42 replies

  1. The question is what does it mean? How to interpret those “divine” revelations from late antiquity today.

    • @ Agnostic

      1. Quran with Quran
      2. Quran with Sunnah
      3. Quran with Ijmaa of the Companions
      4. Quran with Analogy
      5. Quran with Arabic linguistics

      a. Everything not regarding worship is permissible unless there is text to prove otherwise
      b. Everything is forbidden regarding worship unless there is text to prove otherwise.

      This was a known set up for 1,400 years. Works for anything you possibly bring up. Again research things before commenting.

      • Normal people of the 21st century shrug their shoulders and move on while the apostasy tsunami hits you in middle of preaching.

      • Another brilliant gem by the undecided voter! How can anyone not take this guy seriously?

      • @ Agnostic


        @ QB
        Agreed. He thought he had some “super deep” point about interpretation and when that was proven wrong that there are set rules for it all of a sudden we’re talking about apostasy? Okay…? Again moment like this is why his comments are largely ignored.

    • @Agnostic

      The answer is obvious, we interpret the revelations in Spanish. Paul was simply trying to misdirect us by his instruction to ignore the subtitles.

  2. But you don’t get the Biblical Jesus, the true Jesus of history. Your religion came 600 years too late and anachronistically gutted all the main doctrines and history of the true Jesus.

    Everyone knows the true Jesus was crucified and died on the cross in history and the tomb was empty on the 3rd day after his death, and His followers and two unbelievers (Saul of Tarsus and James, His half-brother) saw Him alive and some touched Him in His resurrected body. (the disciples in the Upper Room, Luke 24:39; Thomas – John 20:26-28)

    Jesus predicted His death and atonement at least 3 times. (Mark 8, 9, 10)

    Jesus said His death was an atonement for sin (Mark 10:45; Matthew 20:28)

    Jesus said He was the eternal Son of God sitting at the right hand of the Ancient of Days, with power. Mark 14:60-64

    Jesus said He was the Lord of the Sabbath. Mark 2:28 (claiming He is equal with Yahweh of Genesis 1-2)

    So, you don’t have the true Jesus.

    • You have a fake, pagan Jesus, not the Jesus of history. And unlike your fake, pagan Jesus, the true Prophet of God, Muhammad (pbuh) didn’t make false prophecies such as believing the world would end in the 1st century.

    • Ken forgets I was an evangelical Christian just like him for many years. His religion has more holes in it than a Swiss cheese.

      • You had some kind of religious experience in an Evangelical church; but if you are consistent with Islam, that means in reality there is no such thing as “the Holy Spirit” as defined by the NT and Evangelical faith. (also in RC and EO faith – the Holy Spirit is the 3rd person of the Trinity, who existed from all eternity past).

        So, you were not truly converted or did not have the Holy Spirit of the Holy Trinity, since you turned away, showing that you were never born again in the first place.

        “. . . I never knew you”. Jesus, Matthew 7:23

        2 Peter 2:21-22 – your nature was never changed.

        If you say that the Arminian or Roman Catholic view is true, that you really had it, but lost it; ok, but that is still inconsistent with Islam, for if Islam is really true, then there is no such thing as a born again experience or the Holy Spirit, – all Christians are just deceived and deluded all these centuries.

        I don’t mean this to be insulting or denigrating, just taking logic to its ultimate conclusion, if you really think Islam is a reality.

      • “His religion has more holes in it than a Swiss cheese.”

        In your opinion.

        I disagree. Obviously.

        Jesus promised peace, forgiveness of sins, and eternal life through true repentance and faith in Him.
        John 14:27
        Matthew 11:27-30
        Romans 5:1-11
        John 5:24

        1 John 2:25 –
        “This is the promise which He Himself made to us: eternal life.”

      • “all Christians are just deceived and deluded all these centuries. ”

        Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.

      • Mr. Williams, what about the Baha’i Faith which has roots in Islam? Have you studied the life and teachings of Bahaulla?

      • No I have not. Why do you ask?

    • Even St Paul believed that Jesus in his ascended glory was not God, because the head of Christ is God.

      “I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of every woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God,” 1 Cor. 11:3.

    • //too late and anachronistically gutted all the main doctrines and history of the true Jesus.//
      Actually this’s the definition of christianity when we contrast it with the Hebrew bible.

  3. MashaAllah thanks for sharing Paul!

    After reading the Gospels then followed by the Quran and reading about Muhammad (p) i was convinced of the Quran as being a genuine revelation of God that expressed the historical character of Jesus as articulated in the teachings of Islam

    This may seem a little strange to some, but after reading books by Horbury, Hurtado, Dunn, Erhman, Sanders, Vermas and many others on the topic of Jesus, my certainty increased even further in believing Jesus to be The Messiah, Prophet and Messenger of God, son of Mary as portrayed in Quran and Hadith. Wish i had time to explain. Maybe some day inshaAllah

    • @ Omar


    • And yet all of them,

      [I don’t know about Horbury – not familiar with him; I googled and found a William Horbury, professor of Hebrew and OT at Cambridge – is that who you refer to?),

      William Horbury (born 1942) is Professor of Jewish and Early Christian Studies and a Fellow of Corpus Christi College at Cambridge University.]

      I bet he also believes that Jesus died on the cross in history, etc.

      but all the rest, believe the historical Jesus of Nazareth was crucified and died on the cross around 30 AD, by the instigation of the Jewish leadership and carrying out of it by orders of Pontius Pilate.

      They all believe the tomb was empty and that the disciples had some kind of experiences (visions, etc.) of the risen Christ.

      All of that contradicts Islam and the Qur’an.

      • We believe he was saved miraculously.
        Just like Ehrman rejects the resurrection based on historical grounds that don’t allow the supernatural in that same way he rejects the idea of jesus not being crucified because his conclusion is not basee on the supernatural. If you reject the crucifixion on that basis then stary rejecting the ressurection which Paul says will make your faith in vain if you do so.

      • But anyone can come along 600 years and say about a eye witnessed testified event:
        “oh, that was a trick; an illusion; they just think they saw that or felt that, or heard that”

        The Qur’an claim does not pass the evidence or historical or reason or logic test.

      • “But anyone can come along 600 years and…”
        Dear God, it’s like you’re doing that on purpose just to seem funny of being a broken record.
        And no it’s not just 600 years later. Even the Tenakh has the Messiah coming close to death but getting saved.
        Come up with something better Kenny.

      • Truth never changes.

        All you have is one man’s claim. (Muhammad)

        We have 9 authors of the NT books that agree with each other.
        We have 4 for the gospels, like 4 eyewitness of a traffic accident and each one recording from their own angle and perspective.

        4 to 9 witnesses is better than 1, especially one that comes along 600 years later, in a land hundreds of miles away from the events, and does not know the details, but knows a few hearsay things, and then later his successors find out, “oops, our book affirms the Gospel and Torah, and Zobur (Psalms of David), and yet contradicts most of the details; oops; we have to come up with the Tahreef تحریف doctrine.”

      • O Kenny let me educate you some more.

        First of all you have exactly ZERO eyewitness accounts. The gospel writers copy from the earlier ones.
        Secondly you go back to your original claim of historicity when the argument was that it’s a MIRICALE and hence the historical counter argument fails.
        Thirdly the ‘hearsay’ STATEMENT you make like a good broken record xtian is pathetic at best. Even the Qur’an makes it clear that the Prophet was aware of the claim of Jesus being crucified. So how is the braindead statement of ‘hearsay’ with zero basis even relevant in this case??? It’s not.
        Fourthly you say ‘later his successors find out…’ which again is irrelevant to the crucifixion and not to mention false since Ibn Abbas (a companion of the Prophet) said the following (hadiths taken from call-to-monotheism.com):
        Narrated ‘Ikrima:
        Ibn ‘Abbaas said, “How can you ask the people of the Scriptures about their Books while you have Allah’s Book (the Qur’an) which is the most recent of the Books revealed by Allah, and you read it in its pure undistorted form?” (Saheeh Bukhari
        Volume 9, Book 93, Number 613)

        And also:
        Narrated by Sa’eed ibn Juabair: Ibn Abbaas said: The kings after the time of Jesus the son of Mary peace be upon him substituted the Torah and Gospel and there used to be amongst them believers who were reading the Torah. It was said to the kings: We do not find an insult greater than the insult of those that read “And those who do not rule by what Allah has revealed, they are disbelievers” and their recitation of these similar kind of verses which they shame us with in our daily activities. So tell them to read just as what we read and let them believe just as we believe.’ So the king summoned them and gathered them together. He proposed either death to them or that they leave the recitation of the Torah and Gospel except what they substitute in place of it. (Sunan Al Nisaa’i, hadith no. 5305)

        Ibn Kathir reports Uthman Ibn ‘Affan as saying:
        Because they (the Jews) distorted the Torah. They added to it what they liked and erased from it what they hated and they erased the name of Muhammad peace be upon him from the Torah and for that Allah became angry. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Commentary on Surah 2:79)

        The Prophet himself said:
        The Bani Israel wrote a book, they followed it and left the Torah. (This hadith was reported in Tabarani’s Al Mu’jam Al Awsat and was authenticated by Sheikh Nasr Al Deen Al Albani in his Silsila Al Ahaadeeth Al Saheeha, hadith no. 2832.)

        The Prophet peace be upon him also said:

        The Bani Israel as a long time passed and their hearts became hardened, they invented a book from themselves. It took over their hearts and their tongues. (This hadith was reported in Al Bayhaqi’s Shu’b Al Eemaan, Volume 2, no.439. Sheikh Nasr Al Deen Al Albani has authenticated this hadith in his Silsila Al Ahaadeeth Al Saheeha, hadith no. 2694.)

        And fifth you conveniently ignore your own scripture (or rather the Jews their scripture which you butcher to an insane degree to fit your own religion) the Tenakh which mentions the Messiah getting saved.
        And sixth you have the audacity to talk about Muslims later supposedly inventing a doctrine of previous scriptures being corrupted (even though I shred this statement to pieces above) while you people practically rape the verses in your bible to fit your false doctrines like the trinity and Jesus allegedly being God while he is clearly not as shown by numerous clear verses just like the NT authors mutilated the OT verses to make the NT fit the Jewish scriptures while they clearly don’t (like Ezekiel denying a last perfect sacrifice that xtians preach or the countless of failed prophecies). Or gospel writers like the unknown Matthew copying Mark and changing things to make Jesus more ‘impressive’.
        What a failed attempt by Kenny.

        Truth never changes indeed. Too bad it’s never on your side.

        Oops, Kenny gets wrecked again.

      • Why would Muhammad (pbuh) have decided to claim that Jesus (pbuh) was not crucified when everyone seemed to believe that? If he was an impostor, you would expect him to just go along with the story. It wouldn’t make sense for him to go against 600 years of conjecture about an obscure execution. The fact that he did shows that he was merely saying what he was being told from a divine source. And we know it’s a divine source because, unlike your fake pagan Jesus, Muhammad (pbuh) proved he was a prophet of God.

      • I think what Ken and christians forget regarding the crucifixion of Jesus is that it matters only because it bears a theological meaning behind it(i.e. God came to earth to die for people), and this’s theological belief CANNOT be proven historically. If we want to move on to the resurrection, the case is really closed. There’s no way to prove that historically because it’s a miracle, and some miracles by definition and nature are not compatible with the historical analysis and its tools.
        The earliest account for the resurrection is Paul, and Paul seems to lean the spiritual resurrection not as what christians understand today,and that’s in case we approve Paul to be truthful which is not case.

        You see Ken, the book of Jude has account about Moses assumption. “The Assumption of Moses is usually dated to the 1st century BC. Moses probably lived and died mid-13th century BC. The historical gap is enormous. Conservative Christians do not usually hesitate to accept this story as historical simply because it is in the Bible. Yet historians will tell you it is apocryphal”. However, you don’t give a big deal about Moses and his death because there’s no a theological belief behind it.

        Let’s say that some disciples had believed that Jesus got crucified although we don’t have any eyewitness among the authors in whole NT, that would not mean that they actually believed that God came to earth to die for their sins! These are 2 separate matters.

        Regarding the prophethood of the prophetﷺ, let me put in this way, if we are gonna discuss a person who adopts the concept of Deism, then there’s no better if it’s not the only evidence for the prophethood than the prophethood of the prophetﷺ. There’s no other example you can debate with other than the case of the prophetﷺ. All other examples are beyond the historical analysis and its tools. Because of the prophetﷺ, we can believe in other prophets now. We are (Our Ummah is Shuhadaa’) witnesses over mankind.

        “And thus we have made you a just community that you will be witnesses over the people and the Messenger will be a witness over you.” QT

        “Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said, “Noah and his nation will come (on the Day of Resurrection and Allah will ask (Noah), “Did you convey (the Message)?’ He will reply, ‘Yes, O my Lord!’ Then Allah will ask Noah’s nation, ‘Did Noah convey My Message to you?’ They will reply, ‘No, no prophet came to us.’ Then Allah will ask Noah, ‘Who will stand a witness for you?’ He will reply, ‘Muhammad and his followers (will stand witness for me).’ So, I and my followers will stand as witnesses for him (that he conveyed Allah’s Message).” That is, (the interpretation) of the Statement of Allah: “Thus we have made you a just and the best nation that you might be witnesses Over mankind “

  4. @ Ken

    1. What QB said easier to go with the story then against it.

    2. Miracles cannot be proven historically. It goes against the very essence of historical analysis which is taking all evidence and forming a conclusion. History is an analysis of probabilities and a miracle (by its definition) is the least likely thing one would think of.

    3. There are no eyewitness or historical accounts.

    4. The ayat has multiple meanings, the opinion I follow is there was no threat of crucifixion and this story spread through rumors and was blindly copied by others. A very common thing.

    • Historical evidence for the authors of the 4 canonical gospels. They were eyewitnesses or interviewed and collected evidence from eyewitnesses.
      Peter, Matthew, and John were eyewitnesses.

      It is certain that the other disciples helped in the composition of the gospels also. (John 14:26; 16:12-13; 2 Peter 1:12-21; 3:1; 3:15-16; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; 1 Timothy 5:18)

    • 1. What QB said easier to go with the story then against it.

      That can be said about all the “consensus of critical scholarship of modern scholarship” also. It would easier to “go with the critical liberal scholars say today” (Bart Ehrman, James Dunn, John Dominic Crossan, Robert Funk, Marcus Borg, Bultmann, etc. )

      And the other ones that Paul Williams promotes (some, like Richard Bauckham, are very good on most things, but PW only uses him on a couple of points, like on 2 Peter and the disciple John being author of 4th gospel, etc.)

      It is easier to “go with the flow” of critical scholarship and not be embarrassed, etc.

      But, the empty tomb, and appearances of Jesus to the disciples is pretty overwhelming that Jesus rose from the dead. (all four gospels attest to this and the book of Acts and most of the other NT books.

      2. All the NT books are historically accurate and reflect eyewitness accounts, or are compilation of the eyewitnesses.

      • @ Ken

        1. 1 Prophet beats 4 anonymous writers writing 30 to 90 years after the event born out of a group of known liars in a land away from the event. The fact that you couldn’t list the names of the witnesses kind of ends the discussion

        2. You’re analogy of “Critical scholarship” is flawed. If I am a false prophet and want to just “win” converts over it is easier to accept the story than go against it. Also, modern criticism is relatively recent.

        3. God doe not concern Himself with unnecessary details. Going on for 6 chapters about the Ark’s dimensions provide no benefit for the readers and is just ineloquence.

        4. My refutation and proof they are NOT eyewitness accounts (contradictions, absurdities, historical errors and proven forgeries)

        EVERY sect claimed to have the Disciples eyewitness testimony that means nothing. I can make an argument for any Christian sect of the time that they are eyewitness accounts. Also, the fact that you have no outside witness is pretty damning as well. I REALLY wouldn’t use these texts to prove anything because IF I only had these and the Qur’an never mentioned Jesus(as) I would’ve concluded he was a false prophet or non-existent. You see? This is how the Qur’an verifies the truth.

        5. Tahreef is not made up and is clearly mentioned in our text:

        We don’t need to create doctrines born out of philosophical arguments such as the Trinity.

      • What a pathetic response! Scholars base their views on evidence (i.e., what they can discern from the known facts, which is why claims of miracles cannot be studied). You were arguing that Muhammad (pbuh) came along 600 years later to question the status quo, and thus he was unreliable. I showed why this doesn’t make any sense. Why would he have questioned the status quo when it would have been easier just to say that Jesus (pbuh) was indeed crucified but not resurrected?

        So I take from your comment that you finally see how stupid your “600 years too late” argument is. If anything, it proves that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was sincerely whatever he was receiving from a divine source and was not worried about going against the status quo.

        As for the resurrection, there is no evidence for it, only conjecture and contradictions. Just as you wouldn’t believe contradictory “eye-witness” accounts about alien abductions, I see no reason to believe in the fanciful and contradictory stories about the resurrection myth.

      • “You’re analogy of “Critical scholarship” is flawed. If I am a false prophet and want to just “win” converts over it is easier to accept the story than go against it. Also, modern criticism is relatively recent.”

        Exactly my point.

  5. I like this wisdom from senor Paul very much (at 2:45) ; muchas gracias, amigo!

    brother paul

  6. @ John W Beishline

    Long story short:
    Disbelievers. Started by the British to pacify the Muslims. Easily disprovable.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: