Did Jesus Rise Physically from the Dead?

Professor Dale B. Martin of Yale University demolishes the Christian belief that Jesus rose physically from the dead.

Dale Martin is an American New Testament scholar. In 2018, he retired as the Woolsey Professor of Religious Studies at Yale University, having joined the University in 1999.



Categories: Christianity, Jesus

194 replies

  1. Informative!
    These are the segments that caught my attention the most.
    (7:51 – 9:00)’
    (10:17-12:10)’
    (19:37-20:10)’
    21:04′

    Liked by 2 people

  2. N. T. Wright demolishes Dale Martin’s argumentation.

    Like

  3. Overview of N. T. Wright’s case for the historicity of The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead .
    https://winteryknight.com/2009/03/24/quick-overview-of-nt-wrights-case-for-the-resurrection/#comments

    Like

  4. N. T. Wright’s book on the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, that Dr. Habermas mentions, with a 550 page word study on the two Greek words for resurrection, anastasis (to stand up again) αναστασις and egeiro – εγειρω (to raise, to lift up).

    These Greek words, whether used by Jews, Christians, pagan Greeks, etc. were always or almost always used about a body – a body that had died.

    The resurrection proves that Jesus really died, and that His death was the atonement for sins and that Jesus truly was all that He Himself claimed that He was – Messiah, Son of God, Son of Man, God the Son, prophet, final sacrifice and atonement for sins.

    3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died (απεθανεν) for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried (εταφη), and that He was raised (εγηγερται, perfect past passive indicative = “he has been raised up”, 3rd singular, from εγειρω, to raise) on the third day according to the Scriptures, (“according to the Scriptures” = κατα τας γραφας)

    1 Corinthians 15:3-4

    παρέδωκα γὰρ ὑμῖν ἐν πρώτοις, ὃ καὶ παρέλαβον, ὅτι Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν κατὰ τὰς γραφάς, 4 καὶ ὅτι ἐτάφη, καὶ ὅτι ἐγήγερται τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ κατὰ τὰς γραφάς

    Remember James Dunn’s assessment of 1 Corinthians 15:3-4:
    James D. G. Dunn on the apostle Paul’s testimony in 1 Corinthians 15:1-9 – “This tradition, we can be entirely confident, was formulated as a tradition within months of Jesus’ death.” Jesus Remembered, page 855. That was some time between 30-34 AD, very early testimony. And Mark wrote his gospel, from Peter’s preaching, sometime between 48-60 AD.

    “Looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away, although it was extremely large. 5 Entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe; and they were amazed. 6 And he said to them, “Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him. 7 But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.’

    Mark 16:4-7

    “Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified”

    “He has risen”
    εγερθη – Aorist Passive Indicative, 3rd singular – “He was raised”, from same root word in 1 Cor. 15:4 – from εγειρω – “to raise up”

    https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2014/04/25/jesus-rose-from-the-dead-in-history-the-empty-tomb/

    Like

    • ‘For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died (απεθανεν) for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried (εταφη), and that He was raised (εγηγερται, perfect past passive indicative = “he has been raised up”, 3rd singular, from εγειρω, to raise) on the third day according to the Scriptures (“according to the Scriptures” = κατα τας γραφας)’

      1 Corinthians 15:3-4

      There is only one tiny little problem.

      Nowhere in the Jewish scriptures is there a prophecy that the messiah will die for the world’s sins, be buried, and rise from the dead on the third day.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. In Jewish thought, a day referred to the whole 24-hour period or a part of the day (1 Sam. 30:12-13; 2 Chron. 10:5, 12; Esther 4:1; 5:1). So, as D.A. Carson points out in the Expositors Bible Commentary, the phrase “three days and three nights” cannot mean more than three full days, but it can refer to a combination of any part of three separate days. And since Christ remained dead for a portion of three 24-hour days – Friday, Saturday and Sunday – it would be correct to express the account by saying, “three days and three nights.”

    To understand this passage, we have to think about the concept of time in the Jewish sense, not in our 21st century Western sense.

    https://www.tvcresources.net/resource-library/articles/was-it-really-three-days-and-three-nights

    Like

    • Jesus was supposed to have resurrected after three days and three nights, as mentioned in the summary. Before we analyze this prophecy, it needs to be made clear that the time period of “three days and three nights” did not necessarily have to denote three 24-hour periods. Biblical scholar Geza Vermes states that according to “Jewish time reckoning”:

      “…part of a day or night was accepted as a full day or night (yShab 12a; bPes4a).”[48]

      However, even with this concession, it is plainly obvious that there is absolutely no way for the prophecy to have been fulfilled if Jesus died on Friday and resurrected on Sunday. As Vermes observes:

      “This would allow us to count three days from Friday afternoon to Sunday morning, but no stretch of the imagination could fit three nights into that period.”[49]

      Hence, the prophecy of the “sign of Jonah” was clearly not fulfilled. No satisfactory explanation can be offered to explain this.

      https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2014/01/19/the-crucifixion-of-jesus-in-the-bible-and-the-quran/

      Liked by 1 person

  6. “I should point out that Mark’s gospel phrases things a little differently. In Mark 8:31, 9:31, and 10:34, it is said that Jesus will rise “after three days” (sometimes translated “three days later”). This is a stylistic difference, an idiomatic way of saying the same thing. We know this by comparing Mark with the parallel passages in the other gospels, as well as comparing the verses with the language of the first-century Jewish historian, Josephus. Josephus wrote in Greek, the same language as the New Testament. In his book of history known as The Antiquities of the Jews, he uses “after three days” and “on the third day” interchangeably. ”

    Josephus, Antiquities VII.280-81 abd VIII.214, 218, Loeb Classical Library (1930). In the latter passage the English “in three days” is literally “after three days” in the original Greek.

    https://jewsforjesus.org/publications/newsletter/newsletter-apr-2007/three-days-and-three-nights/

    Like

  7. Day can mean a 24 hour period which includes daylight and night time so it includes a part of one of the 24 hour day periods.

    In addition, we find these parallel New Testament verses concerning the number of days of Jesus’ temptation:

    Matthew 4:2-And when He had fasted forty days and forty nights, afterward He was hungry.
    Mark 1:13-And He was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan, and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered to Him.
    Luke 4:1-2-Then Jesus, being filled with the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, being tempted for forty days by the devil. And in those days He ate nothing, and afterward, when they had ended, He was hungry.
    The parallels in Mark and Luke suggest that the “forty days and nights” in Matthew is a loose expression equivalent to “forty days.”

    Why then does Matthew quote Jonah and why does Jonah say “three days and three nights”? In light of the above, I would say that “three days and three nights” is a stylistic variation of “three days,” perhaps given for emphasis.

    Like

  8. There has been a long standing debate over the meaning of Matthew 12:40, “for just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” In my opinion, the evidence supports the traditional view that Jesus was crucified on Friday afternoon and was in the grave part of Friday (the day of preparation cf. Luke 23:54-55), all of Saturday (Luke 23:56), and part of Sunday, the first day of the week (Luke 24:1). Some of the evidence for this is as follows:

    (1) To us, three days and three nights generally means 72 hours, but we must understand the Bible historically and culturally. For the Jewish mind, this could mean any part of the first day, all of the second day, and any part of the third day. This is obvious by comparing Esther 4:16 and 5:1. Esther mentioned fasting for three days and nights and said that she would then go into the king, which she did, but 5:1 tells us clearly that it was on the third day that she went into the king, not after three days or on the fourth. This simply illustrates the way the Jews reckoned time.

    https://bible.org/question/were-three-days-and-three-nights-jesus-was-grave-full-72-hours

    Like

  9. Even the Qur’an hints at the truth of substitutionary ransom atonement – Surah 37:107 – “We have ransomed him with a mighty sacrifice”.

    وَفَدَيْنَاهُ بِذِبْحٍ عَظِيمٍ – 37:107

    The root of that word for “ransom” in Arabic, is the same root word for ransom when Mark 10:45/Matthew 20:28 is translated into Arabic or Farsi – فدیه و فدا

    “The Son of man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” Mark 10:45
    The Qur’an, by affirming the historical narrative of Genesis 22, preserves the truth of substitutionary ransom sacrifice in Surah 37:107.

    https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/10/21/so-why-did-allah-substitute-an-innocent-animal-in-the-place-of-abrahams-son/

    Islam, both in AHadith and Qur’an, by affirming the previous 2 monotheistic religions, could not get rid of the clear affirmation of substitutionary ransom sacrifice for forgiveness for sins.

    Like

    • there is no doubt that ken temple is a liar for jesus. Even after your ass was baptised on this issue not long ago, u just repeated yourself again.

      Liked by 1 person

    • “The Son of man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” Mark 10:45”

      thats most likely marks invention. the jewish mindset and biblical mindset is pure domination and control. The prophets of the bible wanted torah rule to be the be all and end all. mark influenced by pagan writers and stoics wanted to reimage his failed jesus.

      Like

      • Inconsistency is the mark of a failed argument. The gospel according to Mark, as Paul Williams and Shabir Ally and other Muslims use modern scholarship statements to say “the gospel according to Mark is the most historical of the gospels and has a different theology of Christ than the gospel according to John”, etc. but when we quote a verse like Mark 10:45, you use a made up out of thin air argument like “it is most likely Mark’s invention”. You have no proof of that. It has been established as very historically reliable and true. It shows that Jesus the Messiah knew Himself to be the suffering servant of Isaiah 52:13-15 and 53:1-12.

        Like

      • the end didnt come. peace didnt come. jesus was day and night threatening his opponents and telling his followers “repent for the kingdom of god is near”

        even u guys think that jesus is going to do ALL the violent stuff mentioned in the torah. My point is that jesus thought he was going to do that first time and thought he was going to rule israel along side his 12 followers. it didnt happen.

        isnt it the scholars who look at what jesus most likely said vs christians who made him say their beliefs?

        criteria of dissimilarity?

        Like

    • Ken Temple quotes Surah As-Saaffat (37:107),[9] which is part of the story of the prophet Ibrahim’s (peace be upon him) near-sacrifice of his son (whom Muslims hold to be Ishmael, and not Isaac),[10] and then claims that:

      “[t]he substitution of the ram in the place of Abraham’s son proves that it (the ransom) means ‘substitutionary atonement’.”[11]

      But an examination of the context of the verse shows that this claim is untenable and completely false. We need to remember that “substitutionary atonement” is the belief that forgiveness of sins is made by a willing sacrifice (whom Christians believe was Jesus) and the evidence from the Quran itself shows that the story of Ibrahim and Ishmael (peace be upon them) does not reflect this belief.

      First, when read in context, the story shows no indication that Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) ordered Ibrahim (peace be upon him) to sacrifice his son (and later, the ram) as some sort of expiation for his sins. Let us read the complete story as told in Surah As-Saaffat:

      “He said: “I will go to my Lord! He will surely guide me!

      “O my Lord! Grant me a righteous (son)!”

      So We gave him the good news of a boy ready to suffer and forbear.

      Then, when (the son) reached (the age of) (serious) work with him, he said: “O my son! I see in vision that I offer thee in sacrifice: Now see what is thy view!” (The son) said: “O my father! Do as thou art commanded: thou will find me, if Allah so wills one practicing Patience and Constancy!”

      So when they had both submitted their wills (to Allah), and he had laid him prostrate on his forehead (for sacrifice),

      We called out to him “O Abraham!

      “Thou hast already fulfilled the vision!” – thus indeed do We reward those who do right.

      For this was obviously a trial-

      And We ransomed him with a momentous sacrifice:

      And We left (this blessing) for him among generations (to come) in later times:

      “Peace and salutation to Abraham!”

      Thus indeed do We reward those who do right.

      For he was one of our believing Servants.”[12]

      We can immediately see no indication that the command to sacrifice Ishmael (peace be upon him) was given as a way for Ibrahim (peace be upon him) to atone for his sins. In fact, verse 103 states that both Ibrahim and Ishmael (peace be upon them) had “submitted their wills” to Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He), and verse 105 states that simply by his willing submission to Allah’s command, Ibrahim (peace be upon him) had “already fulfilled the vision”. Commenting on verse 105, the 13th-century exegete Ibn Kathir stated that it means that:

      “…the purpose of your dream has been fulfilled by your laying down your son to sacrifice him.”[13]

      In addition, the commentary in “The Study Quran” explains that it also means that (emphasis ours):

      “[Ibrahim] carried out what he was commanded and that he achieved its goal by demonstrating complete obedience to God.”[14]

      Moreover, verse 106 states clearly that the whole incident was “obviously a trial”. According to Ibn Kathir, this means that (emphasis ours):

      “…it was clearly a test when he was commanded to sacrifice his son, so, he hastened to do it, in submission to the command of Allah and in obedience to Him.”[15]

      According to “The Study Quran”, it also means:

      “…that it was a blessing…as it is through severe trials that God brings His pious servants the best reward in this life and the next, if they are able to faithfully endure them, as did Abraham…”[16]

      Again, we see no indication that there was any relationship between the “trial” and the atonement of sins. Rather, a trial is meant to test whether a person will obey Allah’s commands, regardless of how difficult they are.[17]

      But what about the phrase “…We ransomed him with a momentous sacrifice”? Doesn’t the word “ransomed” indicate that the ram was meant to serve as a sin offering or that, as Temple claims:

      “[t]he substitution of the ram in the place of Abraham’s son proves that it (the ransom) means ‘substitutionary atonement’.”

      As we have seen, the context indicates that this claim is false. There is no proof that the ram was presented for “substitutionary atonement”. The claim made by Temple is simply a non-sequitur. The “ransom” was simply for Ishmael (peace be upon him), since it saved him from being sacrificed.[18]

      Additionally, we can note that (emphasis in the original):

      “[t]his substitution of the ram for Abraham’s son serves as the basis for the ritual of slaughtering an animal that is required as the final rite of the hajj.”[19]

      This is an important point which Temple has ignored or is unaware of, since if we can understand the point of the Hajj ritual, it will explain the true meaning behind the prophet Ibrahim’s trial.[20]

      https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2016/05/05/does-islam-teach-substitutionary-atonement-a-response-to-a-christian-apologist/

      Liked by 2 people

    • the church’ AFFAIR with a man

      quote :

      Christian apologist want to argue about Muslims saying the Bible wasn’t preserved – when they claim “God” couldn’t preserve his newly created world from being cured with sin, he couldn’t preserve his perfect creation man from being enslaved to satan right after they were created, he wasted thousands of years sending prophets and a law that had no power to save anyone. If his “Son” didn’t come to save the day everything would have been lost due to “Gods” mismanagement – or better yet it was all a plan to introduce the only “person” in the trinity that really matters – Jesus.

      It seems to me(and I saw it from the inside) “Christian apologetics” is arguing for the hatred of “God”. Christian apologist seem to be offended at the very thought of Allah (one deity worthy of worship, all powerful master of creation without a partner). In their system “God” is relegated to being just the Father of Jesus – there is no exaltation, praise or worship of him directly – all of that is directed through Jesus. Hear them when they speak its not good enough for Jesus to be a human representative of “God” i.e a prophet or messenger no, he must be very “God” himself. The only purpose “God” has to the Christian apologist is being a glorified baby daddy, he sends and steps out of the way to allow “his Son” to rule and administer creation. “God” as “The Father” is contingent on Jesus as “The Son” – his whole existence and worth depends on Jesus (You can’t have the Father without the Son). Jesus is the upgraded edition he brought “love” and “grace” which obviously had to be missing, he came with a new law based on “love” instead of heartless restrictive commands that were “lifeless” and that had no “power”.
      No wonder Christian nations have dumped Christianity for secular humanism they worshipped an inferior god who was just a super man and now they what to replace the super man and become their own super men through science and technology – “as above so below”. The Christian apologist is usually a right wing evangelical who see’s conservatism or libertarianism as the last hopes for “liberty” – i.e freedom from ecclesiastical rule. The Jesus of Christian apologetics is an agent who comes to prepare the Muslim to embrace “Judeo-Christian values” which as the name implies doesn’t have “God” in it.

      Like

    • We are told about and expected to believe the reports of a god that no one can know and no one can please (but jeesus, mind you) but yet they’re the authority on this god… does this make sense? If they are even remotely correct on their slam-fest of God, how is it that they know what God is like? Are they merely believing and PROMULGATING second-hand information? Were people like King David, the Prophet Moses, the Patriarchs, the Later Prophets lying when they ascribed adjectives of “mercy, loving kindness, abundant compassion and comforting” to this “vengeful” God? But they claim it’s the same god they serve! Were these biblical personalities wrong in their assessment of God and these xians who really don’t have a relationship with God (or a relationship by proxy) possessing the “true” relationship? And can you really have a relationship via proxy? How intimate is a relationship if you have to go through someone else to have a simple conversation with the one you’re to have a relationship with–and with a person (or in this case god) who, were it not for jeesus, would consider you worm fodder and banish you? REmember, according to xians, without jeesus no one could know god or have a relationship with him. So is jeesus our ticket to a relationship with god, or the wool pulled over god’s eyes (and our own) with regard to the true relationship? Or are we really just having a relationship with ourselves and this belief in jeesus is a mere distraction from the reality that no one can know this unreachable god? Is there anything more pathetic and more sad than to have a relationship by proxy; knowing the Object of your supposed loyalty and devotion doesn’t love you but only tolerates you because of someone else? Take that piece away and we’re back to the fundamental view of this “god” to his creation. What does that really say about this “god”?

      no set of lies is more damning and more self-serving than to tell people that they are defective from birth, can never know God, cannot improve themselves and they are damned for all eternity unless you believe their variant/cult and to believe otherwise is the ultimate delusion. Are there any lies WORSE to not only one’s soul but one’s perception of the CREATOR HIMSELF??????? Is there anything MORE disgusting to the very Mercy, Compassion and “You can do it!” encouragement given by God Himself (even right in the VERY opening chapters of Genesis—- God tells Cain he can overcome evil! This from a “vengeful, can-never-please-Him” God!)? Is there any sin greater than to have one of God’s creations believe they can never know Him without any aides, “blood tricks” and “redemption coupons” from Jeesus?

      The lies of these xians is “God knows you can’t have a relationship with him because you’re dirty, worthless, vile and wretched .. you’re spiritual trash. Only a bloody go between can mend the bridge”. They lie about God and also fail to ask the obvious.. what person would WANT a relationship with someone who will only see you as less than.. and only by the CHARITY of another can you come into a “relationship” with this person? Who wants a relationship with a god who only allows you to come into his presence via a proxy.. can it even be called a relationship? I think this is the most vile lie ever devised… lying about God and then LYING about the inherent potential (and the “god spark” ALL people have!) just so you can form an emotional attachment to jeesus.

      Like

    • when you try to post a comment at ken temples blog, the “leave a reply ” box does not even appear. this guy does not want christians reading the jewish and muslim responses to his spiritual adultery.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Because another Muslim, who goes by Θ , a few years ago – 2014-2016 (?) flooded my comment boxes by hundreds of comments in all my old articles, etc. that I could not possible keep up with, I had to put my comment box on old articles in an after 14 days, it will close. New articles are open for 14 days when I have time. I don’t have time to moderate and answer everything.

        Everyone should be intelligent enough to use google and find responses, and counter-arguments, and discern for themselves. But Muslims also have to be willing to listen to the other side, which you guys don’t do very well.

        Like

      • “Freedom of thought” according to Pennywise, the hell-bound clown.

        Liked by 1 person

      • This is very interesting. The idea of “love” that christians preach is very naive and most importantly it doesn’t make sense. And that’s why they don’t believe in it virtually. In fact, this idea about God’s love has been the reason behind the fact that people in Europe have become atheists not the otherwise. Jordan Peterson wrote this in his book (12 rules for life)


        Of course Jordan Peterson didn’t want to affirm this idea although he admitted that to say that the God of the OT is the same one of the NT is just absurd (pp. 107), rather he wants to draw the reader attention to a broader idea which is that this world must be seen as Chaos, Order, and the Process a person is involved in between these two systems (i.e. consciousness). It seems JP understands the bible from this perspective, and that’s how he assumes he can make sense of this library containing these books in the bible.
        However, if he studies the Pauline christianity carefully, he will know that for Paul the OT is indeed chaos, and that chaos has been resolved by Jesus’ death. Accordingly and by that logic, the suffering of the world has to end once a person accepts that sacrifice(i.e. Jesus). We should expect a christian woman, for example, to not deliver his baby in pain now. But the reality is the exact opposite. The “chaos” made by the God of the OT has not ended by the death of the God of the NT.

        Unfortunately, because of the centrality of the western mindset, they cannot look beyond their bible and the bedstone of their culture. They have been doing the same mistake again and again, and they will not find peace whether they look to the bible from a Psychological perspective or not, whether they run away from the bible to nihilism or not. They need Islam. They need to read Qur’an on its own merit not as a shadow for christian and jewish scriptures if they want to find peace. There’s no other choice.

        Like

    • Would you dare to say the same thing about the word (ransom) in this verse in your bible?
      The wicked become a ransom for the righteous, and the unfaithful for the upright

      Islam, both in AHadith and Qur’an, by affirming the previous 2 monotheistic religions
      Wrong!
      Islam affirms the pure origin behind Judaism and christianity.

      And they say, “Be Jews or Christians, and you will be guided.” Say, “Rather, the religion of Abraham, the Monotheist; he was not an idolater. Say, “We believe in Allah; and in what was revealed to us; and in what was revealed to Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the Patriarchs; and in what was given to Moses and Jesus; and in what was given to the prophets—from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and to Him we surrender. If they believe in the same as you have believed in, then they have been guided. But if they turn away, then they are in schism. Allah will protect you against them; for He is the Hearer, the Knower. ” QT

      Liked by 3 people

  10. ken temple is selling to the people spiritual adultery.

    by Ibn Anwar, BHsc. (Hons), MCollT

    The concept of vicarious atonement is fundamental to mainstream Christianity. It is postulated that salvation is only acquirable through the acceptance of the death of Jesus on the cross as a divinely instituted sacrifice. In this Christian salvific saga, the Father is said to pour all His wrath onto the Son and in so doing, He satisfies the need for justice where sin is concerned. The so called tension between Justice and Mercy– a unique concept in western Christianity –is resolved and God can appropriately offer the latter without dispensing with the former. ….

    Upon close inspection of the above doctrine, which is the most fundamental feature of western Christian faith, several problems and difficulties arise. Firstly, the inescapable impression that the vicarious atonement gives is that the Father is the source of wrath and the Son is the source of love. Whilst the Father punishes, the Son gives. These two in Christian theology are supposed to be equal in every respect. They are designated as ‘Persons’ within One God. If that were true, then this God, apparently, did not satisfy the apparent tension between the attributes of Justice and Mercy or if He did, then He only managed to satisfy one third of Justice because the rest of God, i.e., the Son and the Holy Spirit, did not pour out their wrath. And this fact is in direct opposition to John 5:19 which says that the Son does everything and anything He sees the Father does.

    If John 5:19 were true then the vicarious atonement is false as it would render the Son as wrathful instead of loving whilst he was affixed on the cross, but if the vicarious atonement were true, then John 5:19 is false because the Son did not emulate the Father’s wrath. But the wrath that was supposed to have been poured onto the Son on the cross was supposed to have been the complete and full wrath of God. If one accepts that premise, then one must reevaluate one’s reading of those many instances in the Bible where God shows His wrath. If the cross received the full wrath of God and only the Father poured His wrath on it, the necessary implication is that the wrathful instances of God were instances of only the Father and not the full God, which is supposed to be the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit together.

    Secondly, in this Christian story of salvation, because the Son shows love and offers himself to be tortured and killed in order that mankind be forgiven and saved from the Father’s frightening wrath, would that not lead a believer to adore the Son more than the Father. The Father would instead be terribly feared, would He not? Could this be the reason why Christians focus much of their attention on Jesus but less so on the Father?
    Thirdly, in the love-hate relationship between the Father and the Son on the cross, have you noticed something? The Holy Spirit is missing! He is completely non-existent in the picture. In their beloved story of salvation that Christians cannot help but share with the rest of the world, the Holy Spirit is forgotten. Apparently, to save humanity one member of the Trinity can be dispensed with. And that means the vicarious atonement paradigm necessitates the conclusion that God as a complete entity is not required to save mankind, therefore, the statement that “God so loved the world…” is quite misleading in Trinitarian theology.

    //////

    Like

  11. The Church will say that this is to make light of God’s righteousness. They will say that someone must pay the penalty for sin, if not the sinner then someone. In this, they echo what the people say in Ezekiel: “The way of the Lord is not just…” (Ezekiel 33:17). It does not seem right to them that HaShem would ‘just’ forgive a person. But HaShem’s response is that “it is their own way that is not just” (Ezekiel 33:17). And He reiterates that He desires the wicked to repent: “And when the wicked turn from their wickedness, and do what is lawful and right, they shall live by it” (Ez. 33:19).

    Sadly, the Church often portrays this teaching as trusting in one’s own righteousness. But this is not the case at all. Indeed, this is trust in the promise of HaShem, trust in His love and in His goodness and in His mercy. This is the God that assured Moses of His mercy: “…a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for the thousandth generation” (Ex. 34:7). We can be assured of His kindness extended toward us. So assured can we be that we know that if he punishes us, it is for our good, an act of kindness: “My child, do not despise the Lord’s discipline or be weary of his reproof, for the Lord reproves the one he loves, as a father the son in whom he delights” (Prov. 3:11-12). Such punishments are a call to return to Him, where we are assured of His forgiveness, mercy, and generosity. …….

    One of the blessings of God is the conscience. It serves to motivate one to review his actions, to see if he has not violated God’s precepts, to see if he has not ill-used another. Guilt, when used properly, is a blessing, urging the sinner to return to HaShem. But guilt can be a burden to those that do not properly heed it. The guilty can become hopeless, feeling he may never be right with God, as those in Ezekiel. The Church compounds this guilt by telling its adherents that they are so bad that God could never forgive them. Not only that, an innocent man needed to be terribly shamed, beaten, and murdered on their behalf. This can create in incredibly over-powering guilt in people, creating in them the sense that they are worthless.

    All this leads to the mistake of putting their trust in a man rather than in HaShem. Because they have been told that HaShem could never tolerate them, He feels forever far away. Moreover, He is an object of fear, because He would destroy them. Jesus on the other hand, rather than wanting to destroy them, was willing to suffer and die for them. His love appears to the Christian to be so much greater than the love of God. God was willing to send someone else to die. Jesus was willing to actually do the dying.
    And so his trust and affection is given to a man.

    All the while, he does not know that HaShem did not need someone to die for Him. He does not know that HaShem loves him enough to forgive him if he will but make amends and return to HaShem. He does not know that his trust in a man is misplaced, but trust in HaShem can never be misplaced. HaShem does not wish his destruction. Nor is HaShem powerless to forgive those that have violated His Torah.
    You are right to put your trust in HaShem.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. “freedom of thought” – ok

    But I also have the freedom on my own blog on how much time to spend on answering and also to allow 14 days to cut off discussion, if I want to.

    You are the real “Pennywise” since you believe in aggressive warfare to conquer.

    Abu Hurairah told him that the Messenger of Allah said: “I have been commanded to fight the people until they say La ilaha illallah (there is none worthy of worship except Allah). Whoever says La ilaha illallah, his life and his property are safe from me, except by its right (in cases where Islamic laws apply), and his reckoning will be with Allah.”

    Grade : Sahih (Darussalam)
    Reference : Sunan an-Nasa’i 3090
    In-book reference : Book 25, Hadith 6
    English translation : Vol. 1, Book 25, Hadith 3092

    It is you who are going to hell, unless you repent.

    Luke 13:1-5
    John 3:18
    John 3:36
    Romans 1:18
    Ephesians 2:1-3
    you are a child of wrath, by nature

    We, on the other hand, have the promise of eternal life.

    John 5:24
    Romans 8:28-39
    Romans 5:1-11
    Acts 16:31
    Ephesians 2:4-10
    1 John 2:25

    Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. 23 No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also. 24 Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you too will abide in the Son and in the Father.

    25 And this is the promise that he made to us—eternal life.

    You don’t know God at all because you deny the Son. You cannot reach the true Allah. Your sins have made a separation between you and God. Isaiah 59:2-3

    your iniquities have made a separation
    between you and your God,
    and your sins have hidden his face from you
    so that he does not hear.

    Like

    • Moron, just admit that you are a hypocrite piece of trash. You are a lying scumbag, just like the liar Paul. You’ll join him in hell and eat from the tree of Zaqqum.

      I demolished your idiotic claims and cut and paste research. The Hadith you just quoted is another example of what piece of excrement you are, just like Paul of Tarsus. The Hadith is referring to the pagan Arabs who fought the Prophet, moron.

      Like

      • You don’t know God at all because you deny the Son. You cannot reach the true Allah. Your sins have made a separation between you and God. Isaiah 59:2-3

        Like

      • I don’t need your pagan mangod. I already know the true God. Go stick your pagan god where the don’t shine. No reasonable person will fall for your idiotic religion, Pennywise. Get over it.

        Liked by 2 people

      • no, you don’t know God.

        Like

      • No one cares what you think you lying hypocritical scumbag. 😂

        Like

      • It is not what I think; it is what God thinks – He said, “your sins have separated you from Me” (Isaiah 59:2-3) and “you are dead in your sins” (Ephesians 2:1-3) and Jesus said while on earth, “you are a slave to sin” (John 8:34) and “unless you believe that I am (Yahweh), you will die in your sins” (John 8:24).

        Like

      • Dummy, what the Tanakh says and what your silly NT says are two different things. Plus, it’s well known that Isiah had multiple authors. We can play this game all you want, but in the end, your pagan theology will be refuted, inshaAllah.

        You are a slave to an irrational and deceitful religion.

        Like

      • Nope; the NT and OT are completely unified and inspired / God-breathed. The NT fully reveals the OT / Tanakh. They are not 2 different things. They are established 600 years before the Qur’an and Islam and prove that Islam is false.

        Like

      • Nope, you’re just an idiot, a brainwashed zombie who just mindlessly repeats the lies of the church. Christianity is a false, pagan religion that doesn’t even have scriptural support for it’s pagan ideology. The book of Ezekiel proves that it is false because it contradicts its own scripture.

        Liked by 1 person

      • You are just mindlessly repeating your false religion of 600 too late subjective claim of one man in the Arabian desert, who affirmed the previous Monotheistic revelations, but did not know the content, and did not quote from it and did aggressive warfare, was a hypocrite for limiting other men to 4 men, while he got special revelations for himself to take more than one wife. Aisha said, “wow, Allah is swift to fulfill your desires”. The way he got Zaid to divorce his wife Zainab and then abolish adoption is truly shameful.

        Later, the Muslims had to come up with the doctrine of Tahreef (change, corruption) of the text, since the Qur’an affirms the previous Scriptures. (Surah 5:46-47; 10:94)

        The author of the Qur’an was ignorant of history ( Surah 4:157) one of most established facts of ancient history that even Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, Bultmann, etc. – all agree that Jesus was crucified and died on a Roman cross under Pontius Pilate.

        The author of the Qur’an was ignorant of the doctrine of the Trinity. (5:72-78; 5:116; 19:88-92; 6:101)

        Therefore, the Qur’an cannot be true, because it gets basic things wrong like history and is ignorant of doctrines that were around for centuries.

        It is just one man’s subjective claim in the Arabian desert.

        Like

      • Early Muslims applied those Hadiths to aggressive warfare in spreading Islam, (Omar, second Caliph and every generation after that – they attacked Byzantine, Persia, Hindu areas, Buddhist areas, etc. with those ideas in their hearts and minds (Surah 9:5 and those Hadiths) especially when other Hadith says that “no two religions will be allowed in the Hijaz (Arabian peninsula) and they exiled the Jews and Christians from the areas later and Surah 9:28 says “if you fear poverty, Allah will reward you” by Surah 9:29 – fight the people of the book, until they submit and pay the Jiziye”, etc. and Ibn Kathir admitted that the reason for attacking the Byzantine Empire was because they needed revenue since there was no more pagans or Christians or Jews in Arabia to get the Jiziye from.

        Qur’an 9:28—O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.

        Qur’an 9:29—Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

        Qur’an 9:30—The Jews call Uzair a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the son of God. That is a saying from their mouth; (In this) they but imitate what the Unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!

        Ibn Kathir, The Battles of the Prophet, pp. 183-4— “Allah, Most High, ordered the believers to prohibit the disbelievers from entering or coming near the sacred Mosque. On that, Quraish thought that this would reduce their profits from trade. Therefore, Allah, Most High, compensated them and ordered them to fight the people of the Book until they embrace Islam or pay the Jizyah. Allah says, “O ye who believe! Truly the pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise. Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” Therefore, the Messenger of Allah decided to fight the Romans in order to call them to Islam.”

        Tafsir Ibn Kathir (on Qur’an 9:30)—”Fighting the Jews and Christians is legislated because they are idolaters and disbelievers. Allah the Exalted encourages the believers to fight the polytheists, disbelieving Jews and Christians, who uttered this terrible statement and utter lies against Allah, the Exalted. As for the Jews, they claimed that Uzayr was the son of God, Allah is free of what they attribute to Him. As for the misguidance of Christians over Isa, it is obvious.”

        Like

      • ” (Ephesians 2:1-3) and Jesus said while on earth, “you are a slave to sin” (John 8:34) and “unless you believe that I am (Yahweh), you will die in your sins” (John 8:24).”

        we reject your filthy idol. even the jews reject your filthy idol :

        The most important line in the universe of the Jewish prophets is the one that delineates between Creator and created. The One is to whom all worship is due and the other owes all worship. The writers of the Christian Scripture blurred that line by encouraging worship to someone who owed worship himself and instead introduced a new line of demarcation. In the universe of the Christian Scripture the most important line in the universe is the one that divides believer (in their idol) and non-believer. Your comments on this blog, full of dire admonitions, reinforce this, You stand on one side of your “important line” and you throw your meaningless threats over your sad wall. Let me say this about your threat. We reject your idol and we were saved from all of the evil that accompanied the followers of your idol and we were blessed spiritually in this same time. One sign of the blessing is that we still have God’s Sabbath and His Passover celebration, you have the pagan Sunday and Easter. The evidence is staring you in the face – from the very first verse in the Jewish Bible unto the very last – the underlying theme of this holy book is that you owe every iota of your existence to the One Creator of heaven and earth. As long as you are alive – the door is still open.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Temple should think before he writes, given the glaring contradiction in the above statement. If the motivation was to “spread Islam” (which was certainly one of the most important goals of Muhammad and his followers), then why would Surah 9:29 say to collect the jizyah from these people? Why not just say to offer unbelievers only two choices: convert or die? Paying the jizyah meant that one was free to practice his religion, so it would not have been a good way to “spread Islam”, unless Muhammad (peace be upon him) had correctly foreseen that it would lead to mass conversions (in which case it proves that he was a true prophet). Rather, the jizyah was a practical and completely reasonable expectation from non-Muslims living under Islamic rule. Just as paying one’s income tax is required to enjoy the right of being a citizen in any modern country, paying jizyah (and for Muslims, the zakat) would guarantee the dhimmis the right to live peacefully under Islamic rule. As the Professor Abu-Munshar put it, paraphrasing the late scholar Al-Buti:

        “…dhimmis paid jizyah, a lesser amount [compared to Muslims paying zakat], in fulfilment of their social duty to the Muslim state in which they were living, and it was spent in their protection.”[3]

        As for the context of Surah Tawba, 9:29, the Quranic commentators were virtually unanimously agreed that the verse was revealed in response to Byzantine aggression. The specific context was the expedition to Tabuk, and this is the view of Ibn Kathir,[4] and Al-Tabari.[5] So what was the context of the expedition to Tabuk? According to Ibn Al-Qayyim, it was in response to Byzantine aggression, beginning with the murder of a Muslim messenger and the subsequent battle of Mu’ta. Ibn Al-Qayyim described the events as follows:

        “Mu’ta is located in Syria, and this battle took place in the month of Jumaada Al Uwla during the eighth year. As for the cause of this battle, the messenger of Allaah (may Allaah send salutations upon him) sent Al Haarith Bin ‘Umayr Al Azadee of Banoo Lahab to Syria with a letter for the king of Rome or Basra. However, he was accosted by Shurahbeel Bin ‘Amr Al Ghassaanee who tied him up. Thereafter, he killed him. He was the only messenger of the prophet (may Allaah send salutations upon him) who had ever been killed. As a result, he was devastated, so he sent forth an army placing Zayd Bin Haaritha in command…

        Thereafter, they proceeded until reaching Ma’aan where they learned that Heracules had reached Al Balqaa with 100,000 soldiers, so they remained for two nights discussing their next move.”[6]

        So we can see that Surah 9:29 was revealed in response to the crimes and aggression of the Byzantines and their allies against the Muslims. It was a perfectly legitimate response to the violence perpetrated by the Byzantines and their allies.

        The extent of Byzantine aggression and interference in Arabia can be further demonstrated in the fact that they had Arab vassals in the northern part of the Arabian Peninsula. As Dr. Ali As-Sallaabee stated in his book The Biography of Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq:

        “…it [the Roman Empire] controlled large areas of land in the northern part of the Peninsula. The rulers of those areas acted as viceroys for the Roman emperor: They were appointed by the Empire and were completely under the Empire’s control.”[7]

        Furthermore, the Byzantines made incursions into the lands towards the south, which was a clear threat to the rising Muslim state. As Dr. As-Sallaabee states:

        “Arabs were getting organized under the banner of the same religion. Wanting to teach a lesson to what they considered to be an upstart nation, the Romans made certain incursions towards the south.”[8]

        In fact, this military and political interference had been going on for decades, even before the rise of the Islam, and the Sasanian Empire was just as guilty as the Byzantine Empire. As Hugh Kennedy explains:

        “[d]uring the course of the sixth century, both great powers tried to find alternative ways of managing the desert frontier, and they turned to client kingdoms. In effect they used Arabs to manage Arabs.”[9]

        The Byzantines even tried to install a puppet ruler in Mecca itself around the year 590 CE. According to W. Montgomery Watt:

        “Byzantine policy had a setback when the Abyssinians were drive out by the Persians about 570. A little later-perhaps about 590-we find the Byzantines trying to gain control of Mecca by bringing a pro-Byzantine faction to power there; but the Meccans, though more friendly to the Byzantines than to the Persians, had no desire for this kind of subordination to one of the great powers, and the would-be princeling was forced to flee.”[10]

        Finally, as with the conquests of places like Egypt, where the local populations were more than happy to welcome the new Muslim conquerors, similar sentiments were seen among the Arab subjects of the Byzantine and Persian Empires. As Karen Armstrong observes:

        “[w]hen the Muslim armies invaded these regions after Muhammad’s death some thirty years later, they found the Arabs there highly resentful of the great powers and ready to throw in their lot with Islam.”[11]

        So we can see that both the Byzantines and the Sasanians were imperialistic nations which had exerted their wills on the Arab population in the Middle East. So when the chickens came home to roost, biased apologists like Temple should not cry foul.

        Liked by 2 people

      • “specially when other Hadith says that “no two religions will be allowed in the Hijaz (Arabian peninsula) and they exiled the Jews and Christians from the areas later and Surah 9:28 says “if you fear poverty, Allah will reward you” by Surah 9:29 – fight the people of the book”

        Next, Temple discussed the command of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) to keep Arabia free of other religions. He quoted several ahadith to that effect. But as usual, his copy/paste research provided only half the story. For example, he quoted the following narration from the Muwatta of Imam Malik:

        “Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, “Two deens (religions) shall not co-exist in the Arabian Peninsula.”

        Malik said that Ibn Shihab said, ”Umar ibn al-Khattab searched for information about that until he was absolutely convinced that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, had said, ‘Two deens (religions) shall not co-exist in the Arabian Peninsula,’ and he therefore expelled the Jews from Khaybar.””

        The only problem is that this narration is only partially quoted. The REST of the narration states the following (emphasis ours):

        “Malik said, ”Umar ibn al-Khattab expelled the jews from Najran (a Jewish settlement in the Yemen) and Fadak (a Jewish settlement thirty miles from Madina). When the Jews of Khaybar left, they did not take any fruit or land. The Jews of Fadak took half the fruit and half the land, because the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, had made a settlement with them for that. So Umar entrusted to them the value in gold, silver, camels, ropes and saddle bags of half the fruit and half the land, and handed the value over to them and expelled them.“”[35]

        So as we can see, the expulsion of the Jews of Fadak was accompanied by financial compensation. As for the Jews of Khaybar, it should be remembered that they had acted treacherously against the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and thus did not get the same benefits as the Jews of Fadak. This is explained in a different hadith:

        “Ibn Umar reported that ‘Umar b. al-Khattab (Allah be pleased with him) expelled the Jews and Christians from the land of Hijaz, and that when Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) conquered Khaibar he made up his mind to expel the Jews from it (the territory of Khaibar) because, when that land was conquered, it came under the sway of Allah, that of His Messenger (may peace be upon him) and that of the Muslims. The Jews asked Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) to let them continue there on the condition that they would work on it, and would get in turn half of the fruit (of the trees), whereupon Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: We would let you continue there so long as we will desire. So they continued (to cultivate the lands) till ‘Umar expelled them to Taima’ and Ariha (two villages in Arabia, but out of Hijaz).”[36]

        But this hadith is significant for another reason. Notice that Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) had expelled the Jews of Khaybar to the villages of Taima (or Tayma) and Ariha. These villages were still within Arabia!

        Tayma Arabia
        Figure 2 – The Jews of Khaybar were relocated to Tayma, which is still part of the Arabian Peninsula.[37]
        So Jews and Christians were actually allowed to live in Arabia, but outside the Hijaz region, while idolaters were to be completely expelled from the “Arabian Peninsula”, as stated in the hadith from Sahih Bukhari that Temple quoted. Ironically, that same hadith also shows that there was debate among early Muslims regarding what the “Arabian Peninsula” referred to (emphasis ours):

        “Ya’qub bin Muhammad said, “I asked Al-Mughira bin `Abdur-Rahman about the Arabian Peninsula and he said, ‘It comprises Mecca, Medina, Al-Yamama and Yemen.” Ya’qub added, “And Al-Arj, the beginning of Tihama.“”[38]

        But according to the famous scholar Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani, even pagans could live in Yemen, but not in the areas around Mecca, Medina and Yamama. Ibn Hajar explained that:

        “[t]he pagans are not allowed to settle specifically in the Hijaz region, meaning Makkah, Madinah, al-Yamamah, and their environs. It does not apply to other regions that are considered part of the Arabian Peninsula. This is because everyone is agreed that they may live in Yemen, though it is part of the Arabian Peninsula. This is the opinion of the majority of scholars.”[39]

        Arabia map.jpg
        Figure 3 – A map of the Arabian Peninsula showing the prohibited regions. Even if Yemen was included in the list of prohibited lands, other areas to the north and some areas in the south (the yellow areas) were still open to non-Muslim settlement.[40]
        So we can see that the command to expel the pagans, Jews and Christians definitely applied to the Hijaz region, which included the areas around Mecca, Medina, and Yamama, but there was debate whether Yemen was also included in this list of prohibited areas. However, towns like Tayma were definitely not off-limits.

        Even if the entire Arabian Peninsula was supposed to be off-limits to non-Muslims, so what? According to Temple’s Bible, all non-Jews were to be removed from Israel,[41] or enslaved (as in the case of the Gibeonites),[42] or completely annihilated (as in the case of the Amalekites).[43]

        Liked by 2 people

      • You are a lying scumbag Pennywise. You are cut from the same cloth as the liar Paul of Tarsus, and you will join him in hell along with your father Satan, unless you repent. It’s too late for Paul, but you still have time.

        Liked by 1 person

      • “You don’t know God at all because you deny the Son. You cannot reach the true Allah. Your sins have made a separation between you and God. Isaiah 59:2-3”

        1. like the idols of arabia, we only worship them because they bring us closer to Allah!

        Liked by 2 people

      • Pennywise is just an idolater. There is no difference between him and a Hindu.

        Like

      • “Your sins have made a separation between you and God.”

        so you imagine that your god is in another room and between us and him there is a wall ? i thought your god was loving, one way to demonstrate your love is to speak to God directly like your king david did

        quote:

        Gean says we need Jesus as a mediator between God and man; that’s why he prays to Jesus. Gean must not be aware of this verse: “God is close to all who call to Him, to all who call to Him sincerely.”
        He must not be aware of the many instances in Tanach wherein people prayed directly to God and God heard their prayers: “Now it came to pass in those many days that the king of Egypt died, and the children of Israel sighed from the labor, and they cried out, and their cry ascended to God from the labor. God heard their cry, and God remembered His covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob” (Exodus 2:23-24).
        “And Isaac prayed to the Lord opposite his wife because she was barren, and the Lord accepted his prayer, and Rebecca his wife conceived” (Genesis 25:21).
        Lo and behold! God answers prayers without a mediator! How do you like that?
        Gean, you’re toast. Time to admit it and move on.

        Like

  13. And this is the promise that he made to us—eternal life.

    1 john 2:25

    We Christians have the promise of eternal life and true peace.

    John 14:27

    Like

  14. Dr. James White and Dr. Shabir Ally had a good debate on the Trinity vs. Tawhid. They are more respectful than most Muslims here. Why can’t you act good and respectful like Shabir Ally does?

    Like

    • stop being a fat pussy and open the comment section on your blog. i am sick of you using this blog to sell your penis god.

      Like

      • Your cursing and dirty talk and character prove me right in why I don’t interact much with you, “mr.heathcliff” – you need to repent and at least follow the respectful example of Dr. Shabir Ally.

        Like

      • Many Jews in the first century and some in subsequent centuries did accept Jesus as the Messiah.

        Most all of the first Christians were Jews. 8 of the 9 authors of NT books were Jewish.

        Like

    • Luke 13:1-5
      John 3:18
      John 3:36
      Romans 1:18
      Ephesians 2:1-3

      you are a child of wrath, by nature

      ////

      so the children born to christian women are by nature rapists, adulterers, murderers, homosexuals …..?


      We, on the other hand, have the promise of eternal life.

      John 5:24
      Romans 8:28-39
      Romans 5:1-11
      Acts 16:31
      Ephesians 2:4-10
      1 John 2:25″

      in hell ? based on your own logic, one sin separates you from yhwh, you sin mon-sun, how can a just god put your ass in heaven WHEN u sin every day ? and what happen to your “sin talk” ? you first told us that your nature is filthy, then you say “the blood sacrifice let us get away and we are guaranteed heaven” this is simply paying lip service when you SIN every day and think u are guaranteed heaven. you offer mentrual rags to yhwh, sin and still think u are guaranteed, you arrogant bastard.

      Like

    • “Dr. James White and Dr. Shabir Ally had a good debate on the Trinity vs. Tawhid. They are more respectful than most Muslims here. Why can’t you act good and respectful like Shabir Ally does?”

      LOL, there goes Pennywise with his whining! James White might be deluded about many things, but he doesn’t lie about Islamic sources like you do. Why on earth would anyone show you respect, when you’re such a lying scumbag? James White gets respect because he is respectful of Islam. He doesn’t spread the deceitful propaganda of worms like you. Get over it and stop whining. Change your ways, and then maybe you’ll get respect.

      Liked by 3 people

      • He said the same things that I do – he said that the Qur’an affirms the previous Scriptures and prophets and yet shows no evidence that the Qur’an knew the content of the previous Scriptures; and the Qur’an assumes that the people of the Scripture are READING IT AT THAT TIME. He also agrees with me that the Qur’an is ignorant of history (Surah 4:157) and ignorant of the doctrine of the Trinity. (Surah 5:116)

        Like

      • Dumbass, he doesn’t spread vile propaganda like you do. Like I said, he is deluded about a lot of things, but he does not spread anti-Islamic propaganda. In fact, he criticizes idiots like you for doing that.

        Liked by 1 person

      • No; I agree with Dr. White. Dr. White wrote and has said a lot about the problems with what Muhammad did with Zaid and Zainab Bint Jahash.

        Like

      • Um yeah, like I said, he’s deluded about many things. But he does not rely on idiotic propaganda like whining about the verses about fighting and yet believing in far worse violent verses in the Bible. He realizes that most Christians like you are hypocrites.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Christians are delusional about the Zaid/Zaynab episode. I think it’s more an example of their own debauchery than with the Prophet’s behavior.

        But let’s say that the propaganda of the Christians is correct (it’s not but let’s pretend it is). So what? How does that disprove Muhammad’s claim to prophethood? When a Biblical prophet like David can get away with adultery, rape and murder all at once, and yet still be accepted as a prophet, then why can’t Muhammad (pbuh)?

        Liked by 1 person

      • except God did not approve of what David did and punished him for it and rebuked him for it.

        Whereas, in Islam, “Allah is swift to fulfill your desires” Aisha said – this shows that Muhammad is making stuff up as he goes and goes and gets special revelation for himself as exceptions.

        It does not pass the smell test.

        Like

      • Except that “God” punished him by killing his son. The actual punishment was death by stoning. David was spared that. This proves that the Bible is false. Your god inconsistently applied his own laws.

        Not only that but in the end, David got to keep Bathsheba. So your god fulfilled his desire. Your book destroys itself with its idiotic stories. 🤣

        Liked by 1 person

      • There were many more consequences to David’s action. “the sword shall not depart from your house” and God will allow rape and debauchery before all in daylight, etc. read 2 Samuel chapters 12 and 13. Apparently, God saw fit in His wisdom to allow the recording of David’s sin and shame and repentance (Psalm 51, 32, 58) to be broadcast for all future generations in Holy Scripture. The shame of exposure to the world and history is apparently worse than execution. God can have mercy if He wants to. “mercy triumphs over judgment”. (James 2)

        The rest of 2 Samuel are the other consequences of David’s sin. The lesson is clear – you won’t get away with sin. Secrets will be exposed.

        Like

      • Moron, David was not punished according to the law. Instead, an innocent child was killed to punish him. Why wasn’t he stoned like the law required? And why was he allowed to keep Bathsheba, the object of his desire? Your false book refutes itself and you are a liar.

        Like

      • The only real disagreement is on the issue of “the very best deciever” issue. But if we analyze the Westminister Confession of Faith and London Baptist 1689 statement on God’s decree and sovereignty, we agree. Even Stewjo indicated that the way to explain to evil under God’s sovereignty is that God allows evil spirits and evil people to do the evil; but the verses in the Qur’an on that seem to say that Allah Himself does the deception Himself. (3:54; 8:30; 10:22; 7:99)

        I would agree that God is smarter and able to overcome human plots; but that is not the point that I am making.

        See the 2 Calvinistic confessions:

        notice:
        “God is not the author of sin”

        1. God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;a yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin,b nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.c

        a. Rom 9:15, 18; 11:33; Eph 1:11; Heb 6:17. • b. James 1:13, 17; 1 John 1:5. • c. Prov 16:33; Mat 17:12; John 19:11; Acts 2:23; 4:27-28.

        Yet the Qur’an verses seem to say that Allah does the Makr (deception) Himself, rather than, as in the Bible, sovereignly allowing Satan, demons, and evil people to do the actual act of deception or sin. (Job chapters 1-2; 2 Cor. 12:7-10; Luke 22:31)

        Like

      • What the hell does this have to do with anything? 😂😂😂 You really are a deceiver aren’t you? You just jump from one issue to the next like a diseased monkey, never admitting that you are wrong about something.

        Speaking of the Westminster Confession, this satanic doctrine believes that some children will go to hell.

        This concept is spelled out in the “Westminster Confession of Faith”, which states in chapter 10:

        “III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who works when, and where, and how he pleases: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.

        IV. Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved…”[40]

        https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2018/10/04/do-babies-go-to-hell/

        Liked by 1 person

      • What the hell does this have to do with anything?

        everything. logically to the subject.

        It was an example of a minor disagreement between myself and Dr. White – although, if given the chance, since he also believes the 2 Calvinistic confessions, on God’s Decree, he would agree with me; that God is not that author of sin or deception.

        Like

      • Dummy, you think anyone cares if you, a lying scumbag, has a disagreement with James White? 🤣🤣🤣

        Liked by 1 person

      • It is you who jumped to an unrelated subject – unelect babies, etc.

        Like

      • 🤣 Um no, you troglodyte. You jumped to an irrelevant issue, so I turned it upside down and embarrassed you further by exposing the savagery of your sick theology. Babies in hell? What kind of sick cult are you part of?

        Liked by 1 person

      • No; you went to an irrelevant issue.

        Like

      • No, you’re just an idiot and your god is a savage tyrant. He seems to have a problem with killing children and then burning them in hell.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Thanks for bringing up the savage Westminster Confession of Faith! 😉

        Like

      • “by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;a yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin”

        quote:

        What’s interesting, however, is that the Dead Sea Scrolls text of Isaiah 45:7, 1QIsa(a), pairs “evil” with the Hebrew tov (rather than shalom/peace as the MT does), which means “good,” not “peace.” This same pairing is found in Genesis 2-3 referring to the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” Since the DSS has the more “difficult” reading by stating that Yahweh makes an “evil” which is the opposite of “good,” it probably contains the original reading, and scribes of the MT may have altered the text because of unease with Yahweh’s creating evil. You can view the scroll here: https://ao.net/~fmoeller/qum-38.htm. Notice this comment below the heading “Variations in Q from the Masoretic Text”:

        pennywise , what are you doing ?

        Like

      • “Apparently, God saw fit in His wisdom to allow the recording of David’s sin and shame and repentance (Psalm 51, 32, 58) to be broadcast for all future generations in Holy Scripture. The shame of exposure to the world and history is apparently worse than execution. God can have mercy if He wants to. “mercy triumphs over judgment”. (James 2)”

        quote :

        quote:
        But in the bible, God’s love is also manifested by unexplained apathy toward “justice” for sin, for example, while David’s sin of adultery and murder required death under the Law (God’s expression of justice) God also apparently was able to conveniently bypass that requirement of justice and merely ‘take away’ those sins in conveniently unspecified manner, in the sense of refusing to impose the just penalty on David. God instead tortured a baby to death over a period of several days, not because of David’s sin, but because the Lord’s enemies were given occasion by that sin to laugh:

        11 “Thus says the LORD, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them to your companion, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight.
        12 ‘Indeed you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and under the sun.’”
        13 Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the LORD.” And Nathan said to David, “The LORD also has taken away your sin; you shall not die.
        14 “However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die.”
        15 So Nathan went to his house. Then the LORD struck the child that Uriah’s widow bore to David, so that he was very sick.
        16 David therefore inquired of God for the child; and David fasted and went and lay all night on the ground.
        17 The elders of his household stood beside him in order to raise him up from the ground, but he was unwilling and would not eat food with them.
        18 Then it happened on the seventh day that the child died. (2 Sam. 12:11-18 NAU)

        Let’s see…God finds it this easy to exempt deserving sinners of the “just” penalty God required under law? Apparently, god’s own sense of justice magically becomes malleable whenever such justice might hurt his favorite political candidate.

        Like

      • “The shame of exposure to the world and history is apparently worse than execution. ”

        so trash the biblical punishment laws then. there was absolutely no need for animal sacrifices or punishment laws because guilt would have been worse than execution.

        Like

      • @ Ken

        1. The hadith of Aisha (ra) is her basically exclaiming something not one of doubt. He also got revelations that worked against him and added more burdens on him what’s your point?

        2. Regarding Zaynab (ra) what sin occurred? Basic synopsis:
        A. Went to the house and saw her
        B. Turned around and left praying
        C. Zaid comes home she tells her what happened.
        D. He realizes he’s interested and since him and Zaynab(ra) were having marital problems he offers to divorce so he can marry her.
        E. Muhammad(saw) declines and then after they divorce anyways he marries her.

        No murder, no adultery. As QB said even if we ignore the illogical nature of the story, this works FOR him as he didn’t touch a woman who wasn’t permissible to him. STILL making him better than the Biblical description of David(as)

        3. As QB noted the Quran dies put a limit on his number and even IF we ignore this verse he STILL doesn’t contradict the Quran. Hadith is what limits to 4 if you want to go strictly Quran the max number of wives you can read into the verse that a Muslim man can take is 29 (and yes some scholars did hold this position)

        Liked by 4 people

  15. “Many Jews in the first century and some in subsequent centuries did accept Jesus as the Messiah.”

    who are these “many” ? outside of acts, where is documented evidence that christianity was spreading faster than pagan religions? your pagan religion start having success 300 years after jesus. before that, its growth rate was just like any other pagan religion.

    “Most all of the first Christians were Jews. 8 of the 9 authors of NT books were Jewish.”

    stop being a pussy and open the comments section on your blog so i can respond to this with links , videos and quotes for your christian readers to see.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. “Many Jews in the first century and some in subsequent centuries did accept Jesus as the Messiah.”

    actually, we can see that the jews , ( paul included) found nothing special about your pagan idol.

    jesus did “miracles” according to the nt, his own family thought he was retarded and demon possessed.

    mark says that his followers were liars and ones who were not willing to die for him .

    Truly I tell you,” Jesus declared, “this very night before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.” 35Peter replied, “Even if I must die with You, I will never deny You.” And the rest of the disciples said the same.

    think about it, MARK IS telling you DECADES LATER that jesus’ JEWISH followers were LIARS and were not willing to die for your idol.

    nt wright says that the growth rate of your religion was very slow.

    if we assume paul heard about the “minimal facts” he remained unconvinced until he saw a vision which he does not even describe.

    paul scripture twisting and finding a human sacrifice in the tanakh remained unconvincing to the jews

    what is worse is that it took pauls scripture twisting to convince pagan gentiles , yet yhwh on earth failed miserably to convince his own children.

    Like

  17. Yahweh convinced Peter by His Spirit. (invisible, internally, revealing to the mind and heart)

    “blessed are you Peter, for flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father in heaven.”
    see Matthew 16:13-18

    “flesh and blood did not reveal this to you” = humans or human giftedness or persuasiveness or argumentation did not reveal the truth to you; rather the invisible God speaks and reveals to the mind.

    2 Corinthians 4:6
    Just as God said, “Let there be light” (Genesis 1:3) out of darkness, so also, God has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.”

    For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

    God has to awaken the heart (John 3:1-10)

    God has to open the heart. Acts 16:14

    God has to draw inwardly. John 6:44

    God has to grant repentance. 2 Timothy 2:24-26; Acts 11:18

    Like

  18. “and they exiled the Jews and Christians from the areas later and Surah 9:28 says “if you fear poverty, Allah will reward you” by Surah 9:29 – fight the people of the book, until they submit and pay the Jiziye”,

    ethically and biblically there is notjhing wrong with taking jizya from the people under divine judgment.

    you shouldnt have a problem with driving out either, it is biblically justified.

    you kiss the ass of a people who were

    O you who have believed, surely many of the doctors and monks indeed eat (up) the riches of mankind untruthfully and bar from the way of Allah; and (so do) the ones who hoard gold and silver and do not expend them in the way of Allah. Then give them the tidings of a painful torment

    Like

  19. “You are just mindlessly repeating your false religion of 600 too late subjective claim of one man in the Arabian desert, who affirmed the previous Monotheistic revelations, but did not know the content, and did not quote from it and did aggressive warfare, was a hypocrite for limiting other men to 4 men, while he got special revelations for himself to take more than one wife. Aisha said, “wow, Allah is swift to fulfill your desires”. The way he got Zaid to divorce his wife Zainab and then abolish adoption is truly shameful.

    Later, the Muslims had to come up with the doctrine of Tahreef (change, corruption) of the text, since the Qur’an affirms the previous Scriptures. (Surah 5:46-47; 10:94)

    The author of the Qur’an was ignorant of history ( Surah 4:157) one of most established facts of ancient history that even Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, Bultmann, etc. – all agree that Jesus was crucified and died on a Roman cross under Pontius Pilate.

    The author of the Qur’an was ignorant of the doctrine of the Trinity. (5:72-78; 5:116; 19:88-92; 6:101)

    Therefore, the Qur’an cannot be true, because it gets basic things wrong like history and is ignorant of doctrines that were around for centuries.

    It is just one man’s subjective claim in the Arabian desert. ”

    Temple the dancing monkey clown keeps deflecting and jumping every time he gets refuted! Such is the way of liars, the dogs of Christianity.

    Dummy, most of his wives were widows. You are an ignoramus. Moreover, the Quran did put a limit on how many wives he could have.

    Muslims were already aware of the corruption of the Bible, as Ibn Abbas told us. Every reasonable knows the Bible is false book written by anonymous liars. The only ones who deny this are pathetic crosstian rats like Pennywise.

    The Bible makes several historical errors, like referring to Philistines during the Exodus, when the Philistines did not enter the region until much later. Or like referring to the king of Egypt as “pharaoh” in the time of Abraham, even though that term was not used until much later.

    In contrast, the only “error” Pennywise can find in the Quran is its claim that Jesus was not crucified! LOL!! The Quran doesn’t deny a crucifixion occurred! It just claims that a miracle occurred and Jesus was saved. Historians would not believe in miracles, now would they?

    The trinity…ah yes…the trinity. The question is which trinity? And where does the Quran say that Mary was part of a trinity? There were many beliefs among Christian, including tritheism. And the trinity was just one of the false, Satanic doctrines of these pagan blasphemers.

    Therefore, the Quran is true. The Bible is false. Even a five year old would realize the Bible is a laughable mess of contradictions, errors, and absurdities.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Surah 5:116 says Mary is part of the Trinity, since it says, “did I say take me and my mother as 2 gods besides Allah?” (Allah, Jesus the Son, and Mary = obvious that Qur’an thought Mary was part of the Trinity) also 4:171 and 5:72-75 says “say not three”.

      Like

      • Troglodyte, where does Surah 5:116 say the word “trinity?

        “And [beware the Day] when Allah will say, “O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, ‘Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah?'” He will say, “Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen.”

        Hmm, do you see it there? Of course, it’s not there, so the moron Christians have to jump to a different verse which is condemning a different heresy. Such is the dishonest tactics of these dogs of Paul.

        And even if 5:116 did mention the trinity, the question is which trinity? There are many variant and heretical views on the trinity. Even many modern Christians cannot explain it without creating all sorts of heresies. LOL!!

        Like

      • It is obvious that is what he means, since other verses say, “say not three”

        Like

      • What’s obvious is that you are an idiot and a liar. No one cares about your eisegesis, Pennywise.

        And as I said, even if it was referring to a trinity, so what? There have been heretical versions of the trinity throughout Christian history.

        Like

      • Arberry: And when God said, ‘O Jesus son of Mary, didst thou say unto men, “Take me and my mother as gods, apart from God”?’ He said, ‘To Thee be glory! It is not mine to say what I have no right to. If I indeed said it, Thou knowest it, knowing what is within my soul, and I know not what is within Thy soul; Thou knowest the things unseen

        other than/apart .

        Sahih International: And if you are in doubt about what We have sent down upon Our Servant [Muhammad], then produce a Surah the like thereof and call upon your witnesses other than Allah , if you should be truthful.

        other than /apart

        Liked by 1 person

    • Therefore, the Qur’an is obviously false; a man-made book 600 years too late.

      Like

    • The Bible makes several historical errors, like referring to Philistines during the Exodus, when the Philistines did not enter the region until much later. Or like referring to the king of Egypt as “pharaoh” in the time of Abraham, even though that term was not used until much later.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Another historical error in the Bible is the description of Goliath’s armor. This is another anachronism that proves the Bible has been edited and is not “inspired”.

        Lederman also associates the fight between David and Goliath with Greek mythology, especially the Iliad, basing this on the description of Goliath’s armor. He states that Goliath’s armor:

        “…more closely resembles the armor worn by Achilles in the Iliad than battle dress worn by Philistines as depicted on Egyptian monuments.”

        Azzan Yadin confirms this parallel between later Greek and Mesopotamian armor and the armor of Goliath. He states:

        “Archaeological evidence concerning the Philistines does not accord with the biblical description of Goliath. Goliath’s armor does not fit what is known of Philistine armor from other sources… the head gear is unlike the distinctive feathered helmets of the Egyptian reliefs at Medinet Habu; Goliath’s chain mail is Mesopotamian-Syrian; and the great shield, requiring a shield bearer, is unlike the small round shields of the Philistines portrayed in Egyptian reliefs. In light of this evidence, Galling concludes that the author of the episode does not provide a historically accurate portrayal of Philistine battle-gear, rather represents an electric combination of offensive and defensive gear drawn from various types of armor” (Azzan Yadin, “Goliath’s Armor and Israelite Collective Memory”, Vetus Testamentum, 14, no. 3 (2004), 375-376, https://berlinarchaeology.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/yadin-goliaths-armor.pdf).

        Both Lederman and Yadin also note that Goliath’s death was attributed to another Israelite soldier (Elhanan) in 2 Samuel 21:9, an inconsistency in the Biblical narrative that we also noted in the original article on the Biblical and Quranic versions of David.

        https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2019/12/27/david-in-the-islamic-sources-a-defense-of-the-prophet-from-sam-shamouns-slander-and-poor-research/

        Like

  20. Balancing the common claim that the Copts and other Miaphysites completely welcomed the Arab Muslims as liberators. (it was a mixture and the Islamic victors eventually wore down the populations slowly through economic and social hardship of the unjust Dhimmi system)

    They did not have freedom of religion since part of the Christian religion is evangelism, debate, discussion, respectful criticism of the other religions.

    Islam is like Mafia – “you have to pay for our protection, and if you criticise, we make war with you and make you disappear”

    https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2019/08/01/balancing-the-common-claim-that-the-copts-and-miaphysites-welcomed-the-arab-muslim-invaders/

    Like

    • “Dr. White did an excellent debate with Dr. Shabir Ally a few years ago and went through the Gospel according to Mark, demonstrating His Deity and His crucifixion, death, burial, and resurrection from the dead.”

      since the discussion was about jesus’ jewish disciples, i will STICK to that part.

      ////

      I found Dykstra’s book totally unconvincing in its claim to find a Paulinist tendency in GMark: one of those books, in fact, whose arguments to its thesis are so weak they tend rather to bolster its antithesis!

      As I wrote in my own discussion of this:

      “[Mark’s] Jesus is not a “not one jot” Torah enthusiast like Matthew makes him out to be in places. Nor does he reject the Law as a source of sin, or the imposition of demonic oppressors [like my reading of Paul]. Jesus holds the Law to be divine but inessential. This mirrors the Jewish Christians’ lack of consideration for Torah particulars in favour of the vague brotherly ethics preached in Hebrews, and it is of course also familiar Proto-Catholic territory: respecting the divinity of the Torah without actually following its commandments.”

      On the other hand, I see GMark as rigorously anti-Petrine. What seals this for me, on top of all his failings, is that Peter (“Stone”) and his failing faith narratively exhibit the failure of the seed that falls on stony ground in the parable. There is no redemption there: “because it had no root it withered away”. Even though Peter is supposed to meet the resurrected Jesus in Galilee, there is no reason to think he will ever get the message via the women. Mark may well be sympathetic with the failings of those who fall from faith through fear, but he is scarcely recommending Peter as a leader.
      If GMark is both non-Pauline and anti-Petrine, then I would suggest its origins are simply a mystery at this point. We don’t know enough about the earliest Christian movements to place it.

      Fair enough.
      Firstly, I would suggest that if Mark’s portrayal were meant to be sympathetic, it would look more like the versions of the story we find in the other Gospels.
      Compare the treatment of the betrayal in Luke 22, including:
      “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.”

      This seems to imply that the testing of Peter’s faith will be an instructive and constructive experience for him in the end. Jesus is on his side in this struggle, and Peter will be the better for it when he has come back to faith, and will have a leading role because of it.

      When we look back at GMark, we don’t get this positive contextualisation of Peter’s failure, one that Luke added as if he were aware that he had to demonstrate the interpretation he wanted the reader to put on the incident. The fact that Mark did not direct the reader in this way may suggest he did not intend Peter to be redeemed, and Luke’s rewriting may suggest he was consciously challenging a received interpretation.
      Similarly, GJohn 13: “you will follow afterward”, and GMatt 26, “after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee.” Both put redemption explicitly into Jesus’ warning of betrayal.

      If GMark 16 is doing a similar thing with the words of the young man, then it made a strange ending to leave the message undelivered and Peter’s eventual reunion with Jesus uncertain. Other evangelists sensed that something was wrong with Mark’s narrative and corrected it; this seems to indicate that some incorrect message was being drawn from it by rival Christians.

      Secondly, I would argue that the comparison with Paul’s story-arc from persecutor to apostle is improper: Paul’s failings came before his revelation of Jesus, but he accuses Peter of failings as an apostle, as does GMark. Paul says an apostle should be faithful (1 Cor 4:2), which Peter was not. Paul had not committed an infraction as an apostle, unlike Peter (1 Cor 4:4). Paul says an apostle endures when persecuted (1 Cor 4:12, 2 Cor 4:7-11). From a Pauline position, Peter’s failings unfit him to be an apostle. Can you imagine Paul writing in a letter that he denied his faith under pressure and found it again? He who wrote: “this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, as we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen.”

      Peter’s failings are much more serious than Paul’s. If it weren’t for the later Gospels’ redemption of Peter, one would have called them fatal to his apostleship, although it is interesting that they did not simply delete the episode entirely. Since Peter’s failings so severely violate Paul’s principles, one might conclude that the betrayal story was too well known to be expunged; it could only be massaged.

      Thirdly, I would reiterate my point that what is open to sympathy in a human being, is not necessarily open to sympathy in an apostle. GMark might possibly intend to stir sympathy for the failings of Peter as a man: but as a pillar of the faith? That would seem to require the sort of re-contextualisation that the later Gospels provided.
      If GMark is really about the redemption of Peter, then it is seriously understated and underpowered, as we may judge from the other Gospels and Paul.

      Like

    • I think there’s a question about whether fear is something to sympathise with or not. “He who would save his life will lose it.” GMark identifies fear repeatedly as the factor that weakens faith. Peter may be a readily relatable figure, but for all that he is still a caution against the way we should not let ourselves go. A frightened man cannot lead the faithful.
      The lack of alternative leaders offered by GMark, and the valorisation of local and minor and anonymous characters whose faith is immediate and unquestioning and fearless, makes me wonder if GMark was an argument for a democratisation of the faith, a dethroning of the apostles from their claimed status. Perhaps the ending is meant to inspire you to be less like Peter, and receive Jesus like a fearless child.

      or receive Jesus like a demon or a Gentile, the only ones able to recognize Jesus’ true nature.
      The disciples are continually dumbfounded; the priests and scribes continually perplexed as to — who has such authority? From where comes such power?
      Notwithstanding the Roman church’s rehabilitation of Peter as a morale booster for stumbling, doubting believers, I see him originally written as a yet another failure among many. One last chance opens for Peter to ‘get the message’ (16:7), but that message is never delivered (16:8).

      I almost completely agree with that. Your last sentence is a stumbling-block. You cannot know if they succeed, because it is the end and the other gospels have not been written yet, they are irrelevant to this one. It is just fiction and as such the end must be the end, the rest can only be in the imagination of the reader. The suspense is brilliantly created. We know the disciples were forewarned, but we also know they are perfectly capable of misunderstanding or forgetting about it(the whole story is full of that), so your conclusion is not only a bit hasty and unsupported from within but also biased by outside influences not incorporated in the story itself. My personal intuition would bet on the disciples being totally scattered, like sheep without the sheep herd and that is that. But that is not the point. Jesus lives(he actually never died during crucifixion) and finally relieved from the disturbing urges of the Holy Spirit at the cross, he can go back home and live his old Nazarene life again, if the disciples ever team up with him is totally irrelevant because the story ends here.

      My own impression is that Mark 16:1-8 is a text that should be read with ease but most interpreters ask and want to answer eager questions which ultimately have little to do with the story.
      Does the text prove the resurrection?
      How could the word get out and Christianity begin?
      Are the disciples rehabilitated?
      Is there a lost ending?
      … and so on
      Is Mark 16:1-8 not essentially a story about the last remaining Galilean followers of Jesus? Is the essential content of the story not the illlustration that these women, although they were devoted followers of Jesus, did not understand the essentials, because
      – they were Sabbath observers
      – they did not expect a resurrection
      – they did not receive the message with sympathy
      – they did not pass on the Good News
      Does not this story about the women reflect in some sense what Mark had already said about the Galilean male disciples?

      Like

    • quote :
      The bad news is I find it amazing because I think all of your conclusions are wrong. The most important one is you think “The women” not telling anyone that Jesus’ corpus (so to speak) was missing in action was intended as evidence that The Disciples believed/understood Jesus’ prediction that he would be resurrected and thought of his Galilee statement as instruction of a reunion. Your conclusion not only has no explicit support from the text but is contradicted by the primary theme of GMark:
      1) The Disciples believed in a popular, conquering, traditional Messiah.
      2) The Disciples never had faith in Jesus.
      3) The Disciples filled all of Jesus’ formulas for disciple failure. Perfectly.

      5) I don’t think the Galilee prediction is original. Even if it is you still have to interpret it based on the rest of GMark and not verses-vice (and that is Ben’s mistake). Jesus says he will go to Galilee and later, the Disciples will go there, nothing more. But this is the logical progression of the unbelieving disciples. The have abandoned/failed Jesus so they go home to Galilee where Jesus has already gone. There’s nothing in the text indicating that if the disciples met Jesus in Galilee they would believe in him and follow him. Jesus explained that his followers in death would have to suffer like him and that is what the disciples ran away from. The post resurrection stories of the disciples are in subsequent Gospels. To think of the disciples that way is anachronistic.

      Like

    • I found an interesting analysis of the diverse endings of GMark on the net. Though I not necessarily endorse it’s tenets, it gives a good overview of the problems connected and theories that have circulated up to now.

      http://www.willker.de/wie/TCG/TC-Mark-Ends.pdf


      Of course you can go to the top level http://www.willker.de/wie/TCG/ for even more goodies about important textual variants of the Gospels. Highly recommended.

      I always found it fascinating that this statement in gMatthew was never solved in that gospel: “17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.” It’s a weird statement, given we are supposedly looking at a meetup. No word about whether they stopped doubting.
      I generally find this whole post-resurrection business one of the most puzzling issues of the gospels. Is “Galilee” used in the literal or in some metaphorical sense that is lost to us? Did the disciples meet on a mountain or by chance, while fishing? Or did they really meet in Jerusalem, and why do we then have those Galilee episodes at all? Where does James (the alleged “brother of the Lord”) suddenly come from? In general, why was this group of people, whose leader was just subjected to capital punishment for trying a political coup (the gospels may waffle around this point, but there’s that pesky “triumphal entry into Jerusalem”) setting up shop right next to the arm of the law? Does it really make sense that a group of people, who are comprised of the retinue of someone who was killed for treason and still openly venerate him, would be left alone, right under the eyes of both, temple and Roman prefect? If Josephus is to be believed, no Roman prefect, not even Pilate, would hesitate much to get rid of all followers of similar figures

      Liked by 1 person

    • “Your sins have made a separation between you and God.”

      so you imagine that your god is in another room and between us and him there is a wall ? i thought your god was loving, one way to demonstrate your love is to speak to God directly like your king david did

      quote:

      Gean says we need Jesus as a mediator between God and man; that’s why he prays to Jesus. Gean must not be aware of this verse: “God is close to all who call to Him, to all who call to Him sincerely.”
      He must not be aware of the many instances in Tanach wherein people prayed directly to God and God heard their prayers: “Now it came to pass in those many days that the king of Egypt died, and the children of Israel sighed from the labor, and they cried out, and their cry ascended to God from the labor. God heard their cry, and God remembered His covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob” (Exodus 2:23-24).
      “And Isaac prayed to the Lord opposite his wife because she was barren, and the Lord accepted his prayer, and Rebecca his wife conceived” (Genesis 25:21).
      Lo and behold! God answers prayers without a mediator! How do you like that?
      Gean, you’re toast. Time to admit it and move on.

      Like

      • mr.heathcliff,

        I hope you realize I don’t read much of your long cut and paste stuff, because your dirty character, language, cussing, etc. disqualified you and I don’t waste much time on your long comments filled with bad grammar, bad spelling, cursing words, etc.

        If I see a short one that I can understand, I will respond, but most of your stuff gets ignored.

        Like

    • THERE IS NO DOUBT ABOUT IT THAT MARK WROTE HIS GOSPELS TO TELL HIS READERS THAT jesus jewish DISCIPLES WERE LIARS, SINNERS AND COWARDS. THEY HAD NO FAITH. THEY LACKED FAITH. MARK IS TELLING HIS GENTILE READERS NOT TO BE LIKE jesus JEWISH FOLLOWERS.

      it is CLEAR MESSAGE that jewish PEOPLE HAD NO faith in your pagan DEMON possessed “yhwh”

      “they said NOTHING TO ANYONE FOR THEY WERE AFRAID”

      FEAR KILLS FAITH MESSAGE OF THE GOSPEL OF MARK

      Like

    • “Whereas, in Islam, “Allah is swift to fulfill your desires” Aisha said – this shows that Muhammad is making stuff up as he goes and goes and gets special revelation for himself as exceptions”

      if you weren’t a liar for jesus, why would you even bother repeating your lies?

      Like

      • Shabir said it is not in the Qur’an, but it is part of Islamic official history (Al Tabari, and some Hadith) parts of it are there in the Qur’an, in Surah 33:4; 33:36; 33:37:

        33:36 is especially troubling, for it shows they were embarrassed about the scandal, so Allah had to say, “don’t question my decisions” – it was actually Muhammad putting words into God’s mouth.

        “It is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, that they should [thereafter] have any choice about their affair. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has certainly strayed into clear error.”

        Shortly later, Allah sent Muhammad a revelation that abrogated all adoptions: “Allâh has not put for any man two hearts inside his body. Neither has He made your wives whom you declare to be like your mothers’ backs, your real mothers. Nor has He made your adopted sons your real sons. That is but your saying with your mouths. But Allâh says the truth, and He guides to the Way. Call them by their fathers, that is more just with Allâh. But if you know not their fathers’ names, call them your brothers in faith and your freed slaves. And there is no sin on you if you make a mistake therein, except in regard to what your hearts deliberately intend.” (Quran Surah 33:4-5).

        Muhammad was eagerly waiting for revelation from Allah to help his predicament. He was at Aisha’s house when he supposedly got the above revelation.

        Narrated Aisha: I said (to the Prophet), “I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires.”

        Aisha knew well that “Allah’s made to order and prompt” revelations were coming from Muhammad himself.

        Syed Kamran Mirza:

        “Islam prohibits adopting children. Period. Adoption in the technical sense is not allowed in Muslim Shriah law. This is because Allah does not like this gesture of adopting orphan children. Muhammad Rushed Ridha states, “Allah prohibited adoption in Islam and annulled all the judgements pertaining to adoption. The most important one of which was the prohibition of the wife of the adopted son to the fostering father as though he is the natural father. So Allah commanded his prophet to marry Zainab Bint Jahsh in order to abolish pagan custom (Fatawa al-Imam).” Al-sabuni states, “As to Zainab Bint Jahsh, the Messenger of Allah married for no higher wisdom than to abolish the heresy of adoption (A-sabuni).”

        I don’t know, how in the world Allah could dislike such noble deeds. I am not sure what percentage of Muslims actually knows this divine law. I do admit that I never knew this and, I was stunned when I first learnt this from a real Mullah. How and why was this noble custom among human being prohibited? We shall learn this history later in this essay.

        Pre-Islamic Arab Custom: Adoption of orphan/helpless child was a very popular and moral practice amongst pre-Islamic Arabs. By adopting orphan/helpless child, they used to consider adopted child as their own. And they used to pass onto them the adopter’s genealogy and name, his investment of them with all the rights of the legitimate son including that of inheritance and the prohibition of marriage on grounds of consanguinity.

        Post-Islamic Custom: The all-wise legislator of Islam willed to undo the above mentioned Arab practice of adopting children. The divine legislator willed to give the adopted son only the right of a client and co-religionist. For that reason a verse was revealed: “God did not make your adopted son as your own sons. To declare them so is your empty claim. God’s word is righteous and constitutes true guidance. (Q.33: 4).” It follows from this revelation that the adopter may marry the ex-wife of his adopted son and vice-versa. Thus Muhammad married Zainab in order to provide a good example of what the All-wise legislator was seeking to establish by way of rights and privileges for adoption. In this regard God further said: “After a term of married life with her husband, We permitted you to marry her so that it may hence be legitimate and morally blameless for a believer to marry the wife of his adopted son provided that wife has already been divorced. That is God’s commandment which must be fulfilled (Q.33: 37).” Who, among the Arabs, could implement this noble legislation and thereby openly repudiate the ancient traditions? The truth is, however, that Muhammad was the exemplar of obedience to God; his life was the implementation of that which he was entrusted to convey to mankind. His life constitutes the highest ideal, the perfect example, and the concrete instance of his Lord’s command (M.H. Haykal, page-296-297).

        Those who are Muslims and are obedient to the Qur’an will not have adopted sons.

        Muhammad’s Marriage to Zainab Bint Jashsh

        Muhammad’s marriage to Zainab, who was the wife of his adopted son, led to many accusations against Muhammad. The dissimulators said, “Muhammad prohibits the wives of the son while he himself marries the wife of his son Zaid.” These incidents are not in harmony with the ethics and conventions that Muhammad introduced to mankind, as Muslims claim. Abdullah Ibn Umar narrated: “We have always called him [namely Zaid] Zaid Ibn Muhammad.” Abdullah Ibn Umar said, “We only called him Zaid Ibn Muhammad till the verse “Muhammad is not the father of any of your men’ was revealed.””

        Historical views: There are many conflicting stories about this scandalous happening and all these stories are based on Sahih Hadiths and Muslim biographies and books. It is worthwhile to quote here what Ibn Sa`d and al-Tabari said concerning this story:

        Muhammad Ibn Yahya Ibn Hayyan narrated, “The Messenger of God came to Zaid Ibn Haritha’s house seeking him. Perhaps the Messenger of God missed him at that time, that is why he said, ‘Where is Zaid?’ He went to his house seeking him and, when he did not find him, Zainab Bint Jahsh stood up to [meet] him in a housedress, but the Messenger of God turned away from her. She said, ‘He is not here, Messenger of God, so please come in; my father and mother are your ransom.’ The Messenger of God refused to come in. Zainab had hurried to dress herself when she heard that the Messenger of God was at her door, so she leapt in a hurry, and the Messenger of God liked her when she did that. The heart of the Prophet was filled with admiration for her He went away muttering something that was hardly understandable but for this sentence: ‘Praise be to God who disposes the hearts.’ When Zaid came back home, she told him that the Messenger of God came. Zaid asked, ‘You asked him to come in, didn’t you?’ She replied, ‘I bade him to, but he refused.’ He said, ‘Have you heard [him say] anything?’ She answered, ‘When he had turned away, I heard him say something that I could hardly understand. I heard him say, “Praise be to God who disposes the hearts.” ‘ Zaid went out to the Messenger of God and said, ‘O Messenger of God, I learned that you came to my house. Did you come in? O Messenger of God, my father and mother are your ransom. Perhaps you liked Zainab. I can leave her.’ The Messenger of God said, ‘Hold on to your wife.’ Zaid said, ‘O Messenger of God, I will leave her.’ The Messenger of God said, ‘Keep your wife.’ So when Zaid left her, she finished her legal period after she had isolated herself from Zaid. While the Messenger of God was sitting and talking with `A´isha, he was taken in a trance, and when it lifted, he smiled and said, ‘Who will go to Zainab to tell her that God wedded her to me from heaven?’ The Messenger of God recited; ‘Thus you told someone whom God had favoured and whom you yourself have favoured: “Hold on to your wife.” ‘ `A´isha said, ‘I heard much about her beauty and, moreover, about how God wedded her from heaven, and I said, “For sure she will boast over this with us.” ‘ Salama, the slave of the Messenger of God, hurried to tell her about that. She gave her some silver jewellery that she was wearing.”

        More help from Allah:

        So, this charge that the dissimulators, among others, leveled against Muhammad (pbuh) necessitated the revelation of more Qur’anic verses:

        (Sura al-Ahzab Q.33: 40): “Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but [he is] God’s Messenger and the Seal of the Prophets. God is Aware of everything!”

        (Sura al-Ahzab Q.33: 37): “We married her off to you so that there would be no objection for believers in respect to their adopted sons’ wives once they have accomplished their purpose with them. God’s command must be done!”

        In the verse (33:37) there is stated a particular purpose for this revelation and action of Muhammad. It is not for himself, but it is for the future of the Muslim community. It is so that in future there may not be a problem if anybody (father-in-law) wants to marry the divorced wife of an adopted son. “We permitted you to marry her so that it may hence be legitimate and morally blameless for a believer to marry the wife of his adopted son.” Without adoption, there cannot be any adopted son either. Therefore, the explicitly stated reason for the revelation of this verse does not exist. Muhammad himself dissolved the original adoption of Zaid when the above revelation came. Also, it is a mystery why in the world, any father-in law will need to marry his adopted son’s wife.”

        Syed Kamran Mirza

        Like

    • Still lying scumbag?

      Temple then gave a sob story about how the poor Christians had to deal with the “fear of persecution” and that conversions to Islam occurred “over the centuries” (in effect, he admits there were virtually no so-called “forced conversions”) due to the “economic and social pressures of being ‘Dhimmi’”. This claim is common among Christian apologists, but it is nothing more than an over-exaggerated revisionism of actual history.

      While there were certainly periods of time when Christians and other groups were unfairly treated by some Muslim rulers (especially under the rule of the Umayyad dynasty, who ironically, also heavily taxed converts as well), this was largely the exception and not the rule. Let’s look at the example of the Egyptian Copts.

      During the initial period after the conquest of Egypt and up to the time of the Umayyads, Coptic Christians actually had another option other than paying the jizyah or converting. Since the tax could not be taken from monasteries and monks, joining a monastery would allow a person to avoid paying the jizyah. But by the time of the Umayyads, monks also began to be taxed. The Christian scholar Jurji Zaydan described it this way:

      “[w]hen the Copts found that conversion to Islam would not exempt them from poll-tax nor from its extortion by violence, some of them bethought of taking the monk’s robe, since monks were exempted from the poll-tax. The Umayyad viceroys, perceiving their object, proceeded to impose poll-tax on the monks, and became so vindictive that some wanted to enforce it on the dead as well as the living, by making the survivors pay poll-tax for their dead relatives. Many such incidents are reported for the Umayyad period…”[12]

      Later on, Umar II, one of the few just rulers of the Umayyad dynasty, reversed these policies. According to Zaydan:

      “[t]his process was carried on by the Umayyads, who overlooked the charted of Omar, until the Caliphate came to his grandson and admirer Omar II, who, amongst other instances of imitation of Omar I, wrote to his viceroys bidding them restore the provisions of the charter.”[13]

      The Umayyads were so corrupt that they even placed heavy taxes on converts to Islam! They even took the jizyah from converts and persecuted Islamic scholars such as Abu Haneefa (the founder of the Hanafi school in Sunni Islam) when they spoke out against such blatant violations of Islamic law. As Muslim author Dr. Nazeer Ahmed states:

      “[t]he Omayyads forgot the fraternal message of Islam and treated the new converts with disdain. Often, the converts were forced to pay the Jizya even after they had accepted Islam. It was against such discrimination that Imam Abu Haneefa (who lived through the Abbasid revolution) fought. In one of his dictums Abu Haneefa said: “The belief of a newly converted Turk is the same as that of an Arab from Hejaz”. But the Omayyads resented such reforms and Imam Abu Haneefa was jailed for his activism.”[14]

      And it was Umar II yet again who tried to reverse these unjust policies.[15]

      Moreover, it is frankly silly to claim that Copts converted to Islam to escape the jizyah, when the reality was that the jizyah was just ONE of the taxes they had to pay during the Umayyad reign and even during the early years of the Islamic conquests. According to Daniel C. Dennett, in his book Conversion and the Poll Tax in Early Islam, every Coptic man (not women and children) had to pay:

      The poll tax (i.e., jizyah);
      A land tax;
      A tax known as the embole (which was paid in the form of crops);
      A tax to cover the upkeep of Muslims;
      A tax for the support of local officials.[16]

      He also noted that converting to Islam during the Umayyad reign did not exempt the converts from paying the jizyah, as already noted, a practice of the Umayyads that violated Islamic law.[17]

      But things were a little different during the initial conquest. Dennett explained that there were different agreements in Egypt, based on the different situations in different cities. According to him, the Copts agreed to pay the jizyah at a rate of 2 dinars for every “adult able-bodied male” and 1 dinar for land, as well as a tax on produce and a payment for the needs of the Muslims (i.e., clothing, entertainment, etc.). But Alexandria, which had been taken by force, was simply annexed. Meanwhile, the Pentapolis “paid a fixed, annual sum, to be neither increased nor decreased”. Thus, there were different tax policies depending on different circumstances.

      Dennett also made an astute and interesting observation regarding the so-called “economic motive for conversion”. He stated that:

      “[i]f in Egypt conversion had freed a man from all tribute since the beginning of the Arab empire until after the death of Abd-al-Aziz in 703, and if after the census of ibn a-Habhab in 725 conversion freed a man of his poll tax but not his land tax, then it follows that the economic motive for conversion was stronger from 640 to 703 than after 725. We should therefore expect more conversions before 703 than after 725. The facts, however, indicate exactly the opposite. The only mention of conversion in Severus before 703 is the statement that al-Asbagh compelled by force many persons to become Muslims…

      In three passages, therefore, mentioning conversion in this Christian authority [Severus], the two passages which ascribe conversion to an economic motive fall at a time when…conversion freed a man only of a poll tax, not of tribute.”[18]

      So there really was not much “economic motive for conversion” after all. Temple, like most Christian apologists, made a silly argument based on hyperbolic emotional arguments rather than facts.

      https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2019/06/24/the-temple-of-ignorance-a-response-to-ken-temple-on-dhimmis-jizyah-and-islam-part-ii/

      Liked by 1 person

  21. “except God did not approve of what David did and punished him for it and rebuked him for it.”

    god punished david for an action, lusting would not have been a problem. we know this because

    if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife.

    I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.

    i don’t think there would be a problem with multiple concubines or wives because yhwh saw it as a blessing .
    anything yhwh blesses must be of divine origin so yhwh in a sense was appeasing the appetite of his lustful ones.

    Like

  22. Narrated Aisha: I said (to the Prophet), “I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires.”

    Narrated Aisha:

    I used to look down upon those ladies who had given themselves to Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) and I used to say, “Can a lady give herself (to a man)?” But when Allah revealed: “You (O Muhammad) can postpone (the turn of) whom you will of them (your wives), and you may receive any of them whom you will; and there is no blame on you if you invite one whose turn you have set aside (temporarily).’ (33.51) I said (to the Prophet), “I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires.”

    USC-MSA web (English) reference
    Sahih Al Bukhari : Vol. 6, Book 60, Hadith 311
    Arabic reference : Book 65, Hadith 4788

    Like

    • Notice the historical context, as the Hadith gives the verse is in the Qur’an 33:51- to show when this verse was revealed. Along with other verses in context of Surah 33, demonstrates the scandal.

      Like

    • How convenient for the guy to make up revelations about when to have sex with his many wives, whenever he wants, and say that God said that “there is no blame on you”

      Like

      • “How convenient for the guy to make up revelations about when to have sex with his many wives, whenever he wants, and say that God said that “there is no blame on you”

        fat bastard

        The following are from properly credentialed bible scholars, while Holding has no formal education in the bible beyond a master’s in library science:
        Only the young girls would be allowed to live so that they may be taken as wives or slaves by the Israelite men, according to the principles of holy war (Deut 20:13–14; 21:10–14). By this they could be brought under the umbrella of the covenant community of faith.
        Cole, R. D. (2001, c2000). Vol. 3B: Numbers (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 499). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

        31:17–18. rationale for who is put to death. The criteria used to determine who would be executed were two: (1) all the boys must be killed to prevent them from presenting a military threat in the future, and (2) all nonvirgins must die since they have already been contaminated by sexual contact with a proscribed people. Virgins represent an “unplowed field” and may be adopted through marriage into the Israelite tribes (see Judg 21:11–12). It is also possible that they were enslaved or used as concubines. These young women were presumably innocent of the seduction of the Israelites by Midianite women at Baal-Peor (Num 25).
        Matthews, V. H., Chavalas, M. W., & Walton, J. H. (2000). The IVP Bible background commentary : Old Testament (electronic ed.) (Nu 31:18-24). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

        The adult males are slain, including the king, princes, and Balaam. The women and children are taken as captives along with much booty. Moses is angry with the military leaders when he sees the Midianite women. They, on Balaam’s advice, had turned Israel away from the Lord. He commands the officers to kill all the boys and every woman who has slept with a man. The virgins and little girls are spared; they will be assimilated into the congregation of Israel by marriage. Thus, in the midst of vengeance, there is compassion.
        Elwell, W. A. (1996, c1989). Vol. 3: Evangelical commentary on the Bible. Baker reference library (Nu 31:1). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House.

        Only the virgins were spared, because they could marry Israelites and thereby be assimilated into the Israelite community.
        Brown, R. E., Fitzmyer, J. A., & Murphy, R. E. (1968]; Published in electronic form by Logos Research Systems, 1996). The Jerome Biblical commentary (electronic ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

        The young virgins were spared for marriage (Deut. 21:10–14) and slavery (Lev. 25:44–46)
        Hughes, R. B., Laney, J. C., & Hughes, R. B. (2001). Tyndale concise Bible commentary. Rev. ed. of: New Bible companion. 1990.; Includes index. The Tyndale reference library (Page 65). Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers.

        Like

    • The lying scumbag keeps exposing himself!

      Let’s read Surah 33:51 in its entirety, shall we?

      “You, [O Muhammad], may put aside whom you will of them or take to yourself whom you will. And any that you desire of those [wives] from whom you had [temporarily] separated – there is no blame upon you [in returning her]. That is more suitable that they should be content and not grieve and that they should be satisfied with what you have given them – all of them. And Allah knows what is in your hearts. And ever is Allah Knowing and Forbearing.”

      So, the wives had everything they needed. So what if the Prophet could change his visits?

      And then there is the next verse, which the dogs of Christianity always seem to leave out:

      “Not lawful to you, [O Muhammad], are [any additional] women after [this], nor [is it] for you to exchange them for [other] wives, even if their beauty were to please you, except what your right hand possesses. And ever is Allah, over all things, an Observer.”

      Well, how about that? So, God put a limit on how many wives he could have. All of them were lawfully wedded to him, in contrast to the unlawful marriage between David and Bathsheba that Pennywise’s inconsistent god allowed to continue, but only after killing an innocent child to “punish” David. Wow. And the dogs of Christianity have a problem with Islam?

      Liked by 2 people

      • “except what your right hand possesses” = sex slaves

        That is unlimited. spoils of war.

        That is what Islam did in history.

        Even Yasir Qadhi admitted this – he said the majority of the Abbasids and Uthmaniye (Ottomans) were the results of this practice. Kill all or most of the men, and take the women as sex maids.

        Like

      • Hey monkey Christian, how many concubines did you god allow David to have? And Solomon?

        The point is, moron, that there was a limit to how many wives he could have. Why would there be a limit if he was faking revelation, as you worms claim?

        Liked by 2 people

  23. If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.

    — Qur’an, Sura 4 (An-Nisa), Ayah 3

    seems to limit wives to 4; but adds captive women whom your right hand possesses = sex slaves / maidens / concubines

    Like

    • And this was for everyone moron, not just the Prophet. The only difference was that the Prophet was allowed to have more wives with a limit. And he mostly married widows.

      Like

      • “and what your right hand possesses” makes it unlimited sex maids / sex slaves.

        Like

      • God allowed David and Solomon to do that, but God did not approve of it. 1 Kings 11 is clear that God is displeased with Solomon’s sins of multiplying wives and concubines. God split the kingdom of Israel into 2 parts because of Solomon’s sins.

        Like

      • Except it was not like your god and the little Midianite virgin girls.

        “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 31:15-18)

        Like

      • “God allowed David and Solomon to do that, but God did not approve of it. 1 Kings 11 is clear that God is displeased with Solomon’s sins of multiplying wives and concubines. God split the kingdom of Israel into 2 parts because of Solomon’s sins.”

        Oh, you are such a liar! Are you so shameless that you will lie about what your Bible actually says?

        Let’s read 1 Kings 11, shall we Pennywise son of Satan?

        “King Solomon, however, loved many foreign women besides Pharaoh’s daughter—Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians and Hittites. 2 They were from nations about which the Lord had told the Israelites, “You must not intermarry with them, because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods.” Nevertheless, Solomon held fast to them in love. 3 He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and t/hree hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray.”

        So, it was about taking the foreign women as wives because they would lead Solomon astray that God was condemning, not the specific act of having concubines.

        Furthermore, later in the chapter, God even says that he will not take Solomon’s kingdom away during his life. Why? For the sake of his father, David, who also had numerous concubines!

        “Nevertheless, for the sake of David your father, I will not do it during your lifetime. I will tear it out of the hand of your son.”

        Notice again how God seems to really have a problem with punishing the children for the sins of their fathers.

        And as for David, we know he had concubines. So what did God say about David?

        “For David had done what was right in the eyes of the Lord and had not failed to keep any of the Lord’s commands all the days of his life—except in the case of Uriah the Hittite.” (1 Kings 15:5)

        WOW! So the only thing David was criticized for was his dealing with Uriah. But as for the KILLINGS, the CONCUBINES, etc.? Meh. David “had done what was right…”

        You are a liar Pennywise. You are a child of Satan, the father of all lies.

        Liked by 1 person

      • “nd what your right hand possesses” makes it unlimited sex maids / sex slaves.”

        Ya f-kin krister, your “god the son” was sucking on breasts for two years, ya bastard. i feel like dropping ya fukin jaw.

        Like

      • @ Kennywise I mean Ken

        First off the Jews have concubines, ol:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilegesh

        Abraham(as) had a concubine, as did Jacob(as) (2 in fact), and neither had any condemnation. As did David(as), as did Solomon(as). pausing here the text of Exodus 21:7-10 says NOTHING about taking concubines it ONLY refers to wives which are a different status. NEITHER does 1 Kings 11 as again it says WIVES not concubines:
        https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Kings+11&version=NIV

        as did YHWh’s hordes rampaging the Levant. As did ALL these people:
        https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Concubines

        This is REALLY a losing battle to fight. Just because you adopted Roman paganism (again) to determine your relationships don’t try to condemn what God has allowed.

        https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/concubine/

        Liked by 4 people

    • “1 Kings 11 is clear that God is displeased with Solomon’s sins of multiplying wives and concubines.”

      now experience bitch slapping

      https://www.rickbeckman.org/log/bible-polygamists/

      you fat paid chicken shit

      Liked by 1 person

  24. But your Qur’an approves of sex slaves – “whatever your right hand possesses”

    shameful

    Like

    • The Quran usually refers to slaves as ‘those whom your right hands possess,’ instead of other Arabic words in use at the time such as ‘abd or ‘abid or raqiq. This type of phrasing indicated that the master ‘owned’ his slaves (or perhaps more accurately, he was their ‘custodian’), but also that Allah was holding the master responsible for their care and good treatment.

      Al-Qurtubi writes:

      أَنَّ مِلْكَ الْيَمِينِ فِي الْعَدْلِ قَائِمٌ بِوُجُوبِ حُسْنِ الْمَلَكَةِ وَالرِّفْقِ بِالرَّقِيق وَأَسْنَدَ تَعَالَى الْمِلْكَ إِلَى الْيَمِينِ إِذْ هِيَ صِفَةُ مَدْحٍ وَالْيَمِينُ مَخْصُوصَةٌ بِالْمَحَاسِنِ لِتَمَكُّنِهَا

      The ownership of the right hand, in justice, provides maintenance by obligation of good custodianship and gentleness with slaves. The Almighty attributed ownership to the right hand as it is a praiseworthy attribute, and the right hand specifically has the best qualities to carry it out.

      Source: Tafsīr al-Qurṭubī 4:3

      Even the use of the term ‘slave’ was discouraged, instead opting for terms that conveyed a sense of solidarity and familial relationship.

      Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said:

      لَا يَقُولَنَّ أَحَدُكُمْ عَبْدِي فَكُلُّكُمْ عَبِيدُ اللَّهِ وَلَكِنْ لِيَقُلْ فَتَايَ وَلَا يَقُلْ الْعَبْدُ رَبِّي وَلَكِنْ لِيَقُلْ سَيِّدِي

      Do not refer to anyone as ‘my slave,’ for all of you are the slaves of Allah. Rather, you should refer to him as ‘my young man.’ The slave should not refer to anyone as ‘my lord,’ but rather he should refer to him as ‘my master.’

      Source: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 2414, Grade: Muttafaqun Alayhi

      Slaves were also described as ‘servants’ (khuddam), ‘maid-servants’ (wasifah), and other terms that changed the social conception of the institution.

      The legal relationship between a master and concubine, which made sexual intercourse lawful, was exclusive to them alone, as if it were a marriage. It was a binding social contract that legalized and regulated sexual activity in the same manner as a marriage contract. A master could not sell his right to lawful intercourse with his concubine to anyone else, nor could he force her to engage in prostitution, just as it was unlawful for him to do so with his free wife.

      Allah said:

      وَلَا تُكْرِهُوا فَتَيَاتِكُمْ عَلَى الْبِغَاءِ إِنْ أَرَدْنَ تَحَصُّنًا لِّتَبْتَغُوا عَرَضَ الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا ۚ وَمَن يُكْرِههُّنَّ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ مِن بَعْدِ إِكْرَاهِهِنَّ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ

      Do not compel your servant girls to prostitution, if they desire chastity, seeking the interests of worldly life. If someone should compel them, then Allah is (to them), after their compulsion, forgiving and merciful.

      Surat al-Nur 24:33

      It was not even lawful for a man to engage in sexual intercourse with a slave girl owned by his wife or any other relative, as such a relationship was tantamount to adultery, just as it would be unlawful for him to have intercourse with another relative’s wife.

      Habib ibn Salim reported: A man had sexual intercourse with the servant girl of his wife, so the matter was referred to Al-Nu’man ibn Bashir. Al-Nu’man said:

      لَأَقْضِيَنَّ فِيهَا بِقَضَاءِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لَئِنْ كَانَتْ أَحَلَّتْهَا لَهُ لَأَجْلِدَنَّهُ مِائَةً وَإِنْ لَمْ تَكُنْ أَحَلَّتْهَا لَهُ رَجَمْتُهُ

      I will judge him with the judgment of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him. If his wife had given him permission, I will lash him one hundred times. If she did not give him permission, I will stone him to death.

      Source: Sunan al-Tirmidhī 1451, Grade: Hasan

      This narration demonstrates that it is not simply ownership in itself that legalized sexual relationships with concubines, as if it were merely a matter of property law. Sexual relations were only authorized by custodianship and its accompanying responsibilities of maintenance and good treatment, which served as a legally-binding social contract analogous to a marriage contract.

      If a concubine gave birth to her master’s child, juristic consensus mandated that she be granted legal protection from being sold off to anyone else or being separated from her child. Her status would be upgraded as ‘mother of the child’ (umm al-walad).

      Abdullah ibn Umar reported: Umar ibn al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, said:

      أَيُّمَا وَلِيدَةٍ وَلَدَتْ مِنْ سَيِّدِهَا فَإِنَّهُ لَا يَبِيعُهَا وَلَا يَهَبُهَا وَلَا يُوَرِّثُهَا وَهُوَ يَسْتَمْتِعُ بِهَا فَإِذَا مَاتَ فَهِيَ حُرَّةٌ

      When a servant woman gives birth from her master, then he may not sell her, or bestow her, or bequeath her. He may enjoy her and she becomes free when he dies.

      Source: al-Muwaṭṭa’ 1509, Grade: Sahih

      Al-Zurqani comments on this tradition, saying:

      وَبِهَذَا قَالَ عُثْمَانُ وَأَكْثَرُ التَّابِعِينَ وَالْأَئِمَّةُ الْأَرْبَعَةُ وَجُمْهُورُ الْفُقَهَاءِ لِأَنَّ عُمَرَ لَمَّا نَهَى عَنْهُ فَانْتَهَوْا صَارَ إِجْمَاعًا

      This was said by Uthman, most of the successors, the four Imams, and the majority of jurists. When Umar prohibited selling them, it became prohibited by consensus.

      Source: Sharḥ al-Zurqānī 1509

      Concubines could upgrade their status and earn their freedom in others ways, by either agreeing to a contract specifying freedom after a certain amount of her work (mukatabah) or the master pledging her freedom upon his death (mudabbarah).

      Allah said:

      وَالَّذِينَ يَبْتَغُونَ الْكِتَابَ مِمَّا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ فَكَاتِبُوهُمْ إِنْ عَلِمْتُمْ فِيهِمْ خَيْرًا وَآتُوهُم مِّن مَّالِ اللَّهِ الَّذِي آتَاكُمْ

      Those who seek a contract of emancipation from among those whom your right hands possess, then make a contract with them if you know there is good in them and give them from the wealth of Allah which He has given you.

      Surat al-Nur 24:33

      If a master abused, harmed, or injured his concubine, he would have violated his right to custodianship, the terms of his social contract. He would be required to set her free as a result and be subject to criminal punishment for his abuse.

      Ibn Umar reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessing be upon him, said:

      مَنْ ضَرَبَ غُلَامًا لَهُ حَدًّا لَمْ يَأْتِهِ أَوْ لَطَمَهُ فَإِنَّ كَفَّارَتَهُ أَنْ يُعْتِقَهُ

      Whoever strikes his slave sharply or slaps him, then the expiation for the sin is to emancipate him.

      Source: Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 1657, Grade: Sahih

      Malik reported:

      أَنَّ عُمَرَ بْنَ الْخَطَّابِ رضي الله عنه أَتَتْهُ وَلِيدَةٌ قَدْ ضَرَبَهَا سَيِّدُهَا بِنَارٍ أَوْ أَصَابَهَا بِهَا فَأَعْتَقَهَا

      Umar ibn al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, was presented with a servant woman who had been struck by her master with a piece of hot iron or had been injured by it, so he ordered him to emancipate her.

      Source: al-Muwaṭṭa’ 2/403

      Al-Shawkani comments on this tradition, saying:

      ذَهَبَ مَالِكٌ وَالْأَوْزَاعِيُّ وَاللَّيْثُ إلَى عِتْقِ الْعَبْدِ بِذَلِكَ وَيَكُونُ وَلَاؤُهُ لَهُ وَيُعَاقِبُهُ السُّلْطَانُ عَلَى فِعْلِهِ

      Malik, Al-Awza’i, and Al-Layth adhered to the opinion that a slave is freed on account of that abuse, he will have his loyalty inheritance, and the authorities will punish the master for what he did.

      Source: Nayl al-Awṭār 6/101

      Even small indignities, by comparison, were morally disapproved by the companions. The Caliph Umar once severely rebuked a man who forced his servants to stand while he sat to eat.

      Ibn Abbas reported: Umar ibn al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, passed by some people one day who were eating while their servants were standing. Umar said, “Why do I not see your servants eating with you? Do you not desire them?” A man said, “No, by Allah, O leader of the faithful. Rather, we have preference over them.” Umar became very angry, then he said:

      ما لقومٍ يستأثرون على خُدَّامهم فَعَلَ الله تعالى بهم وفَعَلَ

      What is the matter with people who prefer themselves over their servants? Allah Almighty will deal with them and it is done!

      Source: Musnad al-Fārūq 582

      It was further recommended for men to either marry their concubines or to give them in marriage to other suitable men, thereby upgrading her social status and ending his legal relationship with her as a concubine. In this way, concubinage was implicitly discouraged by the inverse recommendation to free and marry them.

      Allah said:

      وَأَنكِحُوا الْأَيَامَىٰ مِنكُمْ وَالصَّالِحِينَ مِنْ عِبَادِكُمْ وَإِمَائِكُمْ إِن يَكُونُوا فُقَرَاءَ يُغْنِهِمُ اللَّهُ مِن فَضْلِهِ وَاللَّهُ وَاسِعٌ عَلِيمٌ

      Marry the unmarried among you and the righteous among your male and female slaves. If they should be poor, Allah will enrich them from His bounty, for Allah is encompassing and knowing.

      Surat al-Nur 24:32

      Abu Musa reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said:

      إِذَا أَدَّبَ الرَّجُلُ أَمَتَهُ فَأَحْسَنَ تَأْدِيبَهَا وَعَلَّمَهَا فَأَحْسَنَ تَعْلِيمَهَا ثُمَّ أَعْتَقَهَا فَتَزَوَّجَهَا كَانَ لَهُ أَجْرَانِ

      If a man teaches his servant girl good manners, educates her in the best manner, then emancipates her and marries her, he will have a double reward.

      Source: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 3262, Grade: Muttafaqun Alayhi

      The paramount importance that the Prophet (ṣ) placed upon treating concubines well can be seen in the fact that the very last thing he said on his deathbed was to issue a warning about mistreating slaves.

      Ali reported: The final statement of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, was:

      الصَّلَاةَ الصَّلَاةَ اتَّقُوا اللَّهَ فِيمَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ

      The prayer, the prayer! Fear Allah regarding those whom your right hands possess!

      Source: Sunan Abī Dāwūd 5156, Grade: Sahih

      Ibn al-Athir comments on this tradition, saying:

      يُرِيدُ الْإِحْسَانَ إِلَى الرَّقِيقِ وَالتَّخْفِيفَ عَنْهُمْ

      He means to treat slaves in the best manner and to lighten their burden.

      Source: al-Nihāyah fī Gharīb al-Ḥadīth 4/358

      The ritual prayer is the most important right due to Allah, and neglecting it is one of the most dangerous forms of sin. Likewise, one of the most dangerous forms of sin against people is to exploit the weak or vulnerable among them, which at the time were slaves and concubines.

      To recap, it was unlawful to harm or torture a concubine and to commit such abuse resulted in their freedom, it was discouraged to use archaic and derogatory terms to describe concubines, the mistreatment of concubines was threatened with no less than banishment from Paradise, concubines were entitled to equality with their masters in terms of food and clothing, it was recommended for masters to free and marry their concubines or allow them to marry others, concubinage was more closely analogous in law to marriage than property, and the final warning of the Prophet (ṣ) in his last breath was to be good to concubines and slaves in general. Even the eminent Caliph Umar was incensed by the indignity of observing some servants standing while their masters sat to eat.

      https://abuaminaelias.com/islam-and-concubines/

      Liked by 1 person

  25. LOL!! This is the hypocrisy that James White criticizes the dogs of Christianity for!

    Where did Jesus say slavery or concubinage was “shameful”, you swine?

    Liked by 4 people

  26. Numbers 31 is for them becoming lawful wives, not sex slaves or concubines.

    Like

  27. LOL!! Oh, that makes it so much better! Take little virgin girls as wives, but only after killing their families. And Pennywise the clown has a problem with Islam!

    Did your god not allow the taking of sex slaves or concubines? Are you really going to lie about this you shameless worm?

    Liked by 2 people

  28. pennywise evil satanic pig

    You talk about lust, but a lust can develop when stabbing pregnant women and infant.

    Penny pig of jesus, can you tell me where yhwh identified pimp daves LAWFUL marriages as ” ADULTERY”

    Liked by 1 person

  29. exposing more filthy kristers

    Like

    • I did not lie. 1 Kings 11:3 mentions concubines along with the many wives / women that Solomon had – verse 1 says he loved many foreign (pagan, polytheistic) women. concubines and wives are both women. The whole passage, 1 Kings 11:1-12 seems to indicate a negative view of polygamy and concubinage. Also, the clear commands of Deuteronomy 17 was for the king to “NOT multiply wives”.
      The spirit of the entire passage is negative against polygamy and concubines.

      Given the overall view of the OT that monogamy was the creation ideal (Genesis 1-2) – God created Adam and Eve, not “Adam and Eve and Julie and Susan and Sara and Maryam and Joanna”, etc.

      “The two will become one” – God’s word. Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:3-6; Ephesians 5:21-33, etc.

      Like

      • You did lie, Pennywise. And now you’re lying to cover your lie. You see the difference between a scumbag like you and James White? He doesn’t lie like you do.

        1 Kings 11 does not say anything about polygamy or concubinage being wrong. It only criticizes Solomon for marrying women from the foreign pagan nations who then turned him away from God.

        Deuteronomy 17 only says don’t take “many” wives. It doesn’t say polygamy is bad. You’re lying again.

        Like

      • No. How does one know when “many” is “many”. It means more than one. One wife is all God originally planned and blessed. Adam and Eve. Genesis 1-2; Ephesians 5, Matthew 19:3-6, etc.

        Your evil character is exposed again. It is you who twist the texts of the Bible to fit your anachronistic agenda of your false 600 year late religion.

        Like

      • LOL! So now Pennywise is saying “many” includes even two wives! Here, we see another example of his pathological need to lie.

        Here is what Rashi said in his commentary on Deut. 17:17:

        “And he shall not take many wives for himself: Only eighteen, for we find that David had six wives, and it was told to him [by Nathan the prophet] (II Sam. 12:8):“and if this is too little, I would add for you like them and like them” [totaling eighteen]. — [San. 21a and Sifrei]”

        Let’s see what 2 Samuel 12:8 says, shall we?

        “I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.”

        OUCH! Even God was okay with David having more than one wife! But Pennywise thinks he knows better!

        Like

      • Nevertheless, one wife is the norm and ideal – Genesis 1-2; Proverbs 5:18; Ecclesiastes 9:9; Malachi 2:14. “rejoice in the wife of your youth” – the one you have had since you married and were young. when you get older, don’t get a younger wife and don’t commit adultery or polygamy.

        Like

      • Remarkable! Pennywise simply cannot admit when he is wrong!

        Do you admit that polygamy and concubinage were not only allowed but were not considered a sin? Why did God Himself give David multiple wives? And why did He say that He would give more if David wanted?

        Like

      • Admit that you are wrong and that your foul polemic against Muhammad (pbuh) is based on an irrational hatred, bigotry, and hypocrisy. Give it up. Have some dignity.

        Like

  30. Getting back to the subject of this post, “Did Jesus rise physically from the dead?” this is a very well done video that shows 3 indisputable historical facts that only the resurrection of Jesus from the dead answers.

    Like

    • where is the evidence that the disciples willingly died for a pagan dying and rising composite “god-man”

      https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/edqgu9/in_the_future_one_could_claim_harry_potter_was/fbrupdf/?context=3

      what does bart ehrman say about the corinthian creed:

      Bart December 19, 2019 Depends who you read; if it’s conservative evangelical apologists, yes, it will sound like that is the mainline view. But what is the evidence? Among scholars I personally know, except for evangelicals, I don’t now anyone who thinks this at all. And for a good reason: Paul never says he got this creed from Peter and James three years after his conversion. Doesn’t even suggest it. People just make this stuff up! Also, ahere weren’t “church creeds” back then. Every church had it’s own ways of thinking, believing, and saying things — nothing at all like a uniform liturgy until centuries later when Christianity became a unified world-wide movement. People like William Lane Craig may say this kind of thing. But you need to think carefully about the logic, especially in light of waht we do konw about the massive diversity of the earliest Christian churches. (BTW: if Peter and James came up with this creed, why would it be the “twelve” instead of the “eleven”? That’s not a MAJOR point, but it’s worth thinking about. Even of Paul didn’t know about Judas, they certainly would have)

      Bart December 21, 2019 I think you’re assuming that beliefs held widely in Paul’s communities in places like Macedonia and Achaea were held as well by Christians everywhere. The early testimonies are pretty clear that the Jerusalem church was in many ways at odds with Paul and his churches and that they disapproved a lot of what they had heard, and hadn’t heard nearly everything. In a world where there is not any mass communication it was, well, very, very different from what we can imagine. Paul receive most of his understanding of the Christain faith from people other than the Twelve. He didn’t even meet them until years after he was persecuting Christains (and therefore hearing what they had to say) and even years after he had converted and started his mission.

      what is the evidence that their were guards guarding the tomb ?

      https://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2019/12/29/defending-the-swoon-theory-part-17-events-unique-to-matthew/

      is it possible that the jews would never hand over the body?

      https://turchisrong.blogspot.com/2019/02/dr-lydia-mcgrews-errors-in-defending.html

      did jesus even predict his death ?

      https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/15182

      Like

    • mike licona thought to himself, “if a group of people went around telling people that dead saints went and roamed the cities and that my pagan composite “god-man” was in hiding, who would believe” ?

      so what does licona do? he says that the story is not even read. licona says that the dead saints didn’t really rise from the dead . lol

      skeptics caused mike to doubt the HISTORIcity OF THE dead saints rising.

      Like

      • Where is the reference / quote of Licona saying / writing that statement in quotes?

        You have to give the reference.

        Like

      • “Where is the reference / quote of Licona saying / writing that statement in quotes?”

        licona does not believe in the resurrection of the dead saints

        and where did i say licona wrote that statement. i used my own inference. licona has been smacked silly that he denies that the dead saints came to life and roamed the cities.

        Liked by 1 person

  31. Tovia Singer made an excellent point about how the empty tomb narratives were made up later. In the Synoptics, the women went to put spices on Jesus’ body even though he had already been placed in the tomb. The purpose of placing spices was to mask the odor of decay, but this was done before burial. So it doesn’t make sense to put spices after the body is already in the tomb and would have started decaying. John fixes this problem by claiming that Nicodemus anointed the body with spices before the body was placed in the tomb.

    Like

  32. Demonstration that Jesus really did rise from the dead.
    William Lane Craig vs. Ben Shapiro (Jewish political and cultural commentator)

    Also, Dr. Kyle Bailey did an excellent job in the second half demonstrating the early dating of the gospels.

    https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2020/01/05/the-resurrection-of-jesus-from-the-dead/

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. Ken Temple lies about his Bible and is caught red-handed – The Quran and Bible Blog
  2. Ken Temple gets refuted on Deuteronomy 17:17… – The Quran and Bible Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: