Category: Islam

Book Plunge: Jesus the Muslim Prophet Part 5

How did Christians view the term “Son of God”? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Okay. We’re finally getting into more substantial stuff. Fatoohi looks at John 3:16, 18, and 1 John 4:19 and makes the following statement:

Reconciling these with passages in which the title “son of God” is applied to others would require the assumption that Jesus was considered as a special and unique son of God. While believers are sons of God, Jesus is The Son of God and the “only son” (John 1:14, 3:16). This could then explain the title “the Son,” which appears once in each of the Synoptics (Mark 13:32; Matt. 11:27; Luke 10:22) and a number of times in the Gospel of John and First John. Jesus is also called God’s “belovedson” (Mark 1:11, 9:7; Matt. 3:17, 17:5; Luke 3:22) and the chosen son (Luke 9:35). It may be assumed that this specific sense of “son of God” is what the Jewish leaders objected to and led them to accuse Jesus of blasphemy and ask for his death. This would solve the historical problem in this account, which I highlighted earlier. But this assumption has no supportive evidence. The Jewish leaders are shown as being angry at the very claim to sonship of God.

Fatoohi, Louay. Jesus The Muslim Prophet: History Speaks of a Human Messiah Not a Divine Christ . Luna Plena Publishing. Kindle Edition.

It’s amusing that when you refer to the Qur’an on its own, that’s good enough to back a claim for what everyone believed. When you refer to the New Testament on its own, that’s an assumption with no supportive evidence. Keep in mind the Qur’an never treats the New Testament as if it has been tampered with.  If anything, Muslims were to verify what was said with the “people of the book.”

But there is evidence. Jesus says that Caiaphas will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Father and coming on the clouds of glory. That is a claim of deity. Caiaphas knew exactly what it meant. That’s why he tore his robes immediately. Muslims (And atheists and JWs for that matter) live in a world where the only way Jesus could proclaim deity is if He walked down the street and said “Hey, man. Pleased to meet you. What’s up? I’m God.”

Then Fatoohi refers to John 5:16-18.

There is actually nothing in what Jesus said and did here that would justify the Jewish leaders’ conclusion that he was claiming equality with God. It looks like John believed that this equality with the Divine is what enraged the law experts and made them charge Jesus with blasphemy so he decided to introduce it here even though the context did not justify it.

Fatoohi, Louay. Jesus The Muslim Prophet: History Speaks of a Human Messiah Not a Divine Christ . Luna Plena Publishing. Kindle Edition.

So let’s look at the text itself:

16 So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him. 17 In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” 18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

What did Jesus say? Jesus had just healed a man on the Sabbath and then said He is at work just as His Father is. This was claiming to work alongside of the Father. That was only seen as claiming deity.

He says John 5:21-30 presents the Father and the Son as two distinct beings. Possible, but in light of John 1:1 and the rest of the prologue, not likely. It’s best to say two distinct persons. The problem is Muslims (and JWs and atheists) come with the assumption of unipersonalism, that God must be one in person.

He also says Jesus was nearly stoned for claiming to exist before Abraham. He was doing more than that. He was taking the very divine name. He didn’t say before Abraham was, I was, but I AM. The audience knew what He was saying.

In the Qur’anic account, Adam is the firstborn of his kind and the angels were commanded to pay homage to him as the representative of a new species that was destined to produce spiritually highly developed individuals, such as the prophets. Satan felt that the fact that he was created of fire, as he was a jinn, gave him a higher status than an individual made originally of clay, so he rejected God’s command. God threw him out of the special place in which he was living and became the Devil who wants to make the human beings reject and disobey God to prove his point and exact revenge. It looks like this original account was changed and reproduced by some Christian theologians, including the author of Hebrews, to make Jesus the firstborn, which made him eternal, and make the angel worship him, which made him divine.

Fatoohi, Louay. Jesus The Muslim Prophet: History Speaks of a Human Messiah Not a Divine Christ . Luna Plena Publishing. Kindle Edition.

Why should I think this account is the original account? Not told. No reason is given. Once again, when the New Testament says something, it’s an assumption with no supporting evidence. When an account 600 years after the New Testament events says something, that’s the solid truth. Again, this is convincing if you’re a Muslim, but not if you’re an outsider.

John still has passages that portray Jesus as having a lower status than the father. For instance, Jesus proclaims that he was sent by the father (John 20:21), the father is greater than him (John 14:28), and he is under the command of the father (John 12:49, 14:31). There is clear inconsistency in John’s portrayal of the divine Jesus and his relationship with God. As has been rightly pointed out, with his “plain affirmation of the pre-eminence of the Father contradicting all the metaphors which suggest equality, John created a doctrinal problem the resolution of which kept the church, the councils, the bishops, and the theologians fully occupied for several centuries” (Vermes, 2000: 48).

Fatoohi, Louay. Jesus The Muslim Prophet: History Speaks of a Human Messiah Not a Divine Christ . Luna Plena Publishing. Kindle Edition.

Kudos for at least quoting Vermes, an actual scholar in the field, but Fatoohi comes with an assumption that if there is a difference in authority and position, then there is one in nature. This is not backed again. It is merely assumed.

John’s doctrine of the Word, or Logos in Greek, is believed to have been inspired by the Alexandrian Jewish philosopher Philo (ca. 15 BCE – ca. 45 CE) who taught that the Logos was the intermediary between God and the cosmos, as it is God’s tool of creation and the agent through which the human mind can apprehend and comprehend God. The idea of the Logos dates back to the 6th century BC Greek philosopher Heraclitus who believed that the cosmic processes have a logos, or reason, similar to the reasoning power in man. The concept was developed further by other Greek philosophers. Vermes suggests that John’s Logos doctrine was also influenced by Hermetism. According to this 1st century CE pagan Hellenistic mysticism, deification of man is achieved through knowledge, and the Logos is referred to as the “son of God” (Vermes, 2000: 51).

Fatoohi, Louay. Jesus The Muslim Prophet: History Speaks of a Human Messiah Not a Divine Christ . Luna Plena Publishing. Kindle Edition.

There are plenty of ways for understanding where the ideas of Logos came from, but I would contend the best way is seeing it as God’s Wisdom. Jesus is the Wisdom of God from Proverbs 8 incarnate. That is why He is eternally in the bosom of the Father.

There is an interesting textual variation in one early Greek and several later Latin manuscripts of Luke. Most manuscripts copy Mark in stating that after Jesus’baptism, a voice from heaven said: “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased” (Luke 3:22). Yet the other manuscripts have instead this variant of the text: “You are my son; today I have begotten you.” Bard Ehrman (2007: 158-160), a leading authority on early Christianity, argues that this is what Luke originally wrote and that the text was later changed by copies who did not believe that Jesus became God’s son at baptism. The alternative text is clearly more precise in pinpointing the inauguration of Jesus as God’s special son to his baptism.

Fatoohi, Louay. Jesus The Muslim Prophet: History Speaks of a Human Messiah Not a Divine Christ . Luna Plena Publishing. Kindle Edition.

No. That’s not a typo on my part. Fatoohi refers to Bard Ehrman. I had no idea Ehrman was a singer who was good with a bow and arrow. We will pass over Ehrman being a leading scholar in this area. Why would the way it is read there be a problem? It’s a quote from Psalm 2 that’s a coronation Psalm. It is saying that God is publicly declaring Jesus as His Messiah. That does not mean adoptionism as Luke has Jesus as Messiah at His birth and even before. This is the recognition of that publicly for Jesus’s first appearance in public.

Interestingly, John tells us that Jesus did indeed contest the accusation of blasphemy, although not on the basis of the fact that was known to all that the claim to sonship of God was not blasphemous, but by pointing out that the Jewish scripture used the term “gods” itself for people: Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.” Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came — and Scripture cannot be broken — do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?” (John 10:32-36) Jesus argues that as the term “gods” is used figuratively in the scripture, and hence does not break the law, the title “son of God” is similarly metaphorical and cannot be considered blasphemous.

Fatoohi, Louay. Jesus The Muslim Prophet: History Speaks of a Human Messiah Not a Divine Christ . Luna Plena Publishing. Kindle Edition.

Jesus is actually engaging in a lesser to greater argument. He is saying that if the people to whom the word came were called gods, and those are figures mocked in the text since they are wicked people who will die like mere men, how much more does He, a righteous one, have the right to be called God. He never corrects the Jews on His claim of “I and the Father are one.” He amplifies it.

Well, at least we’re getting more.

We’ll continue next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Jesus the Muslim Prophet Part 3

Is Jesus human? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Yes. He is.

Next time we’ll continue looking at this book and…..

Oh. You probably want to hear more.

There are some interesting aspects to point out in this chapter, but overall, the goal of Fatoohi in this chapter seems to be to keep pointing out that Jesus was human. I don’t know where these Christians are that he thinks he needs to convince of that are. It’s actually an essential part of Christianity not just that Jesus was human but that Jesus is STILL human.

I was surprised to hear him say that the Christ was killed on the cross. I do not know if he is somehow making some distinction between the Christ and Jesus, which strikes me as an odd position for a Muslim to take. Still, it is rare as well to find a Muslim that agrees that Jesus died on the cross. I don’t think the Qur’an necessarily rules it out, but I also know the majority of Muslims argue against it, even sometimes calling it the cruci-fiction.

Yet in the very next paragraph, he says that the Christians repudiated the view of the Jews that the Messiah would be a conquering warrior yet replaced him with a divine figure. He claims that this had no roots at all until Paul came along and until the Gospel of John was written. I do think he has other chapters on this later on. We’ll see but if so, I won’t fault him for not making his case now.

Later on, Fatoohi says that Jesus lived, died, and will be resurrected like everyone else. Again, this is a fascinating admission. He does say that Christians invented the concept of the second coming when the end of the world didn’t come. Readers can look through what I have written on Preterism to know how I see that concept.

So somehow, Fatoohi still thinks it’s a major point to stress that Jesus was a human being like all other Messiah figures in the Old Testament were. Again, no one is arguing against this. True, Christians do tend to downplay the humanity of Christ, but they still know He is human.

This is the problem I often find with reading material written to attack Christianity. I don’t care if we’re talking about Muslims or if we’re talking about internet atheists. Most of them do not really understand the position that they’re arguing against. They do not read the books that argue for the position they are opposed to. Meanwhile, when I realized I could be speaking to students about the doctrine of the Trinity for when they speak to Muslims, the first books I was buying were the Muslim books I could find on the topic.

Will it improve in this book? I’m doubtful. It would be good to have my position treated properly, but I honestly don’t remember the last time that happened. Still, there’s no stopping since I’ve started and next time we look at this we will see more on the idea of Jesus being the Son of God.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Book Plunge: Jesus the Muslim Prophet Part 2

Who is Jesus in Islam? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

We’re going back to Louay Fatoohi’s book on Jesus and now we get to start diving into the subject more. So who does Fatoohi say Jesus was? Christians might be surprised to learn that the Qur’an actually speaks highly of Jesus. Here are some statements that Fatoohi says about Jesus.

Jesus was one of the prophets, but he was also distinguished and, in some aspects, unique. He is the only prophet who did not have a biological father. Probably related to his unique miraculous conception is his other distinctive quality that he became a prophet while still in his mother’s womb or immediately after his birth. This is what the infant Jesus said to his mother’s people in defense of her chastity when, upon returning to them carrying her newborn, they suspected that she had conceived Jesus illegitimately: “I am Allah’s servant. He has given me the Book and has made me a prophet” (19.30). Jesus’ unique conception and the fact that, unlike other prophets, he was made a prophet immediately after his birth, or even while still in his mother’s womb, must have distinguished him with special spiritual qualities.

Fatoohi, Louay. Jesus The Muslim Prophet: History Speaks of a Human Messiah Not a Divine Christ . Luna Plena Publishing. Kindle Edition.

Grant one point of favor. At least Muslims affirm the virgin birth, which I also affirm.

Although Gabriel delivered the Qur’an to Prophet Muhammad and probably communicated with other prophets, only Jesus is described as having been “supported” by Gabriel — probably hinting at a unique role that Gabriel played in Jesus’ life.

Fatoohi, Louay. Jesus The Muslim Prophet: History Speaks of a Human Messiah Not a Divine Christ . Luna Plena Publishing. Kindle Edition.

These are the kind of miracles that the Qur’an says Jesus performed: (1) Speaking in infancy. (2) Showing paranormal precociousness in infancy. (3) Creating figures of birds from clay and then giving them life. (4) Healing blindness. (5) Healing albinism or serious skin diseases. (6) Raising the dead. (7) Knowing what people ate and stored in the privacy of their homes. (8) Bringing down from heaven a table of food.

Fatoohi, Louay. Jesus The Muslim Prophet: History Speaks of a Human Messiah Not a Divine Christ . Luna Plena Publishing. Kindle Edition.

If one didn’t know better, it looks like Jesus is a greater figure in the Qur’an than Muhammad is.

So what about other claims about Jesus? When looking at the New Testament, one statement Fatoohi makes is:

But, of course, the New Testament also promotes Jesus’ divinity. Describing Jesus as both “servant” of God and “divine” is another aspect of Jesus’ confused nature in the New Testament.

Fatoohi, Louay. Jesus The Muslim Prophet: History Speaks of a Human Messiah Not a Divine Christ . Luna Plena Publishing. Kindle Edition.

Confused in what way? Fatoohi needs to show that this is a contradiction. It is not enough to just assert it. From a Trinitarian standpoint, this fits in perfectly.

In writing about Paul, he says:

Paul’s misguided comparison between Jesus and Adam looks to me a “contextual displacement” of the authentic comparison between the two that God must have made in the book that He revealed to Jesus and/or which Jesus himself spoke of, which is repeated in the Qur’an. I have coined the term “contextual displacement” to refer to a special kind of textual corruption in Jewish and Christian writings where “a character, event, or statement appears in one context in the Qur’an and in a different context in other sources.” Contextual displacements are the results of “the Bible’s editors moving figures, events, and statements from their correct, original contexts” (Fatoohi, 2007: 39).

Fatoohi, Louay. Jesus The Muslim Prophet: History Speaks of a Human Messiah Not a Divine Christ . Luna Plena Publishing. Kindle Edition.

Unfortunately, he never tells us where these original sources are that he has access to. He never tells us where the writings of the New Testament have been corrupted nor does he tell us where the Qur’an even says that they have been. Maybe, and this could be a bizarre idea, but maybe the Qur’an is just wrong.

Yet if anything seems to be stressed here, and it will be stressed more in the next section, it’s that Jesus was a human being.

You know, the very thing Christians have been proclaiming for 2,000 years…

It’s so strange that people write books against doctrines they haven’t ever attempted to really understand. Who does that?

(If you want examples, just do a search for “new atheists” on here.)

So next time, we’ll look at the next step Fatoohi has for us in his claims about Jesus.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Jesus The Muslim Prophet Part 1

What is Islam? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I have spoken to someone recently in Pakistan who is interested in having me speak via the internet to others in Pakistan interested in defending Christianity. I have heard they have had talks on Gospel reliability and the resurrection already. I can cover those, but I figured I could add something by answering objections to the Trinity.

I have spent considerable time debating Jehovah’s Witnesses, but for this, I decided I would then get some books on Kindle by Muslims arguing against the Trinity. If you are interested, this is the one that I chose to begin with.

So looking at the first part on just Islam, if I was being told that all of this is what the Muslim view of Jesus is, then there would be very little to argue with. I could tell you over and over what Muslims believe Islam is. You can 100% agree that they think that is what it is and 100% disagree that their claims correspond to reality.

It’s not really in dispute as far as I know that the name Islam means submission. What is under dispute is if Islam is really the universal religion that Islam claims it to be. The idea is not that Muhammad really revealed a new religion but was calling people back to the religion that supposedly was being followed by all the prophets in the Old and New Testament, including Jesus.

What is given to demonstrate this? Quotes from the Qur’an. If you’re a Muslim, that’s the gold standard and your case is made. If you’re not, then what you have been told is really meaningless. Quoting the Qur’an as an authority to outsiders is useless unless you’re given a reason to think the Qur’an has authority in what it describes. You can accept it as an authority on what Muslims believe, but that’s about it.

The only distinguishing mark given to Muhammad is that he is the last prophet. I’m inclined to think the Qur’an should be included in that also. It is quite convenient that this is the last prophet. It’s just amazing how a figure shows up and claims to be a prophet and gives a final revelation.

So this is the start and I could cover more than a brief section in my next reading, but for now, the problem is the only source that is quoted in all of this is the Qur’an. Thus far, there are no scholars of Islam or Christianity or even Judaism quoted. The only source referenced is one that lo and behold, happens to be by Muslim authorities and happens to agree with them. Imagine that.

As much as I give internet atheists a hard time, in many ways, Muslim apologetics often turns out to somehow be worse. We have thus far encountered no specific section on Jesus alone and the claims that Christianity makes about Him, but they are coming. I hope we’ll find something stronger, but I’m skeptical.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Book Plunge: Dreams and Visions: Is Jesus Awakening The Muslim World?

What is happening in the Muslim world? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I really want to tell you a lot about what is in this book. I really do. The problem is that I think as soon as I tell you a story, I am going to be spoiling something great in the book that you will enjoy. This is a powerful book full of hope and I don’t want to ruin that for you.

Basically, what is happening in the Muslim world is dreams and visions of Jesus. One noted example not in this book, but recorded in his own book, is Nabeel Qureshi, who started having dreams about Jesus before he became a Christian. These dreams are so prevalent that some ads are being taken out in papers overseas with a picture of Jesus and saying that if you have seen this man in a dream, here’s who to call.

Normally, what happens also in these dreams is Jesus appears, but then someone else will come along, who either Jesus in the dreams has said would come along and are described, or there is no description and the dream recipient finds someone they think they can trust. In the end, many of these people become Christians. These can sometimes be some of the people who are hardest against Christianity. This could even include people in an organization like Hamas.

And usually, these people are ready to die for Jesus.

I read this book a chapter a day like I usually do with books and found it quite powerful. What I would regularly do at the end of a chapter, and I encourage you to do so as well, is to stop then and pray a prayer for the people involved in the chapter. This book will give you a sense of excitement in what is going on in the Muslim world.

Not only this, but the author also gives you tips on how to communicate with Muslims. He understands the hesitancy that a lot of people have with Muslims. He used to have it. You hear stories in the news about Muslim terrorists and it’s easy to assume all Muslims are like that. Probably about 10% of Muslims in the world are according to the author. The rest are probably people you wouldn’t mind having as neighbors. They just want to live their lives peacefully.

Islam may seem to be growing, but in many cases, this is because of birth rate. Muslims have a lot of children. However, these dreams could be indicating that something is happening in the Muslim world as more and more people are leaving and becoming devout Christians.

Story after story left me amazed and again, I really don’t know what I could share from this book without spoiling it. It’s not often I get a book any more and I am more and more excited to see what the next chapter is, but this was one such exception. Please be praying for the Muslim world and those doing Christian work to evangelize over there. God is at work among Muslims and we should want to take part in it.

Get your copy of the book here.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Paul’s Appearance and Muhammad’s Night Flight

How do the two compare? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I have been going through the Hadiths of Al-Bukhari lately where he narrates what people said about the life of Muhammand, the prophet of Islam. Tonight, I read about the Night Flight, which is the time that Muhammad says that he went to heaven. I have already written about that in comparison to the resurrection. Now I would like to compare it to the accounts of Paul’s Damascus Road experience.

“Sure. I can easily open up the Bible online, but where am I suppose to find the account of the journey in the night? No problem. I already did it for you. The Biblical references we are using meanwhile are in Acts 9, 22, and 26.

Let’s start by first comparing where these two people were socially. Paul was on the up and up. He was trained by the best of his time, was a Roman citizen, highly knowledgeable in Judaism and the pagan thought of his day, and would have been on the path to more and more greatness in his field.

Muhammad was a merchant. Nothing against merchants, but most of them don’t reach fame and glory as merchants.

What Paul got for his accounts is told in 2 Cor. 11. The list is not a good one to go through. What did Muhammad get? He fought in a lot of battles, received honor as being called Allah’s apostle, got a lot of booty in the form of wealth, and we can say he got a lot in another way in having multiple wives.

Paul went from being a somebody recognized by the leading officials of his day, a place of honor, to being an outcast and tying himself to one of the most despised if not the most despised movement of his day, never received great wealth or women, and was beheaded in prison.

From a purely social perspective, one of these men benefitted a lot more than the other.

Looking at the accounts of Paul, the first one in Acts 9 has it being said about him how much he must suffer for the name of Jesus. He is rendered blind and has to be led by the hand by those he formerly persecuted. These accounts do not really glorify Paul. From 2 Cor. 12, we also know Paul didn’t glorify himself. When he gave an account of what happened to him, he didn’t even say it was him directly and he says to avoid arrogance, he was given a thorn in the flesh and pleaded for it to be taken from him three times. This was done to make sure Paul would be humble.

Meanwhile, in Muhammad’s account, he is personally guided by the angel Gabriel, and at every step on the journey he is told how excellent his visit is and he gets to meet the who’s who of prophetic history and get the right hand of fellowship. He then becomes the advocate before Allah pleading for his people. Who does he go back and report to in this but Moses over and over.

One of these accounts has the main person looking awfully good.

Both accounts are subjective, but to be fair, there are some aspects of Paul’s account said to be objective, such as what his companions could have said or his being rendered blind. His change from persecutor to preacher is much better known. We don’t have this for Muhammad. All we have is his word.

So in the end, even if we can’t demonstrate one of them is definitely historical, I have to say the odds seem more in Paul’s favor. He would gain nothing from a worldly perspective and he was incredibly humbled in the accounts. From Muhammad, we have the opposite.

Make your choice which one you think is more likely to be true.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Reading Disagreeing Material

Do you have guarded reading? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

When I encounter internet atheists, I usually ask them the same question. When was the last time you read an academic work on the topic that disagrees with you? The overwhelming majority of the time, I get nothing back. I find this fascinating since these people claim to be champions of reason and evidence, but are often only interested in seeing it from their perspective.

Yes. Sadly, too many Christians who argue do the same thing. Still, I do notice that it seems we do it less. I can’t claim to have data for this, but when I see Christians engage with atheists, many of them know the atheist arguments and can in many cases articulate them better.

I’m on pages for debate between Christians and Mormons. What do I notice? Christians seem a lot more familiar with Mormon arguments than the other way around. The same happens with Jehovah’s Witnesses. Most Jehovah’s Witnesses I see nowadays don’t even get the Trinity described right, confusing it with modalism, let alone know how to argue against it.

For Muslims, I still remember a day several years ago when I was engaging with a Muslim online and in it I asked him “Have you ever read the New Testament?” He replied, “No. Have you ever read the Qur’an?” I am sure he expected a negative back, but unfortunately for him, he didn’t get it. I had indeed read it. Now, I have read it twice.

When Mormons come to visit me, I can assure them I have read all of their Scriptures and a number of other pro-Mormon writings. When a new Bart Ehrman book comes out, I’m one of the first to get it. I had this last one so quickly that when it came out, some of my professors on campus asked me what I thought of it.

When I read Christian writings arguing for their positions against their opponents, I find they constantly reference primary sources they disagree with. I have written long ago that sadly, atheist writers often don’t do this. Reading through them, I can tell. When you meet atheists espousing Jesus mythicism or saying “If God created everything, who created God?” and treating it like that refutes the cosmological argument, it’s clear that they don’t know the material.

As a Christian, if you do this, the advantage you have is that first off, you know the material that you are going up against. No one can know it exhaustively, but you know it enough to be familiar. A general rule of thumb is that before you argue against a position, you ought to be able to theoretically argue persuasively FOR that position. If you can’t make that case without making it a total joke, you probably don’t know the position at all.

This also increases your humility. Doing this is a way of saying “I could be wrong and I want to know.” If you are of the mindset that you don’t have to read the other side because you already know they’re bunk, odds are the only person being fooled is you.

Third, as a Christian, this can show you flaws in your own positions that you hold. Sometimes, you might change your mind. Other times, you can see a weakness and refine your position. Sometimes, you might find something you agree with in the writing. I can say I have learned from reading the material that I disagree with.

There can be something we can learn from so many other positions. I have said before that Richard Dawkins when writing about theism or philosophy or anything outside of his area has no clue and is just a train wreck. When he writes about science, what you would consider the most ordinary of all is made wondrous and alive and I could read him all day. The best work Dawkins does for science is not when he argues against Christianity. He does great damage to science then. The best work he does is when he just writes about science as science. He doesn’t tie his worldview into it. He just describes it. If he did this more often, he would encourage more people of all worldviews to go into science and study it.

Definitely if you’re an apologist, read what you disagree with. I’m always going through at least one book I disagree with on Kindle. I started a new one just recently, but before that, I had returned to some Islamic hadiths. The learning is always beneficial.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Was Paul A Deceiver?

Can you trust Paul? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

If you’ve spent any time here, you know I don’t really take fundamentalist atheist arguments seriously. They’re notoriously bad. Bottom of the barrel. Hard to get any worse.

With one exception.

Muslim apologetics is far worse.

So yesterday, I’m browsing through Facebook and what do I see but this?

It really hurts how bad this is. I think I’m even more embarrassed some organization wanted to put their name at the bottom of this. Yes. Someone actually wants to claim ownership and let people know that they made this.

Where do I start?

Okay. Well first off, I do question that Romans 7 is autobiographical. You can see also here. That being said, even if it was about Paul, what is the worst we get here? We get a man who is obvious about the spiritual struggles that he is going through and speaks in the hyperbolic terminology that is normal for Jewish thinkers at the time.

Keep in mind, when Muhammad started having his experiences, he was convinced for a time that he was demonically possessed or was going crazy or something similar to that. If I am to reject Paul on these grounds, should I not do the same with Muhammad? Again, I don’t think Romans 7 is about Paul, but even if I did think that, I would not see this as a problem.

So let’s look at this second one. Ah yes, look at that trickster Paul there. He’s quite the sly one isn’t he? He caught his opponents by trickery!

Unless you do something strange and actually go and read the whole passage. Go take a look. You can find it right here.

Our Muslim friends don’t seem to know it, but there’s a thing in the world called sarcasm. Paul is employing it here. Yes. He tricked those Corinthians. He tricked them so much by…..not taking anything from them and having others cover the bill.

Yep! Crafty fellow he is! He gave the Corinthians his ministry and didn’t charge them anything for it!

Keep in mind, this is something that should be easy to understand, but it is not apparently to the Muslim mind.

So let’s look at the last one. Again, Paul is a trickster. He becomes all things to all people. How sneaky he is!

Let’s suppose you love hamburgers. Let’s now suppose you want to go and do ministry in India. At this point, I don’t care if you’re Muslim or Christian. Question. If you are wanting to reach the people in India, do you think it would benefit you to go to the Indian people, tell them about your God, and then start eating a hamburger in front of them?

Absolutely not. The cow is a sacred animal to them. They would not want to have anything to do with your message at that point.

I love my tea, but when I have Mormons over to visit me, I don’t drink tea in front of them. For Mormons, that violates the Word of Wisdom. If I was to visit Muslims and do ministry, even though I don’t eat pork products, I would definitely make sure to not eat them in front of Muslims.

This is what Paul is talking about. He doesn’t want to needlessly offend his Jewish audience he wants to convert, so in front of them, he follows Jewish dietary practices and other observances. In front of Gentiles, he lives much more freely. It’s all about being culturally appropriate. That’s not being deceitful. That’s being respectful.

And really, no one has to do a lot of thinking to see what’s going on in these passages. Sadly, I have seen internet atheists use this argument. Will Muslims stop using this one if they read this blog?

We can hope, but color me skeptical.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Book Plunge: The Critical Qur’an

What do I think of Robert Spencer’s work? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Robert Spencer has gone through the Qur’an and given us information on the passages as well as pointed to leading scholars, past and present, to tell us about the origin of the Suras and about textual criticism. I had got this book several months ago, but I chose to wait until I finished the book before I reviewed it. I also wasn’t reading one sura (our equivalent of a chapter) every day, seeing as these can be long. A small number even have more verses than Psalm 119.

Some of you might be thinking this could be like the Skeptics’ Annotated Bible. I am pleased to say that it is not. It is not the case that Spencer jumps on anything that could be an inconsistency. There are times he even says that a claim against the Qur’an here is a poor one. Of course, he points out problems, but generally, it looks like his biggest goal can be to help with understanding.

One big problem some Muslims could have with the work is that he definitely shows textual variations that occur within the book. This is a problem since Muslims will often argue that there are no variations in the text. They say that the Qur’an is an eternal document that has always been with Allah. Of course, this gets us problems when we get to the abrogated passages, and that too will be discussed.

As I indicated earlier, Spencer interacts as well with Muslim sources of the past. This is important since it would be akin to us going to the church fathers to show the earliest handling of the text. These people were the ones closest to the writing of the book and were the ones most invested in the work.

This isn’t just a book for people who have never read the Qur’an. When I saw David Wood of Acts 17 Apologetics talking about the book, he said that he got new information on his look at the very first sura, and Wood has done a lot of work on dealing with Islam. That was enough to convince me that this was a resource that I could use.

Thus, you have a work here that goes through the Qur’an and yet thankfully, unlike the work of Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, I find to be fair. Spencer deals with misconceptions of the text. While there is no doubt he is opposed to Islam and the Qur’an, he also wants to be accurate in all that he says. He’s not going to jump on anything to go after it and he wants to make sure bad arguments against various passages are also dealt with.

One caveat though and I suspect it’s one that Spencer would not have a problem with. If you wanted to read something like Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, I would encourage you to at least read just the Bible first without any feedback along the way. In the same way, if you have not read the Qur’an on your own, as I had, then I encourage you to read it first and then come back and read the Critical Qur’an. It’s all about being fair with the text after all.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Generous Reading

How do you read a text that’s controversial? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

“They did not kill him and they did not crucify him, rather, it only appeared to them. (Qur’an 4:157)”

This is a text from Islam’s holy book that many apologists use to say that Jesus was not crucified. Many Muslims do the same as you will find books about the “Cruci-fiction” out there. However, it was when I was reading a Christian book about Islam that I came to a different conclusion.

It’s not a hard and fast conclusion, but it’s one that is possible. That is that the Qur’an is not really denying the crucifixion, but it is rather answering the Jews who thought they brought it about and is saying it was really the doing of Allah. The author of the book argued that Muslims didn’t make denial of the crucifixion a claim until some time much later than the time of Muhammad.

That could be right. The point is that I don’t know enough about the Qur’an to know if that interpretation is correct or not. However, I do know that there is a right and a wrong way to read a text. If I have read the text and there can be a reasonable doubt that there could be a more generous reading of that text, I will not go with the reading that I have.

This is also a rule to follow with any text, and that includes texts that aren’t written, such as in speeches. If a case can be made for a more generous reading of a text that doesn’t present it in as negative a light as you would like, following the principle of charity, it’s good to be open to that one and not hold dogmatically to the one you have.

I did the same going through the Book of Mormon one time. When I would find something mentioned as existing here in America at the time, I would look and see if it was there. If it was found here, then I would go right on ahead. If I found evidence that that came to America at a later date, I would put it down as an item to use. After all, anachronisms are a powerful argument. For instance, it was either cement or concrete that I did find evidence of being over here. Scimitars? Not so much.

Note that this rule applies with all things being equal. It doesn’t mean the better reading is always right, but it does mean that if there is an equal probability of the two or it’s controversial and you don’t know the subject well, go with the one that is the more generous. If you don’t do that, it could be that you really want that person behind the text to be as bad as you want them to be.

I also want to stress that this isn’t a rule just for the Bible as I started out with texts that I do not think are from God in anyway whatsoever. I will happily debate that many Muslims do deny the crucifixion, which is certainly a fact, but that does not mean that the Qur’an necessarily does. If a Muslim denies the crucifixion in front of me, then I will argue against them on that point.

If you do know the subject well though and you can make a case that this is what the author of the text originally meant, then by all means make the case. This is in no way saying authors and books never say evil and/or stupid things. It’s just a general rule of thumb and it’s good for holy texts (Or claimed holy texts), political speeches, or any other text whatsoever.

This will also help your debates as someone is more apt to listen to you (Not a guarantee mind you) if they know you are really listening to them. Everyone wants to be treated fairly most of the time. If you’re a Christian, you are commanded to. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If you want someone to be generous with your words, then do the same with theirs.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)