Christians like Jay Smith make claims that they are confident they will go to heaven. This slogan is not even true according to their own religious traditions.
Hashim goes on to tackle this idea amongst certain Christians that they will certainly go to Heaven. The bulk of this is captured in this video. I would recommend you watch this short video and learn that in reality, Christians who have imbibed emotionalism, and strut about claiming they will certainly go to paradise. are not consistent with their texts. Hashim does a good job in bringing up important and relevant verses which are overlooked by this type of Christian in their dopamine fuelled proclamations.
This video is also uploaded here
Verses discussed:
Matthew 7
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
1 John 3
7 Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. 8 The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work. 9 No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God. 10 This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister.
Matt 25
11 “Later the others also came. ‘Lord, Lord,’ they said, ‘open the door for us!’
12 “But he replied, ‘Truly I tell you, I don’t know you.’
13 “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour.
Mark 3
29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.”
Advice For Muslims On Dealing With Christian Anti-Muslim Sentiment...
Karen Armstrong: Early Gospel Authors Did Not Believe Jesus Was God
Showing posts with label New Testament. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New Testament. Show all posts
Friday, 22 December 2017
Jay Smith, Did John Write Down What Jesus Said?
Christian missionary Jay Smith claims John wrote down what Jesus said. I think the admission by Prof. Craig Evans in this video will help Jay to understand that scholars do not believe John's I AM sayings are historical.
This video can also be viewed here
Response To A Christian Blog on Muslim Girls School in Stoke
Christian Polemicists on Love, Quran 3:32, John 3:16 and Romans 5:8
Grooming Crimes Which Tommy Robinson and Britain First Will Not Publicise As Much
A Review of Sara Khan's The Battle For British Islam
This video can also be viewed here
Response To A Christian Blog on Muslim Girls School in Stoke
Christian Polemicists on Love, Quran 3:32, John 3:16 and Romans 5:8
Grooming Crimes Which Tommy Robinson and Britain First Will Not Publicise As Much
A Review of Sara Khan's The Battle For British Islam
Monday, 13 November 2017
Karen Armstrong: Early Gospel Authors Did Not Believe Jesus Was God
Video also uploaded here
Paul and the Synoptics had never regarded Jesus as God; the very idea would have horrified Paul who, before his conversion, had been an exceptionally punctilious Pharisee. They all used the term ‘Son of God’ in the conventional Jewish sense: Jesus had been an ordinary human being commissioned by God with a special task. Even in his exalted state, there was, for Paul, always a clear distinction between Jesus kyrios Christos and God, his Father. The author of the Fourth Gospel , however, depicted Jesus as a cosmic being, God’s eternal ‘Word’ (logos) who had existed with God before the beginning of time. This high Christology seems to have separated these congregations from other Jewish Christian communities. [Karen Armstrong, Fields of Blood, Religion and the History of Violence, The Bodley Head, 2014 p129]
Thursday, 31 August 2017
Can Church Father Quotations Reconstruct the New Testament?
This is an excerpt from Islamic Awareness
PATRISTIC CITATIONS CAN RECONSTRUCT THE ENTIRE NEW TESTAMENT
The claims that the numerical strength of the New Testament manuscripts give it textual reliability and that the Patristic citations can reconstruct the New Testament makes good sound-bites for Christian apologists. As for the latter claim, this is something that is oversold by Christian apologists. It is true that New Testament scholars and apologists have made this claim but a few of them have added caveat about the problems concerning constructing the text of Patristic citations. For example, Metzger says about the Patristic citations:
Indeed so extensive are these citations that if all the sources for our knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, they would be sufficient alone for the reconstruction of practically the entire New Testament.[21]
If this is indeed true then what is stopping the textual critics to go ahead and reconstruct the text of the New Testament on the basis of Patristic citations? This brings us to the caveat where Metzger and others have cautioned against over-enthusiasm. The caveat comes in the form of three problems one encounters when dealing with the Patristic citations.
The first problem in dealing with the Patristic citations is the order of the quotation of scriptures. The Fathers do not quote the New Testament chapter by chapter and verse by verse except in a few commentaries. They quote passages as they are useful in whatever argument they are making. So, the first step is to sort out their citations into an orderly fashion. This requires the production of critical texts of the citations which are now slowly in the process of getting published.[22]
The second problem is regarding the accuracy of the citation. Most fathers did not refer to manuscripts when they quoted scripture. They just used the wording they remembered. It goes without saying that reminiscences and allusions are of less value to the textual critic than specific citations of the very words of the scriptural passage.[23]
The third and the last problem is that of transmission. Just like we do not have the original autographs of the New Testaments, we no more have the original manuscript of Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian or Jerome. Ehrman says:
The other set of problems unique to Patristic sources concerns the history of their own transmission. The MS traditions of virtually all the church fathers show that later copyists tend to "correct" quotations of the Bible to the form of text prevalent in their own day... Biblical citations in such sources do not necessarily represent the text of the Father, but often only known to his later copyists.[24]
Similarly, the Alands observe that:
It is as true of the New Testament quotations in the Church Fathers as it is of the versions that they are often misjudged and consequently misused. The route from a modern edition of a Church Father's works back to the text which he read in his New Testament may be long and tortuous... But even when a modern critical edition is available there is no certainty that it preserves the New Testament quotations of a work as they occurred in its original form.[25]
Since these writings have their own history, before we can treat these citations as reliable and trustworthy, they must be subjected to textual criticism. As R. M. Grant a few decades ago said, "patristic citations are not citations unless they have been adequately analyzed."[26] Such an analysis should attempt at least two things; firstly, to gather all the data from the literary remains of each Father and, as much as possible, reconstruct his biblical text and secondly to evaluate the Father's citing habits in various kinds of works for accuracy of quotation. And this should be done before the evidence of the Father is brought to court.[27]
Given these problems, the Patristic citations are nevertheless quite useful, unlike manuscripts, in determining both where and when a particular author wrote. Many of the Fathers are early. Their texts predate many of the early manuscript witnesses. Thus their testimony can enable us to localize particular readings and text-types.
As one can now judge, the popular statement that the New Testament can be reconstructed solely from the citations of the early Church Fathers is rather far-fetched. Given these problems, what role do the Church Fathers' citations actually play in modern critical editions of the New Testament? They play no more than a 'supplementary and corroborative function' according to the Alands and others. The Alands say
5. The primary authority for a critical textual decision lies with the Greek manuscript tradition, with the versions and Fathers serving no more than a supplementary and corroborative function, particularly in passages where their underlying Greek text cannot be reconstructed with absolute certainty.[28]
In other words, the Patristic citations can't overrule the readings present in the manuscripts except where there is an uncertainty. Readings with exclusively Patristic support struggle to make it into the critical apparatus of a critical edition of the Greek New Testament, let alone ever being considered as an actual verse of the New Testament! So, the claim that the Patristic citations can completely reconstruct the New Testament, without reference or recall to any other form of evidence, is overstated and far-fetched and constitutes more wishful thinking on the part of the missionaries and apologists.
For instance, let us examine the selection procedure behind the recently released Novum Testamentum Graecum Editio Critica Maior (1997 – initial volume), a critical edition of the New Testament under the supervision of the Barbara Aland at the Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung at Münster, Germany. What makes this critical edition of the New Testament particularly distinctive are the comparatively vast number of witnesses cited. With regard to the Patristic quotations, Barbara Aland states:
In addition to these primary witnesses, the edition includes all the Greek patristic quotations to the time of John of Damascus (7th/8th century) plus some important later authors. The difficult task of distinguishing between quotations and allusions is somewhat alleviated by the fact that the edition contains all the textual variants found in the manuscript tradition of the first millennium. The text of the Letter of James preserved in the writings of the Fathers corresponds in most instances to variants known in the manuscript tradition; in other New Testament writings the situation may differ. Readings with exclusively patristic support are cited only rarely, and usually then only if they are attributed to manuscripts which no longer survive. (Allusions have been considered only if they clearly reflect a known reading).
Attempts have been made in the past to reconstruct parts of New Testament text using the Patristic citations. For example, D. Mollat used the views and the resultant reconstruction of the Gospel of John by of M. -E. Boismard for his translation in the Jerusalem Bible. Boismard's views lead to the acceptance of the shorter version of the text of John in almost every case, even when the Patristic sources stand alone in the attestation of this text. Subsequently, articles by Fee and Metzger have been directed against Mollat's overly zealous appropriation of the Patristic evidence for his translation.[29]
We conclude with Ehrman's terse statement that elegantly sums up both the strengths and weaknesses of patristic evidence.
Patristic sources provide primary evidence for the history of the text but only secondary evidence for the original text itself.[30]
Monday, 15 May 2017
An Interesting Quote on the Gospel of Mark
Quote sourced from Ijaz Ahmed
"One final note is due concerning the Gospel of Mark. Ironically, the earliest gospel has not been preserved in very many early manuscripts. And to add to the irony (and mystery), Mark is traditionally said to have taken his gospel with him to Egypt (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.16)—and yet there are hardly any early extant copies of Mark among the many discoveries of manuscripts in Egypt. The earliest copy of Mark is preserved in 𝔓45, but it is not a very faithful copy.
In the book of Mark especially, the scribe of 𝔓45 exerted many personal liberties in making a text that replicated more the thought of his exemplar than the actual words. As is well known, 𝔓45 has marked affinities with the fifth-century manuscript, W. The more ''normal" text of Mark is preserved in one early fourth-century manuscript, 𝔓88, and two later fourth-century manuscripts, א and B. Until there are more discoveries of early copies of Mark, it is difficult to reconstruct the early history of the text." - New Testament Text and Translation Commentary, Philip W. Comfort, xviii.
Christians having dreams and converting to Islam
Learn about Islam
Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
"One final note is due concerning the Gospel of Mark. Ironically, the earliest gospel has not been preserved in very many early manuscripts. And to add to the irony (and mystery), Mark is traditionally said to have taken his gospel with him to Egypt (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.16)—and yet there are hardly any early extant copies of Mark among the many discoveries of manuscripts in Egypt. The earliest copy of Mark is preserved in 𝔓45, but it is not a very faithful copy.
In the book of Mark especially, the scribe of 𝔓45 exerted many personal liberties in making a text that replicated more the thought of his exemplar than the actual words. As is well known, 𝔓45 has marked affinities with the fifth-century manuscript, W. The more ''normal" text of Mark is preserved in one early fourth-century manuscript, 𝔓88, and two later fourth-century manuscripts, א and B. Until there are more discoveries of early copies of Mark, it is difficult to reconstruct the early history of the text." - New Testament Text and Translation Commentary, Philip W. Comfort, xviii.
Christians having dreams and converting to Islam
Learn about Islam
Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
Saturday, 4 March 2017
1 John 2:22 Manuscript Discussion
Recently, there was a bit of online fuss over a 1 John 2:22 manuscript. The argument made was casting doubt on whether the highlighted portion (bold) of 1 John 2:22 was part of the original text.
Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son. [1 John 2:22]
It is true for this particular manuscript the saying "Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son" is "missing". It ends at: ουκ εστιν ισ
The manuscript exists although, I understand, Mustafa Ahmed's article initially got the nomenclature mixed up hence the difficulty and confusion in finding the relevant manuscript. No need for anybody to call Mustafa a liar here. It exists, his article wasn't making all this up. Those who did resort to such finger pointing need to apologise for false witness.
OK, but is it an argument with efficacy? I am not convinced. There's a lot of confusion around this manuscript.
1. The first bout of confusion arises, from the reader's view point, due to the automatic assumption that it is written on papyrus, paper or parchment (as most NT manuscripts are). It's actually written on clay. It's a piece of pottery (material ostracron):
Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son. [1 John 2:22]
It is true for this particular manuscript the saying "Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son" is "missing". It ends at: ουκ εστιν ισ
The manuscript exists although, I understand, Mustafa Ahmed's article initially got the nomenclature mixed up hence the difficulty and confusion in finding the relevant manuscript. No need for anybody to call Mustafa a liar here. It exists, his article wasn't making all this up. Those who did resort to such finger pointing need to apologise for false witness.
OK, but is it an argument with efficacy? I am not convinced. There's a lot of confusion around this manuscript.
1. The first bout of confusion arises, from the reader's view point, due to the automatic assumption that it is written on papyrus, paper or parchment (as most NT manuscripts are). It's actually written on clay. It's a piece of pottery (material ostracron):
Having seen it one automatically knows that it's no big deal that it does not carry the sentence "Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son". It's a small fragment of pottery, there's no reason why it should contain the whole verse. This can only be concluded once the fragment is seen rather than relying on a database of the text on each manuscript. It's a good learning experience for everybody.
2. Secondly, Codex Sinaiticus is older than this piece and Codex Sinaiticus contains the whole of 1 John 2:22.
The article states:
"between ~300 CE and 600 CE, this folio (page) falls into the earlier period of ~300 CE. This is the earliest manuscript of 1 John we have" Mustafa Apologist
The earliest date is used from a given range but it's dated to be mid to late 5th century here and University College London range it from 395CE and beyond.
It's later than Codex Sinaiticus.
I don't believe the argument in Mustafa Ahmed's article is a convincing argument due to it being built on premises that have not been fully or clearly established. It's an adventurous effort to inject a new argument into the bloodstream of polemics but right now caution is the watchword. Perhaps that argument can be revised in some way albeit I personally don't see a legitimate route for this argument to be carried further.
Hey, why was a new route even necessary? Are these words from Jesus? Isn't 1 John anonymous? Does 1 John carry any authority?
The author doesn't appear to be a Trinitarian!
If there was an oral tradition floating around, which the author of 1 John based this statement of whoever denies the Son has denied the Father on we don’t know the context of the statement. Christians readily admit they don't know the context of purported quotes of Jesus: "..the well-known fact that we often do not have the original context in which Jesus’ sayings were spoken, much less their precise wording" [William Lane Craig]
In addition, if there’s some Prophetic grounding to the statement, it's not an un-Islamic statement as it would appear to be a teaching of whoever denies the Prophet of God has denied God. Isn't that what people who reject the messengers of God essentially wind up doing?
Faith Change: Islam rapidly grows as Christianity declines in UK
Slovakians converting to Islam
Notes from Sean Finnegan's interview with Patrick Navas: Is the Trinity Biblical
Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?
Why Islam
Slovakians converting to Islam
Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?
Why Islam
Friday, 24 February 2017
Do Jay Smith's Pfander Centre for Apologetics Really Preach Trinitarian Views on Jesus?
 |
| Will secularised Trinitarians admit they believe Jesus uses violence? |
Secularised Christians like those at Pfander Films (Jay Smith, Beth Grove, Lizzie Schofield, Hatun Tash and Sarah Foster) are thought to believe in the 4th century doctrine of the Trinity but seemingly teach Jesus does not use violence and force but upon closer examination of their texts and their theology it's quite obvious the secularised Christians at Pfander are not presenting views which are consistent with Trinitarian exegesis of the Bible.
Before we have a look at some texts in the New Testament let's have a look at some texts in the Old testament. Trinitarian Christians believe Jesus (as the second person of their triune Godhead doctrine) ordered the killing and destruction of whole towns if some people amongst them called to the worship of other gods:
12“When you begin living in the towns the LORD your God is giving you, you may hear 13that scoundrels among you are leading their fellow citizens astray by saying, ‘Let us go worship other gods’—gods you have not known before. 14In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find that the report is true and such a detestable act has been committed among you, 15you must attack that town and completely destroyb all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. 16Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the open square and burn it. Burn the entire town as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. 17Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a large nation, just as he swore to your ancestors. [Deut 13]
Trinitarians also believe Jesus ordered the killing of apostates from one's own family if they began preaching the worship of other gods:
6 “If your brother, the son of your mother, your son or your daughter, the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, secretly entices you, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which you have not known, neither you nor your fathers, 7 of the gods of the people which are all around you, near to you or far off from you, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth, 8 you shall not consent to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him or conceal him; 9 but you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. 10 And you shall stone him with stones until he dies, because he sought to entice you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. [Deut 13]
Trinitarians also believe Jesus ordered women and children to be killed:
2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” [1 Samuel 15]
Jesus ordered the killing of Midianite men, women and boys through Moses according to Trinitarian thought:
7 They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burnedall the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.
13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.
15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. [Numbers 31]
Some Trinitarians believe the Angel of the Lord in the OldTestament is a christophany, thus they believe the angel was Jesus. Do these Trinitarians believe Jesus put to death 185,000 Assyrians?
That night the angel of the LORD went out and put to death a hundred and eighty-five thousand in the Assyrian camp. When the people got up the next morning--there were all the dead bodies! [2 Kings 19:35]
I think that's enough to demonstrate the Westernised Trinitarian really isn't preaching actual Trinitarian beliefs. But what of the New Testament, does Jesus use force according to those texts?
13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.14 The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. 15 Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.”[a] He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. [Revelation 19]
Trinitarian Pastor Steven Anderson explains what is meant by treading on the winepress. He goes back to chapter 14:
19So the angel swung his sickle over the earth and loaded the grapes into the great winepress of God’s wrath. 20The grapes were trampled in the winepress outside the city, and blood flowed from the winepress in a stream about 180 milesd long and as high as a horse’s bridle.
The pastor teaches Jesus is responsible for a judgement that brings forth a river of blood that stretches for about 200 miles and is as deep as a horse's bridle. The pastor's fellow Trinitarian in Phoenix, James White, openly admits Trinitarians believe freedom of religion will be ended when Jesus returns.
I'd be very interested in knowing if the people at the Pfander Centre for Apologetics are willing to discuss these issues and openly admit they believe Jesus uses violence according to the Trinitarian worldview. I suspect they will just remain silent on this as it affects the donations they get from other secularised Christians and I guess they feel it will impact their efforts to convert people to worship Jesus (a human being!) and believe in the Bible and the Trinity doctrine.
