VIDEO HIGHLIGHT: Not only does Revd Professor Keith Ward say Muhammad was a genuine prophet of God but nearly ALL of his Christian theologian colleagues think so too!


Keith Ward discussed his work with Paul Williams of Blogging Theology.
The discussion covered the gospels, Jesus, God, the early Church, and was a Muhammad a prophet of God. Keith Ward FBA is an English Anglican priest, philosopher, and theologian. He is a fellow of the British Academy and a priest of the Church of England. He was a canon of Christ Church, Oxford, until 2003. Comparative theology and the relationship between science and religion are two of his main topics of interest. He was Regius Professor of Divinity at the University of Oxford from 1991 to 2004.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Ward



Categories: Blogging Theology Youtube, Christianity, Dr Keith Ward, Muhammad, Qur'an, Scholars, Theology

25 replies

  1. Wow! Insightful and revealing! SubhanaAllah! Amazing!

    Liked by 1 person

  2. you’re going to dine off this clip for years aren’t you…

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Waraqah ibn Nawfal was the first Christian at that time who acknowledged and believed that Muhammad pbuh was the prophet of God.

    Professor Keith Ward is the “Waraqah” in 21st century.

    May Allah swt guides him.

    Like

  4. Ward’s view is very schizophrenic and contradictory.

    The Christian faith finished revelation from the True God.

    Jude 3 – “the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints”

    Most of the leaders and these scholars / colleagues that he mentions, in the Anglican church and the American branch, the Episcopal Church (has a woman bishop and approves of homosexuality, Lesbianism, etc.) have left the faith and are apostates in recent decades.

    The Qur’an denies Jesus died and denies forgiveness through the atonement of Christ.
    The Qur’an denies the Sonship of Jesus.

    He cannot be a true Christian if he thinks Muhammad is a prophet and Qur’an is a holy book / revelation.

    Like

    • Rev Professor Keith Ward understands the Christian faith far better than you Ken.

      Like

      • In exactly what way or ways? be specific

        Like

      • Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy:

        Article XIII
        We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the
        complete truthfulness of Scripture.
        We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error
        that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by
        Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of
        grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the
        use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant
        selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.

        It seems the Reverend Keith Ward does not understand the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy, since his first comment against Inerrancy was the bad Greek grammar of the Gospel according to Mark.

        Grammatical errors do not negate the doctrine of Inerrancy.

        Like

      • Also,
        God uses human language and God condescends to us as we are creatures and He is Creator; and God uses human personalities and different styles of the different human authors.
        Article IV
        Article VII
        and
        Article VIII

        of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

        Like

      • The dogma of inerrancy is obviously false. The Bible neither claims to be without error and is riddled with palpable errors, contradictions and falsehoods.

        Like

  5. This is awesome just finished watching everything thank you Brother Paul

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Please i need Paul Williams email address. Thank

    Like

  7. regarding his point about Jesus speaking in Aramaic, but the NT is in Greek:

    The Reverend Ward does not think that humans can translate accurately the meaning of someone’s statements from one language to another?

    Like

  8. Jesus held them accountable to the written word – He held the Pharisees and people of the time He was speaking – He taught that God holds us to the standard of God speaking in the Scriptures:

    “Have you not read what God said to you” (Matthew 22:31)

    Mark 7:6-13 – “rightly did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written . . . ”

    “search the Scriptures . . . it is them that speak about Me.” John 5:39

    It is written, . . . the word of God which came to them” – John 10:34-36

    “Thus it is written . . . Luke 24:25-27 and 24:44-47

    “have you not read what God said from the beginning ? (quoting and alluding to Genesis 1-2 about marriage and male and female) – Matthew 19:4-6 – quoting Genesis 2:24)

    Like

    • Hi Ken

      Can you tell me why the bible is constantly being devised ie: “revise version” if there is no flaws in it, why would you need to revise it??

      The day it was revealed to the present day the Quran has been the 1st edition.

      Like

      • Those are usually style or translational issues – when you translate into another language, one can always re-vise based on translation decisions, and changes in style, etc.

        That is why you can choose many different English translations (and other languages also) of the Qur’an at the Saheeh International website, just click on all the different English translations – they are all the same basic meaning, but the translators have made translation / interpretation decisions.

        Also, sometimes, earlier manuscripts have been found, which affects the data for the textual variant apparatus.

        Like

  9. The dogma of inerrancy is obviously false.

    Do you think believing Jews see the TaNakh as having errors?

    Torah (Law)
    Nabi-im (prophets)
    Ketovim (writings)

    Psalm 19:7-11
    The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul;
    The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.
    8 The precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart;
    The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes.
    9 The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever;
    The judgments of the Lord are true; they are righteous altogether.
    10 They are more desirable than gold, yes, than much fine gold;
    Sweeter also than honey and the drippings of the honeycomb.
    11 Moreover, by them Your servant is warned;
    In keeping them there is great reward.

    Psalm 119:160
    All your words are true;
    all your righteous laws are eternal.

    Psalm 12:6
    “The words of the LORD are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace, purified seven times.”

    Proverbs 30:5
    “Every word of God proves true . . . ”

    I think it is a clear doctrine from these passages and others that the Bible does claim to be without error.

    Jesus said to the Father:

    “Your Word is truth; sanctify them in the Truth.” John 17:17

    Like

  10. Sorry I left out attributing that first statement to Paul Williams:

    Paul wrote:
    The dogma of inerrancy is obviously false.

    Do you think believing Jews see the TaNakh as having errors?

    . . .

    Like

  11. Hey Paul:

    regarding the first point you were making about the psychological tension of Matthew 24, and the quotes from Ward’s book, both of you failed to study the passage and its OT background much.

    It is surprising to me that both Reverend Ward and you, Paul, did not study the quotes and metaphors and prophetic apocalyptic language in the prophets. Jesus quotes Isaiah 13:10 (and see verse 11 and context of judgement on Babylon) and the issue of the “Day of the LORD”.

    Since Ward was emphasizing metaphor and symbol, it is amazing to me that neither one of you see all the metaphor and symbolism and apocalyptic language in Matthew 24 that demonstrates that the “coming of the Lord” is a coming in judgement upon apostate Israel of that generation. (Matthew 23:36 – all these things will come upon this generation” to 24:34 – all these things will come upon this generation” = 70 AD.)

    See also, Isaiah 19:1 – “The LORD rides on a cloud, judging the idols of Egypt”, etc. It is obviously not literal, but a symbol of God’s judgement (coming) by raising up other nations to judge throughout history. Just as God brought judgment on Assyria, Egypt, Babylon, etc. so also on Persia, Greece, Rome, etc. so also Israel in 70 AD.

    Matthew 24:29 includes a quote from Isaiah 13:10 (see verse 1 and 11 also for context about Babylon) and allusions to Ezekiel 32:7 and Joel 2:10 (which Acts 2 quotes as relating to the day of Pentecost). Isaiah 13 is about Babylon and the judgment that God will bring on them by raising up the Medes and Persians – who did indeed judge Babylon. (Isaiah 13:17) For the Jews in the land, “the Day of Lord” all through the prophets included judgments by God allowing other nations to invade Israel.

    Also, Isaiah 19:1 says that “the Lord rides on a cloud” – obviously it is not meant to be taken literally, but it apocalyptic language that shows that God is coming to judge Egypt and the idols of Egypt. Matthew 24:29-31 seems to have some kind of a double fulfillment. Jesus initiated the conversation about the temple being destroyed in Matthew 24:1-2, but the disciples added 2 other issues and seemed to be the one’s who assumed that the second coming of Christ would be at the same time as the destruction of the temple. Jesus’ answers, therefore, from verses 3-35, are a mixture of 70 AD and the second coming. The disciples added “and the sign of Your coming”, “and the end of the age” to the question about the destruction of the temple. (verse 3)

    Jesus said in the NT that He was “coming quickly” to several of the churches (4 out of 7) in Asia Minor in Revelation chapters 2-3, but not physically, rather coming in a sense of judgment in allowing other nations to conquer them. See Revelation 2:4-5; 2:16; 2:21-27; 3:3) God allowed the Goths and Visi-Goths to conquer these parts around 263 AD (they destroyed Ephesus then); then it was rebuilt. But later the Seljuk Turks came(1071 AD and beyond), and then the Ottomans (1453 AD) conquered all of that area. The lamp stands were taken away and the light was snuffed out. (see Revelation 2:4-5)

    Paul, Once you see this, the psychological suffering of the either/or way you and Ward looked at Matthew 24 disappears, and the problem is solved.

    Like

  12. Wow ! This was quite a revelation

    Like

  13. Reminds me of a certain disciple who kissed Jesus on the night he was betrayed.

    Like

  14. Hey Paul,
    You never answered my question:

    In exactly what way or ways? (does Keith Ward understand the Christian faith better than me) be specific

    Because he understands and agrees with modern unbelieving scholarship?

    His positions are contradictory and schizophrenic – he is similar to what Geza Vermes said of Raymond Brown and other modern scholars – “wanting to have his cake and eat it too”. This is a typical modern scholarship problem of putting intellectual curiosity into many things, and never coming to conviction in faith in Christ and all that He is in the Bible. (Deity, Son of God, God the Son, the Trinity, cross / atonement, resurrection with power and Lord over all)

    Ward claims he is born again and a Christian, that Jesus died for his sins, and rose – but his other beliefs in liberal scholarship and that Mohammad is a prophet completely gut that faith to nothing. (Since Mohammad and the Qur’an deny the crucifixion and death of Christ; denies His Deity; Denies His eternal Sonship; denies the incarnation, denies the Trinity (and also misunderstandings of the Trinity – 5:72-78; 5:116; 6:101; 19:88-92

    Like

  15. Keith Ward believes Jesus died on the cross for sins and rose from the dead, right?

    This in itself, is enough to demonstrate a contradiction with Islam (Surah 4:157) and all subsequent Islamic theology that is against the idea of substitutionary blood atonement.

    Therefore, he is contradictory to saying that Muhammad was a prophet and that the Qur’an is revelation.

    How does he explain that glaring contradiction?

    Like

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: