A Well-Defeated Muslim Apologist

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Niblo

Member
Jul 16, 2021
60
36
18
78
Leeds
Faith
Muslim
Country
United Kingdom
My grandfather and his only son were both coal miners in western Pennsylvania back when men used picks and shovels to dig out the coal by hand and the only safety gear they used was a helmet with a candle lamp. My uncle Bucky lived into his sixties but eventually died of black lung disease. My grandfather, my dzedo as we called this old Slovak immigrant, lived to the age of 92 and was a devout Catholic, but from humble origins and with no more than a sixth grade education at best. Yet, he was an amazing man to me. He would sit smoking his pipe in the shade of an old tree by his house and I saw sparrows sometimes hopping about on his shoulder (he kept some bird seed in his pocket and as a child he'd caught and ate birds for a meal while tending the flocks in Stada Lubovna, Slovakia.)
He and my grandmother, baba, raised their son and a household of daughters on his wages as a miner and the produce of his garden, the chickens and bees that he kept, yet he didn't withhold his means from his neighbors in want, nor from his church.
None of these things of themselves are guarantors of his eternal salvation and though I only knew him as an old man, I knew that he was still guilty of sin. He wasn't a perfect man, only one such man was ever born, Yahshua of Nazareth.

Scripture teaches us that God alone is good and that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, but with one exception, God Himself in the person of His Son.
My English translation of the Koran informs me that the prophet of Allah took exception to this, believing that this involved some kind of carnality. He was mistaken, neither knowing the scriptures, nor understanding the power of God who spoke all things into creation through His Son.

The Bible teaches that Jesus was God before He was born into a tabernacle (tent) of flesh and that the man, Jesus, was born of a virgin and not of the seed of man.
While within the churches of Christianity there remains disputes over the gospel, the dispensation of God's grace, the return of Christ, and the coming of God's kingdom upon the Earth, scripture speaks plainly to all these things and recieving them is an act of faith.

Scripture says plainly that without holiness no one will see God, but it also says that man is incapable of such holiness for God will not share His glory with men. Yet scripture also teaches that men can receive the Holy Spirit of God through faith in His Son and it is God's presence that makes anything holy, even the ground where He appears.
All this is to say that the works of men, whether good or evil, can not restore them to a state of innocence before God.

The cross of Jesus represents the sacrifice of truly innocent blood in payment for sin, not for Jesus who was without sin, but for humanity. This doesn't cleanse humanity of all sin, but allows God to forgive us and indwell us based upon the sacrifice of His Son and not upon our deeds.
Jesus called this being born again of the Spirit of God. He didn't mean a physical birth, but a spiritual one, a new creation with new life in His Spirit. When you receive Him, His Spirit teaches your spirit how to live righteously according to His standard rather than your own.

I do not comprehend the concept of crusade, holy war, or jihad. Such things were never approved by Jesus and the one time that he told His disciples to pick up a sword was just prior to His arrest so that the scripture would be fulfilled that He would be counted with the transgressors.
His apostle Simon, whom He renamed Cephas (or Peter) was the one who obtained a sword and used it to lop off a soldiers ear at Jesus' arrest, and Jesus Himself restrained Peter by commandment and restored the soldier's ear.

Our Lord's professed purpose was to bring a sword upon the Earth and to reveal His Father in His own person, to deliver the words of God that would either justify or condemn men according to their acceptance or rejection of them and Him.

Christians do not believe that Allah is God, though the Hebrews before Christ believed that Yah havah was much like the Allah of the Koran. I'm convinced that Mohammed believed as much, but I can only see the prophet of Islam as a thief, a liar, and a murderer for his rejection of the Son of God because such rejection of the Son of God is defined by scripture as antichrist, the work of Satan.

Men did not create the division between Christianity and Islam. God did that prophetically through His word delivered to the saints. This doesn't justify war, but it was Mohammed that brought war against the "infidels" and it was Turks and Moors that brought war to Europe, wars that are still being fought.

Do you wonder why young Christian Arabs and Persians yield their necks to the cruel blades of radical Islam rather than taking up weapons against it? They did not love their lives to the death, but clung to Jesus our God. These all will receive a martyr's crown from God for their faithfulness and they didn't have to murder a single soul.

I don't doubt your story at all, but there is only one name under heaven through which men may be saved as declared by scripture and that is the name of our Lord and the Savior of our souls from eternal damnation, Jesus (Yahshua) the Christ (anointed or holy one.)

Our grandfathers would have got on very well, no doubt about that.

As for me: I first attended Sunday School at the age of six (that’s almost seventy years ago). I became, at the age of fifteen, a Catholic; and remained one for over fifty years.

For ten years I was a professed member of the Carmelite Third Order; and studied biblical and dogmatic theology, as well as other relevant stuff, with the aim of becoming a priest. I spent a year with the Carmelite Friars at Hazlewood Castle in Yorkshire (now a hotel); and over a year with the Cistercians (Trappists) at Mount Saint Bernard Abbey in Leicester, testing a vocation (I first visited the Abbey in my early twenties, and knew the community well. My spiritual adviser throughout these years was the Abbey’s Secretary; Fr Simon Cumming, of happy memory). It became clear that life in a religious order was not my calling, and so I became a husband and father (as Simon once said: ‘Our novitiate is a seedbed of good Catholic marriages!’). I look back at my time with the Carmelites and Cistercians with great affection. Even though I no longer share their doctrinal beliefs I admire their spirituality, and their honest convictions; and their way of life – especially that of the Cistercians. It has been my privilege to know many excellent Christians: paternal grandfather; priests, religious and laity. Each was an example of the best of their Faith.

About twenty years ago my son became a Muslim. He obtained a degree in Classical Arabic; married a Moroccan lass (who I consider to be my third daughter); and now lives there. He is a translator of Qur’anic and aḥadīth exegesis; and of other scholarly works. One of daughter-in-law’s ancestors, ʻAbd al-Salām ibn Mashīsh al-ʻAlamī, was the spiritual guide of Abu al-Hasan ash-Shadhili, founder of the Shadhili Tariqa. My son is a Sufi of that Tariqa; and a murīd of Seyyed Hossein Nasr.

Having gained a Muslim family I made it my business to learn all I could about Islam (I’m still learning). It was during this long process that I began to question certain Christian beliefs I once held as true; and which I had defended many times over the years. Moving from Christianity to Islam was a painful journey (emotionally); but it was the right journey……at least for me.

By the way:

However jarring it may be to those who claim that Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) is the ‘god of Islam’, the term existed in the Arabic world long before the coming of that Faith.

Arabic speaking Christians use the word ‘Allāh’ when referring to God. Indeed, they have no other word for ‘God’ than this.

They say, for example: Allāh al-ab (الله الآب), meaning God the Father; Allāh al-ibn (الله الابن), meaning God the Son; and Allāh al-rūḥ al qudus (الله الروح القدس), meaning God the Holy Spirit.

As a Muslim, I accept – without reservation – that Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla)) is our Creator and Lord; who can be known with certainty, by the natural light of reason, from created things; who is absolutely perfect; who is actually infinite in every perfection; who is absolutely simple; who is the True God, possessing an infinite power of cognition; who is absolute Veracity; who is absolutely faithful; who is absolute ontological Goodness in Himself and in relation to others; who is absolute Moral Goodness or Holiness; who is absolute Benignity; who is absolutely immutable; who is eternal and everywhere present in created space; whose knowledge is infinite; whose Attributes really are identical among themselves and with His Essence; who is omnipotent; who is Lord of the heavens and of the earth; who is infinitely just and infinitely merciful.

You will be familiar with the Ishihara colour blindness testing system. On one of the test plates the number ‘74’ will be clearly visible to viewers with normal colour vision. Viewers with red-green colour blindness will read it as ‘21’; while viewers with monochromacy will see no number at all.

Are there three testing plates; or just the one – understood in three different ways? Just the one.

Is there more than one Creator; or just the One – understood in different ways? Just the One.

May the Beloved bless you, and all you love; and hold you to Himself.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: michaelvpardo

michaelvpardo

Well-Known Member
Feb 26, 2011
4,204
1,734
113
67
East Stroudsburg, PA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Our grandfathers would have got on very well.
.
I do believe that Mohammed based his teaching on old testament stories passed to him orally. The material I've read about him claimed that Mohammed was illiterate and that the Koran was written by literate "scribes."
This explains the huge differences between Islam and Judaism, but Christians don't concern themselves over the promises made to Ishmael as he is outside redemptive history. I assume that Ishmael's descendants would have maintained an oral tradition if not a written one, but oral traditions are notable for their corruptions and exaggerations. Comparing scripture to the antiquities of the Jews by Flavius Josephus reveals a lot of discrepancies derived from the Hebrew oral traditions.

Though Jesus was a teacher of the law, His teaching was radical for His time in revealing God's grace through the law. His teaching was exceptional in His claims regarding Himself which can only lead to one of three conclusions about Him. He had to be either a liar, a mad man, or the Son of God.

I was raised and confirmed in the RCC but left the church immediately after my confirmation with the approval of my father (a superstitious man at best), because confirmation was considered entry into manhood and personal responsibility for my own decisions.
I started reading scripture while very young and loved seeing Jesus in messianic passages, but I wasn't even aware that the bible was written through many scribes over the course of centuries.

I was confused by what seemed contradictory between the "picture" scripture presented of God in the Old Testament and the image of God in the person of His Son.

I saw Jesus as my master and desired to emulate Him, but had serious doubts about His divinity because of the books of the law. My carnal mind was incapable of reconciling the differences and this was a confirmation of the testimony of scripture itself. The theology of the New Testament seemed entirely contradictory to me and incomprehensible.

As my desire for truth was driving my carnal mind, I started studying the sciences at a very early age as well. There were soft cover books designed for children that covered topics like astronomy and biology in the simplest terms, with large picture stamps to paste into place to engage young readers. I loved them, so reading through pop's national geographic, scientific American, popular mechanics and similar magazines was a natural transition.

I learned at an early age that science is fluid, theoretical, changes constantly with new discoveries, and is not immune to hoax and fraud, e.g.: piltdown man
So, I expanded my studies to religion and philosophy. My dad also had a small collection of paperbacks about subjects like the teachings of kung fu tsu, Buddhist and other eastern philosophy and religion. I read books on the occult, witchcraft, satanic conspiracies, UFOs, Fortian studies, the popular series by Carlos Castaneda about his Yaqi brujo, Lao Tzu, Chaung Tsu, Sun Tzu, and a host of books on oriental martial arts, etc.

Nothing that I read compared to scripture or to the way my mind recieved Christ's teachings, though some of the Taoist texts seemed to share parallels. However, I lived my entire life convinced in the existence of a benevolent God and that He was able to guide me through life and to understand who He is.

Unrelated to my "quest" for truth, I was harrassed and abused quite a bit in my youth. I was a large kid, on the tall side and heavy, but of a timid bent. It made me a target for bullying so my focus for personal growth became one of seeking physical fitness, strength, and the ability to defend myself. However I never sought to study any martial arts in school because of a conflict with the teachings of Christ.

My emphasis on "body building" probably helped counter my deplorable eating habits, but had the unanticipated consequences of creating a lifetime of chronic back problems. The worst of these was a compressed disc in my lower back while trying to "rack" a weight machine.

Since my employment sometimes involved moving heavy electronic equipment in and out of boxes, I kept injuring my spine. Then a closure of the regional center where I was employed left me injured and without medical insurance, so my injuries became complicated with muscular atrophy.

I was partially disabled but still managed to secure a decent job as a regional engineer for an out of state company, but when I sought medical help for my physical problems, the atrophy that set in to some muscular groups made my response to Chiropractic care very slow and painful.

At this time I found a class in Tai Chi for health and self defense being offered at a local college. I was familiar with the Tai Chi classics and the claims of its regenerative nature, so it seemed like a chance to pursue complete mobility and I enrolled. Within just a few weeks my Chiropractor noticed a marked improvement in my spines ability to adjust under His manipulation and an expanded range of movement.

As my client base was concentrated at a distance from my residence, I decided to move to the New Jersey shore for the sake of convenience as well as a more active social life and landed in the town of Red Bank. Within my first few weeks in my new location, I discovered a martial arts school "right down the block" where my former Tai Chi instructor was a weekly visiting teacher, so continuation of my practice of Tai Chi seemed providential.

I practiced under that "sifu" for 3 years until he succumbed to a long term battle with brain cancer. I continued my studies for another year with his teacher, though I had to travel a bit to his farm. I participated in a number of martial arts festivals and was exposed to a variety of teachings on the "internal" martial arts which have a strong spiritual element to them. I personally experienced "spiritual" phenomena that couldn't be explained by physical science and manifested some of these myself.

During my time in Red Bank, I also became acquainted with the town "psychic", who claimed to see me "floating " my way down the street and was anxious to work out my horoscope. He also demonstrated real psychic forces applied to my body by no more than his gaze. All these things only contributed to my awareness of a spiritual reality which goes largely unobserved.

My preoccupation with youthful lusts had been guided by a former manager into spending time regularly in gogo bars, indulging in sexual fantasy with pole dancers. In that environment I also learned about sex magic and a mental discipline of sorts that many women in that employment engage in for the sake of a good tip. I also discovered that I could replicate it by force of will. For all intents and purposes I was deeply involved in demonic influences without realizing it.

Disappointed by small salary increases despite good salary revues and an ever expanding work load, I switched employers. There I met and worked with a number of born again Christians. One of these worked closely with me and was unashamed to share his faith, patiently giving satisfactory answers to my questions about biblical "contradictions" (in my perception.) Even so, my personal social life was spiraling downwards further and further into iniquity.

I found myself in an adulterous relationship, justifying my behavior on the seeming abuse of my interest by her husband, but knowing that I was under the condemnation of scripture. As providence would have it, I found myself being preached the gospel by a street preacher. I wanted to believe it, but ran into the same mental objections to the simplicity of the cross that my mind always had.

I discussed this with my coworker and "friend" who'd been so patient with me, and he ran through the essential elements of the gospel with supporting scripture as we ran through our days end tasks in the shop and our walk out to the parking lot.

I was able to receive everything he said as true so in that parking lot he took my hands and we prayed together for me to receive the Holy Spirit in a commitment to faithfulness to the Lord Jesus Christ. With our "Amen", I felt the sudden rush of those spiritual energies which I associated with the Chinese concepts of "Chi" and "shen" moving violently to my head top and exiting my skull at the region directly above the spine.
In retrospect I realized that those energies were in reality deceiving entities and that I'd literally been delivered from demonic possession.

At this point my mind was opened to spiritual truth and I spent 3 years wearing out my inexpensive KJV copy of the bible, reading cover to cover repeatedly and seeing Jesus everywhere in scripture. This wasn't a complete reconciliation of scripture to my understanding, but each subsequent reading of scripture has always revealed more than the previous and always with application to real life experience.

I can't speak to your experience. Nor can I lean on my own experience as the source of my faith, but my experience confirms scripture in all things, so I've come to see all things through the lense of scripture.

Jesus is Lord. He's also my older brother through adoption.
I may be the poorest example of Christianity, my behavior frequently stained by ungodly habits, but " I know whom I have believed and am convinced that He is able to keep that which I've committed to Him until that day." Amen
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Niblo

Niblo

Member
Jul 16, 2021
60
36
18
78
Leeds
Faith
Muslim
Country
United Kingdom
...........

Greetings, Michael.

Many thanks for your testimony. I, too, studied Sun Tzu, and the martial arts. My choices were karate and iaidō. I still have my katana, but no longer the flexibility to practice!

You write:

‘Though Jesus was a teacher of the law, His teaching was radical for His time in revealing God's grace through the law. His teaching was exceptional in His claims regarding Himself which can only lead to one of three conclusions about Him. He had to be either a liar, a mad man, or the Son of God.’

You refer, of course, to C.S. Lewis’ version of the so-called ‘trilema’ (one variation on this theme was used by the Reverend Professor John (‘Rabbi’) Duncan (1796-1870); a minister of the Free Church of Scotland; another by the evangelist Reuben Archer Torrey (1856-1928); another yet another by American Presbyterian evangelist, William Edward Biederwolf (1867-1939).

Back in the day, I found the ‘trilema’ both convincing and useful. That was because I paid no heed to the fact that it is predicated on the assumption that Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) walked around, calling himself God.

For around a hundred and fifty years there has been broad agreement among New Testament scholars that the historical Yeshua did not lay claim to deity; that he did not understand himself to be God, or God the Son, incarnate.

John Robinson, an English New Testament scholar, and Anglican Bishop of Woolwich, writes:

‘We are often asked to accept Christ as divine because he claimed to be so – and the familiar argument is pressed: “A man who goes around claiming to be God must either be God – or else he is a madman or a charlatan. And, of course, it is not easy to read the Gospel story and to dismiss Jesus as either mad or bad. Therefore, the conclusion runs, he must be God. But I am not happy about this argument.

‘None of the disciples acknowledged Jesus because he claimed to be God, and the Apostles never went out saying, “This man claimed to be God, therefore you must believe in him”. In fact, Jesus himself said in so many words, “If I claim anything for myself, do not believe me”. It is, indeed, an open question whether Jesus ever claimed to be the Son of God, let alone God. He may have acknowledged it from the lips of others – but on his own he preferred “the Son of Man”’ (‘Honest to God’).

Here are other quotes to think about:

'Jesus did not claim deity for himself' (Archbishop of Canterbury, Michael Ramsey: ‘Jesus and the Living Past’).

'Any case for a "high" Christology that depended on the authenticity of the alleged claims of Jesus about himself, especially in the Fourth Gospel, would indeed be precarious' (C.F.D Moule – an Anglican priest and theologian: ‘The Origin of Christology’).

‘There was no real evidence in the earliest Jesus tradition of what could fairly be called a consciousness of divinity' (James Dunn – New Testament scholar, and minister of the Church of Scotland: ‘Christology in the Making’).

‘It is no longer possible to defend the divinity of Jesus by reference to the claims of Jesus' (Canon Brian Hebblethwaite – a staunch supporter of Nicene/Chalcedonian Christology: ‘The Incarnation’).

‘There is good evidence to suggest that (Jesus) never saw himself as a suitable object of worship…. (it is) impossible to base any claim for Christ's divinity on his consciousness once we abandon the traditional portrait as reflected in a literal understanding of St. John's Gospel' (David Brown – an Anglican priest, and another staunch supporter of Nicene/Chalcedonian Christology: ‘The Divine Trinity’).

Professor Bart D. Ehrman writes:

‘Only in the latest of our Gospels, John, a Gospel that shows considerably more theological sophistication than the others, does Jesus indicate that he is divine. I had come to realize that none of our earliest traditions indicates that Jesus said any such thing about himself. And surely if Jesus had really spent his days in Galilee and then Jerusalem calling himself God, all of our sources would be eager to report it. To put it differently, if Jesus claimed he was divine, it seemed very strange indeed that Matthew, Mark, and Luke all failed to say anything about it. Did they just forget to mention that part?’ (‘Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible – And Why We Don't Know About Them’).

Continued:
 

Niblo

Member
Jul 16, 2021
60
36
18
78
Leeds
Faith
Muslim
Country
United Kingdom
If Yeshua never claimed to be divine, how come he is regarded as such?

About fifty years ago I had a colleague who was a Biblical Unitarian. We discussed (often) both the trinity and incarnation. He was older than I, and very well acquainted with the Bible. On one occasion I became angry with him (I was fiery in those days!). I grabbed my Bible (KJV) and thrust it under his nose. ‘This is my Book’, I hissed. ‘What’s yours?’

He smiled, and very gently removed the book from my hand. ‘This!’, he replied. I was stunned. How could this man read the very same words as I, and yet reach conclusions so opposed to my own? He was no fool; neither was he perverse. He was both genuine and honest; a decent man who lived his faith according to his conscience. And yet, he did not, could not, believe what I believed.

Here is a quote by Cliff Reed, a Unitarian minister:

‘Unitarians believe that Jesus was a man, unequivocally human. It has long been our view that to talk of him as God is unfaithful to his own understanding of himself. The New Testament accounts describe a Jewish man, chosen, raised up, adopted and anointed by God. They claim that the divine purpose was that Jesus should reconcile first the Jews and then all humanity to each other and to God. This would prepare the way for the Messianic age of peace.’ (Sourced from a Unitarian website).

Two groups of people read the very same scriptures. One group interprets these in a way that makes the Beloved a Trinity, and Yeshua ‘wholly God, and wholly Man’. The other’s interpretation sees no justification for the notion of a trinity; and regards Yeshua as just a man; in no way divine.

Ehrman writes (of Biblical texts) that:

‘They are always interpreted by living, breathing human beings with loves, hates, biases, prejudices, worldviews, fears, hopes, and everything else that makes us human.’

He goes on:

‘All of these factors affect how texts are interpreted, and they explain why intelligent people can have such radically different interpretations of the same text.’ (‘Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible – And Why We Don't Know About Them’; my emphasis).

James Dunn, a New Testament scholar and one-time Lightfoot Professor of Divinity at the University of Durham, writes:

‘Scholars have almost always found themselves pushed to the conclusion that John's Gospel reflects much more the early churches' understanding of Jesus than of Jesus own self-understanding... Again, evangelical or apologetic assertions regarding the claims of Christ will often quote the claims made by Jesus himself (in the Gospel of John) with the alternatives posed 'Mad, bad or God,' without allowing that there may be a further alternative (viz. Christian claims about Jesus rather than Jesus' claims about himself).’ (‘The Evidence for Jesus’).

Is it possible for folk to deify an individual – when that individual has made no claim to deity – and to believe, absolutely and sincerely, in the veracity of their claim?

Who am I talking about here:

This man was the very incarnation of God; a messianic figure who was prophesied in the Old Testament; whose birth was marked by miracles; who – even as a child – exhibited profound, divinely given, wisdom; who performed miracles in public; who continues to live on, in spite of evidence of his death; who is worshipped by his followers, and who communicates with them in prayer; a saviour who will return, someday, to gather his chosen people and take them to live with him in God’s kingdom?

No, not Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām), but Emperor Haile Selassie, as described by the Rastafarians.

Continued:
 

Niblo

Member
Jul 16, 2021
60
36
18
78
Leeds
Faith
Muslim
Country
United Kingdom
You write:

‘I do believe that Mohammed based his teaching on old testament stories passed to him orally.’

Indeed, it is argued that the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) obtained his source material – not from written sources directly – but from other persons. Two are cited:

The first candidate is Waraqa Ibn Nawfal (a pagan turned Christian). He is reported (in Sahih al-Bukhari) to have had a conversation with the Prophet shortly after the latter’s first encounter with the Angel Gabriel. The Prophet was looking for an explanation of what he had seen and heard. Ibn Nawful is reported to have answered: ‘This is the same one (Gabriel) who keeps the secrets whom Allāh had sent to Moses. I wish I were young and could live up to the time when your people (the pagans of Mecca) would turn you out.’

The Prophet then asked: ‘Will they drive me out?’ Waraqa replied in the affirmative and said: ‘Anyone who came with something similar to what you have brought was treated with hostility; and if I should remain alive till the day when you will be turned out then I would support you strongly.’

Ibn Nawfal died a few days after this conversation. The claim that he taught the Prophet is bunkum.

The second candidate is Salman the Persian, a Zoroastrian who converted to Christianity, and who journeyed to Syria to learn more about his religion. From there, he travelled to the Hijaz. He was seized; sold into slavery; and taken to Madinah; where, eventually, he met the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam).

This meeting took place after more than two-thirds of the Qur’an (including the stories of those Prophets mentioned in the Bible) had already been revealed. Salman was so impressed by Muhammad, and by his Message, that he became a Muslim.

It is argued that the Prophet copied the Qur’an from other sources; either from the Apocrypha or from the Bible itself.

The first problem with this argument is that Muhammad was illiterate and could not copy what he could not read. Had he been literate his enemies – the pagan Arabs in Mecca – would have wasted no time in exposing him. His literacy would have been all too easy to prove. There is no record of any such accusation.

However, let us assume that he could, indeed, read and write.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the Prophet could understand any language other than Arabic.

The Mt. Sinai Arabic Codex 151 is (arguably) the oldest Arabic translation of the Bible. As well as the text, it includes marginal comments, glosses and lectionary notes. Discovered at St. Catherine’s monastery in Mount Sinai in the 1800’s the manuscript has been dated at around 867 C.E. Also of interest (and claimed to be the earliest copy of the Gospels in Arabic) is ‘Vatican Arabic 13’. Most likely translated from the Greek, it was written by five scribes, the first of whom used a modified Kufic script. This manuscript has been dated at around the eighth or ninth century.

The Prophet died on the 8th June 632 C.E.

Sidney Griffith writes:

‘All one can say about the possibility of a pre-Islamic, Christian version of the Gospel in Arabic is that no sure sign of its actual existence has yet emerged.’ (‘The Gospel In Arabic: An Enquiry Into Its Appearance In The First Abbasid Century’).

Ernst Würthwein writes:

‘With the victory of Islam the use of Arabic spread widely, and for Jews and Christians in the conquered lands it became the language of daily life. This gave rise to the need of Arabic versions of the Bible, which need was met by a number of versions mainly independent and concerned primarily for interpretation.’ (‘The Text Of The Old Testament’).

It is clear that no Arabic translations of the Bible or the Apocrypha existed during the lifetime of Muhammad.

By the way, there is no doubt at all (for the Muslims) that the Prophet did indeed receive his Message orally; namely, from Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla), by way of Gabriel (ʿalayhi as-salām). :)

May the Beloved bless you, and protect you in these difficult times.
 

michaelvpardo

Well-Known Member
Feb 26, 2011
4,204
1,734
113
67
East Stroudsburg, PA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Within the last week I wrote a response to some cult members on the forums who reject the divinity of Christ, and base their claims in part upon their belief that Jesus Himself never made a claim to divinity.
In order to satisfy the requirements of the law, Jesus intentionally avoided making direct statements about His divinity, but commonly referred to His relationship with the "Father" and performed all His works to demonstrate that relationship.


Jesus addressed His teaching regarding His person in specific legal terms.
“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or theProphets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. Matthew 5:17
How does a man fulfill a covenant made by God with man?


To the satisfaction of Jesus' claim to "fulfill" the law, His testimony was given entirely in the framework of the law.
30 I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me. 31 “If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true. 32 There is another who bears witness of Me, and I know that the witness which He witnesses of Me is true. John 5:30-3
The later gospel according to John does presents a more sophisticated testimony of the divinity of Christ, but that doesn't invalidate its content. In truth, John's gospel validates the Apostle Paul's doctrine that we are not by nature "spiritual " but carnal, must receive His Spirit by faith, and "renew our minds".
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God. Roman's 12:2

13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Corinthians 2:13-14

The natural man is incapable of receiving spiritual teaching. Our minds must be renewed through His word, but only after receiving His Spirit. This is a necessary process in sanctification.
Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth. John 17:17
Stated simply, the sophistication of John's gospel theologically is the direct result of a lifetime of sanctification by the word of God, and a confirmation of its veracity.

Jesus declared in John's gospel, as I formerly quoted, “If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true".
Jesus was referring to a divine principle included in the law:

“One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three
witnesses the matter shall be established. Deuteronomy 19:15
Both Jesus and the apostle Paul echoed this legal principle which is illustrated as divine by the prophet
.
11 Then I answered and said to him, “What are these two olive trees—at the right of the lampstand and at its left?” 12 And I further answered and said to him, “What are these two olive branches that drip into the receptacles of the two gold pipes from which the golden oil drains?”
13 Then he answered me and said, “Do you not know what these are?
And I said, “No, my lord.”

14 So he said, “These are the two anointed ones, who stand beside the Lord of the whole earth.” Zechariah 4:11-14

This principle was demonstrated in the account of the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah.
20 And the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grave, 21 I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know.”
22 Then
the men turned away from there and went toward Sodom, but Abraham still stood before the Lord. Genesis 18:20-21
And again in the New Testament first in the book of the acts of the apostles and then finally in the book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ:

. 10 And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel, 11 who also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.” Acts 1:10-11

3 And I will give power to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy one thousand two hundred and sixty days, clothed in sackcloth.”
4 These are the two olive trees and the two lampstands standing before the God of the earth. Revelation 11:3-4

Jesus did not testify directly to His divinity explicitly because such testimony was not valid under the law, but His claims about Himself were clearly a capital offense if His testimony was not true, and this was the cause of His condemnation by the ruling council of the Jews.

Again the high priest asked Him, saying to Him, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?”
62 Jesus said, “I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”
63 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “What further need do we have of witnesses? 64 You have heard the blasphemy! What do you think?”

And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death. Mark 14:61-64

Luke's gospel gives us the account of Jesus transformation in the presence of Moses and Elijah, representative of the law and the prophets, and before a select group of apostles which included Peter and John.
Peter references the same in his epistles 2 Peter:
16 For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17 For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” 18 And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. 2 Peter 16-18

Living under the law as the son of man, Jesus faithfully gave place to God to declare His own person through the works of His Son. Yet He didn't deny His divinity or resist worship, the honor reserved to God alone.
You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. John 5:39
10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. 11 Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves. John 14:10-11

The very concept of the Son of God was by no means new to scripture.
Who has ascended into heaven, or descended?
Who has gathered the wind in His fists?
Who has bound the waters in a garment?
Who has established all the ends of the earth?
What is His name, and what is His Son’s name, If you know? Proverbs 30:4

Messianic passages declaring the Messiah's divinity were well known at the time of Jesus' birth, but obviously not well understood or well recieved. The multitudes of Israel were quite prepared to receive God's chosen king as evidenced by the Lord's entry into Jerusalem on the back of a colt of a donkey. However, they were not well prepared to receive the Son of God as evidenced by His condemnation and crucifixion. All these things were testified beforehand, not just by Jesus, but by the prophets and for the judgment of Israel's transgressions.

Mohammed took exception with the biblical concepts and denied all the testimony given by scripture to the person of the Son of God, and his denial was not exceptional, but common to all that reject the Son.
He who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; he who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed the testimony that God has given of His Son. 11 And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.
1 John 5:10-12

It is not my purpose to convince you of the truth, nor can I. That's the work of God the Holy Spirit.
Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you. 8 And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 of sin, because they do not believe in Me; 10 of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; 11 of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged. John 16:7-11
However, I do pray that the Lord opens the eyes of your understanding and that you may see Him as He is revealed. Which is, from the human perspective, the reward of those who seek God.

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory. 1 Timothy 3:16
 

Niblo

Member
Jul 16, 2021
60
36
18
78
Leeds
Faith
Muslim
Country
United Kingdom
................

Greetings, Michael.

You write:

‘In order to satisfy the requirements of the law, Jesus intentionally avoided making direct statements about His divinity, but commonly referred to His relationship with the "Father" and performed all His works to demonstrate that relationship.’

The scholars I quoted in my previous post (Bishop John Robinson; Archbishop Michael Ramsey; the Reverends C.F.D Moule; James Dunn; David Brown; and Canon Brian Hebblethwaite – none of them ‘cultists’ – taught that Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) was divine (‘wholly God’ and ‘wholly man’), but that he was not conscious of this.

You claim that Yeshua was, indeed, aware of his divinity, but elected not to speak of it. In short, you agree with Robinson, et al., that he made no claim to divinity.

Consider this:

‘And he cried with a loud voice: ‘My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?’ (Matthew 27:46).

Yeshua’s cry of despair makes perfect sense if he was but a man. It also makes sense if – as God – he was unaware of his divinity. It makes no sense at all if – as you say – he knew that he was God all along.

Are we to believe that Yeshua – knowing himself to be God – is asking himself why he has forsaken himself?

In what way can the Exalted forsake Himself?



You ask: ‘How does a man fulfil a covenant made by God with man?’


As you know, the word ‘covenant’ means agreement; a contract. The Jews have always seen their relationship with HaShem as a covenant; under which they have a particular responsibility to follow His laws (‘mitzvot’).

Following the mitzvot is at the core of Jewish identity. Yeshua, of course, was a Jew.

Yeshua is reported to have said: ‘Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfil. For truly I say to you, until the heaven and the earth shall pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no way pass from the Law until everything has been fulfilled.’ (Matthew 5:17-18)

The expression ‘to fulfil the Law’ – as used by Yeshua – is a rabbinic idiom, and needs to be set in its context. It does not mean, as you appear to be suggesting, that fulfilling the Law brings that Law to its end.

‘To fulfil’ renders the Hebrew ‘lekayem’, meaning ‘to uphold’ or ‘to establish’; as well as to complete or to accomplish. In the context of Yeshua’s ministry, ‘lekayem’ means to interpret the Law correctly, so that it is followed (obeyed) as HaShem intended.

In the Mishnah we read:

‘Whoever fulfils the Torah when poor will in the end fulfil it in wealth. And whoever treats the Torah as nothing when he is wealthy in the end will treat it as nothing in poverty.’ (Pirkei Avot 4:9).

As you know, the Law condemns adultery, and Yeshua warns against thinking that adultery takes place only in the actual act of cheating on one’s spouse. He clarifies the true intent of the Law by reminding his listeners that lustful thoughts also violate the Law (Matthew 5:27-28).

Again, he clarifies the true intent of the Law against murder by reminding his people that hatred in one’s heart is akin to murder, and will be judged as such (1 John 3:15).

Yeshua fulfilled the Law – not merely by his own personal behaviour – but as a prophet; one sent to return his people (the ‘Jews’: ‘I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.’ – Matthew 15:24) to correct observance of the Law, by revealing – by word and deed – its true meaning and intent.

Had his purpose been to abolish the Law he would not have acted as he did.

To fulfil the Law is simply to do what the Law says: To obey.

If we humans are incapable of fulfilling a ‘covenant made by God’ then what are we to make of this?:

‘Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.’ (Matthew 5:19).

May the Beloved enable you to fulfil your personal covenant with Him; and reward you for doing so.
 
Last edited:

michaelvpardo

Well-Known Member
Feb 26, 2011
4,204
1,734
113
67
East Stroudsburg, PA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
[QUOTE
May the Beloved enable you to fulfil your personal covenant with Him; and reward you for doing so.[/QUOTE]
The only theological source that I consider valid are the scriptures themselves, not the mishna, not the talmud, not the apocrypha, nor even the histories of Flavius Josephus. The testimony of scripture is that it is the inspired word of God. When I read other material, it is primarily to understand how carnal minded men have interpreted scripture, or to fill in historical context that is not part of the biblical text.

Jesus frequently referred to God the Father, without as far as I can see, ever referring to the father by name, but did identify God as Spirit:
23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. 24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” John 4:23-25

Jesus' fulfillment of scripture would by no means be unique if that fulfillment only meant keeping the law. Zachariah the priest, the father of John the Baptist is identified by scripture as righteous for keeping the law ( not that he was sinless or perfected, but kept the law, the observances and sacrifices, and remained free of intentional transgression. )
The law, recieved during the exodus of Israel from Egypt, was a covenant sealed by blood and initiated by God.
A covenant is effectively a blood oath, let it be to me as done to these slain animals if I break my word. How then, can God break a covenant and satisfy the requirement by having His own blood shed? That's only possible if God became a man. The testimony of scripture, both Old Testament and New, is that it was always God's intent to make a New covenant that was better than the covenant of law.
31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. Jeremiah 31:31-32
The passage goes on to describe the nature of the new covenant without explaining how God would initiate it, effectively replacing the old with the new.

Ezekiel also addresses this new covenant in a number of passages, and describes it as a covenant of peace:
26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them, and it shall be an everlasting covenant with them; I will establish them and multiply them, and I will set My sanctuary in their midst forevermore. 27 My tabernacle also shall be with them; indeed I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 28 The nations also will know that I, the Lord, sanctify Israel, when My sanctuary is in their midst forevermore.” ’ ” Ezekiel 37:26-28
(Jesus is the living tabernacle of the Eternal God)

It is the teaching of New Testament scripture that Jesus both fulfilled the covenant of Law, which condemns and confines all men under sin, and initiated the new covenant of peace with God through His own blood.

According to Ezekiel, if Jesus were no more than a man, then His death could not satisfy the propitiation of sin for anyone but Himself.
20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. Ezekiel 18:20
Yet, God speaks directly through scripture of a righteousness imputed to men, but by implication.
“Behold, the days are coming,” says the Lord,
“That I will raise to David a Branch of righteousness;
A King shall reign and prosper,
And execute judgment and righteousness in the earth.
6 In His days Judah will be saved,
And Israel will dwell safely;
Now this is His name by which He will be called: THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.
Jeremiah 23:5-6
Yet, scripture also says that there is no one righteous (God Himself being excepted.)
God looks down from heaven upon the children of men, To see if there are any who understand, who seek God. Every one of them has turned aside; They have together become corrupt; There is none who does good, No, not one. Psalm 53:2-3

So, given a promise of a new and better covenant, how did God intend to provide atonement for sin? How could God declare the unrighteous to be righteous through Him?
21 “As for Me,” says the Lord, “this is My covenant with them: My Spirit who is upon you, and My words which I have put in your mouth, shall not depart from your mouth, nor from the mouth of your descendants, nor from the mouth of your descendants’ descendants,” says the Lord, “from this time and forevermore.” Isaiah 59:21

So the Lord said that He would establish His everlasting covenant of peace with His people by His Spirit and by putting His word in our mouths. John calls this the Witness of Jesus Christ which we receive by faith, and Isaiah described "the how" of entering into this covenant personally.
All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the
Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all. Isaiah 53:6
Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him;
He has put
Him to grief.
When You make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see
His seed, He shall prolong His days,
And the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand.
11 He shall see the labor of His soul,
and be satisfied.
By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, For He shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great,
And He shall divide the spoil with the strong,
Because He poured out His soul unto death, And He was numbered with the transgressors,
And He bore the sin of many, And made intercession for the transgressors.
Isaiah 53:10-12
This single passage describes exactly how God provides atonement for our sin, through the sacrifice of His servant and even of His resurrection, but according to Ezekiel 18:20, this is not possible if that servant, our Lord Jesus the Christ, were no more than a man. A man can not be a sin offering for a people.

All the works performed by Jesus Christ as signs and wonders before the people of Israel were works attributed to God in the writings of the Old Testament. Everything He did as public ministry was not just in fulfillment of law (because He intentionally worked on the Sabbath), but in fulfillment of redemptive history, in fulfillment of prophesy.

Even those words from the cross which you quoted were spoken in fulfillment of prophesy.
My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?
Why are You so far from helping Me,
And from the words of My groaning?
Psalm 22:1
This psalm was written by king David many hundreds of years before Christ, but does not describe the experience of David at all. However, the anointing of David by the Spirit of God, the Spirit of prophesy, gives us a graphic description of the crucifixion of our Lord, and something God surely intended that we recognize.

How does God, who is Eternal Spirit and not part of creation, interact with His creation?
Scripture describes 3 ways, by His angels, by His Spirit, and through His Son. It is the assertion of scripture that the Eternal manifested in flesh through the power of God's Spirit.
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory. 1 Timothy 3:16
You do understand that Paul was born Saul of Tarsus, a member of the tribe of Benjamin, a pharisee, and a student of Gamaliel, one of the preeminent Hebrew Scholars of the first century, correct? He is the author of 1 Timothy, and Timothy himself was the son of a Jewish woman and hebrew by birth.

Saul met the resurrected Christ on his way to Damascus to arrest Christians and see them put to death.
He recognized the divinity of Christ on the spot.

7 And I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?’ 8 So I answered, ‘Who are You, Lord?’ And He said to me, ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting.’
9 “And those who were with me indeed saw the light and were afraid, but they did not hear the voice of Him who spoke to me. 10 So I said, ‘What shall I do, Lord?’
Acts 22:7-10
You'll note that neither the resurrected Christ nor the Jesus of the gospels ever refused worship. What rabbi would permit a man to worship him and violate the 1st commandment?
It is not possible that I should convince you of the truth. That is the work of God's Spirit and the scripture is clear that "the just shall live by faith." That which we can prove is not of faith, but I know Him by His Spirit and He Himself put His word in my mouth and the royal commandment in my heart.

May the Lord bless you and grant you peace. Amen.
 
Last edited:

Jalal

Member
Aug 28, 2021
41
18
8
UK
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United Kingdom
The power of God is in his divine essence, which is shared by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Can God's divine essence be shared with others? One must be born again to enter the Kingdom. Then his Spirit will live in you. But having God inside oneself doesn't make one God. Jesus is greater than any mere prophet.

So again, why God (Allah) shares his power with someone else, does he need to do that? Say some one has a supreme power, why does he/she need to share it with someone else? Suppose for some reason he/she decided to share it -- although this is illogical -- why not share it with more than one, two, three, four, etc?

It is more logical to think of all prophets as equal human beings, with good morals, good to all human beings and they are merely messengers of God, this is what the Quran says about all God's prophets.
 

Jalal

Member
Aug 28, 2021
41
18
8
UK
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United Kingdom
Hello, Jalal, and Welcome!

You simply need to start with the basics of the Gospel. And the best place to start would be in the Gospel of John, chapter 3. Following that, kindly read and study the entire Gospel, and ask God to show you that Christ is the only Savior of the world. That is the purpose of this Gospel.

When the apostle Thomas saw the wounds in the hands, feet and side of Christ (as revealed in John's Gospel), he cried out "My Lord and my God!". So Jesus is (and was) God who became Man to die for our sins, and rise again for our justification (that we might be saved by God's grace through faith in Christ and His finished work of redemption).

Thank you very much ... I will do that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Enoch111

Jalal

Member
Aug 28, 2021
41
18
8
UK
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United Kingdom
I am not sure how close this is to our discussion here. A point that was recently discussed with a number of Christian apologists and secularists is: considering my case as an ex-Muslim apologist, whether I intentionally or unintentionally tried to defend/promote Islam or proselytize Islamic ideas or even if I plan future counter debates with religious/non-religious groups, all that is useless now and has no effect at all, because:


1. I fully admitted the defeat, thus, the credibility of any future attempts to defend Islam have been aborted ahead. The result is final and objective. Why would potential converts to Islam listen to someone who was once defeated in debates with secularists and Christians, admitted that and submitted a testimony!?

2. The case was fully documented and was published to serve as a source material for freethinkers in the Muslim world. Thanks for the Internet that never forgets anything!

Jalal | Why I'm an Exmuslim Testimonial


https://twitter.com/xmuslimuk/status/1421425412924657671?s=20


Members List | Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain - CEMB


That is, if you are inside a closed bottle you can shout as you like and your voice will not go beyond the boundaries of the bottle.

The unsuccessful desperate plans and vows to win the debates with secularists/Christians symbolized an unconditional surrender. A surrunder to the logic and arguments of secularists/Christians. The world is better now with one of the Muslim apologists out of the game.

Christians said this is the work of God on you, he wanted you to be a lesson so others can learn from this example. They suggested publishing at least three main destroyed arguments from my debate with Christians.
Perhaps as a Christmas gift for this year and they will share it on social media during Christmas.

Secularists said, in debates there are winners and losers and you are the loser, they were delighted that my plans were applied to me including the documentation/publication of the case and the share on social media. "You wanted to do that for us but it turned on you ... Secularism in action!" as one of them said.
 

Jalal

Member
Aug 28, 2021
41
18
8
UK
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United Kingdom
So, if you agree with the above, can you please suggest three Christian-Muslim arguments? I will see if these were in the debate and pick them for publication. Otherwise we can discuss them here and publish them. I will represent the destroyed Muslim argument, i.e. it will be published under my name and we will explain why it is wrong.
 

lforrest

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Admin
Aug 10, 2012
5,591
6,842
113
Faith
Christian
So again, why God (Allah) shares his power with someone else, does he need to do that? Say some one has a supreme power, why does he/she need to share it with someone else? Suppose for some reason he/she decided to share it -- although this is illogical -- why not share it with more than one, two, three, four, etc?

It is more logical to think of all prophets as equal human beings, with good morals, good to all human beings and they are merely messengers of God, this is what the Quran says about all God's prophets.

It doesn't appear that all prophets are Equal, consider Moses. As for them being messengers, that is true but the word of God has power, so it isn't the same as a messenger may have been for a human king for example.

Numbers 12:6-8
6 he said, “Listen to my words:
“When there is a prophet among you,
I, the Lord, reveal myself to them in visions,
I speak to them in dreams.
7 But this is not true of my servant Moses;
he is faithful in all my house.
8 With him I speak face to face,
clearly and not in riddles;
he sees the form of the Lord.
Why then were you not afraid
to speak against my servant Moses?”

Exodus 33:11
11 The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend. Then Moses would return to the camp, but his young aide Joshua son of Nun did not leave the tent.​

So if Moses was God's friend how much greater is his son?

Matthew 3:17
And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”

John 5 for further reading
As to why God would share his divinity among three persons instead of one, I can only assume it is due to his nature. To love is to be pleased with others rather than oneself.

1 John 4:8
8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

God is also pleased to have a relationship with his creation man.​
 
  • Like
Reactions: Truman

Jalal

Member
Aug 28, 2021
41
18
8
UK
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United Kingdom
It doesn't appear that all prophets are Equal, consider Moses. As for them being messengers, that is true but the word of God has power, so it isn't the same as a messenger may have been for a human king for example.

Numbers 12:6-8
6 he said, “Listen to my words:
“When there is a prophet among you,
I, the Lord, reveal myself to them in visions,
I speak to them in dreams.
7 But this is not true of my servant Moses;
he is faithful in all my house.
8 With him I speak face to face,
clearly and not in riddles;
he sees the form of the Lord.
Why then were you not afraid
to speak against my servant Moses?”

Exodus 33:11
11 The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend. Then Moses would return to the camp, but his young aide Joshua son of Nun did not leave the tent.​

So if Moses was God's friend how much greater is his son?

Matthew 3:17
And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”

John 5 for further reading
As to why God would share his divinity among three persons instead of one, I can only assume it is due to his nature. To love is to be pleased with others rather than oneself.

1 John 4:8
8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

God is also pleased to have a relationship with his creation man.​

They are equal as human beings, they eat, drink, sleep, walk, ...
Each prophet was given a miracle that suits his era and it the miracle was a challenge of what people living in that era were famous and skilful at:

During Mouses PBUH era, people were famous in magic so God challenged that through a Mouses' miracles

During Jesus PBUH era, people in his land -- till now -- were known for good types of food, so God challenged the people of that region with a table of food that was sent from heaven -- I know, there are other miracles also, but that was a blow to the main thing.

During Mohammad PBUH, people were famous in Arabic poems and eloquence, so the challenge -- till now -- was the Quran.

Check this for the list of miracles:

Miracles of the Prophets of Islam
 

Philip James

Well-Known Member
May 4, 2018
4,276
3,092
113
Brandon
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
It is common sense that God has no father, mother and sons

Hello Jalal,

Welcome to the board!

If God reveals something about Himself that is different than your 'common sense'; which should you listen to: God or your senses?

You too! Are welcome to come to the wedding Feast of the Lamb of God!

Peace be with you!
 

Jalal

Member
Aug 28, 2021
41
18
8
UK
Faith
Other Faith
Country
United Kingdom
Hello Jalal,

Welcome to the board!

If God reveals something about Himself that is different than your 'common sense'; which should you listen to: God or your senses?

You too! Are welcome to come to the wedding Feast of the Lamb of God!

Peace be with you!

Hello Philip,

Thank you for your message. The answer to your question is: God. But did God revealed that about himself?

Peace be with you.