Look, if you're a Trinitarian please think about these points. At the end of the day it's important for you to know that Western secularism is not Christianity. Look into this, Islam and the Trinity doctrine for yourselves. Think about it. Pray about it
As for the Christians at Pfander Centre for Apologetics I'd really ask you to do the same. I'd especially ask Lizzie Schofield, Sarah Foster and Hatun Tash (the ones who may not have financial ties to that evangelical organisation) to just look around. You're all living in Britain, how many Christians do you really see around you. Be honest with yourselves. I'm hard pushed to find a Bible-believing Christian. Christianity is declining here and it's giving way to secularism (the Nones, those affiliated to no religion). Not to Islam. So this isn't an Islam vs Christianity thing. I've already written about how Jay Smith and other Christian polemicists against Islam are contributing to the apostasy of Christians. They are setting them up to stumble out of the Abrahamic tradition via the secular premises they build their arguments on. Please do read it and just ask yourself if you're contributing to this too. Don't you not think you will be responsible before God if you lead somebody to stumble into Atheism?
For any serious-minded Christians who have felt this post to be somewhat eye-opening please don't hesitate to contact me via email. Thanks.
Is Jesus Violent According to the Trinitarian View of the Bible?
I'd be very interested in knowing if the people at the Pfander Centre for Apologetics are willing to discuss these issues and openly admit they believe Jesus uses violence according to the Trinitarian worldview. I suspect they will just remain silent on this as it affects the donations they get from other secularised Christians and I guess they feel it will impact their efforts to convert people to worship Jesus (a human being!) and believe in the Bible and the Trinity doctrine.
Look, if you're a Trinitarian please think about these points. At the end of the day it's important for you to know that Western secularism is not Christianity. Look into this, Islam and the Trinity doctrine for yourselves. Think about it. Pray about it
As for the Christians at Pfander Centre for Apologetics I'd really ask you to do the same. I'd especially ask Lizzie Schofield, Sarah Foster and Hatun Tash (the ones who may not have financial ties to that evangelical organisation) to just look around. You're all living in Britain, how many Christians do you really see around you. Be honest with yourselves. I'm hard pushed to find a Bible-believing Christian. Christianity is declining here and it's giving way to secularism (the Nones, those affiliated to no religion). Not to Islam. So this isn't an Islam vs Christianity thing. I've already written about how Jay Smith and other Christian polemicists against Islam are contributing to the apostasy of Christians. They are setting them up to stumble out of the Abrahamic tradition via the secular premises they build their arguments on. Please do read it and just ask yourself if you're contributing to this too. Don't you not think you will be responsible before God if you lead somebody to stumble into Atheism?
For any serious-minded Christians who have felt this post to be somewhat eye-opening please don't hesitate to contact me via email. Thanks.
Is Jesus Violent According to the Trinitarian View of the Bible?
This video is also uploaded here and here
Synoptic Gospels and the Idea of a Pre-Existent Jesus?
Blog: Aggressive Sid Cordle and Lizzie Schofield on Mary Worship and The Quran
Paula Fredriksen: Paul was NOT a Trinitarian
Thoughts on Lizzie Schofield's blog on Pakistan's ban of Valentines Day
Blog: Aggressive Sid Cordle and Lizzie Schofield on Mary Worship and The Quran
Notes from Sean Finnegan's interview with Patrick Navas: Is the Trinity Biblical
Synoptic Gospels and the Idea of a Pre-Existent Jesus?
Blog: Aggressive Sid Cordle and Lizzie Schofield on Mary Worship and The Quran
Paula Fredriksen: Paul was NOT a Trinitarian
Thoughts on Lizzie Schofield's blog on Pakistan's ban of Valentines Day
Blog: Aggressive Sid Cordle and Lizzie Schofield on Mary Worship and The Quran
Notes from Sean Finnegan's interview with Patrick Navas: Is the Trinity Biblical
Friday, 10 February 2017
Solas' Andy Bannister Presenting Intellectually Dishonest Arguments on New Testament Reliability
To be fair to Dr Andy Bannister, he may not know how bad this argument of appealing to the number of NT manuscripts is. Sadly, there are so many Christian apologists repeating this suggestion the numer of NT manuscripts correlates with the reliability of the New Testament. I've clipped Dr Bart Ehrman to address this common claim in evangelical Christian apologetics.
If the video does not play, it has also bee uploaded here and here.
A Muslim's Thoughts on Solas CPC's + Other Christian Campagins Against Same Sex Marriage in the UK
Did Ignatius Teach the Trinity?
Thoughts on the Hamza Myatt, Liz Mooney, Chris Claus and Jonathan McLatchie Exchanges
If the video does not play, it has also bee uploaded here and here.
A Muslim's Thoughts on Solas CPC's + Other Christian Campagins Against Same Sex Marriage in the UK
Did Ignatius Teach the Trinity?
Thoughts on the Hamza Myatt, Liz Mooney, Chris Claus and Jonathan McLatchie Exchanges
Thursday, 21 April 2016
Muslim Discusses John 3:16 - Aqil Onque
IN THE NAME OF ALLAH, THE MOST GRACIOUS THE MOST MERCIFUL
THE CHRISTIAN LIE OF BLOOD AND SACRIFICIAL ATONEMENT AND JOHN 3:16
In refuting the current day Christian Apologist and polemist, I will be looking a bit deeper at the pivotal verse of Christian faith and doctrine found in the book of John, 3:16. This may in fact be the most quoted verse in the Bible, while also the most misunderstood or misplaced one as well. The Christian propagates this verse and hails it at the nonbeliever at any chance possible. But, it is the false notion and misunderstanding in which they assault people that is the problem, as we will come to see here.
The aforementioned verse is not an isolated verse that can be cited without looking at the doctrinal implications behind it, or the contradiction thereof. And, though many things are left for interpretation, the Bible enthusiasts love to decorate this verse with all of the extra curricula doctrine that was not taught by Jesus himself. For instance, they love to imply that this verse is referring to the alleged death and resurrection of Jesus. However, such a doctrine and belief was NEVER taught by Jesus. We are hard pressed to find any teaching of Jesus, from the words of Jesus, that his mission was to come and die and be resurrected for the sins of man to be forgiven. Rather, it is Paul who said that, “If Christ was not raised, then your faith is in vain…” 1 Corr 15:14-17. But given this Pauline reality and teaching, everything is viewed through his theology and doctrine. Just look at the fact that John 3:16 does not have any mention of Jesus dying or being raised up. Rather, it just mentions that out of the love of God, He gave Jesus. Yet, for some reason, no Christian will quote this verse without telling you that it means the death and resurrection of Jesus! Why? Because they have been brainwashed and indoctrinated to do so. Putting this aside, let us look at some of the theological consequences and relationships of John 3:16 with Christian doctrine.
I would like to examine this verse in relation to five core Christian beliefs, and then refute each of these beliefs as non biblical and contradictory, all the while connecting it to the conclusion of John 3:16, while showing that John 3:16, in fact, does not support such false claims, not even the love of God as the bible thumper tries to impress upon us. The five core beliefs are as follows:
1. The sole need of blood for atonement (fabrication)
2.
The human god sacrifice (fabrication)
3.
The Original sin (fabrication)
4.
The holy God versus the unholy man (fabrication)
5.
The unconditional love and forgiveness
(fabrication)
Before we explore these five core Christian beliefs,
let us first have a look at the verse in John under discussion.
“For
God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes
in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).
There are four clear declarations in this verse,
namely:
1
That God loved the world
2
That, because of this love, God gave
His son
3
That God only has One and only One son
4
And that whoever believes in this son,
will not perish but have everlasting life.
A few words about these points, before we look at our
five core Christian beliefs in relation to the verse itself and the idea of the
love, unconditional love of God as implied and declared by Christians.
When we truly
examine this and the Christian doctrine, we must conclude that this expression
of love is either a farce and a lie, or that the god of John 3:16 has failed
miserably in truly expressing his love. Why is that, do you ask? Consider this.
The verse clearly connects the fact that the son was given, due to the love of
God for the world. In other words,
giving the son was God’s way of expressing His love to the world. But, the problem arises in a related doctrine
of the Christian, which is in Predestination. The Christian believes that it is solely God
that elects His believers and man has absolutely no role in receiving the grace
of God. This is most clear in the
statement of Paul in Ephesians 2:8-9. If
it is God alone that elects those who will believe, without any action of man
that would warrant election or rejection, then this expression of giving the
son, so that to believe in him would allow for eternal life, all because of the
love of God for the world, is a hoax and a lie! How could anyone benefit from the son, when
ultimately, God is the one that elects those who will in fact believe? This
idea is akin to saying, if I have ten or more children and I promised to buy
them all new cars because of my love for them, but I know that I will only
allow a few of them to drive, while the others will never be able to, then how
is this act of buying them cars a true expression of my love? For my expression
brings absolutely no benefit to them, which means that either, my expression of
loving in giving them the cars (giving his son) was either a deceptive lie, or
I failed in truly loving them all as I stated, for I was only able to benefit a
few, in spite of my statement to all. And
the intent for benefit is clearly made clear, for accepting the son is what is
said will allow for eternal life. Evidently, God’s intent was to benefit by the
giving of the son. But in what way did
those benefit, who were never elected by God? So it is clear that this verse and what it
attempts to propose is inconsistent and incongruous with what was stated by
Paul in Ephesians 2:8-9.
The next two points; one is the idea that God gave His
son. Was this giving of His son freely
and unconditional? What was the mission of his son? Did the son know his
mission? Was this mission ever declared by God? Was this mission ever declared
by the Son? What does son mean here? Is
this some special kind of son? Which
joins the us to the point of this verse in which it says that he is the one and
Only son, only begotten son! In actual fact, God has many sons in the Bible! Adam is called the son of God. Angels are called the sons of God. So, what is it about this sonship that is so
special? Could it be the idea that Jesus was the only begotten son? Well, this is false also, as God himself declares
that he had begotten David, Psalms
2:7. Thus, it is impossible for God to
have only one begotten son since there are more than one begotten sons clearly
attributed to God in the Bible.
Lastly, let’s look
at the idea that believing in the son brings everlasting life. Well, again, according
to Christian doctrine, God is the sole decider of those elect. Man has absolutely no part to play in the
election of God. Thus, believing in the
son means nothing, because if God didn’t elect you, your belief means nothing.
It would just be a wasted life and this is most evident in the words of Jesus
in the book of Matthew, 7:21-23, where he says:
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord,
Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of
my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that
day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out
demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I
will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
So,
it becomes quite clear that the Christian finds himself in a serious quagmire.
On the one hand, he wants to believe in Christ for salvation, even though he
really has no ability to decide this since only God chooses the elect. Furthermore, if in fact he did believe, this
belief of his does not assure him salvation as was promised, due to the fact
that many will be rejected by Christ! So,
basically, damned if you don’t and maybe damned if you do as well. As we can see, it is not such a win-win
situation as the Christians might espouse it to be. Good luck!
Now
that we have briefly dealt with John 3:16, let us turn our attention to the
five core Christian beliefs that fail to measure up against the verse under
discussion and are either contradicted by it, or contradict it. Through this,
we will be able to conclude that the Christian doctrine and faith ultimately
fails because it is a self defeating doctrine and theology from the position of
its scripture and non-scripture based beliefs.
1.
THE
SOLE NEED OF BLOOD FOR ATONEMENT (FABRICATION)
The Christian has
been tricked and programmed into accepting a completely fabricated doctrine as
it relates to the scriptural position on atonement and the use of blood. The Christian
new blood doctrine absolutely stresses the fact that blood is the ONLY means to
forgiveness and that without blood, there is no remission of sin. This idea is found in the book of Hebrews,
9:22.
However, there are
a number of problems with this belief. First
and foremost, such an understanding was never believed or understood by the Jewish
community at any time in history and this is a very essential point to consider.
Furthermore, there is NOTHING in the Old
Testament that supports such an exaggerated and forged belief. Rather, the Old Testament states the opposite
and promotes repentance and forgiveness without any blood sacrifice. For example, refer to Ez. 33:11-16, Ez. 18:20-24,
2Chr. 7:14, Is. 55:7, Hos. 6:6, Ps. 51:17, 1Sam. 15:22, and others. We see in these verses that blood is not at
all a necessity for atonement and forgiveness. On the contrary, the Old Testament clearly
states that one can easily petition God for forgiveness through prayer and
repentance while never needing to use any blood sacrifice. Moreover, any use of a blood sacrifice would
and could never be completed without prayer and petitioning God for atonement.
Then, here comes Christianity and turns this practice completely upside down so
that they can usher in this exclusively blood atonement doctrine that could
only be satisfied by the sacrifice of the blood of a human god, an incarnate
god!
Further, the main
catalyst for this doctrine of blood atonement is found in the book of Hebrews
and it has become common knowledge that the scholars of the Bible agree almost
unanimously that the author of the book of Hebrews is UNKNOWN! Thus, we are
burdened with an unknown doctrine, presented by an unknown author! Are we really to take this seriously?
Another point to consider
is the fact that the sin offering was predominantly for “unintentional” sin. Though there are some cases in which it
extended outside of that, the common practice and stance was that it was for
unintentional sins, brought with confession for atonement. Please see, Lev. 5:14-19, Lev. 7:7-11, Num.
15:27-30 to substantiate this point. Since blood sacrifice was not required for
all sins and intentional and severe sins demanded much more than any blood
atonement could offer, how did we get to the doctrine that, without the
spilling of blood, there is no remission of sins? Who taught this ideology? Was it Abraham, Moses, or Jesus? Who? The author of the book of Hebrews, that’s who!
And who might that have been? I hope you understand the bewildering nature
of this issue now.
To close this
point, I would like to cite a very insightful verse from the Qur’an that truly
puts this discussion in its proper context. In Surah Hajj, 22:37, after
mentioning about the animals of sacrifice, though in a different context, but
very relevant in principle, it states:
“Their meat
will not reach ALLAH, nor will their blood, but what reaches Him is piety from
you. Thus have We subjected them to you that you may glorify ALLAH for that
[to] which He has guided you; and give good tiding to the doers of good.”
This verse makes
it quite clear that God is concerned with our obedience and devotion to Him,
not with the blood involved in any act. The
blood does not reach God; but rather, the demonstration and striving of the
servant to do their best to satisfy the commands of their Lord.
As we can see,
this verse of John 3:16 has almost no relevance when it comes to the issue of
blood atonement. If the Christians
insist that we, as humanity, needed an ultimate blood sacrifice, thus God,
knowing this, out of His love sent Jesus for this, then we have to beg the
question, did we in fact need a blood sacrifice for atonement in the first
place? The burden of proof is upon the
Christian to prove this! And we know
that can’t be done from the Old Testament, as we have proven! So, what do they have to prove their case? We
think nothing, but we will wait and see.
2.
THE HUMAN GOD SACRIFICE
(FABRICATION)
The great Christian reformer and theologian of
the 16th century, Martin Luther, commenting on the self loathing and
despised doctrine of Christianity, said the following; “The most damnable and
pernicious heresy that has ever plagued the mind of man is that somehow he can
make himself good enough to deserve to live with an all Holy God.”
Echoing such a mentality, the Christians berate
the world with quotes and doctrines of self loathing and self despised rhetoric
that traps the individual into a downward spiral of moral regress in order to build
up the human /god doctrine. To read some
of the earliest writings from the church fathers on how they viewed the self
and the world will make you lose your lunch in your lap if you were not
prepared. One can get a glimpse of this
sinister doctrine by reading the writings of Paul in the New Testament. For instance read the more famous support for
this in Romans 3:10-18. And then there
is the infamous quote, (always out of context), of Isaiah 64:6, in which it
states that our righteousness is like that of filthy rags. Such non contextual quotes, along with other
passages, have a twofold effect and both are ungodly and unproductive. The first is that such a pathetic disposition
prepares you for the blasphemous doctrine of incarnation of God. For one is so filthy, that God won’t even look
his way! Thus, the only way that God can
help man is if God becomes man! Then die,
so that the holy blood of the incarnate god can be spilled for the remission of
sins for man once and for all! The second effect is that such a doctrine
instills in the subconscious of the self a feeling of contentment with being
lowly and a lack of aspiration for rising above and challenging oneself to be
better in deeds before God. Why would
one exert oneself in good works when deeds are regarded as filthy rags anyway? So, remain pathetic and depend upon some
divine savior.
This doctrine is again in opposition to the Old
Testament teachings and understandings of the people for over thousands of years
before the New Testament and the new Christian faith. One will find explicit and strong verses like
Jeremiah 17:10, which states; “I the Lord search the heart and examine the
mind, to reward a man according to his conduct, according to what his deeds
deserve.” Such a verse, along with what
we read in Psalms 37:27-29 as well as many other verses, all show that God is
expecting good deeds from us. They are to
be done earnestly, as a token of deep gratitude to God and a petition to God
for His favor and reward, not in boast.
The new doctrines taught by the
Christians of this idea of self-worthlessness is paralyzing and un godly, to
say the least.
Now, let us look a bit at this need for a
human/god and its related belief. Given
that we have proven from the Bible that God actually encourages us to do good
works and to expect to be rewarded for it, we are in no need for God to come
down himself and save us. God does not
deem us unclean and unworthy; but rather, God wants to see the best from
us. He wants to bring out the best in us
and have us achieve our maximum human potential, which is to be as righteous
and faithful as possible. All for His glory! Not that we sit on our unholy bottoms waiting
for some savior to rescue us from our lowly despised states! NO! Rise
up and be counted and do your level best before God, for your salvation depends
on it! In the Qur’an, 17:13-14, God
says, “And [for] every person, We have imposed his fate upon his neck,
and We will produce for him on the day of Resurrection a record which he will
encounter spread open. [It will be said], Read your record! Sufficient is
yourself against you (or for you) this day as accountant.”
In conclusion of this second point, as this
relates to John 3:16, after looking at the historical picture of relationship
that man has with God in trying his best to work righteousness and earn His
favor, we see that we are not by default despised and filthy and unworthy
before God. Rather we have an honor and dignity that God gave us above
everything in creation, as is
beautifully articulated in the Qur’an when it states, 17:70, “Indeed, We
have honored, (dignified) the children of Adam…” So we sit not inept, but
empowered by God to be His representative and to lead the true way of life back
to Him. We are not pathetic and in need
of a savior to come die for our sins. What we are in need of is the Divine
Watch of our Lord and His guidance through His Scripture and Messengers and His
forgiveness as we traverse this path. Thus we conclude that the Bible itself,
the Old Testament and even passages in the New Testament refutes the idea of
John 3:16, as commonly interpreted to us by the bible thumpers.
THE ORIGINAL SIN (FABRICATION)
In what has remained to be the irrefutable refutation
of this Christian doctrine, the most clear and explicit verses of Ezekiel
18:1-24, we cite for you in this point.
“The word of the Lord came to me: “What do
you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel:
“ ‘The parents eat sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge’? “As
surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, you will
no longer quote this proverb in Israel.
For everyone belongs to me, the parent as well as the child—both alike belong
to me. The one who sins is the one who will die. “Suppose there is a righteous
man who does what is just and right. He does not eat at the mountain shrines or
look to the idols of Israel.
He does not defile his neighbor’s wife or have sexual relations with a woman
during her period. He does not oppress anyone, but returns what he took in
pledge for a loan. He does not commit robbery but gives his food to the hungry
and provides clothing for the naked. He does not lend to them at interest or
take a profit from them. He withholds his hand from doing wrong and judges
fairly between two parties. He follows my decrees and faithfully keeps my laws.
That man is righteous; he will surely live, declares the Sovereign Lord. “Suppose he has a violent son, who sheds blood or does
any of these other things (though the
father has done none of them): “He eats at the mountain shrines. He defiles his
neighbor’s wife. He oppresses the poor and needy. He commits robbery. He does
not return what he took in pledge. He looks to the idols. He does detestable
things. He lends at interest and takes a profit. Will such a man live? He will
not! Because he has done all these detestable things, he is to be put to death;
his blood will be on his own head. “But suppose this son has a son who sees all
the sins his father commits, and though he sees them, he does not do such
things: “He does not eat at the mountain shrines or look to the idols of Israel. He does
not defile his neighbor’s wife.
He does not oppress anyone or require a pledge
for a loan. He does not commit robbery but gives his food to the hungry and
provides clothing for the naked. He withholds his hand from mistreating the
poor and takes no interest or profit from them. He keeps my laws and follows my
decrees. He will not die for his father’s sin; he will surely live. But his
father will die for his own sin, because he practiced extortion, robbed his
brother and did what was wrong among his people. “Yet you ask, ‘Why does the
son not share the guilt of his father?’ Since the son has done what is just and
right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. The one
who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the
parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of
the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will
be charged against them. “But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins
they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right,
that person will surely live; they will not die. None of the offenses they have
committed will be remembered against them. Because of the righteous things they
have done, they will live. Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked?
declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased
when they turn from their ways and live? “But if a righteous person turns from
their righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the
wicked person does, will they live? None of the righteous things that person
has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness they are guilty of
and because of the sins they have committed, they will die.”
This is the Jewish teaching on sin! This was
Jesus teaching on sin! This was Moses and Aaron and all of the Prophets and
Messengers teaching on sin! So where did we get this doctrine of original sin
from? Yep, you guessed it. Paul again! As he make this doctrine clear in Romans
5:19 and most explicit in 1 Corinthians 15:22. But, how does he promote such a
doctrine so fundamentally opposed to the Jewish teaching? The secret to the
answer lies in the fact that Paul was adamant about being the appointed apostle
of Jesus that would preach to the Gentiles! Why? Because he knew quite well
that his new message could no way resonate with a serious Jewish audience. For
they knew such ideas as original sin, incarnate, human sacrifice and all of
these paganistic influences into their Jewish faith was unacceptable.
A quick consideration to ask you, as we discuss
original sin, that you keep in mind that this is the same doctrine responsible
for the corrupted belief that will put millions of innocent children into the
blaze of hell, all because of the fact that sin is supposedly inherited. And
because God is so holy and sin is so lowly, that even a baby who have not
accepted the only means of sin remission, which is the blood of Jesus, will be
cast into hell, because God can’t bear to look at him. Yes, an innocent baby is
not even spared from original sin. Just something to keep in mind
In conclusion of this third point, as it relate
to John 3:16, it is obviously clear that original sin doctrine is a concocted
heretical belief. This being proven by the extensive quote from Ezekiel
18:1-24. This being the case, if no one can die for the sin of another, then
what purpose would a savior who die for your sins be? Again, proving the fallacy of the verse of
John 3:16
THE HOLY GOD VERSUS THE UNHOLY MAN (FABRICATION)
Though this is not a doctrine of the Christians
as stated, the concept is one deeply entrenched into the thoughts and theology
of the Christians. Now, we will all proclaim the Exaltedness of God and how far
removed He is from being associated in being and essence with man! But never
will we stoop to such a low opinion of God, that he has made the human being so
vile and corrupt and wicked and filthy and stained and detestable and unworthy
and inept that the only way that this creation of His could ever receive
redemption and salvation is if God himself had to come and die!
How would you feel if your father considered you
so despicable that he didn’t even want
you to tell people you were his son? He was so ashamed of you that he could not
even bear to look at you! You were so
worthless, that no matter what you did, even of good, it amounted to absolutely
nothing? How would you feel? Well, try to understand that this is the way the
Christians view God over man. They may deny it, because who would in their
right mind accept such an idea? But, when you explore the theology and doctrine
of the Christians, this is what you will come up with! Such beliefs is the
essence of making the idea of the
incarnate god a savior for man. Have you ever talked with a Christian? Have you
ever heard him say, we are too unclean? What do you think he means? Ask him.
But in the meantime, lets quote again Martin Luther, the leader of the
Protestant reformation and movement of
the 16th century; he said:
“The most damnable and pernicious heresy that has ever plagued the mind
of man is that somehow he can make himself good enough to deserve to live with
an All Holy God.” And this is just one quote. There are literally tons of such
expressions from the early church fathers on this idea.
Now, the question that needs to be asked and
addressed is this, how did man ever have any kind of fruitful personal
relationship with God prior to the advent of Jesus? If the Christians believes
that God has such a loathing attitude towards man because he is stained with
sin, then how did man last the tolerance of God for so long? Of course, we see
a quite different narrative in the Old Testament, as well as the Qur’an. We
seen several quotes from the Old Testament, and here is one most intimate verse
about God and His relationship with man. In the Qur’an 2:186; “And when my
servant ask you [O Muhammad], concerning
Me, indeed I am near. I respond to the invocation of the supplicant when he
calls upon Me. So, let them respond to Me
[by obedience] and believe in Me that they may be [rightly]
guided.”
Now we are interested in the Christians
answering these questions, for it is their theology and doctrine that promotes
it. We would like to hear what they really have to say about it and their proof
texts from the Old Testament.
In conclusion of this fourth point, as it
relates to the verse John 3:16, if it is proven, and we believe that it is,
that the relationship between God and man was not as strained as the Christians
would have us to think, then there would be no need for a savior, as man could,
as he was turning to god in repentance long before the arrival and departure of
Jesus! Further, if this doctrine is true, then another question arises. Why
were the first followers of Jesus, even after his departure, still making sin
and guilt offerings? If Jesus act on the cross was the ultimate sacrifice, then
what were Peter and James and the others still making sacrifices at the temple?
It’s makes absolutely no sense! Just a bit more to think about and another
question to ask our Christian friends pushing the bible down your throat. Take
a minute to clear your throat, and ask a couple of questions yourself. So, we see again the failure of John 3:16.
What need was there for a savior, a divine savior, when man was already turning
to God for forgiveness? Forgiveness? That brings us to our next and final
point.
THE UNCONDITIONAL LOVE AND FORGIVENESS
(FABRICATION)
It would be such a nice flowery message to have
one believe, that no matter what, God loves you; this is especially the case
for the Christian since already they understand how loathsome they are to God
because of sin. Though the two beliefs are clearly contradictory to each other,
it seems that doesn’t cause much care to the Christian. But this is what their
faith adheres to. Now, the concept of love is probably thee greatest emphasis
of Christians as it relates to God, and it’s clear that John 3:16 has a great
deal to do with that. However, does the claim hold up? When we examine the
Christian doctrine and theology against the Old Testament passages we are faced
with some serious problems and these problems seems to never stop popping up. Here
I want to look at two main problems. The first is that, the view that the Christians
have of the love of God is not supported by the Old Testament. Which lends to
the belief that either God has changed, and changed drastically or that the New
Testament projection of God is a forged doctrine foreign to the earlier
revealed scriptures. And the second problem is that the concept of forgiveness
in the New Testament and amongst the Christians is misleading, even to a lie. For
if the idea that God MUST take every sin into account and that it MUST be
punished, then where is the reality of forgiveness in this? It’s nonexistent!
You cant have absolute retribution and at the same time claim forgiveness!
Now, let us explore these two problems facing
the Christian theology and doctrine and expose them for what they are.
The Christian, when asked about the love of God
will tell you that God love all and that Christians love all. But neither is
true, and this is proven from the Old Testament and the New Testament. For it
states in the Old Testament, Deut. 7:9-11, “Know therefore that the Lord your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his
covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his
commandments. But those who hate him he will repay to their face by
destruction; he will not be slow to repay to their face those who hate him.
Therefore, take care to follow the commands, decrees and laws I give you
today.” Does this sound
unconditional to you? God is faithful… keeping His covenant of love to… those
who love him and keep His commandments… Now, is this the same God of the New
Testament? Did something change along the way? Please help us understand how
all of a sudden now in the New Testament, supposedly, God loves everyone no
matter what.
How about Psalms 7:11 “God is a righteous
judge, a God who displays his wrath every day.”
These are verses that no Christian can explain
how they coincide with their concept of God, all the long in their delusion
they believe something contrary. It is for proofs like these that we really
have to scrutinize the New Testament message and the Christian doctrine. For it
fails the test, over and over again and presents an unsupported theology that
can’t be substantiated by or through the former scriptures. Unconditional love
from God is not a biblical concept and it never has been, until the Christians
arrived and tried to make this the message of Jesus decades to centuries later
after Jesus.
Then
there is the case of forgiveness, or should we say the absence of forgiveness.
While the doctrine of the Christian is staunch on the consequence of sin is
death and that no sin can go unpunished, they are either deluded or sinful
liars to turn around and try to preach that the god of this doctrine is also
forgiving. It’s impossible for both to
be true! If God is forgiving, then He won’t punish every sin, as He will
forgive. That’s the whole purpose of forgiving, so as to not punish for the sin
committed. However, if one insist that all sins must be punish, then by default
that eliminates any idea of forgiveness, for retribution was exacted. Look at
what it states in the Bible; 2 Chronicles 7:14, “If my people, who are
called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn
from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their
sin and will heal their land.” How
do we get around such explicit verses that crushes the Christian doctrine? If
there is any truth to the Old Testament, then we are forced to abandon the New
Testament. For they both can’t be correct. This reminds me of the piercing declaration
in the Qur’an 2:113 where it states, “The Jews say "The Christians have
nothing [true] to stand on," and the Christians say, "The Jews have
nothing to stand on," although they [both] recite the Scripture. Thus the
polytheists speak the same as their words. But Allah will judge between them on
the Day of Resurrection concerning that over which they used to differ.” Certainly, some insightful words to conclude
with, so reflect, will you!
In conclusion of this fifth point, as it
relates to John 3:16, we have seen that the God of the Old Testament has a
particular love that is reserved for those who love Him and keep His
commandments. That He is angry at the wicked and punishes them. Yet, at the
same time, he encourages His faithful to repent and do good deeds to petition
His forgiveness. This does not sound like the God of John 3:16, who promotes an unconditional love, yet has seen
the need to send himself to come die for all sins, because he needs to spill
blood to forgive. And again, if the Old Testament is true, which the Christians
believe is the case, then John 3:16 and a great deal of the New Testament
material can’t be true as well.
This concludes our look at 5 core beliefs of
the Christian faith and how they all are proofs against the often quoted verse
of John 3:16. Moreover, we showed how the Christian doctrine and theology is
filled with contradictory precepts and unsubstantiated claims. All of this
through textual proofs and sound reasoning, we provided. We now invite our Christian friends to go back
and investigate your doctrine and theology and correct it as needed and see
that your path is neither consistent with itself nor other previous scriptures.
This we hope is enough to awaken you all to the facts of your misguidance and
serve as an impetus to your finding the truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)