Was the repentant thief saved without understanding Jesus is God, Messiah or Savior? [Q&A]

Greetings J.S.

In the very least it seems what you are doing is problematic. Why? To allude to the exception to the rule in the Scripture, rather than the standard rule itself laid out by Scripture explicitly (on how one must be saved e.g. Romans 10) seems irresponsible.

I advise you to build doctrine on a house made of brick not sand my friend.

However lets investigate further. You said:

"It is because of the Good Thief incident,he certainly NEVER ACCEPTED Jesus as God,or Messiah or personal SAVIOUR. He jsut asked FOR HELP."

I highlighted the contradiction in bald so you can read your comment again. If the thief on the cross asked Jesus for help then Jesus became the recipient of his cry for physical and spiritual salvation and restoration and only hope for the after life in a distressing situation. After all how could someone who is dying alongside the thief been able to help and restore him and grant him eternal paradise unless that person was more than he appeared to be? They were both being tortured and mutilated to death in the most severely embarrassing manner, how could Jesus possibly help him? He was nailed to a cross! Hence the thief asking for "help" is an outward sign of an inward spiritual realization, that Jesus could rescue and save him, especially his soul.

This shows us our thief here had undergone an inner spiritual epiphany that his colleague (to the other side of Jesus) had not. He realized Jesus alone was the unique savior who had the omnipotent ability to grant him paradise making him God, Messiah and Savior. Further more the Scripture teaches us that no one can receive this kind of epiphany without first having a spiritual transformation:

"But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." - John 1:12-13

And:

""Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." - John 3:5-6

Finally lets look at the context for important pieces of key information you may have missed:

And Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." And they cast lots to divide his garments. And the people stood by, watching, but the rulers scoffed at him, saying, "He saved others; let him save himself, if he is the Christ of God, his Chosen One!" The soldiers also mocked him, coming up and offering him sour wine and saying, "If you are the King of the Jews, save yourself!" There was also an inscription over him, "This is the King of the Jews." One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, "Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!" But the other rebuked him, saying, "Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong." And he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." And he said to him, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise." [Luke 23:34-43]

If you read carefully the parts I have highlighted here you will see the Thief was well aware of the banter between the various individuals. The thief heard Jesus refer to God as his own personal Father, showing him Jesus was God's Son. He even heard Jesus instruct the Father to forgive his enemies, showing that Jesus had some type of divine authority. He heard the people confess that Jesus had saved others, and shown awareness that he was conceivably some kind of Christ (Messiah). He had seen the sign above Jesus and heard the Jews and Romans speak of Jesus as a possible King of Jews. He confessed Jesus was sinless and made no crime. He rebuked his fellow criminal, by instructing him to fear God when the sinful man had sought to beg Jesus for physical deliverance. And to finish it off he openly requests Jesus to remember him (showing us Jesus is the omnipotent Lord of the heaven and judgement) in his kingdom (note Jesus kingdom, not merely "God's"). In conclusion this thief understood Jesus to be the Lord of Judgement, King (with a divine kingdom) and Messiah!

And remember we know that we cannot simply believe and/or express theological truths with true sincerity and repentance without God touching our hearts:

"He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven." - Matthew 16:15-17

And:

"No one can say "Jesus is Lord" except by the Holy Spirit" - 1 Corinthians 12:3c

And:

"God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth" - 2 Timothy 2:25

Thank you for your question. I pray that God draw you to true redemption in his Holy Son through the power of his Holy Spirit. Amen.

What Do You Know About Islam? The Altogether changing Quran with Sheikh Yusuf Estes

Pakistani Taliban Justify Murder Of Over 100+ Children By Sunnah of Mohammed

"The Tehreek-e-Taliban, which carried out perhaps the bloodiest school massacre in modern history, has called the killing consistent with what Prophet Mohammed did with his enemies 1400 years ago. 

"At the time of the Bannu Qurayza massacre, Prophet Mohammed ordered only those children be killed whose pubic hairs have appeared," Umar Khurasani, spokesperson for the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, is quoted as saying by the American website, examiner.com. He said the Islamic terrorists only followed sunnat (actions of Prophet Mohammed) during wars. 

Bannu Qurayza was a Jewish tribe that lived in present day Madina in Saudi Arabia. The report mentions Islamic texts that say nearly 800 men and boys and one woman of the tribe were beheaded. Khurasani is quoted as saying that those who consider the Peshawar massacre un-Islamic should refer to Sahih al-Bukhari. Muslims consider Bukhari's as one of the most authentic books on what Prophet Mohammed said and did in his lifetime." ( read more here )

Surprised? ;)

Calling Christians SHUT DOWN - Ijaz Ahmad EXPOSED

Hey Brothers & Sisters

Quick Update:

Muslim Apologist "Ijaz Ahmad" owner of CallingChristians.com, Ijaz Ahmad who has for over 2 years ran from debating me (even in light of an open public debate challenge which he refused to acknowledge) has now put his blog in private mode, and for good reason:

He has gone into hiding after I wrote this article exposing his perverse sexual behavior by taking various quotes and screen shots from his blog. Ijaz is no doubt re-modifying his blog in light of this embarrassment. Ijaz has a known history of removing and taking down posts when he is exposed. This snake has no shame. Join with me in prayer for the salvation of this lost soul.

Here is the confession from Ijaz the sexual pervert himself:

Update:

Ijaz Ahmad removes my post and my ability to comment on his CallingChristians Facebook page. He does NOT want people knowing about his real character:

 

Debate: The Christology of John vs. the Qur'an

Debate: Crucifixion or Crucifiction? The Arguments of Ahmed Deedat Examined in Debate

The Qur'an is the Son of Allah - Applying the Quranic Logic To Itself!

For Muslims the idea of God being a Father and having a Son is paganism. As one commentator on Paul Williams blog shows us:

The problem is that the Qur'an itself (using Qur'anic logic) is actually the Son of Allah, as brother Sam Shamoun points out:

"The Quran is the uncreated speech of Allah, and it has a mother: 

God doth blot out or confirm what He pleaseth: with Him is the Mother of the Book (ommu alkitabi). S. 13:39 Y. Ali 

verily, we have made it an Arabic Qur’an; haply ye will have some sense. And it is in the Mother of the Book (ommi alkitabi) with Us,- high and wise. S. 43:3-4 Palmer 

The mother of the book which contains the Quran is with God, an important point for our discussion as we shall shortly see. In another place it is said that the Quran’s clear verses are actually “the mother of the book”: 

He it is who has revealed to thee the Book, of which there are some verses that are decisive, they are the mother of the Book (ommu alkitabi); and others ambiguous; but as for those in whose hearts is perversity, they follow what is ambiguous, and do crave for sedition, craving for (their own) interpretation of it; but none know the interpretation of it except God. But those who are well grounded in knowledge say, ‘We believe in it; it is all from our Lord; but none will remember save those who possess minds. S. 3:7 Palmer 

Hence, the Quran originates from the mother of the book and its clear verses are the mother of the book, which means that the Quran has at least two mothers! 

Doctorestonekisser’s “prophet” further taught that the Quran worships and intercedes with Allah, and will even appear in human form as a pale man: 

Khalid b. Ma‘dan said: RECITE THE RESCUER, which is A.L.M. The sending down,3 for I have heard that a man who had committed many sins used to recite it and nothing else. It spread its wings over him AND SAID, ‘MY LORD, forgive him, for he often used to RECITE ME;’ so the Lord Most High MADE IT AN INTERCESSOR for him and said, ‘Record for him a good deed and raise him a degree in place of every sin.’ Khalid said: IT WILL DISPUTE on behalf of the one who RECITES IT when he is in the grave SAYING, ‘O God, if I am a part of Thy Book, make me AN INTERCESSOR for him; but if I am not a part of Thy Book, blot me out of it.’ It will be like a bird putting its wing on him, IT WILL INTERCEDE for him and will protect him from the punishment in the grave. He said the same about ‘Blessed is He.’4 Khalid did not go to sleep at night till he had recited them. Ta’us said they were given sixty virtues more than any other sura in the Qur’an. Darimi transmitted.” 

3. Qur’an, xxxii. 

4. Qur’an, lxvii. (Mishkat Al-Masabih, English Translation With Explanatory Notes by Dr. James Robson [Sh. Muhammad Ashraf Publishers, Booksellers & Exporters, Lahore-Pakistan, Reprint 1990], Volume II, Book VIII. The Excellent Qualities of the Qur’an, Chapter I, p. 459; bold and capital emphasis ours) 

It was narrated that Buraydah said: I heard the Prophet say: “The Qur’an will meet its companion on the Day of Resurrection when his grave is opened for him, IN THE FORM OF A PALE MAN. IT WILL SAY TO HIM, ‘Do you recognize me?’ He will say: ‘I do not recognize you.’ IT WILL SAY: ‘I am your companion the Qur’an, who kept you thirsty on hot days and kept you awake at night. Every merchant benefits from his business and today you will benefit from your good deeds.’ He will be given dominion in his right hand and eternity in his left, and there will be placed on his head a crown of dignity, and his parents will be clothed with priceless garments the like of which have never been seen in this world. They will say: ‘Why have we been clothed with this?’ It will be said: ‘Because your son used to recite Qur’an.’ Then it will be said to him: ‘Recite and ascend in the degrees of Paradise,’ and he will continue to ascend so long as he recites, either at a fast pace or a slow pace.” Narrated by Ahmad in al-Musnad (394) and Ibn Maajah in al-Sunan (3781); classed as hasan by al-Busayri in al-Zawaa’id and by al-Albaani in al-Silsilah al-Saheehah (2829). 

Here is the English translation of Ibn Majah’s version of this report: 

3781. It was narrated from Ibn Buraidah that his father told that the Messenger of Allah said: “The Qur’an will come on the Day of Resurrection, LIKE A PALE MAN, AND WILL SAY: ‘I am the one that kept you awake at night and made you thirsty during the day.’” (Hasan) (English Translation of Sunan Ibn Majah – Compiled by Imam Muhammad Bin Yazeed Ibn Majah Al-Qazwini, From Hadith No. 3657 to 4341, Ahadith edited and referenced by Hafiz Abu Tahir Zubair ‘Ali Za’i, translated by Nasiruddin al-Khattab (Canada), final review by Abu Khaliyl (USA), [Darussalam Publications and Distributors, First Edition: June 2007], Volume 5, Chapters on Etiquette, Chapter 52. The Rewards Associated With Qur’an, pp. 68-69; capital emphasis ours) 

And this is what the renowned Muslim scholar and expositor Al-Suyuti said concerning this hadith in his commentary (2/1242): 

“In the form of a pale man”. 

Al-Suyuti said: This is the one whose color has changed. It is as if he comes in this form so as to resemble his companion in this world, or to draw attention to the fact that just as his color changed in this world because of staying up at night to read Qur’an, the Qur’an will appear in a similar form because of its striving on the Day of Resurrection until its companion attains the ultimate goal in the Hereafter. 

Thus, this pagan’s religion teaches him that there are three eternal beings, Allah, the Quran, and the Quran’s mommy. This also means that Allah is the Quran’s daddy, seeing that the Quran is his word, which means that the Quran’s mommy is actually his wife! 

Now if the logic of the Quran is true then this means that the mother of the book has a spouse with whom she has sex. After all, how can she be a mother, or have any children, if she has no husband, no spouse? We can even reword Sura 6:101 in the following manner: 

Wonderful Originator of the heavens and the earth! How could She (this unknown mysterious woman) be the Quran’s mother if she has no consort…? 

But since this mysterious woman does have offspring then she must have a husband, and here is where the real problem lies for the Muslims: Since the Quran is believed to be the word of Allah, which makes him the source of the Quran, then this means that Allah is its father and the husband of the Quran’s mother! And since Muslims believe that the Quran is the uncreated speech of Allah then this means that its mother is also uncreated. 

The Quran cannot exist before its mother which means that if the Quran is eternal then so is its mother, also implying that Allah has always been married! After all, whose wife could the Quran’s mother be if Allah is the only other entity that existed before creation? 

Again, note the logic behind this: 

(4) If the Quran has a mother, then the Quran must be an offspring.(5) But if the Quran is an offspring, then it must have a mother and a father.(6) If it has a mother and a father, then they must have had sex to produce the offspring.(7) Suras 13:39, 43:3-4, and 3:7 say that the Quran indeed has a mother.(8) Therefore, its mother and father must have had sex.(9) Hence, the best candidate for the father and the mother of the Quran is Allah and an eternal mysterious mother with whom he had sex."

Interestingly Sam has confirmed what myself and one co-author of mine has spoken of. Allah actually has genitals. Allah is capable of sexual reproduction:

http://www.answeringabraham.com/2012/08/joes-joesph-exposes-allah.html

http://www.answeringabraham.com/2013/05/does-allah-have-penis-allah-is-capable.html

To see more evidence of the Qur'an being a personal being see these:

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

http://islamqa.info/en/93151

http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=460&Itemid=36

http://www.alim.org/library/quran/AlQuran-tafsir/TIK/2/0

To see how we are using the Qur'anic argument against itself, see these:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/without_consort.html

http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/filial_terms.htm

A Psychological Nightmare with Ijaz Ahmad

Part 1 Narcissism & Convoluted Deception

Christian blogs addressing Islam rarely interact with Ijaz Ahmad anymore, every now and then it is necessary to remind Ijaz why this is the case, although unfortunately he maybe incapable of comprehending this because of his mental problems.

(Re)introducing Ijaz Ahmad (in case you had forgotten his level of grandeur):

"We have brother Ijaz...Ahmad, Ahmad is a 20 YEAR OLD MUSLIM SPEAKER from the Caribbean island of Trinidad...Trinidad Tobago, he also holds THE UNIQUE DISTINCTION of being a Muslim Trinidadian, i.e. a Trinidadian by nationality, being from Trinidad. Ijaz.. is a debater and a speaker for the London based, Muslim debate initiative and academic Muslim think tank featuring scholars and professionals from all fields and sciences who engage in professional discourse with non-Muslims. He also runs and maintains several interfaith groups, websites and pages, most notably his own organisation: CallingChristians, which can be found at CallingChristians.com. He attended presentation college, a PRESTIGIOUS CATHOLIC academic institution that has BIRTHED HIS COUNTRIES TWO PRIME MINISTERS AND IT'S CURRENT PRESIDENT. He is KNOWN for his articles, debates, PEER COUNSELING and most recently his ENDEAVORS TO COUNCIL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS. As recently as last Wednesday  he engaged in a now published debate with renowned Christian apologist and speaker PASTOR Samuel Green of Answering Islam and Answering Muslims titled: "An incarnate God: fact or fiction?". He's currently a student at university, a university student, he spends his time studying philosophy, theology and history." (Dialogue with Bob Siegel)

Have you ever heard of a debater being introduced with there "age"? Not likely. That is unique to Ijaz, he finds his 'youth' and 'inexperience' to be important to his victim complex and sexual fetishes. But over all it seems at-least in his own community Ijaz Ahmad's reputation proceeds him! However unfortunately in the above dialogue Ijaz was caught lying about his own abilities to boost his credibility to the ignorant audience members as Anthony Rogers points out:

"One of the more notable aspects of this discussion was Ijaz pretending to know Hebrew and claiming that he was working directly from NA27. I kid you not. He was actually claiming to be reading the Hebrew of Zechariah from a text-critical edition of the Greek NT. Even people who don't know Hebrew can recognize on sight the difference between Hebrew and Greek."

Before this exchange Ijaz had accused Bob Siegel (his debate opponent) of being an immature under cover Muslim, the easiest Christian to debate and defeat and impossible to lose against (click here for the full story).

It is surprising that Ijaz would expend energy and prepare such a long time and been so eager to debate such an incompetent opponent. However after having evaluated Ijaz's own performance against (conceivably) the worst Christian apologist (judging by his own assessment) we are now left wondering whether Ijaz himself is actually a Christian plant since he lost to the worst apologist ever, even one that it was impossible to lose against! Ijaz has now usurped Bob's supposed former status. Bob not only easily held his own but Allah made it appear to many of us, showing us Bob was the clear winner.

Mike the host who introduces Ijaz credentials, clearly doesn't know who Ijaz is, he even struggles to pronounce his name or understand his accent. This shows us the submitted credentials of Ijaz were given to Mike and Bob by Ijaz. However some of these credentials are as questionable as the other demonstrably false claims Ijaz made in the debate:

• Where has Samuel Green ever claimed to be a Pastor? And what and where is his Church he pastors at?
• Why is it a unique distinction to be a Muslim Trinidadian? Muslims constitute 6 percent of the population on Trinidad and Tobago, representing 65,318 individuals.
• What evidence is there for the assertion that Ijaz is known for his peer counseling especially of domestic abuse victims?
• What scholars from all fields and sciences at MDI are involved with professional discourse with non Muslims? I wasn't away there was 'one scholar' from any field let alone all of them and on top of that they are debating non-Muslims?
• What is this anonymous: "Muslim Think Tank"? And it if filled with scholars from all fields and sciences who engage in lectures and discourse with non-Muslims why can it not be found on Google? "Muslim Think Tank" is very vague. Provide the website so we can evaluate the 'scholarly' credentials from 'all fields and sciences'.

But this is not the first time Ijaz has lied about certain facts:

Then after knowingly lying about Christian theology he tries to deliberately twist Sam Shamoun to vindicate his lies:

\

I have quoted Sam Shamoun in context here. How did Ahmad looks pass glaring title of the article? maybe, cognitive bias. But perhaps he didn't lie? After all we can't expect Muslims to understand Christian Theology perfectly, maybe they sometimes make mistakes. 

Unfortunately Ijaz repeated the same lies two years after this event, he still asserts:

"According to Christian belief, Elohiym can either refer to the Father (God) or the Godhead (all three persons of the Trinity). If Christ is claiming to be the Elohiym of Exodus 3:14 then there exists a major problem." (more here)

Part 2 Obsession, Abuse and Cognitive Dissonance 

Ijaz has insulted all Christians including the deceased Church Fathers, and Protestant Reformers (who are unable to respond) 20th century apologists and contemporary believers, which means he also degraded the Catholic staff, teachers and students at his own former college (presentation). Ijaz claims you would have to be a fool to believe in what Christians believe about God's nature because it makes no sense, it's unknowable. He claims he was: "offended" by Samuel Green's preaching he felt "spoken down to" in a debate about the very topic he was there to discuss. 

On another occasion he asserted that Samuel Green insulted and even "abused" Muslims for calling them "Mohammedans", while publicly referring to Christians as "Pauline" throughout his own articles. He tried to publicly humiliate Samuel Green by making a blog post about this.

When Samuel Green pointed out that he had only referred to an early group of Muslims as Mohammedans and not all Muslims, Ijaz removed the Facebook page from public eye. However this is not the first time Ijaz when has felt humiliated enough to feel compelled into removing a post. He removed my posts from his open debate forum on Facebook. Anthony Rogers also reports the same:

"As for Ijaz's comment that Zechariah 12:10 is not a prophecy about the death of Christ, which has absolutely nothing to do with Ijaz's stunning defeat at the hands of Bob, the fact is that Ijaz was so thoroughly exposed on this issue that he had to take down an exchange that took place between us on Facebook. " (Ijaz Goes Bobbing for Apples and Ends Up Drowning in Three Inches of Water)

Ijaz has complains about White's company, yet he has allowed violent threats to be posted on his page. When he is caught he removes them and veins ignorance. Mr Ahmad has made unprovoked attacks calling C.L. Edwards as an "idiot" and "freak show" and Anthony Rogers as "brain dead" in  a formal professional debate. One time after politely discussing an uploaded video to you YouTube, Ijaz suddenly became abusive and vulgar and told a Christian brother (and fellow guest author on this blog: Radical Moderate/Robert Wells) to: "take your rectum out of your head, old man". (source). Signifying that Mr Ahmad views himself as 'young' and Christian men as old 'predators'

Part 3 Fixation on Sex 

Recently again Ijaz decided to post an article this time about Sam Shamoun. Ijaz in an attempt to sound intelligible opens it with: "I’ve had the unfortunate experience of having a “conversation” with Sam Shamoun". Actually Ijaz you've had dozens of conversations with Sam Shamoun, and you've pointed out time and time again you are the alleged victim of his abuse in many of these exchanges.

However here you are "again" engaging with Sam Shamoun who you view as psychologically abusive, a tormentor if you will. You are like an abused victim repeatedly returning to the perpetrator. But you should know better because you council domestically abused individuals. I suppose you are also a patient of such abuse, you also need counselling which is why you council others, but you have denied yourself such a useful service, I would seriously reconsider. Perhaps a Catholic from presentation college would be willing to pay for a highly qualified and professional therapist on your behalf.

Further down in the post we learn that Ijaz published this article to tell us about what Sam thinks about sex. Apparently Sam Shamoun quoting several hadith showing that Sauda, one of Mohammed's wives was fat, old and unattractive so that Mohammed never spent time with her. This in Ijaz's mind was supposed to mean that Sam Shamoun is obsessed with 'sex'. I don't know how anyone with a rationally sane mind could conclude such things, but this is the same person who thought that James White's 'associates' (who we are not) had bizarre sexual fetishes, as if that was suppose to be worth while blog material? Why would  professional apologist post about the alleged sexual fantasies of others? Ijaz Ahmad even claimed to be the object of a rape threat perpetrated by Sam Shamoun and Radical Moderate, Ijaz is truly the product of a fixated perverse sexual fantasies which he projects on to his imagined tormentors like Samuel Green and others. Unfortunately he has even projected C.L Edwards who preach the Gospel and exposed Islam as a sexual predator:

Ijaz refers to himself as a 'young teenage boy' and CL Edwards a strange older man, despite Mr. Edward's intention to preach his faith. This is interesting because Ijaz has a fetish with his age being rather young, he brings this up at every debate and has many articles on his websites about Priests and Young Boys, part of his obsessive compulsive complex. There is no doubt that Ijaz's Father (whether a priest or his own biological Father) abused him emotionally, physically and sexually, and Ijaz actually needs very serious professional help. I advise Christians to avoid referring to Ijaz as a 'young man' as this reminds Ijaz of dark times that he has not yet been able to psychologically recover from.

Besides this, what Ijaz deliberately omits in his post is his accusation that Shamoun lives like a pig and needs to fast:

"I am praying for you Sam, I pray that you lose the weight you have been begging God to help you lose. Islam has a solution for that, it’s called fasting, but hey, if you choose to eat and live like a pig because of your faith; then I got a tip for ya, it isn’t the food, it’s your behaviour!"

Ijaz often makes posts on his blog about abuse and sex, of which he says: "Naturally, when a person uses certain terms repeatedly, it is because these ideas and thoughts are constantly on their minds. They are frequently fixated on these topics and acts, these desires." Ijaz then informs us that he spends his time searching for these types of words: "If one is to spend time examining the content of the messages that Sam Shamoun sends, he always uses these sexually charged comments with Muslims". Ijaz I have to say this awfully disturbing to see that you actually proactively look for such filth from your abusive tormentor Sam Shamoun, this is disturbing and unhealthy to say the least, I again recommend a therapist or psychologist. I'm sure your therapist would tell you the same I have. You are actually using your discussion about Sam Shamoun to express sexual thoughts and fetishes and desires. Your repeated usage of the term 'sex' (18 times) or 'sexual' (14 times) only in one single post is actually quite creepy and you need to stop expressing your sexual ideas about Sam Shamoun in public. Your candid confession that you find pillars, rocks and stones to be 'phallic' is sickening to say the least. I honestly recommend you take the time out from writing public posts because your obsession with sex and older men is becoming overwhelming for your readers, here is just a quite recollection on what you post about on your blog:

• Punishing the Female Rape Victim in Islam
• Christianity Promotes Fornication: Evangelical Youths Loving Sex
• German Priest Admits 280 Counts of Sexual Abuse
• 200 Priests Accused of Sexual Abuse in California
• Culture of Pornography
• Sam Shamoun, Anthony Rogers & Radical Moderate Perverted Statements.
• 72 Virgins? Does Allah Give Sexual Bribes?
• Australian Roman Catholic Church Admits to Major Child Sex Abuse
• German Priests Carried Out Sexual Abuse for Years
• Radical Moderate’s Homosexual Fantasies
• Elder of 7th Day Adventist Church, Principal on 14 Sexual Assault Charges
• Sam Shamoun’s Obsession with Muslims and Sex
• 29 Sexually Explicit, Profane and Dirty Stories and Verses in the Bible

Here is the kind of news Ijaz likes to report:

Ijaz finds this kind of article 'germane' and 'interesting' for an apologetics blog (no doubt because Ijaz has sex posted all over his blog and loves hearing about priests), and even refers to sexual frustration and an outlet (psychological projection).

But here is some of the most shocking of them all:

Ijaz not only reports such news he gives an x rated analysis of the report! But what is even worse is he wants David Wood and Sam Shamoun (who are old men according to Ijaz, while Ijaz is young and innocent victim) to comment on this filth, and wants to know what they think about male genitalia:

But this is not the first time in public Ijaz has revealed his fetish with the male genitalia. In a previous debate held with Anthony Rogers after Ijaz inaccurately describing what Christians have worshiped, he proceeds to explain the final item we worship:

23:59:"Lastly in their fervor and zealous craze, they've even worshiped the foreskin of a man, that is the holy prepuce"

He likes to talk about his sexual fetish on his website. In his post (callingchristians.com/an-introduction-to-christianity/), Ijaz says:

"Circumsized, ate and evidently went to W.C? 

8) Luke 2:21 “And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called Jesus, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.”

Is anyone not familiar with the meaning of the word “circumcised”? Just in case, circumcision simply means: 

“Male circumcision is the surgical removal of some or the entire foreskin (prepuce) from the penis.” 

Seriously, I am even ashamed of myself by saying this. How could anyone attribute such a thing to the Almighty God? HE HAD THE DIRTY PART OF HIS GENITALS CUT? DIRTY AND THIS PART? Unfortunately, Christians do not realize the extent of blasphemy they are uttering by believing that God was a man, a fully human being."

For more on Ijaz Ahmad's psychological and sexually bizarre history please visit here.

Now as Christians we should honestly pray for Ijaz to find peace and alleviation from his dark sexual and tormented history. But Ijaz you need professional help, there is no denying it now. Your sexual fetishes and fears are becoming very public and you should stop posting until you get this issue dealt with.

ROUND II (Second Debate) Matt Dillahunty Vs. Matt Slick | Bible Thumping Wingnut Show

Anthony Rogers vs Andrew Livingston Two Full Debates

First Debate

Was Muhammad a True Prophet?

Second Debate

What Did Jesus Say About Himself?

Why I Am a Christian (David Wood)

David presents the Gospel:

Other Manuscripts - Scribal Errors of the Quran vs New Testament

Hey guys, here is my latest video. Will Muslims like Adnan Rashid and Shabir Ally apply the same standards to Quranic scribal errors that they do to the New Testament? Will they accuse the Quran as being corrupted for the same reasons they allege the New Testament is corrupted? Consistency in Islamic apologetics has been long absent, see why! Lets study 1st Timothy 3:16

How the Qur'an certainly affirms the divine pre-existence of Jesus Christ

The Qur'an teaches Allah blew his spirit into Mary the mother of Christ:

And Mary the daughter of 'Imran, who guarded her chastity; and We breathed into (her body) of Our spirit; and she testified to the truth of the words of her Lord and of His Revelations, and was one of the devout (servants). 66:12

The English word translated as "chastity" by Yusuf Ali is "farj". In Arabic this is the word for "private area" or more specifically the outer area of the private area. (1)

Literally translated it would look like this:

And Mary the daughter of 'Imran, who guarded her PRIVATE PART (Arabic- farjahaa) and We breathed INTO IT of Our spirit; and she testified to the truth of the words of her Lord and of His revelations, and was one of the devout (servants). S. 66:12

Allah repeats this affirmation in another passage :

And (remember) her who guarded her PRIVATE PART (Arabic- farjahaa): We breathed into her from Our Spirit, and We made her and her son a Sign for all people. S. 21:91

Muslim scholar Mohammed Asad confirms the rather explicit meaning. (2)

However what many Muslims (including Kathir) managed to over look is the precise language of the Qur'an. The transliterated Arabic here is: "fanafakhnā fihi min rūḥinā". The Arabic for: "We blew" is: "fanafakhnā". This is the 1st person plural perfect verb. In the Arabic language, like in the English, Allah is the subject pronoun. The next Arabic word is "Fihi" this is translated "into it". Then we have "min" which can be translated "of" or "from". Finally "Ruhina" is translated: "Our Spirit". This is the 1st person plural possessive pronoun. Hence Allah blew into Mary's private part of his Spirit.

The conjoint subject pronoun with the verb is evident in the Arabic and even conveyed in the English. This means Allah then is the one doing the blowing, the verb is applied to Allah who is the subject. He breathed something into into Mary. What is that something? His Spirit. Literally then this should be translated: "We (Allah) blew into it of Our Spirit". Hence contrary to the assertion of Ibn Kathir, God did not command Gabriel to breathe into Mary, rather Allah himself was the breather. 

However if Kathir is right Gabriel becomes Allah because the Qur'an directly applies the verb of blowing to Allah himself. 

In addition theologically it is more coherent to support Allah as the blower instead of Gabriel. Why? The repetitious Quranic assertion that Allah is the only creator:

"Is there any creator other than ALLAH who provides for you from the heaven and the earth?" 35:3

He created man 55:3

And those whom they call on besides Allah have not created anything while they are themselves created 16:20

That is God, your Lord! there is no god but He, the Creator of all things 6:102

Say: 'God is the Creator of everything, and He is the One, the Omnipotent 13:16

One potential objection is that there are some passages in the Quran ascribed to Allah that apply the Arabic plural for creator namely: "khāliqūna", this may imply other kinds of creators whom among Allah is supreme. Allah is stated to be the best of the creators.

However it is important to know here that in Arabic this is not intended to imply that creatures are co-creators whom Allah appoints and then contrasts himself with, no, not even human beings. Firstly the Qur'an makes a strong theological proclamation that Allah is not to be compared with creatures (112:4).

There are 3 additional reasons to reject the "comparison view". Firstly there is an authentic prophetic tradition that supports the Qur'anic declaration that only one creator exists. And secondly the Arabic word used in all of these verses can only apply to Allah:

Imam al-Bukhari reported in his Saheeh from Abu Sa`eed (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (Peace & Blessings of Allah be upon Him) said: "There is no created being but ALLAH CREATED IT." In Arabic, the word "khalaqa" means to make out of nothing, which is something that ONLY ALLAH CAN DO; it is impossible for anyone except Allah to do this. It also carries the meaning of decreeing or foreordaining. (3)

Hence the Arabic language, the Quranic theology, the prophetic tradition are all unanimous on this point. If one wishes to interpret or assert that Allah is the ultimate creator, that nothing is created without Allah, but that Allah uses created agents, one must be willing to show evidence from the Quran, Sunnah and Arabic grammar.

Finally the Qur'an itself shows us that the "creators" cannot be referring to created agents like humans or angels or other entities because Allah identifies only himself as these "creators" in contrast to those created beings who are created:

Is it you who create it, OR are We the Creators? 56:59

If Allah is the subject who blows into Mary's womb and the object of his blowing is his Spirit (indicated by the preposition "min"), the question must be asked who is the Spirit of Allah who is actually being blown into Mary's womb? Traditionally Orthodox Muslims (both Shia and Sunni) have answered by asserting the Angel Gabriel is Allah's Spirit, the Holy Spirit.

However two problems arise from this view. One is that if Gabriel is the one blown into Mary's womb and therefore the cause of the inception and animation of Jesus then he becomes the Father of Jesus, possibly resulting in a non-virginal birth. In the very least Gabriel would be the creator of Jesus, the one who penetrated Mary's private part. But why would Allah need to blow a creature into a womb in order to create, when he alone is the creator? However even this interpretation is less likely in light of another passage in the Qur'an which comes to our second point.

The Qur'an asserts:

O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of God aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of God, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in God and His apostles. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for God is one God: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is God as a Disposer of affairs. 4:171

Jesus is the Word of Allah and the Spirit bestowed upon Mary by Allah. This passage attests to the fact that Jesus must have pre-existed as the Angel Gabriel who was blown into Mary's womb by Allah. If one is to deny this, one must explain how Jesus is a spirit bestowed on Mary if he is not the very identical Spirit whom Allah blew into Mary? How could there conceivably be a difference? If there is such a difference, how many spirits does Jesus consist of and where does the Qur'an testify to such speculation?

If one is to deny the Spirit of Allah is the Angel Gabriel, one is left with the perplexing question. Who is the Spirit?

It is a quranically plausible view to reject the view that Gabriel is the Holy Spirit:

So when I have made him complete and breathed into him of My spirit, fall down making obeisance to him 15:29

It is (once again) highly unlikely that such a passage refers to Gabriel being blown into a creature.

However who could it be then? One view is that since human beings have spirits that continue to exist after death, meaning our core essential spiritual nature continues to exist, this is the core of our identity. We are our spirit primarily, and our body secondarily. This means we are indistinguishable from our spirit. If this is the case, then Allah may also be indistinguishable from his Spirit, and his spirit may be unlike ours, unlike anything created, hence Allah's spirit is essentially apart of him.

However if Allah bestows his own Spirit upon Mary, we have a testament in the Quran to the incarnation of Christ. Allah blows himself, or apart of himself into Mary and the Messiah is conceived as a result. This is a divine embodiment of Allah's Spirit. Mind you, such qur'anic language as depicted (66:12;4:171) is never applied to any other prophet or creature, hence Jesus is uniquely Spirit and divinely conceived, the only possible exception is Adam (4). The Qur'an however does support this interpretation seeing that Gabriel is not depicted as the Spirit or agent of creation, rather Allah is solely responsible for the inception of Jesus:

She said: "O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?" He said: "Even so: God createth what He willeth: When He hath decreed a plan, He but saith to it, 'Be,' and it is! 3:47

The same chapter goes onto have Jesus speaking as an Angel before his birth. (5)

Hence if Allah is solely and without partner responsible for the birth of Jesus by blowing his own Spirit into Mary's womb, then Jesus is said to be that Spirit who proceeded from Allah, then there is no other conclusion but to concede Jesus is the spiritual divine embodiment of Allah.

One may possibly argue that Allah's Spirit is just an impersonal force that Allah uses to create, sustain or other such divine functions, however this would not be consistent with Quranic verses which clearly attribute person-hood to the Spirit:

Say, [O Muhammad], "The Pure Spirit has brought it down from your Lord in truth to make firm those who believe and as guidance and good tidings to the Muslims." 16:102

And had chosen seclusion from them. Then We sent unto her Our Spirit and he assumed for her the likeness of a perfect man 19:17

Not only does the Spirit have the ability to take upon the form of a man, bring down revelation etc, the Spirit is again affirmed as the giver of Jesus:

He said: I am only an apostle of your Lord: That I will give you a pure boy. 19:19

The Arabic for "give" here is: "li-ahaba" and would be best translated as "bestow" in alignment with 4:171. This verse also matches up with the pre-existence of Jesus as a Spirit and Angel (4:171;3:45-50) and the very Spirit blown into Mary (66:12), and a messenger (19:19).

In conclusion I have not spent much time on whether the Spirit is personal or impersonal since Christians and Muslims both agree the Spirit is not impersonal. There are only two available choices. 

• 1) The Spirit is Allah or apart of Allah
• 2) The Spirit is distinct from Allah. 

If the Spirit is distinct from Allah: which pre-existent divine being should be identified as the Spirit? 

Perhaps no name should be given to the Spirit, in that case Jesus would still be a pre-existent divine Spirit, whether an Angel or another type of created entity. 

However if we assert that the Spirit is a mysterious divine figure that is inseparable from Allah or part of Allah's essence, then Jesus becomes the divine embodiment of Allah. It is therefore inevitable no matter what supernatural figure one interprets with 66:12, whether it be God, Spirit, Gabriel, Jesus the conclusion given above must be that Jesus pre-existed as this entity and is therefore a divine Spirit.   

End Notes:

(1) http://www.almaany.com/home.php?language=arabic&word=%D9%81%D8%B1%D8%AC&lang_name=English&type_word=0&dspl=0

(2) "In the second instance the Qur'an speaks of Mary as a righteous woman who lived in strict chastity and obedience to God: ‘And Mary daughter of 'Imran who guarded well her GENERATIVE ORGAN farjaha, and thus We breathed INTO HER of our spirit’ (S. 66:12). THE BOLD AND GRAPHIC STATEMENT APPEARS TO HAVE SHOCKED TRADITIONISTS AND COMMENTATORS, so that most of them tried to cover it up with different and FARFETCHED significations or glossed over it with out comment... "Ibn Kathir interprets the phrase ‘guarded well her generative organ’ to mean: ‘safeguarded and protected it. Guarding well ihsan signifies chastity and high birth.’ He comments on the phrase, ‘and thus We breathed into it of our spirit’ thus ‘that is, through the angel Gabriel. This is because God sent him to her, and he took for her the form of a man of good stature (S. 19:17). God commanded him to breathe INTO THE BREAST OF HER CHEMISE. HIS BREATH WENT DOWN AND PENETRATED HER GENERATIVE ORGAN, AND THUS CAUSED HER TO CONCEIVE JESUS’"(Christian-Muslim Encounters, ed. Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad & Wadi Z. Haddad [University Press of Florida, 1995], p. 67)

(3) See Fath al-Bari Sharh Saheeh al-Bukhari, 13/390. (439: Evidence that only Allah is the Creator of life)

(4) While Adam is a possible exception he is not a strong contender. For example in context Adam's creation refers to the entirety of man and how they inherit humanity (including an individual Spirit) through Adam (15:26-29). But assuming Adam is not an exception and he is a divine being, this would be vindicated by end of the passage in question itself: "and breathed into him of My spirit, fall down making obeisance to him " 15:29

(5) See Qur'an 3:45-49. In vs 49 there is no explicit or implicit indication in the Arabic language that the speaker has changed to Jesus. Rather translators add in brackets, to imply Jesus is the speaker, However this is due to preconceived theological reasons, not linguistic justification. For Muslims it just wouldn't make sense for an Angel to make such assertions, making the exact same claims that Christ appears to make in the New Testament and other apocryphal sources. However given the paradigm of this post, it would be perfectly coherent to believe Jesus pre-existed as an Angel who uttered this prophecy to Mary before his own physical inception.

A Quick Note on Deuteronomy 30:11, for Paul Williams

[Nota Bene: the webmaster of the Answering Abraham blog has been kind enough to include this guest post, by Denis Giron.]

Paul Williams recently posted an entry on his blog, titled Further thoughts on Christianity versus the Jewish Bible, in which he invokes a passage he has been hitting people with for years: Deuteronomy 30:11. His essential argument is a simple one: this or that English translation of Deuteronomy 30:11 gives the impression that the Mosaic Law is not difficult to keep, therefore any Christian (or even New Testament author) who says otherwise is contradicting Deuteronomy.

Readers can visit the relevant blog entry, and see, for example, Sam Shamoun, offering a detailed response to Mr. Williams' argument (assuming the censorship-prone Williams has not deleted said comment(s) by the time one reads this). I would like to make one small contribution to the discussion by noting what Rashi had to say on this issue. Here's a portion of Rashi's commentary on the relevant verse, as it appears in my copy of Miqra'ot Gedolot:

 

In the underlined portion, Rashi argues that the text is stating the commandment is not covered (or concealed, or hidden, which interestingly lines up with the KJV). Rashi goes on to support his stance by providing other examples of where the relevant verb means to cover or hide.

This, then, raises a question: being that even eminent Jewish authorities (who cannot be accused of some sort of Christian bias) understood the text as stating that the command is not hidden or covered, we need not consider it as necessarily being a comment on how difficult the Law is. For an analogy, I can put a quantum physics text book right in front of you (thus it will not be hidden, you will not have to go looking for it), but that in itself does not mean making it accessible to you is the same as it not being difficult for you to follow.

A multi-personal God is philosophically sound and theologically superior to a unitarian God

An Orthodox Jewish Scholar and ordained Rabbi, Dr Benjamin Sommer describes in one of his famous works why a multi-personal being is superior to a uni-personal being and more adequately rendered as being the one true God worthy of worship:

"The Bible’s fluidity traditions are not polytheistic. J and E and the other texts that evince the notion that God has more than one body never speak of other gods having any independent power or import, and they oppose the worship of other deities.74 Nevertheless, one may tend initially to think of the fluidity model, even in its monotheistic form, as closer to paganism and to view the antifluidity model as representing a purer monotheism. The emphatically embodied God of the fluidity traditions seems, at first glance, to lack the radical differentiation from humanity that must be required of a monotheistic conception of divinity. In any event, that is surely how P and D must have seen the matter. Further reflection shows the opposite to be the case. The fluidity tradition presents us with the most profoundly monotheistic perception of God in the Hebrew Bible.

Yochanan Muffs points to a tension that pervades and nourishes the entire Hebrew Bible. He argues that the tension between the concept of transcendence, which insists the Deity is not to be identified with the physis of the world, and radical personalism, which insists the Deity is anthropomorphically involved in the world, is the very source of the creative dynamism of biblical anthropomorphism.75

I would like to suggest that the fluidity traditions provide an especially deft resolution to this tension, a resolution that comes into focus when we contrast the fluidity model with some other theological models with which it might initially be confused. The notion of multiple embodiment, it must be stressed, is not identical with the idea that God’s presence pervades the world or, less pantheistically, the idea that the effects of God’s presence (which might also be termed God’s concern) pervade the whole cosmos, a notion expressed most eloquently and famously in Psalm 139.7–10:

Where can I go away fromYour spirit?
Where can I escape your presence?
If I ascend to heaven, You are there.
If I make the underworld my bed, here You are.
If I ride the wings of dawn to the nethermost west,
There, too, Your hand will guide me, and your right arm will hold me in.

In these pantheistic or panentheistic conceptions, God can be equally present in all things and all places. The notion of multiple embodiment is something else altogether. Although they acknowledge that God’s power and concern can reach any place, the fluidity traditions maintain that God is literally located in some object sand not others: God is here, in this rock that has been anointed, but not there, in that one. In this regard, the fluid God retains a degree of transcendence that is lacking in the antifluidity traditions on the one hand and in pantheistic and panentheistic understandings of God as omnipresent on the other. The conception of God as multiply embodied allows for the possibility that God can be anthropomorphically involved in the world even as God is not identified with the world, because this God is bound to no one place. For a monotheistic religion that insists on God’s personhood and on God’s intimate concern with the world, the concept of multiple embodiment cuts the Gordian knot: God is not the same as the world’s physis, but God can choose to inhabit specific parts of the physis in order to be present to His worshippers.

This concept, then, seems almost inevitable as a consequence of the biblical stress on both transcendence and immanence. It is precisely when there is only a single divine body, on the other hand, that the tension between these two forces in biblical religion becomes so severe: If the divine person has one body, that body must be in a particular place. If that place is on the planet Earth, then God is clearly immanent but not transcendent. If that place is exclusively in heaven, then God is transcendent but not immanent. (In its most extreme forms, the tension produces a line of reasoning that leads to highly abstract conceptions of God that deny not only divine embodiment but even divine personhood [e.g., in the philosophicalwork of Maimonides or, quite differently, in the thought of Mordecai Kaplan].) In light of this tension as it emerges in the antifluidity traditions, it is not at all surprising that notions of multiple embodiment appear again and again in Judaism even after P and D attempted to stifle them. The fluidity traditions furthermore emphasize the radical difference between God as person on the one hand and humanity on the other. In fact, they do so much more strongly than priestly and deuteronomic writings in which God has only one body.76

Postrabbinic teachings according to which God has no body also stress the difference between God and humanity, but those teachings achieve this differentiation at the cost of the personal God. In this regard, Elaine Scarry’s statement that “to have no body is to have no limits on one’s extension out into the world”77 points toward a crucial point. A normal body – that is, a single body, constrained in space – is limited. But in the fluidity traditions, God differs from humans not in that God has no body, but in that God’s bodies are unlimited. A God who can be in various asherot and mas.s.ebot and in heaven at the same time is embodied but in no way constrained. Now, any physical God, whether a God with one body or with many, is a God who can change. Such a God, furthermore, is a deity in whom we can find pathos; a God who can change is a God who can experience joy and pain, loneliness and love. And that physical God of pathos, with one body or many, can seek out humanity.78 But only the God with many bodies can rise above God’s own physicality. The God with many bodies remains woundable and alterable, but this deity can nevertheless be omnipotent.

In short, the fluidity model manages, to a greater extent than the traditions that posit a single divine body, to preserve God’s freedom and transcendence even as it maintains the divine personhood and vulnerability so central to biblical and rabbinic literature. Here we note a significant irony. The most extreme antifluidity positions are those of the philosophers, especially Saadia and Maimonides, who insist that monotheism is incompatible with a belief in divine embodiment, as Moshe Halbertal and Avishai Margalit point out: For Maimonides the belief in the oneness of God meant not merely denial of polytheism, which is obvious, but, more important, denial of the perception of God himself as a complex being.

The description of God as one according to Maimonides refers mainly to his own “simple unity.” “Multiplicity” is therefore not only the belief in many gods, it is also an error that concerns God himself, which may be called “internal polytheism.”

The strict demand on unity implies a rejection of corporeality, which assumes that God is divisible like any other body.79 The essence of the fluidity model, however, lies precisely in the recognition that God’s divisible bodies are not in fact like any other bodies. God’s divisibility does not detract from God’s might or transcendence; because the number of divine bodies is potentially infinite, the disappearance or fragmentation of any one of them is, ontologically speaking, a matter of no concern. It follows that the fluidity model may preserve God’s uniqueness and transcendence no less than the philosophical theology of Maimonides.80

Further, the fluidity model is considerably less limiting than the priestly or even deuteronomic models. For P and for the Zion-Sabbaoth traditions described in Chapter 4, God was present in a particular sanctuary and nowhere else; according to these texts, we could once say, “God is Zion.”

For D and Dtr, God was emphatically not present in Zion or anywhere else under the heavens; according to them, we were able to say positively, “We know that God is not in Zion.” But for the fluidity model, we could only say, “God is to some degree present in Zion, and God may be elsewhere as well, if not today then tomorrow or yesterday.” The fluidity model makes God both accessible and unknowable. The depth of the fluidity model, then, is its extraordinary ability to bridge gaps, to be on both sides of what we thought was a polarity. “The value of anthropomorphism,” Mark Smith has written, deserves fuller consideration.

In some contexts it could convey the personal aspects of divinity and its accessibility in the face of a general notion of divine transcendence. If divinity is analogous to humanity, then divinity is perceptible as personal, as the paramount paradigm of personal relations remains human-human interaction.81

In the fluidity model, however, it is through a form of anthropomorphism that the analogy between humanity and divinity is broken down. It is of all things the God present in multiple bodies who is completely unlike us. Such a God is, to recall the poet Friedrich H¨olderlin’s words, at once nearby and hard to grasp:

Nah ist,
und schwer zu fassen der Gott.82

Yair Lorberbaum points out that philosophers, theologians, and mystics reject anthropomorphism in part because they hold that a god with a body is exposed, visible, and hence not mysterious. (“A god who is understood is no god at all,” he quotes Augustine as saying).83

But in the fluidity model, precisely the opposite is the case. That model speaks of a God with a body, and hence a God who can be nearby, but its God is also radically unlike a human being, for God’s fluid self and unity across multiple bodies are fundamentally incomprehensible to humanity.

Rudolph Otto’s categories of “wholly other” and “mysterious,” we learn from the fluidity model, do not consist only of “transcendent” or “distant.” The immanent deity of the fluidity model can, mysteriously enough, be wholly other, even more so than the transcendent one. Yhwh’s fluidity does not render Yhwh something akin to a polytheistic deity, even though we saw in Chapter 1 that the gods of ancient Near Eastern polytheism were fluid.84

Rather, the perception of divinity we have explored here reflects Yhwh’s freedom, even as it expresses Yhwh’s grace – more specifically, Yhwh’s desire to become accessible to humanity. This conception renders God an unfathomable being, but nevertheless one with whom we can enter into dialogue.85 This God matters to a modern Jewish theology, as do the texts in which this God was first perceived."

The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel © Dr. Benjamin D. Sommer 2009 (The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo, Delhi, Dubai, Tokyo, Cambridge University Press, The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 8RU, UK, First published in print format) pp. 158-161  (also here)

John vs the Synoptics, for Paul Williams

[Nota Bene: the webmaster of the Answering Abraham blog has been kind enough to include this guest post, by Denis Giron.]

Last Monday, Paul Williams posted an entry on his blog, which simply contained the following portion from James Dunn's "The Living Word":

The most difficult case of all for Christians who hold the Bible in high regard: the Fourth Gospel [John]. Here the matter is peculiarly sensitive, since so much seems to depend on it. For if John’s Gospel is straightforward history, then we have in it the most amazing and powerful self-testimony of Jesus. If John’s Gospel is unvarnished history then then all that Christians need ever claim for Jesus is clearly attested there, and by Jesus himself. If John is correct, then the old apologetic-evangelistic question is unavoidable: the one who makes such claims for himself is either mad, bad or God.
 
But the very starkness and unequivocalness of these claims is what begins to raise the nagging question in the mind. If Jesus made such claims, why do the other Gospels make no use of them? What Evangelist having among the traditions which had been passed to him such wonderful sayings as the ‘I ams’ – ‘I am the resurrection and the life’; I am the way, the truth and the life’; ‘Before Abraham was, I am’; and so on – what Evangelist having to hand such sayings could ignore them completely? The question once raised, cannot be squashed into silence, since the integrity of that whole apologetic-evangelistic approach is at stake.
 

I have attempted to discuss this subject with Mr. Williams before, but he has unfortunately ignored what was presented to him, only to return to his original position, as if he has yet to come across any rebuttals. Therefore, here I would like to present the arguments which have been presented to Mr. Williams, so that others might have one possible response whenever he takes an approach like that captured in the excerpt, above.

To begin, the question posed by Dunn (as well as others, like E.P. Sanders) should be examined. How do we explain the Gospel of John having material which the Synoptics lack, yet which some would speculate the Synoptic authors would have used were it available to them? In a correspondence which I had with Mr. Williams on FaceBook, in the summer of 2012, I proposed that a good place to start might be John 21:25.

That verse is important, and relevant, because it demonstrates that the Christian position should be that what appears in the four Gospels captures only a small fraction of all that Jesus said and did. Even without the witness of John 21:25, it should be obvious that such is the case. Note that there are just under fifty thousand words in the Greek text of the Synoptics. If one were to guess that half of that is quoting Jesus, then the conclusion would be that one could read aloud all statements attributed to Jesus by the Synoptics within just a few hours. Ergo, the statements attributed to Jesus in the Synoptics represent only a very small fragment of what would have been said during a multiple years long ministry. This would mean there is considerable material which is not included in the Synoptics, which would in turn mean it would be misguided to consider the statements in John to probably be fictional simply because they differ from the Synoptic fragment.

Once that is understood, the next point to be made is that the initially intended uses for each Gospel (or for the Synoptics vis a vis John) could have differed from one another, thus resulting in one corpus drawing out portions which do not appear in another. The Greek Orthodox priest John Romanides offered an explanation precisely along these lines:

[T]he Gospel of John has the mysteries as its basis and as its purpose the correlation of the historic life of Christ with the present mysterial life in Christ and experience of the community. When we take into account that the Christians carefully and systematically avoided all discussions of the deeper meaning of the mysteries, not only with the hostile outside world but even with the catechumens, then we are able to understand the use of the Gospels in the first Church, and many of the problems raised by biblical criticism are solved. Since the baptized Christians did not discuss the mysteries even with the catechumens, it is sufficiently clear that the fourth Gospel was used in the ancient Church for completing and finishing the catechism of the recently illumined, that is newly baptized. It was particularly suited to this purpose and distinguished from the other Gospels mainly because of its clear dogmatic, mysterial, and apologetical tone. We do not find in John the systematic preparation of catechumens for that is found in Matthew and Mark. This is why John does not begin with the baptism of Christ but with "In the beginning was the Logos...and the Logos was made flesh."^[1]

Similarly, Joachim Jeremias argued^[2] at length that there is evidence within the New Testament itself that different authors deliberately abstained from including deeper traditions in certain texts, out of concerm that such was not appropriate. Jeremias also argues that such carefulness was common among both Jews and non-Jews in the ancient near east. Such a practice lasted for centuries among Christians, as, in the fourth century, bishops in Alexandria expressed alarm at the fact that the deeper mysteries of the faith were being exposed to catechumens and non-believers, when they wrote:

They are not ashamed to parade the sacred mysteries before Catechumens, and worse than that, even before heathens: whereas, they ought to attend to what is written, 'It is good to keep close the secret of a king;' and as the Lord has charged us, 'Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast your pearls before swine.' We ought not then to parade the holy mysteries before the uninitiated, lest the heathen in their ignorance deride them, and the Catechumens being over-curious be offended.^[3]

Therefore, it should not be any surprise that the aforementioned Father Romanides summed up the issue thusly:

The differences between the Synoptics and the Gospel of John, therefore, are not disagreements as many maintain. On the contrary, they clearly pertain to a difference in depth and fulfillment of the Synoptics by the fourth Gospel in accordance with the catechetical needs of the Church.^[4]

The simple conclusion from all of the above is that the differences between the Synoptics and John need to necessitate that material distinct to the latter is fictional. It is entirely possible for different NT authors to have sufficient reason to not include a given tradition in a given text, even if the critics are unable to discern such reasons.

 

What about the Qur'an?

 

Interestingly, the argument can be placed back on the Qur'an. The Qur'an has material which does not appear in the Synoptics, yet which we might speculate certain authors would have wanted to employ. For example, consider the story in Soora Maryam 19:27-33, where Christ engages in public theological discourse while still an infant, in defense of His mother. Being that Matthew and Luke affirmed the doctrine of the Virgin Birth, might we not think they would have wanted to include a tradition in which her own child miraculously defends her before a crowd which had insinuated she had become pregnant via improper relations?

Any argument a Muslim attempts to raise in defense of the Qur'anic text will ultimately affirm (whether tacitly or overtly) this simple point: even if a text which came after the Synoptics has material that does not appear in the Synoptics (including material some might think the Synoptic authors might have wanted to use), that need not reflect negatively on the historicity of said material. Once such a point is conceded, it undermines any Muslim use of the relevant argument against John.

It is worthy of note that I presented precisely this point to Mr. Williams, via Twitter, last Spring:

Amazingly, Mr. Williams' sole response was to throw back at me the very verse I had appealed to in a correspondence with him nearly two years prior (John 21:25):



I tried to discuss the issue further with him, but he, unfortunately, had no further comment. While no disrespect is intended, I feel compelled to remark that I take this as evidence of an unwillingness on Mr. Williams' part to fully accept the full implications of the arguments and methodologies which he employs as a stick with which to beat Christianity.

End Notes

1. John S. Romanides, The Ancestral Sin, (Zephyr, 2002), pp. 72-73.
2. Joachim Jeremias' The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, (Oxford, 1955), 73-86.
3. The Encyclical Letter of the Council of Egypt, in Athanasius, Defence Against the Arians, part I, chapter 11, in Philip Schaff & Henry Wace (eds.), Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, (Cosimo, 2007), vol. IV, p. 106.
4. Romanides, opere citato, p. 73, n. 18.

An Atheist Defends Evidentialism

Firstly the Atheist explains what evidentialism is:



I believe there are other evidentialists liking this video long side of the Atheists evidentialists:

Did you observe some really large loopholes the Atheist is jumping into?

Other commentators certainly have.

One person even made a video responding with a few objections:



So the "evidentialist" atheist saw some of these objections and then attempted to defend evidentialism:



Firstly a small comment. The atheist asserts he is not making whatever assumptions he would like and then mentions assumptions he would like to make but is not. However this only proves he is making less assumptions than he would like to be, but he is still making a number of assumption that he does like. He contrasts himself with Theist Evidentialists who make a number of assumptions they would like, but less assumptions than they want. However none of this shows one assumption is better than another, which ought to be the case.

I post these two videos as an example of a good model to show how reality is oft assumed and represented in an evidenced based conversation in general. It is nearly always assumed that the burden of proof is on the one who makes an assertion (positive statement) therefore requiring evidence which is justification for possessing knowledge. Rather humans should begin on any possible common ground which would begin with axioms, properly warranted beliefs. It is often mistakenly assumed as a general rule of thumb that all beliefs require justification. There are millions of Christians who share a similar epistemology to our atheist friend sometimes unknowingly adopting evidentialism as the ipso facto approach or methodology to pursue in a productive dialogue or conversation with an atheist, or even a sound epistemology in general for those Christians who are aware of it.

I remember as a sixteen year old teenager, being asked in one of my very first encounters with an atheist: "What evidence do you have for your God?". I immediately began to explain how the universe required a beginning and therefore a transcendental cause, how creation required a creator, how a painting requires a painter, how many things appear to be designed and therefore show us a designer.

What I didn't know consciously was that the swing of burden of proof was shifted and then committed unto me. What I didn't know was that certain special types of beliefs do not require justification and therefore can plainly be called assumptions or presuppositions. What I didn't know is that all humans had these kinds of beliefs either, yet most were unaware of them. As René Descartes stated some types of beliefs are "self-evident", or at-least many beliefs rest on unjustifiable meta-beliefs.

I presented you these two videos so not only do you get an idea of what attitude atheists in general
adopt in a conversation with a believer but the underlying epistemology they utilize which at times is unfortunately either knowingly or unknowingly adopted by the Christian Theist. Between the years 2008-2014 I would of been some what impressed with these videos as an atheist, as it appears (as the video suggests) that evidentialism is some what self evident, it's part of our make up, our cognitive psychology as humans, our daily experience. I would believe it's rational to make these kinds of necessary assumptions and believe that all humans ultimately must share in this process with me, that simply adding God on top was either unnecessary or superfluous. Together as humans we can all take on the most basic weak assumptions and build out way to the top from the bottom so to speak.

To end this post, I don't plan on giving a highly detailed review or critique of evidentialism, rather I want to bring forth awareness and hope that my pressupositionalist (and other) readers will identify severe problems contained within the video.

He originally asserts that: "I exist" in the first video is self evident and can be known and inferred intuitively, while in the second video he classifies this as an assumption along with others. So I will assume since his second video is the accurate one, and that he views self existence as an assumption. But since he does not accept coherentism or verificationism, perhaps he actually holds both views and therefore is a consistent atheist by being inconsistent. The irony being: to be a consistent atheist is to be inconsistent.

Hence his three  basic presuppositions he makes, firstly I exist. Secondly something other than me exists (and therefore my senses are sometimes accurate) and finally physical evidence is the standard to determine what is a justifiable belief.

However at the end of the second video, he ends by saying:

"I think this is a sufficient amount of defense for evidentialism to justify moving on. If you would like to present an alternative epistemology that you think better explains justification, you're free to do so...but I think I've sufficiently justified evidentialism to the point we can talk about what happens when we apply evidentialism to the hypothesis of God (17:17)"

I would now like to just present a few quotation from his first video that may seem at odds with his conclusion.

"How do I know that anything outside of myself exists? How do I know I'm not just experiencing a dream? How do I know i'm not just a brain in a vat experiencing a computer simulation? How do I know that I myself, am not just a program in a computer simulation? The answer is: I don't. I don't know that anything I see or experience is actually real, I have to make a presupposition, an assumption (2:44)"

And:

"But without the presupposition that at least some of my perceptions are accurate I have no where to go epistemologically, without this presupposition it is game over. I maybe wrong, I may actually be a brain in a vat experiencing simulated illusions but I have no choice but to at least initially assume that I am not just a brain in a vat, If I want to go anywhere meaningful epistemologically. (3:58) 

And:

"Even for the purpose of defending the use of evidence, I have to use evidence (5:56)"

Hence none of his presuppositions have explanatory power, they are purely assumptive in nature, and none of them are justified, so I must disagree with his conclusion.

On his third presupposition (which he unjustifiably argues for using evidence) he sets a false dichotomy between evaluating God with evidentialism or rationalism, rather than using God as an initial presupposition that we have no choice but to use in evaluating these epimsteologies to begin with. He judges that evidence is the basis for math and logic and concludes rationalism will be eventually become obsolete:

"The learning process is extremely evidence based...in fact I suspect that evidentialism will win this argument precisely because it's the actual basis of human learning and rationalism isn't" 

Of course the actual basis of human learning, the fact that humans learn some truths via evidence as children has nothing to do with evidentialism or rationalism being true or false.