it is manifest that there is a fault [mistake] in the word Abraham. For Abraham had bought a double cave of Ephron the Hittite, (Genesis 23:9,) to bury his wife Sarah in; but Joseph was buried in another place, to wit, in the field which his father Jacob had bought of the sons of Hemor for an hundred lambs. Wherefore this place must be amended.
~ John Calvin, “Commentary on Acts”,
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom36.xiv.iii.html#Bible:Acts.7.16
Ephesians 4:8 ~ Example of Paul intentionally misquoting Psalms 68:16, and correct a theological error
According to Calvin, Paul intentionally “changed” the quotation of Psalm 68:16 into its “opposite meaning” by replacing “gave gifts” to “received gifts” in his quotation in Ephesians 4:8. Although the standard ‘solution’ to this bible difficulty is to say that Paul combined Psalms 68:16 with Leviticus, this is not Calvin’s conclusion. Calvin says that the apostles, and in this case “Paul does not always quote the exact words of Scripture, but, after referring to the passage, satisfies himself with conveying the substance of it in his own language.” The provocative point is that Paul has improved upon the Psalmist, that it may be right to consider Psalm 68:16 as a theological error, that has been amended by Paul!
And gave gifts to men. There is rather more difficulty in this clause; for the words of the Psalm are, “thou hast received gifts for men,” while the apostle changes this expression into gave gifts, and thus appears to exhibit an opposite meaning. Still there is no absurdity here; for Paul does not always quote the exact words of Scripture, but, after referring to the passage, satisfies himself with conveying the substance of it in his own language. Now, it is clear that the gifts which David mentions were not received by God for himself, but for his people; and accordingly we are told, in an earlier part of the Psalm, that “the spoil” had been “divided” among the families of Israel. (Psalm 68:12.) Since therefore the intention of receiving was to give gifts, Paul can hardly be said to have departed from the substance, whatever alteration there may be in the words.
At the same time, I am inclined to a different opinion, that Paul purposely changed the word, and employed it, not as taken out of the Psalm, but as an expression of his own, adapted to the present occasion. Having quoted from the Psalm a few words descriptive of Christ’s ascension, he adds, in his own language, and gave gifts, — for the purpose of drawing a comparison between the greater and the less. Paul intends to shew, that this ascension of God in the person of Christ was far more illustrious than the ancient triumphs of the Church; because it is a more honorable distinction for a conqueror to dispense his bounty largely to all classes, than to gather spoils from the vanquished.
The interpretation given by some, that Christ received from the Father what he would distribute to us, is forced, and utterly at variance with the apostle’s purpose. No solution of the difficulty, in my opinion, is more natural than this. Having made a brief quotation from the Psalm, Paul took the liberty of adding a statement, which, though not contained in the Psalm, is true in reference to Christ — a statement, too, by which the ascension of Christ is proved to be more illustrious, and more worthy of admiration, than those ancient manifestations of the Divine glory which David enumerates.
~ John Calvin, “Commentary on Ephesians”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom41.iv.v.ii.html#iv.v.ii-p23
Matthew 27:9 ~Example of a Wrong Name Put Down By Mistake
John Calvin makes no attempt to defend the author of Matthew in his commentary on Matthew 27:9. Calvin says “the passage itself plainly shows that the name of Jeremiah has been put down by mistake,” and although Calvin occasionally attributes such an error to a scribe, however, in this example he says: “I confess that I do not know nor do I give myself much trouble to inquire.” Note that Calvin doesn’t attempt to vindicate Matthew of this blunder, but accepts it plainly as an error that should be corrected, without being hindered by whomever put down the wrong name, whether it was in sources to Matthew, by the Author of Matthew, or due to a later scribal error.
9. Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet. How the name of Jeremiah crept in, I confess that I do not know nor do I give myself much trouble to inquire. The passage itself plainly shows that the name of Jeremiah has been put down by mistake, instead of Zechariah, (11:13;) for in Jeremiah we find nothing of this sort, nor any thing that even approaches to it. Now that other passage, if some degree of skill be not used in applying it, might seem to have been improperly distorted to a wrong meaning; but if we attend to the rule which the apostles followed in quoting Scripture, we shall easily perceive that what we find there is highly applicable to Christ.
~ John Calvin, “Harmony of the Evangelists, Pt 3”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom33.ii.xxxvi.html#ii.xxxvi-p31
Matthew 23:35 ~ Example of Mistaken name
John Calvin provides several conjectures to explain why the wrong surname is attributed to Zechariah, and finally makes an interesting conclusion allowing that Jerome may be right that the text may contain an error, “or whether (as Jerome thinks) there is a mistake in the word, there can be no doubt as to the fact, that Christ refers to that impious stoning of Zechariah which is recorded in 2 Chronicles 24:21, 22“. Calvin is not thinking of a scribal transmission error, because Jerome affirms Barachiah is the original form, and arguest against the Gospel of Nazarenes where the name is corrected to Jehoiada, and at the same time Jerome denies that Zechariah is the son of Barachiah. Jerome’s solution, that Calvin endorses is complicated in suggests the wrong name was intentionally placed in the text to follow a Hebrew pattern due to the meaning of Barachiah. Read Jerome’s Commentary to understand why Matthew would have intentionally supplied the wrong name.
There is no probability in the opinion of those who refer this passage to that Zechariah who exhorted the people, after their return from the Babylonish captivity, to build the temple, (Zechariah 8:9,) and whose prophecies are still in existence. For though the title of the book informs us that he was the son of Barachiah, (Zechariah 1:1,) yet we nowhere read that he was slain; and it is, forced exposition to say, that he was slain during the period that intervened between the building of the altar and of the temple. But as to the other Zechariah, son of Jehoiada, the sacred history relates what agrees perfectly with this passage; that when true religion had fallen into decay, after the death of his father, through the wicked revolt of the king and of the people, the Spirit of God came upon him, to reprove severely the public idolatry, and that on this account he was stoned in the porch of the temple, (2 Chronicles 24:20, 21.) There is no absurdity in supposing that his father Jehoiada received, in token of respect, the surname of Barachiah, because, having throughout his whole life defended the true worship, he might justly be pronounced to be the Blessed of God. But whether Jehoiada had two names, or whether (as Jerome thinks) there is a mistake in the word, there can be no doubt as to the fact, that Christ refers to that impious stoning of Zechariah which is recorded in 2 Chronicles 24:21, 22
~ John Calvin, “Harmony of the Evangelists, Pt 3”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom33.ii.xiii.html#ii.xiii-p48
Numbers 8:26 ~ Example of Alleged Scribal Error
In his commentary on Numbers 8:26, Calvin concludes that the text is incorrect, but in this instance, he blames the error on the carelessness of a Scribe, despite the lack of manuscript evidence to support such a conclusion.
Nor does any reverence prevent us from saying that, as it sometimes happens in minor matters, a wrong number may have crept in from the carelessness of scribes; 239 and this is probably the most natural solution. The more correct reading, in my opinion, is, that they should offer two bullocks and one ram; but since it is elsewhere explained why God appointed this day, he only briefly recites here: “When they bring the fainha with the first-fruits.”
~ John Calvin, “Harmony of the Law”, Pt 2
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom04.iii.ix.iii.html#iii.ix.iii-p39
Genesis 1:14-16 ~ Example of Scientific (Astrological) Error
In Calvin’s commentary on Genesis 1:14-15, he considers two cosmological errors in these accounts: 1) that the Moon is not larger than Saturn and 2) the Moon is a dark, opaque body and not an luminary. Calvin’s conclusion is that the author of Genesis is justified in using inaccurate science in order to communicate truths, so far as it enables that revelation to be better understood. The example demonstrates who a scientific error may be used in the Scripture, without it being corrected. He writes: “Moses wrote in a popular style things which without instruction, all ordinary persons, endued with common sense, are able to understand; but astronomers investigate with great labor whatever the sagacity of the human mind can comprehend. Nevertheless, this study is not to be reprobated, nor this science to be condemned”
15. Let them be for lights It is well again to repeat what I have said before, that it is not here philosophically discussed, how great the sun is in the heaven, and how great, or how little, is the moon; but how much light comes to us from them.71 For Moses here addresses himself to our senses, that the knowledge of the gifts of God which we enjoy may not glide away. Therefore, in order to apprehend the meaning of Moses, it is to no purpose to soar above the heavens; let us only open our eyes to behold this light which God enkindles for us in the earth. By this method (as I have before observed) the dishonesty of those men is sufficiently rebuked, who censure Moses for not speaking with greater exactness. For as it became a theologian, he had respect to us rather than to the stars. Nor, in truth, was he ignorant of the fact, that the moon had not sufficient brightness to enlighten the earth, unless it borrowed from the sun; but he deemed it enough to declare what we all may plainly perceive, that the moon is a dispenser of light to us. That it is, as the astronomers assert, an opaque body, I allow to be true, while I deny it to be a dark body. For, first, since it is placed above the element of fire, it must of necessity be a fiery body. Hence it follows, that it is also luminous; but seeing that it has not light sufficient to penetrate to us, it borrows what is wanting from the sun. He calls it a lesser light by comparison; because the portion of light which it emits to us is small compared with the infinite splendor of the sun.
16. The greater light I have said, that Moses does not here subtilely descant, as a philosopher, on the secrets of nature, as may be seen in these words. First, he assigns a place in the expanse of heaven to the planets and stars; but astronomers make a distinction of spheres, and, at the same time, teach that the fixed stars have their proper place in the firmament. Moses makes two great luminaries; but astronomers prove, by conclusive reasons that the star of Saturn, which on account of its great distance, appears the least of all, is greater than the moon. Here lies the difference; Moses wrote in a popular style things which without instruction, all ordinary persons, endued with common sense, are able to understand; but astronomers investigate with great labor whatever the sagacity of the human mind can comprehend. Nevertheless, this study is not to be reprobated, nor this science to be condemned, because some frantic persons are wont boldly to reject whatever is unknown to them. For astronomy is not only pleasant, but also very useful to be known: it cannot be denied that this art unfolds the admirable wisdom of God. Wherefore, as ingenious men are to be honored who have expended useful labor on this subject, so they who have leisure and capacity ought not to neglect this kind of exercise. Nor did Moses truly wish to withdraw us from this pursuit in omitting such things as are peculiar to the art; but because he was ordained a teacher as well of the unlearned and rude as of the learned, he could not otherwise fulfill his office than by descending to this grosser method of instruction. Had he spoken of things generally unknown, the uneducated might have pleaded in excuse that such subjects were beyond their capacity. Lastly since the Spirit of God here opens a common school for all, it is not surprising that he should chiefly choose those subjects which would be intelligible to all. If the astronomer inquires respecting the actual dimensions of the stars, he will find the moon to be less than Saturn; but this is something abstruse, for to the sight it appears differently. Moses, therefore, rather adapts his discourse to common usage. For since the Lord stretches forth, as it were, his hand to us in causing us to enjoy the brightness of the sun and moon, how great would be our ingratitude were we to close our eyes against our own experience? There is therefore no reason why janglers should deride the unskilfulness of Moses in making the moon the second luminary; for he does not call us up into heaven, he only proposes things which lie open before our eyes. Let the astronomers possess their more exalted knowledge; but, in the meantime, they who perceive by the moon the splendor of night, are convicted by its use of perverse ingratitude unless they acknowledge the beneficence of God.
~ John Calvin, “Commentary on Genesis, Pt 1″,
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom01.vii.i.html#Bible:Gen.1.16
source:https://bloggingtheology.net/2018/02/02/john-calvin-on-errors-in-the-scriptures-quotations-from-calvins-commentaries/
In this long article the author demonstrates with many evidences from Calvin’s own writings that he recognised that the Bible contains ‘intentional and unintentional misquotations, technical inaccuracies, historical errors, scientific errors, cultural accommodations and even theological errors’!
Contemporary followers of Calvin call themselves ‘Calvinists’ (people like James White) and they all claim that Scripture is inerrant and infallible. Calvin it seems was not a Calvinist.
67493.jpg
Reblogged from The PostBarthian by Wyatt Houtz
At many times, John Calvin’s describes the ontology of Scripture using the same vernacular as contemporary statements such as the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy, as well as dictation theories such as Plenary Verbal Inspiration that makes strong assertions about the Scripture’s inerrancy, infallibility, and identity with the Word of God. Despite the similarities at times, when reading Calvin’s voluminous commentaries, there are many times when Calvin makes conclusions that these statements and theories would never allow. This is especially true in that Calvin is willing to identify and work through certain kinds of errors he encounters in the scriptures, and is comfortable understanding the Scriptures being both human writings and the divine Word of God — where these modern statements and theories strive endlessly to deny that any errors, as such, exist. Among the categories of errors in Scriptures, Calvin includes intentional and unintentional misquotations, technical inaccuracies, historical errors, scientific errors, cultural accommodations and even theological errors! All of these types of errors do not undermine or discredit Calvin’s firm belief that although the Scriptures are a human document, they are also the inspired Word of God, and working through these difficulties are matters of little consequence to him and do not undermine or disable the Word of God revealed in them.
I’ve provided a selection of quotations, where John Calvin allows for and identifies errors in the Scriptures that recent dictations theories would never allow. The importance of these quotations are not to prove that the Scriptures contain errors, but to demonstrate that John Calvin considered these examples to be errors in Scripture. It’s a helpful example to demonstrate how the Reformers understood the Inspiration of the Scriptures (2 Tim 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21) and how it is much different than in conservative American Evangelicalism today, even to the point that many people today would be deeply offended by Calvin’s conclusions. Even John Murray, who rigorously attempts to harmonize Calvin with these modern theories concludes that Calvin should not have used the language he did when discussing these scriptures.
“2. We need not doubt that it was this distinction between the demands of pedantic precision, on the one hand, and adequate statement, that is, statement adequate to the situation and intent, on the other, that Calvin had in mind when he said that “the apostles were not so punctilious as not to accommodate themselves to the unlearned.” We are not necessarily granting that Calvin’s remarks are the best suited to the solution of the questions that arise in connection with Acts 7:14 and Heb. 11:21. We may even grant that the language used by Calvin in these connections is ill-advised and not in accord with Calvin’s usual caution when reflecting on the divine origin and character of Scripture. But, if so, we should not be surprised if such a prolific writer as Calvin should on occasion drop remarks or even express positions inconsistent with the pervasive and governing tenor of his thinking and teaching. In Calvin we have a mass of perspicuous statement and of lengthened argument to the effect that Scripture is impregnable and inviolable, and it would be the resort of desperation to take a few random comments, wrench them from the total effect of Calvin’s teaching, and build upon them a thesis which would run counter to his own repeated assertions respecting the inviolable character of Scripture as the oracles of God and as having nothing human mixed with it.” (John Murray’s “Calvin’s Doctrine of Scriptures“).
However, Calvin scholars such as John T. McNeill, Ronald Wallace, François Wendel, Wilhelm Niesel, J.K.S. Reid, etc. all say that Calvin cannot be harmonized with recent dictation theories, and it is only those who have agenda to prove these theories that make such assertions about Calvin, and all of these Calvin scholars say that Calvin’s understanding of Scripture is quite different than what they considered modern “fundamentalism” because Calvin has a clear understanding that the Scriptures are both human writings and simultaneously the Word of God.
Romans 3:4 ~ Example of Paul misquoting Psalms
In Romans 3:4, when Calvin indicates that Paul intentionally followed the incorrect translation in the Greek version of Psalm 51:4, to express his purpose, “But Paul has followed the Greek version, which answered his purpose here even better. We indeed know that the Apostles in quoting Scripture often used a freer language than the original; for they counted it enough to quote what was suitable to their subject: hence they made no great account of words.”
“Against thee have I sinned; justly then dost thou punish me.” And that Paul has quoted this passage according to the proper and real meaning of David, is clear from the objection that is immediately added, “How shall the righteousness of God remain perfect if our iniquity illustrates it?” For in vain, as I have already observed, and unseasonable has Paul arrested the attention of his readers with this difficulty, except David meant, that God, in his wonderful providence, elicited from the sins of men a praise to his own righteousness. The second clause in Hebrew is this, “And that thou mightest be pure in thy judgment;” which expression imports nothing else but that God in all his judgments is worthy of praise, how much soever the ungodly may clamor and strive by their complaints disgracefully to efface his glory. But Paul has followed the Greek version, which answered his purpose here even better. We indeed know that the Apostles in quoting Scripture often used a freer language than the original; for they counted it enough to quote what was suitable to their subject: hence they made no great account of words.
The application then of this passage is the following: Since all the sins of mortals must serve to illustrate the glory of the Lord, and since he is especially glorified by his truth, it follows, that even the falsehood of men serves to confirm rather than to subvert his truth. Though the word κρίνεσθαι, may be taken actively as well as passively, yet the Greek translators, I have no doubt, rendered it passively, contrary to the meaning of the Prophet.
~John Calvin, “Commentary on Romans”,
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom38.vii.ii.html#Bible:Rom.3.4
Hebrews 11:21 ~ Example of Apostle of Hebrews Misquoting 1 Kings 1:47
In John Calvin’s commentary on Hebrews 11:21, he demonstrates that the author of Hebrews quoted the Greek Septuagint, that contained an error in its translation of the Hebrew original source. Calvin notes that the Apostle did not correct the error, but allowed it to remain as an accommodation. Calvin says that the Apostle’s in their use of the Old Testament, “were not so scrupulous in this respect, as not to accommodate themselves to the unlearned [..] and in this there is no danger”.
“And worshiped on the top, etc. This is one of those places from which we may conclude that the points were not formerly used by the Hebrews; for the Greek translators could not have made such a mistake as to put staff here for a bed, if the mode of writing was then the same as now. No doubt Moses spoke of the head of his couch, when he said על ראש המטה but the Greek translators rendered the words, “On the top of his staff” as though the last word was written, mathaeh. The Apostle hesitated not to apply to his purpose what was commonly received: he was indeed writing to the Jews; but they who were dispersed into various countries, had changed their own language for the Greek. And we know that the Apostles were not so scrupulous in this respect, as not to accommodate themselves to the unlearned, who had as yet need of milk; and in this there is no danger, provided readers are ever brought back to the pure and original text of Scripture. But, in reality, the difference is but little; for the main thing was, that Jacob worshiped, which was an evidence of his gratitude. He was therefore led by faith to submit himself to his son.”
~ John Calvin, Commentary on Hebrews,
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom44.xvii.vii.html#xvii.vii-p32
1 Corinthians 10:8 ~ Example of Factual Errors by Paul when quoting Numbers 25:9
John Calvin identifies a factual error in 1 Corinthians 10:8, where Paul records 23,000 but the source value is 24,000. Calvin says such inaccuracies are inconsequential, “Though they differ as to number, it is easy to reconcile them, as it is no unusual thing, when it is not intended to number exactly and minutely each head, to put down a number that comes near it [..] Moses has set down the number above the mark, and Paul, the number below it, and in this way there is in reality no difference.”
8. Neither let us commit fornication Now he speaks of fornication, in respect of which, as appears from historical accounts, great licentiousness prevailed among the Corinthians, and we may readily infer from what goes before, that those who had professed themselves to be Christ’s were not yet altogether free from this vice. The punishment of this vice, also, ought to alarm us, and lead us to bear in mind, how loathsome impure lusts are to God, for there perished in one day twenty-three thousand, or as Moses says, twenty-four. Though they differ as to number, it is easy to reconcile them, as it is no unusual thing, when it is not intended to number exactly and minutely each head, to put down a number that comes near it, as among the Romans there were those that received the name of Centumviri, (The Hundred,) while in reality there were two above the hundred. As there were, therefore, about twenty-four thousand that were overthrown by the Lord’s hand — that is, above twenty-three, Moses has set down the number above the mark, and Paul, the number below it, and in this way there is in reality no difference. This history is recorded in Numbers 25:9
~ John Calvin, “Commentary on Corinthians, Vol 2″
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom39.xvii.ii.html#Bible:1Cor.10.8
Acts 7:16 ~Example of a Historical Error in Scripture by Luke
In Calvin’s commentary on Acts 7:16, the name Abraham is wrongly placed in the text, and Calvin specifically attributes this error to Luke, “it is manifest that there is a fault [mistake] in the word Abraham [..] I can affirm nothing concerning this matter for a certainty, save only that this is either a speech wherein is synecdoche, or else that Luke rehearseth this not so much out of Moses, as according to the old fame; as the Jews had many things in times past from the fathers, which were delivered, as it were, from hand to hand [..] Wherefore this place must be amended.“.
16. Stephen saith, that the patriarchs were carried into the land of Canaan after they were dead. But Moses maketh mention only of the bones of Joseph, (Genesis 1:13.) And Joshua 24:32, it is reported, that the bones of Joseph were buried without making any mention of the rest. Some answer, that Moses speaketh of Joseph for honor’s sake, because he had given express commandment concerning his bones, which we cannot read to have been done of the rest. And, surely, when Jerome, in the pilgrimage of Paula, saith, that she came by Shechem, he saith that she saw there the sepulchres of the twelve patriarchs; but in another place he maketh mention of Joseph’s grave only. And it may be that there were empty tombs erected to the rest. I can affirm nothing concerning this matter for a certainty, save only that this is either a speech wherein is synecdoche, or else that Luke rehearseth this not so much out of Moses, as according to the old fame; as the Jews had many things in times past from the fathers, which were delivered, as it were, from hand to hand. And whereas he saith afterward, they were laid in the sepulcher which Abraham had bought of the sons of Hemor, it is manifest that there is a fault [mistake] in the word Abraham. For Abraham had bought a double cave of Ephron the Hittite, (Genesis 23:9,) to bury his wife Sarah in; but Joseph was buried in another place, to wit, in the field which his father Jacob had bought of the sons of Hemor for an hundred lambs. Wherefore this place must be amended.
~ John Calvin, “Commentary on Acts”,
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom36.xiv.iii.html#Bible:Acts.7.16
Ephesians 4:8 ~ Example of Paul intentionally misquoting Psalms 68:16, and correct a theological error
According to Calvin, Paul intentionally “changed” the quotation of Psalm 68:16 into its “opposite meaning” by replacing “gave gifts” to “received gifts” in his quotation in Ephesians 4:8. Although the standard ‘solution’ to this bible difficulty is to say that Paul combined Psalms 68:16 with Leviticus, this is not Calvin’s conclusion. Calvin says that the apostles, and in this case “Paul does not always quote the exact words of Scripture, but, after referring to the passage, satisfies himself with conveying the substance of it in his own language.” The provocative point is that Paul has improved upon the Psalmist, that it may be right to consider Psalm 68:16 as a theological error, that has been amended by Paul!
And gave gifts to men. There is rather more difficulty in this clause; for the words of the Psalm are, “thou hast received gifts for men,” while the apostle changes this expression into gave gifts, and thus appears to exhibit an opposite meaning. Still there is no absurdity here; for Paul does not always quote the exact words of Scripture, but, after referring to the passage, satisfies himself with conveying the substance of it in his own language. Now, it is clear that the gifts which David mentions were not received by God for himself, but for his people; and accordingly we are told, in an earlier part of the Psalm, that “the spoil” had been “divided” among the families of Israel. (Psalm 68:12.) Since therefore the intention of receiving was to give gifts, Paul can hardly be said to have departed from the substance, whatever alteration there may be in the words.
At the same time, I am inclined to a different opinion, that Paul purposely changed the word, and employed it, not as taken out of the Psalm, but as an expression of his own, adapted to the present occasion. Having quoted from the Psalm a few words descriptive of Christ’s ascension, he adds, in his own language, and gave gifts, — for the purpose of drawing a comparison between the greater and the less. Paul intends to shew, that this ascension of God in the person of Christ was far more illustrious than the ancient triumphs of the Church; because it is a more honorable distinction for a conqueror to dispense his bounty largely to all classes, than to gather spoils from the vanquished.
The interpretation given by some, that Christ received from the Father what he would distribute to us, is forced, and utterly at variance with the apostle’s purpose. No solution of the difficulty, in my opinion, is more natural than this. Having made a brief quotation from the Psalm, Paul took the liberty of adding a statement, which, though not contained in the Psalm, is true in reference to Christ — a statement, too, by which the ascension of Christ is proved to be more illustrious, and more worthy of admiration, than those ancient manifestations of the Divine glory which David enumerates.
~ John Calvin, “Commentary on Ephesians”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom41.iv.v.ii.html#iv.v.ii-p23
Matthew 27:9 ~Example of a Wrong Name Put Down By Mistake
John Calvin makes no attempt to defend the author of Matthew in his commentary on Matthew 27:9. Calvin says “the passage itself plainly shows that the name of Jeremiah has been put down by mistake,” and although Calvin occasionally attributes such an error to a scribe, however, in this example he says: “I confess that I do not know nor do I give myself much trouble to inquire.” Note that Calvin doesn’t attempt to vindicate Matthew of this blunder, but accepts it plainly as an error that should be corrected, without being hindered by whomever put down the wrong name, whether it was in sources to Matthew, by the Author of Matthew, or due to a later scribal error.
9. Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet. How the name of Jeremiah crept in, I confess that I do not know nor do I give myself much trouble to inquire. The passage itself plainly shows that the name of Jeremiah has been put down by mistake, instead of Zechariah, (11:13;) for in Jeremiah we find nothing of this sort, nor any thing that even approaches to it. Now that other passage, if some degree of skill be not used in applying it, might seem to have been improperly distorted to a wrong meaning; but if we attend to the rule which the apostles followed in quoting Scripture, we shall easily perceive that what we find there is highly applicable to Christ.
~ John Calvin, “Harmony of the Evangelists, Pt 3”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom33.ii.xxxvi.html#ii.xxxvi-p31
Matthew 23:35 ~ Example of Mistaken name
John Calvin provides several conjectures to explain why the wrong surname is attributed to Zechariah, and finally makes an interesting conclusion allowing that Jerome may be right that the text may contain an error, “or whether (as Jerome thinks) there is a mistake in the word, there can be no doubt as to the fact, that Christ refers to that impious stoning of Zechariah which is recorded in 2 Chronicles 24:21, 22“. Calvin is not thinking of a scribal transmission error, because Jerome affirms Barachiah is the original form, and arguest against the Gospel of Nazarenes where the name is corrected to Jehoiada, and at the same time Jerome denies that Zechariah is the son of Barachiah. Jerome’s solution, that Calvin endorses is complicated in suggests the wrong name was intentionally placed in the text to follow a Hebrew pattern due to the meaning of Barachiah. Read Jerome’s Commentary to understand why Matthew would have intentionally supplied the wrong name.
There is no probability in the opinion of those who refer this passage to that Zechariah who exhorted the people, after their return from the Babylonish captivity, to build the temple, (Zechariah 8:9,) and whose prophecies are still in existence. For though the title of the book informs us that he was the son of Barachiah, (Zechariah 1:1,) yet we nowhere read that he was slain; and it is, forced exposition to say, that he was slain during the period that intervened between the building of the altar and of the temple. But as to the other Zechariah, son of Jehoiada, the sacred history relates what agrees perfectly with this passage; that when true religion had fallen into decay, after the death of his father, through the wicked revolt of the king and of the people, the Spirit of God came upon him, to reprove severely the public idolatry, and that on this account he was stoned in the porch of the temple, (2 Chronicles 24:20, 21.) There is no absurdity in supposing that his father Jehoiada received, in token of respect, the surname of Barachiah, because, having throughout his whole life defended the true worship, he might justly be pronounced to be the Blessed of God. But whether Jehoiada had two names, or whether (as Jerome thinks) there is a mistake in the word, there can be no doubt as to the fact, that Christ refers to that impious stoning of Zechariah which is recorded in 2 Chronicles 24:21, 22
~ John Calvin, “Harmony of the Evangelists, Pt 3”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom33.ii.xiii.html#ii.xiii-p48
Numbers 8:26 ~ Example of Alleged Scribal Error
In his commentary on Numbers 8:26, Calvin concludes that the text is incorrect, but in this instance, he blames the error on the carelessness of a Scribe, despite the lack of manuscript evidence to support such a conclusion.
Nor does any reverence prevent us from saying that, as it sometimes happens in minor matters, a wrong number may have crept in from the carelessness of scribes; 239 and this is probably the most natural solution. The more correct reading, in my opinion, is, that they should offer two bullocks and one ram; but since it is elsewhere explained why God appointed this day, he only briefly recites here: “When they bring the fainha with the first-fruits.”
~ John Calvin, “Harmony of the Law”, Pt 2
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom04.iii.ix.iii.html#iii.ix.iii-p39
Genesis 1:14-16 ~ Example of Scientific (Astrological) Error
In Calvin’s commentary on Genesis 1:14-15, he considers two cosmological errors in these accounts: 1) that the Moon is not larger than Saturn and 2) the Moon is a dark, opaque body and not an luminary. Calvin’s conclusion is that the author of Genesis is justified in using inaccurate science in order to communicate truths, so far as it enables that revelation to be better understood. The example demonstrates who a scientific error may be used in the Scripture, without it being corrected. He writes: “Moses wrote in a popular style things which without instruction, all ordinary persons, endued with common sense, are able to understand; but astronomers investigate with great labor whatever the sagacity of the human mind can comprehend. Nevertheless, this study is not to be reprobated, nor this science to be condemned”
15. Let them be for lights It is well again to repeat what I have said before, that it is not here philosophically discussed, how great the sun is in the heaven, and how great, or how little, is the moon; but how much light comes to us from them.71 For Moses here addresses himself to our senses, that the knowledge of the gifts of God which we enjoy may not glide away. Therefore, in order to apprehend the meaning of Moses, it is to no purpose to soar above the heavens; let us only open our eyes to behold this light which God enkindles for us in the earth. By this method (as I have before observed) the dishonesty of those men is sufficiently rebuked, who censure Moses for not speaking with greater exactness. For as it became a theologian, he had respect to us rather than to the stars. Nor, in truth, was he ignorant of the fact, that the moon had not sufficient brightness to enlighten the earth, unless it borrowed from the sun; but he deemed it enough to declare what we all may plainly perceive, that the moon is a dispenser of light to us. That it is, as the astronomers assert, an opaque body, I allow to be true, while I deny it to be a dark body. For, first, since it is placed above the element of fire, it must of necessity be a fiery body. Hence it follows, that it is also luminous; but seeing that it has not light sufficient to penetrate to us, it borrows what is wanting from the sun. He calls it a lesser light by comparison; because the portion of light which it emits to us is small compared with the infinite splendor of the sun.
16. The greater light I have said, that Moses does not here subtilely descant, as a philosopher, on the secrets of nature, as may be seen in these words. First, he assigns a place in the expanse of heaven to the planets and stars; but astronomers make a distinction of spheres, and, at the same time, teach that the fixed stars have their proper place in the firmament. Moses makes two great luminaries; but astronomers prove, by conclusive reasons that the star of Saturn, which on account of its great distance, appears the least of all, is greater than the moon. Here lies the difference; Moses wrote in a popular style things which without instruction, all ordinary persons, endued with common sense, are able to understand; but astronomers investigate with great labor whatever the sagacity of the human mind can comprehend. Nevertheless, this study is not to be reprobated, nor this science to be condemned, because some frantic persons are wont boldly to reject whatever is unknown to them. For astronomy is not only pleasant, but also very useful to be known: it cannot be denied that this art unfolds the admirable wisdom of God. Wherefore, as ingenious men are to be honored who have expended useful labor on this subject, so they who have leisure and capacity ought not to neglect this kind of exercise. Nor did Moses truly wish to withdraw us from this pursuit in omitting such things as are peculiar to the art; but because he was ordained a teacher as well of the unlearned and rude as of the learned, he could not otherwise fulfill his office than by descending to this grosser method of instruction. Had he spoken of things generally unknown, the uneducated might have pleaded in excuse that such subjects were beyond their capacity. Lastly since the Spirit of God here opens a common school for all, it is not surprising that he should chiefly choose those subjects which would be intelligible to all. If the astronomer inquires respecting the actual dimensions of the stars, he will find the moon to be less than Saturn; but this is something abstruse, for to the sight it appears differently. Moses, therefore, rather adapts his discourse to common usage. For since the Lord stretches forth, as it were, his hand to us in causing us to enjoy the brightness of the sun and moon, how great would be our ingratitude were we to close our eyes against our own experience? There is therefore no reason why janglers should deride the unskilfulness of Moses in making the moon the second luminary; for he does not call us up into heaven, he only proposes things which lie open before our eyes. Let the astronomers possess their more exalted knowledge; but, in the meantime, they who perceive by the moon the splendor of night, are convicted by its use of perverse ingratitude unless they acknowledge the beneficence of God.
~ John Calvin, “Commentary on Genesis, Pt 1″,
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom01.vii.i.html#Bible:Gen.1.16
source:https://bloggingtheology.net/2018/02/02/john-calvin-on-errors-in-the-scriptures-quotations-from-calvins-commentaries/
What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube
