Recommended Websites and Blogs:

806 thoughts on “Links

  1. mr.heathcliff

    answering christology

    waiting for an answer on the following questions :

    In the gospel of john, it is reported that , “destroy this temple and in three days i will raise it up”
    but then it verses 22 it says “he was RAISED up”
    refer to john 2:19-22.
    can this mean that god brought jesus back to life and then jesus simply got up like everyone gets up from a lying position? in other words, john is not saying that jesus took part in bringing himself back to life like god did, he simply got up from his straight position on the floor?


  2. mr.heathcliff

    this is ijaz ahmed latest challenge to the crosstians.

    it is the crosstians who say “that was the ot”

    the problem here is that, the ot NEVER set up a criteria in which you follow just an “innocent,” the ot never says that one should not follow the people which God publicly verified (says the jews who belive in the kuzari argument)

    the ot never said that once a prophet repents of his IDOLATRY and adultery, one should not follow him

    the laws were given to sinners and god never once says that moses is limited JUST to the land of israel….moses says even when you are in exile “obey EVERYTHING i tell you today”


  3. mr.heathcliff

    Complaining About the Camel-Urine Treatment?! Let Me Introduce Hoodbhoyists to “Poop Pills”
    APRIL 1, 2021 / SAAD MEHMOOD
    Dawkinists, Hoodbhoyists and some theists, including “mode-run” Muslims, often object to the Hadeeth in which the Prophet.p prescribed camel milk and urine to a group of visitors in Madeena as a cure to some disease. In response to their objection, some Muslims have argued that doctors often prescribe Premarin to women as a part of female hormone replacement therapy to treat estrogen deficiency symptoms [1]. This medicine, which is available as a tablet and as well as a topical cream, is made from the urine of pregnant horses (PREgnant MARes’ urINe), so, the argument goes, if doctors can prescribe medication made from horse urine, why can the Prophet.p not? In other words, if using a medicine that is made from horse urine is all good, then why frown on the Hadeeth if it prescribes camel urine as medicine, which, as per the Hadeeth, even cured the patients?

    Although the response makes it clear that we don’t consider camel urine sacred as some Hindu take cow urine to be, I deem, as careful thinkers would concur, this response is based on a weak analogy; however, we can do better than this!

    The version of Premarin that was sold in the late 1920s contained a mix of several estrogens which were derived from the ‘urine of pregnant women’, later on, scientists learned that it could be derived from the urine of pregnant horses, for horses produce a substantial amount of urine than humans [2]. Furthermore, conjugated estrogen can also be derived from plants [3].

    Where the Mistake Really Lies:

    In the camel-urine case, argues our skeptic friend, camel urine was prescribed in its raw form. In the case of Premarin, in contrast, the conjugated estrogens, which have the same chemical composition regardless of where they are found, are extracted, which, of course, is not the same thing as horse urine. Put differently, the tablet is not a solid form of horse urine, rather composed of the extracted (and some added) chemical ingredients needed to cure the disease [2,2a]. Someone might retort, “but at the time of the Prophet.p, there were no such extraction methods.” “But, that’s another way of conceding what I am pointing out,” replies the skeptic. The skeptic is right; giving someone extracted estrogens from horse urine is not the same as giving them horse urine, and if this is accepted, then don’t bring Premarin as a response to the original objection, for your appeal to the lack of technological and methodological advancements in your response concedes that the two treatments are dissimilar! For a valid analogical response, that is, the response that shows to the skeptic that “ If this is a problem, then you too have the same problem,” we’d have to bring against the original objection of the skeptic something similar, if not identical, to the camel-urine case.

    Can We Not Do Better Than the Premarin-response?

    Surely, we can, but before I outline the response, let’s understand that what the following Hadeeth IS and IS NOT saying:

    Anas reported:

    “Eight men of the tribe of ‘Ukl came to Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) and swore allegiance to him on Islam, but found the climate of that land uncogenial to their health and thus they became sick, and they made complaint of that to Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ), and he said: Why don’t you go to (the fold) of our camels along with our shepherd, and make use of their milk and urine. They said: Yes. They set out and drank their (camels’) milk and urine and regained their health. They killed the shepherd and drove away the camels. This (news) reached Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) and he sent them on their track and they were caught and brought to him (the Holy Prophet). …..” [4]

    Camel urine is NOT sacred for Muslims, neither are they obligated to use it.
    We are not sure of the revelatory status of the treatment since He.p never explicitly said so, it could be that he was inspired to give this treatment, or maybe, he used what Arabs found useful given the words and the way they were uttered, “Why don’t you go to (the fold) of our camels along with our shepherd, and make use of their milk and urine.”
    Arguing From A Strong Analogy:

    Our skeptic friend argued that Premarin is a reasonable form of treatment, for it does not use horse urine in its raw form, rather it contains extracted (and some added) chemical ingredients only, whereas in the camel-urine case, raw urine was used for treatment, which he deems so unreasonable (and yucky) that he feels morally obligated to mock Islam, or God, or the Hadeeth literature, etc., To flabbergast my skeptic friend, I am going to introduce him to “Poop Pills” or “Fecal Transplantation” to cure C. difficile infection, that is, the infection (inflammation) of the colon (large intestine), which can cause frequent diarrhea, fever, nausea, etc., [5]. Each year about a half million people suffer from C. difficile in the United States [6]

    One way of treating C. difficile is Fecal Transplantation, employing colonoscopy (pretty painful and at times challenging though): “Doctors sometimes recommend a treatment to help repopulate the colon with healthy bacteria. It’s often done by putting another person’s stool in your colon using a device called a colonoscope..”[7]. But why go for it when we have “Poop Pills”: they contain either water-or-saline (salt-water)-mixed ‘healthy’ feces [8] or ‘frozen’ ones enclosed in a capsule [9], saving time, cost, and a more “pleasant” treatment than FMT: healthy and ready! (I know it sounds poopy!) Consequentially speaking, they found ‘swallowing Poop Pills’ to be as good as FMT [10][11] You now even have a “Nonprofit stool bank launched by MIT researchers ” [12] While some are using it to treat C. difficile, others have found that these pills have been shown effective in overcoming obesity![13][14] (You still wanna go to gym?!) In our modern times, poop pills can be prescribed to help reduce the suffering of humanity and is all reasonable, but the prophet’s prescription of camel urine for treatment is deemed unreasonable and yucky!

    I am not asserting that my Poop-pills example is perfectly analogous to drinking camel urine, of course, it differs in minor details, for instance, that drinking camel urine has a higher yuck-factor than swallowing capsule filled with raw feces solution. However, the means of taking in the raw material was not an issue to begin with, rather the main concern is whether a waste product in its raw form or almost raw form was used for treatment or not. It’s instructive to know how poopy these poop pills are: Do they contain poop or just useful extracted bacteria? I emailed Justin Chen, Director of External Affairs, OpenBiome, one of the companies which is researching and promoting this treatment, and asked him to remark on what exactly is there in these poop pills, he replied:

    “The short answer is that our FMT preparations are made up of liquid and soluble components of poop as well as bacteria.

    The long answer is that we can consider poop to be made up of a few components including:

    indigestible foods like cellulose and extra fiber
    chemicals/molecules/metabolites like inorganic wastes, lipids, sugars
    Cells and cellular debris
    Fluid like water and bile
    The manufacturing process uses a 330 micron filter so components of poop that are larger than 330 microns will not be contained in our FMT preparations. Thus the final solution contains bacteria as well as the liquid and soluble components of poop and material that is smaller than 330 microns. Poop mainly gets its color from bile and bilirubin which would pass through the filter and be contained in the final solution along with the bacteria.” [Emphasis added] (This filtering is done to prevent the infusion syringes used to fill the capsules from getting clogged, see references)

    Thus, in our modern times, Poop-pills’ example is ‘reasonable’ enough to silence those who attack Islam or Hadeeth literature on account of this Hadeeth. Further, for the sake of argument, would the objector be happy if we brought in capsules of camel urine?!

    In conclusion, the “Poop-Pills response” is a befitting response to anyone who objects to the Hadeeth. The Irony is that the same objectors (for instance, Hoodbhoyists [15]) who are convinced of the nonexistence of God, or falsity of Islam or at least the whole Hadeeth literature on account of the “perverted-yucky” nature of this Hadeeth (demonstrating pretty bad critical thinking skills, could not repress my value judgment) will not mind ‘swallowing Poop Pills,’ or something similar if approved by modern medicine, and announcing its efficacy to the world!


    [2a] “PREMARIN® (conjugated estrogens tablets, USP) for oral administration contains a mixture of conjugated estrogens purified from pregnant mares’ urine and..” (Emphasis added)

    As per the European consensus conference on faecal microbiota transplantation in clinical practice, the “Minimum general steps to follow for the preparation of fresh and frozen faecal material
    Fresh faecal material

    Fresh stool should be used within 6 hours after defecation
    To protect anaerobic bacteria, the storage and preparation should be as brief as possible
    Until further processing, the stool sample can be stored at ambient temperature (20°C–30°C)
    Anaerobic storage and processing should be applied if possible
    A minimum amount of 30 g of faeces should be used
    Faecal material should be suspended in saline using a blender or manual effort and sieved in order to avoid the clogging of infusion syringes and tubes
    A dedicated space, disinfected using measures that are effective against sporulating bacteria, should be used
    Protective gloves and facial masks should be used during preparation
    Frozen faecal material

    At least 30 g of donor faeces and 150 mL of saline solution should be used
    Before freezing, glycerol should be added up to a final concentration of 10%
    The final suspension should be clearly labelled and traceable, and stored at –80°C
    On the day of faecal infusion, faecal suspension should be thawed in a warm (37°C) water bath and infused within 6 hours from thawing
    After thawing, saline solution can be added to obtain a desired suspension volume
    Repetitive thawing and freezing should be avoided ”(emphasis added)
    In this video one can see how these pills can be made at home.
    Another was launched in 2020 in Poland,

    Share this:


  4. mr.heathcliff

    The perfect storm 9-4-21

    0:00 opening by hamza
    6:03 trini the troll 🤣
    9:14 Michael (jason burn’s friend) the bible is reliable
    38:24 BoyfromOslo – the world descended from noah’s sons
    41:23 Rob MTT- baptize In the name of the father, jesus and holy spirit / the inconsistencies are just different angles
    1:11:25 Terry (screen name too long)
    1:17:45 Sso – if the quran affirms injil why question christianity? And Consistent deflection to islam
    2:19:34 Christian king (sam)
    2:25:14 Terry- too many tangent


  5. Vaqas Rehman

    I haven’t finished reading this yet but it seems pretty interesting nonetheless so I thought I’d post it here.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. mr.heathcliff

      “Is her name asherah or some other deity?”

      mary, the sophia of yhwh

      …., and it was called Mary, and Christ was in her womb for seven months”. So this work depicts the Holy Spirit in angelomorphic fashion and construes this power as Jesus’ mother, identified as Mary.


  6. Caliph ibn mumthaz

    Hey isn’t there a prophecy by musa peace be upon him where he said that a prophet among the brethren of the children of Israel would be sent to them. Was this prophecy ever fulfilled according to the Jews?


    1. Vaqas Rehman

      @Caliph ibn mumthaz

      The prophecy you’re speaking of is in Deuteronomy 18:18 as well as partially earlier in verse 15. As far as I’m aware many Jews interpret the prophecy as either being fulfilled in Joshua alayhis salam, or they view it as a generic prophecy of many future prophets.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Caliph ibn mumthaz

    I thought its a prophecy about Muhammad peace and blessings upon him tho. Is this interpretation by the Jews a later one or its an old one? Furthermore, are there other prophecies about Muhammad that is mentioned in the torah?


    1. Vaqas Rehman


      While we as Muslims generally view it as a prophecy of the Prophet Muhammad ṣallā -llāhu ʿalayhī wa-ʾālihī wa-sallam the Jews tend to disagree with that interpretation is all it is. I’m unaware of exactly how old their interpretation is but the idea that the prophecy is unfulfilled and about a singular great prophet is at least as old as the dead sea scrolls. You can view the general Muslim argument concerning that prophecy as well more on this website

      Liked by 1 person

  8. mr.heathcliff

    Yay blocked me too. Ya knuckle-dragging trolling f__kwit.

    You are getting your arse tore a knew one ya cowardly bastard

    Grow a set, ya lily livered snowflake.

    You made the claim that murder was universally wrong.

    You made the claim that murder was the taking of an innocent life.

    You made the claim, “Would any sane person not object to being murdered?”

    It’s your moronic logic that is your problem.

    According to the silly yarn. Jesus was an innocent life taken, which is murder and universally immoral. Yet it wasn’t universally immoral, because it was part of the divine plan.

    That Jesus didn’t object to being murdered means he was not sane by your own assertion.

    Jesus was a nutjob. Therefore can’t have been god.

    Nailed yerself up by yer own petard again, ya cretin.


  9. mr.heathcliff

    good point :

    And then Apologetics Rule Number Seven is the converse of Rule Number Two: instead of conjuring just any made-up reason to insist all the evidence against you is irrelevant, you can just keep insisting something is true that’s exactly the opposite of the truth, hoping everyone mistakes your confidence as evidence. Such as when Manning quotes Blomberg declaring that “if the original addressees knew that John the Apostle was the author” of the Gospel “and that he never referred to himself by name, then they would know that all the references to John [in that Gospel] would have to refer to the Baptist,” thus explaining why John the Baptist is never so specified in the Gospel of John. But the opposite is actually the case. If the author were known to be named John, he would need to distinguish between himself and that other John; instead, no other John but the Baptist is ever mentioned in the Gospel (apart from Peter’s father, who is thereby so distinguished), so no need ever arises for the author to specify which John is meant. Of course, the real reason he doesn’t have to do that is that he is responding to the Synoptic Gospels, for audiences already familiar with them; thus, the authors of John already know their readers know who John the Baptist is: the one who performed baptisms, and endorsed Jesus as his successor.

    source :


  10. mr.heathcliff

    for the Study of the NT, pre-publication online, June 16 by Mark Goodacre


    Although the term ‘empty tomb’ is endemic in contemporary literature, it is never used in the earliest Christian materials. The term makes little sense in the light of first-century Jerusalem tombs, which always housed multiple people. One absent body would not leave the tomb empty. The gospel narratives presuppose a large, elite tomb, with multiple loculi, and a heavy rolling stone to allow repeated access for multiple burials. The gospels therefore give precise directions about where Jesus’ body lay in this large tomb. Apologetic anxiety leads to the characterization of the tomb as ‘new’ (Matthew and John), ‘in which no one had been laid’ (Luke and John), but it is possible that the appearance of Mark’s young man ‘on the right’ is significant. The anachronistic question ‘Was the tomb empty?’ should be replaced by the accurate question, ‘How empty was the tomb?’


  11. mr.heathcliff

    Is Dating Luke-Acts to the 2nd Century Still Only A “Fringe View”?
    jesustweezers Uncategorized June 8, 2020 10 Minutes
    It is becoming increasingly common to find scholars dating Luke-Acts to the 2nd century CE. Below is a collection of scholarly quotes:

    “The Acts of the Apostles is not history. Acts was long thought to be a first-century document, and its author Luke to be a disciple of Paul – thus an eyewitness or acquaintance of eyewitnesses to nascent Christianity. Acts was considered history, pure and simple. But the Acts Seminar, a decade-long collaborative project by scholars affiliated with the Westar Institute, concluded that Acts dates from the second century”
    – Dennis E. Smith & Joseph B. Tyson (editors), “Acts & Christian Beginnings: The Acts Seminar Report”, blurb

    “A number of factors serve to locate Luke-Acts in the second century […]. Luke-Acts shares genre conventions with both the Apocryphal Infancy Gospels and the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, all products of the second (and/or third) century. The Apocryphal Acts are, in turn, heavily influenced by the Hellenistic novels. They also manifest the apologetical and theological agendas of the emerging “nascent Catholicism” that is on full display in the Pastoral Epistles. With the late second-century Apologists and heresiologists Irenaeus and Tertullian, Luke-Acts asserts possession of a definitive way of interpreting scripture allegedly received from the original apostles. Paul, for instance, tells the elders of the Ephesian church that God has appointed them bishops (episcopoi, “overseers, supervisors”) of the flock of Christ (Acts 20:28). Here is the “apostolic succession of bishops,” the cornerstone of the church governance policy of Orthodoxy and Catholicism even today. Acts 21:29-30 has Paul warn “in advance” that the heretics of Asia Minor will, after his death, appeal to him as the source of their Gnostic, Marcionite, and Encratite heresies. This represents our author’s attempt to wrest the apostolic figurehead away from these sects, and it plainly presupposes a standpoint long after Paul. Luke-Acts is the prime example of what F.C. Baur identified as the Catholicizing tendency of the second-century church.”

    – Robert M. Price, “Holy Fable Volume 2: The Gospels and Acts Undistorted by Faith”, p.202

    “[Luke-Acts] belongs to the second decade of the second century (c.115). The author’s use of Paul’s letters and his probable knowledge of the Antiquities of Josephus rule out a date before 100. And whereas the Gospel of Matthew, for example, seeks to justify the existence of the Jesus movement as an increasingly gentile body, Luke and Acts justify an existing boundary between two religions, “Judaism” and “Christianity,” the latter of which is the valid heir of God’s promises. Acts is also familiar with the organization and issues of Christian groups during the first decades of the second century. The author we call Luke writes narratives like those of the evangelists (for example, Mark, John, Matthew) who told their stories for believers, but his mind is partly occupied with the questions of the “apologists,” who, from the middle of the second century onward, defended the faith against its polytheist critics and those who they thought were betraying it. Acts is also aware of the different understandings of the Christian message that would give rise to “orthodox” and “heretical” formulations of the faith.”
    – Richard Pervo, “The Mystery of Acts”, p.9

    “[Luke-Acts] can be seen in part as responding to both the [second century] difficulties of Jewish-Christians and the challenge of Marcion. Regarding Jewish-Christians, Acts suggests that Gentile Christians welcome them into their fellowship by respecting their sensibilities in dietary and sexual practices. The work also espouses many views that [second century Jewish-Christian] pseudo-Clementine-like Christians would find appealing. In particular, Acts has treated Paul in a way that would make him acceptable to Jewish-Christians without alienating Gentile Christians. As for Marcion, the author of Luke-Acts has a response to him as well. The author would accept [Marcion’s hero] Paul without the theology of his epistles. To do so the author replaced Marcion’s canon with a two-volume work of his own. He merely expanded Marcion’s gospel with added traditions, but he rejected entirely the Pauline epistles as theologically unacceptable. In their place the author of Luke-Acts wrote a separate volume affirming the importance of all the apostles. In particular he singled out Peter, the Jewish-Christian hero of the pseudo-Clementine literature, and Paul, the hero of Marcion. […] In summary, the date when Luke-Acts was written cannot be determined conclusively because of a lack of evidence; however, whatever evidence exists is compatible with a date that approaches the middle of the second century. In such a situation the work can be understood in part as responding to situations faced in the church of that period.”
    – John T. Townsend, “The Dating of Luke-Acts” … in Charles Talbert (ed.), “Luke-Acts: New Perspectives from the Society of Biblical Literature Seminar”, p.56-58

    “It would not surprise me that the first two chapters [of Luke-Acts] take an anti-Marcionite view. In the first two chapters, Jewish piety is terrific. There is reference to John the Baptist’s circumcision, to Jesus’ circumcision, to people going to the Temple and making offerings. It looks like Old Testament wonderland! It’s fabulous! And you don’t see much of that particular view of Jewish piety, that particular view of the Temple and ritual in the rest of [Luke-Acts]. Everything in the first two chapters rings an anti-Marcionite bell. […] I put [the bulk of Luke] to probably the 90sCE, [and] I put Acts in the early second century. By the same author”
    – Amy-Jill Levine, “Trinities Podcast Episode 236”

    “[While] we cannot prove beyond doubt that Luke knew the writings of Josephus […], Luke’s product is much more difficult to explain if he had no knowledge of [them] […]. If he did not [know of the writings of Josephus] we have a nearly incredible series of coincidences, which require that Luke knew something that closely approximated Josephus’ narrative in several distinct ways. The source (or these sources) spoke of: Agrippa’s death after his robes shone; the extra-marital affairs of both Felix and Agrippa II; the harshness of the Sadducees toward Christianity; the census under Quirinius as watershed event in Palestine; Judas the Galilean as an arch-rebel at the time of the census; Judas, Theudas, and the Egyptian as three rebels in the Jerusalem area worthy of special mention among a host of others; Theudas and Judas in the same piece of narrative; the Egyptian, the desert, and the sicarii in close proximity; Judaism as a philosophical system; the Pharisees and Sadducees as philosophical schools; and the Pharisees as the most precise of the schools. We know of no other work that even remotely approximated Josephus’ presentation on such a wide range of issues. I find it easier to believe that Luke knew something of Josephus’ work than that he independently arrived at these points of agreement. Nevertheless, we await a thorough study of the matter. Of course, if Luke did know Josephus, then we can fix the date of Luke in the mid-90s or later, for Josephus finished Antiquities, the major work in question, in 93/94. Luke may have heard an earlier version or only a part of the work recited, perhaps in 90 or so. But a date of 95 or later for Luke would seem most plausible if he knew Antiquities 18-20. Although such a late date may seem troubling at first, I see no cause for concern. Even without the hypothesis that Luke knew Josephus, most scholars date Luke-Acts to the 80s or 90s (or later), on entirely different grounds. Recall that the author does not identify himself at all; the name “Luke” became established only in the mid-second century as far as we know. He implies that he is not an eyewitness of Jesus’ life (Luke 1:2). He takes Paul’s career up to the mid-60s (Acts 28), and seems to know about the destruction of the temple in AD 70 (Luke 19:41-44). Most important, he reflects a period when the era of the apostles was seen as a bygone “golden age” of serenity; the sharp intramural conflicts of Paul’s letters appear only as mild disputes, resolved with good will. Furthermore, the author assumes that a high degree of church structure is normal. So the acceptance of Luke’s knowledge of Josephus would not have radical implications for dating Luke-Acts”
    – Steve Mason, “Josephus and the New Testament: 2nd Edition”, p.234-235

    “There are problems of dating [Luke-Acts] in light of current theories of Gospel relations […], since the Gospel of Luke must be later than both Mark and Matthew, and thus no earlier than 80-85CE […]. A recent trend among scholars has seen the date edge slightly later, to about 90-110CE, and this now seems more likely”
    – L. Michael White, “From Jesus to Christianity”, p.248

    “Acts makes sense if we see it as relating to many problems of the early second-century Church […]. The historical details Luke gives normally relate to the circumstances existing at the turn of the century. […] For example, […] the degree of civic autonomy evidenced at Ephesus is only consistent with a dating in the late first and early second centuries […]. The whole sequence of Paul’s trial, too, which represents the judicial process terms ‘provocatio’ [also fits this period]. Likewise, the question of jurisdiction, which is reflected uniquely in Luke’s Passion account (see Luke 23:6-7), was important only at this period, when there was a move away from hearing cases in the ‘forum delicti’, where the crime was committed, to that of the ‘forum domicilii’, where the defendant lived. The evidence we have of the change shows it was only at the end of the first-century and the beginning of the second-century, when the new practice, which was unworkable, was ‘on trial’, that the situation in Luke-Acts can be substantiated. This too suggests it should be dated to this period. […] [Regarding the issue of whether Luke used Josephus as a source], from the evidence it seems more than likely that Luke used Jewish Wars [c.75-79CE], quite likely that he used Jewish Antiquities [c.93-94CE], and possible that he used Against Apion [c.95-96CE]. This too supports a dating for Luke-Acts c.100CE.”
    – Barbara Shellard, “New Light on Luke”, p.28-34 [In the same book, Shellard argues strongly that Luke-Acts is also dependent on the Gospel of John, which she dates (in line with the general consensus) to the “early 90sCE” (p.15)]

    “The Gospel of Luke […] was certainly written after the time of the composition of the works of Flavius Josephus and probably a decade after the composition of the Gospel of Mark, so c.AD 110-120”
    – Bartosz Adamczewski, “Hypertextuality and Historicity in the Gospels”, p.111

    “[Luke-Acts is from] around the year 120 C.E”
    – Burton L. Mack, “Who Wrote the New Testament?”, p.167

    “In those first few chapters of Acts, you’ve got characters saying things right out of the gate after the event of Jesus’ execution and resurrection that it took close to 90 years to develop in thought. Sorry! You don’t get to do that. But you do when you’re writing in the year 120CE or so, and you’re looking back and writing this retrospective ‘historia’, which is different from history. Peter says things that there is no way he would be saying. Paul says and does things that he never talks about in his own letters – in places where it would be really helpful to reference if it had been true.”
    – Jennifer Grace Bird, “MythVision Podcast: Anti-Judaism in The New Testament with Dr. Jennifer Bird”

    “I hold that the Acts of the Apostles was composed in the second century of the Common Era, sometime between 100 and 130CE, likely toward the latter end of that date range”
    – Shelley Matthews, ‘Does Dating Acts to the 2nd Century Affect the Q Hypothesis?’, in “Gospel Interpretation and the Q Hypothesis”, p.246

    “Acts of the Apostles was written in the early 2nd century, roughly 50 years after Paul’s last letter [Romans] was written”
    – Laura Nasrallah, “Yale Divinity School Open Courses: The Letters of Paul”, Part 5: Canon Part 1 Video 4

    “Dating Luke-Acts to the 80s or 90sCE is far too early. Analysis of various parallels suggest that Luke knew not only Matthew (c.85-95CE), but Papias’s Exposition as well (c.110CE). I date Luke-Acts to c.115-120CE”
    – Dennis R. MacDonald, “Two Shipwrecked Gospels: The Logoi of Jesus and Papias’s Exposition”, p.47, 78, 89 (paraphrased)

    “I lean toward the idea that the author of Acts used Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews (c.93CE) as a source”
    – Laura Robinson, “Interview with Laura Robinson: When the historical evidence isn’t enough”, @ 46:53

    “Luke looks much more like a 2nd or 3rd generation text than Matthew does. When you look at the very opening of Luke’s Gospel (Luke 1:1-1-4), [the author] self consciously refers to the “many” who have written narratives before him. And for someone to write in such a self conscious way makes it much more likely that he might be a little bit later than Matthew. What’s more is that Luke goes on to narrate in his second volume, Acts of the Apostles, a whole load of history that happens after the Jesus movement, all the way up to Paul arriving in Rome. Luke feels like a later document. Plus, Luke also seems to know the ‘Antiquities of the Jews’, written by the Jewish historian Josephus in the 90sCE. If that’s the case, then Luke-Acts would be written either in the 90s or the early 2nd century.”
    – Mark Goodacre, “The Synoptic Problem: Did Luke Rework Matthew’s Gospel? Q Source with Dr. Mark Goodacre”, @18:05

    “It would be only natural if the later canonical Gospels [including Luke/Acts] were created in close proximity to each other, in both time and location, most likely at Rome beginning in the 140sCE.”
    – Markus Vinzent, “Christ’s Resurrection in Early Christianity and the Making of the New Testament”, p.92

    “I follow F.C. Baur‘s placement of Acts and canonical Luke in the second century […]. The following stages of development seem clear: The prototype of the text, already established, originating in Marcion‘s circle as an anonymous composition ca. 100; (b) the intercalation of sayings – traditions (Q), independently of Matthew‘s use of the same tradition; (c) a second century ― “Lukan” redaction, including the dedication, an infancy story, editorial additions (e.g., temple-finding), an expanded resurrection account, and ascension story carried over into a still later composition, the Acts.”
    – R. Joseph Hoffman, ‘Controversy, Mythicism, and the Historical Jesus’ , p.30

    “How can we measure the gap between these two different sensibilities, the incandescent apocalyptic expectations of the original community circa 30 C.E., and the calmer, de-eschatologized perspective of Luke, circa 110 C.E., who provides our only ‘history’ of this moment of that community?”
    – Paula Fredriksen, “When Christians Were Jews”, p.104

    Liked by 1 person

    1. stewjo004

      @ Asura

      A quick note that’s a Shia propaganda site and to refute their nonsense that insulting the Sahaba doesn’t make one a kaffir:

      1. Muhajiroon:
      “There’s also a share for the poor Muhajroon who were deprived of their homes and possessions, and are seeking Allah’s Bounty and approval, ˹while˺ also helping Allah and His Messenger. ˹Because˺ they are the ones true in faith (59:8)

      Abu Bakr (ra), Umar(ra), Uthman(ra), Talha(a), Zubayr(ra), Sad (ra) and Aisha(ra) are all Muhajiroon. So to then say no these Muhajiroon are kaffir makes you a kafiir as there is no difference in this contradicting Allah’s speech and what Shaytan did regarding Adam(as). Someone can claim the Shada until they’re blue in the face but that means nothing.

      2. Ansar

      Say: “My Lord, enter me through an entrance that’s noble and true. Get me out in a way that’s respectful and install an authority for me on your behalf that will help me.” (17:80)

      This was the dua Allah told the Prophet(saw) to say while being oppressed in Makkah and what do you know the Ansar was that authority. Again to insult them is to basically spit on what Allah personally established for the Prophet(saw).

      3. Wives being Ahlul Bayt

      Oh Prophet’s wives, you are not like any other woman. If you fear Allah, do not speak too softly just in case those whose hearts are sick should desire you, but instead speak in an honorable and direct manner. Stay comfortably in your homes, remaining patient and poised. Do not decorate yourself for the public eye like the times of ignorance from before. Keep up prayer, give what is due of charity, and obey Allah and His Messenger. Allah wishes to take away any immoralities or corruption from you, Ahlul Bayt, and cleanse you thoroughly. Remember, what’s being recited in your homes are Allah’s revelations and wisdom, because Allah is the Most Subtle and aware of everything. (33:32-34)

      Same all the wives are clearly called Ahlul Bayt in the ayah and no amount of verbal gymnastics will change that.

      And this is not including their things like wilayah takwinni and making dua to the dead so yeah…agree with the four imams Rafidah are not within the folds of Islam.

      Liked by 1 person

  12. 779-Abd al-Malik ibn ‘Abd al-Hamid informed me saying: I heard abu abdullah saying: ‘Whosoever insults the Companions, then I fear disbelief for him like the Rawafid’. Then he said, ‘Whosoever insults the Companions of the Prophet, then we do not believe he is safe from having rejected the Religion’.”

    782 -Abdullah bin ahmad bin hanbal said that i asked my father regarding man who insults anyone from companions of prophet; so he said; i dont see him on Islam


    1. Imam Malik said :

      Whoever dislikes Sahaba and talk ill about them, he has no right from the fai of Muslims. He further said : Whoever becomes enraged when the Sahaabah are mentioned is one about whom the verse speaks. “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and those with him are harsh with the disbelievers and gentle among themselves. So that the disbelievers may become enraged with them.”


      1. Imam Malik said

        The one who disparages any of the companions of Rasoolullah Sallallahu `alyhi wa Aalihi wa Sallam (whether it be) Abu bakr or Umar or Uthman or Muawiyah or `Amr bin al-`Aas (et el) Radhi Allahu `anhum, if he says that they were upon deviance or disbelief, he is to be killed, and if he disparages them in some other manner which the people employ to disparage one another, then he should be punished with a severe punishment.


      2. Imam Shafi said

        Yusuf ibn Yahya al-Buwayti said, ‘I asked al-Shaf’i (may Allah have mercy on him), ‘Can I pray behind a Rafidhi?’ He said, ‘Do not pray behind the Rafidhi, nor the Qadari, nor the Murjiyi’. I said, ‘describe them to me.’ He said, `The one who says that Iman is statement [only], then he is Murjiyi`. And whosoever says that Abu Bakr and ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with them) are not the two imams, then he is a Rafidhi. And whosoever places the Will for himself, he is Qadari


      3. Imam Abu Yusuf the student of Imam Abu Hanifa said : Don’t pray behind a Jahmi or Rafidhi or Qadari.

        Imam Muhammad said

        It is not allowed to pray behind Rafidha

        Ibn Hajr says:

        It was already mentioned that the Hanafi scholars condemned one with kufr who denies the caliphate of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr and Sayyiduna ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with them). This ruling is mentioned in their books with detail as it is mentioned in Al-Asl by Imam Muhammad bin al-Hassan al-Shaybani (may Allah have mercy upon him). It is obvious that they have inherited it from their Imam Abu Hanifah (may Allah be pleased with him) and he knows more about the Rawafid as he is from Kufa and Kufa was the origin and headquarter of the Rawafid. Among the Rawafid, there are many groups, some must be condemned with kufr while some not. So, when Imam Abu Hanifah regards the denier of caliphate of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) as kafir, so one who curses him will necessarily be called kafir except that if one makes some difference. As it is clear that the reason of declaring him as kafir is his opposition to the ijma’ (consensus) based upon the ruling that one who denies a unanimous matter (of religion) will be called kafir. This is a general rule among the theologians. The caliphate of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) is a unanimous matter from the time when Sayyiduna Umar came forward for his ba’yah (solemn pledge of obedience), but it cannot be contradicted with the delay made by some Sahabah; since those who delayed in ba’yah they did not delay due to any disagreement about his eligibility of caliphate, therefore they used to take his bestowals and used to take their issues to him. So, ba’yah is something and ijma’ is something else, and one is not necessary for the other. You should understand this point, as some people commit mistake therein. If you object that calling anyone with kafir is conditioned with the rejection of a matter categorized as ‘necessary in religion’. I will say that the matter of his caliphate falls in the same category; since it is proved from widely reported traditions to the extent of ‘being necessary’ that the Sahabah took oath of allegiance (bayah) with him, so this matter turned like a unanimous matter known ‘necessarily’. And there is no doubt in the matter and there was no Rafidhi in the period of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, neither in the reign of Sayyiduna ‘Umar nor Sayyiduna ‘Uthman (may Allah be pleased with them) rather they emerged later on.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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