Recommended Websites and Blogs:

853 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.


      4. mr.heathcliff

        On creedal apologetic arguments and the blasphemy accusation made at Jesus’ trial

        First, how are the evangelists supposed to have found out what happened at the trial? All of the disciples had fled, except for Peter who hoped to avoid detection among the crowd in the high priest’s courtyard. But the interrogation of Jesus did not transpire where Peter could hear it. Indeed, Peter is busy undergoing his own interrogation in the courtyard at the same time!

        The second problem with the trial narratives is that virtually every detail of them seems to fly in the face of everything we know of rabbinical jurisprudence. They are convening on Passover eve for a capital trial? Not likely! And why would a claim to be messiah, even if deemed false, amount to blasphemy? It sure didn’t some years later when no less a personage than Rabbi Akiba endorsed the ill-fated Simon bar Kochba as the messiah.

        It even becomes an open question whether the Sanhedrin had any role in the trial and death of Jesus, simply because of the manner of execution. He was crucified, a Roman penalty inflicted on pirates, seditionists, and runaway slaves… If Jesus were to be executed for blasphemy, why did Annas and Caiaphas not simply seek Pilate’s permission to have Jesus stoned to death, since stoning was the required Jewish penalty? That they did not raises the real possibility that the grounds for the execution were entirely different, perhaps political, as many scholars have held.

        My point here is that the trial narrative is a matter of just as much debate as the question of what Jesus may have claimed of himself. To treat the gospel trial accounts, and one particular interpretation of them, as undeniably factual, and to base on this a case for Jesus’ claiming to be God, is to build a house on sand.

        One last apologetical distortion connected with the trial requires our attention. Apologists minimize the fact that the Synoptic trial narratives do not have Jesus say precisely the same thing in answer to the question of the high priest. Asked, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” Jesus replies, according to Mark, “I am,” but in Matthew and Luke, “You say that I am.” First there is the problem of whether the two versions contradict one another. Second, there is the problem of whether “You say” implies evasive ambiguity.

        Apologists try to harmonize the two versions, as apologists commonly do. McDowell tries to make us believe that the ambiguous reply in Matthew and Luke really means the same as Mark’s forthright “I am.””These answers are really identical. The formulae ‘Thou hast said’ or ‘Ye say that I am,’ which to modern ears sounds evasive, had no such connotation to the contemporary Jewish mind. ‘Thou sayest’ was the traditional form in which a cultivated Jew replied to a question of grave or sad import. Courtesy forbade a direct ‘yes’ or ‘no.’” To quote apologist Frank Morison in Who Moved the Stone.

        But Morison’s own explanation refutes itself. If “thou sayest” could conceal either a “direct ‘yes’ or ‘no,”‘ then how, pray tell, is the hearer to know which of the two, yes or no, is meant? It would certainly make things a good bit easier for the apologist who wants to use Jesus as a ventriloquist dummy to mouth fourth-century Athanasian dogma if “Thou sayest” were an unambiguous “You said it!,” but it is not. And to make Matthew and Luke’s ambiguous version tantamount to Mark’s unambiguous affirmation, simply because Mark has the one in the same spot where Matthew and Luke have the other, is pure harmonization. It is like saying that if I answer “maybe” and you answer “yes” to the same question we must be giving the same answer.

        But in fact, there is a way to iron out the apparent contradiction in this case, though I don’t think Morison would like it much. As it happens, there are a couple of early manuscripts of Mark that agree with Matthew and Luke in attributing to Jesus an ambiguous answer: “You say so.” There is obviously no way to be sure how the original autograph manuscript of Mark read at this (or any other) point, since manuscript evidence from the first century or so of copying is practically non-existent (a crucial factor minimized to the vanishing point by apologists). But ask yourself which is more likely, that, faced with a clear affirmation of Jesus’ messiahship in Mark’s trial scene, Matthew and Luke would both, independently, deem it better to befog the issue by introducing the ambiguous “thou sayest” business? Or that Mark, too, originally had the ambiguous “thou sayest,” which Matthew and Luke both faithfully reproduced, but which some later copyist of Mark found theologically inadequate and changed to a nice, juicy “I am”?

        I think the latter scenario makes the more sense, but really, who knows? Again, my point is that the facts are anything but clear, whereas they would have to be crystal clear to serve Morison’s apologetic purpose.

        Some apologists point to Ethelbert Stauffer’s interpretation of Mark 14:62. According to Stauffer, when Jesus answers his accuser’s question with the phrase “ego eimi,” or “I am,” he is actually referring to the Jewish liturgical theophany formula “Ani (we) Hu” (“I and he,” meaning “I am he”). Thus, Jesus is supposed to be claiming possession of divinity. Stauffer comes to this conclusion from investigating extracanonical literature. [3]. This line of argumentation is summarized and applauded by Buell and Hyder [4] and Yamauchi. [5]

        All this may be news to the reader, since this is not quite the first impression one receives in reading the text. Isn’t it more natural to assume that when Jesus is asked, “Are you the Christ?” and replies “I am,” that he simply means to reply to this question in the affirmative? While there is some difficulty in harmonizing the reply understood in this way with the Matthean-Lucan version “You say that I am ,” this latter version is certainly more nearly equivalent to a simple affirmation than to a claim of divinity, as those apologists read it! Besides Stauffer’s suggestions arrived at by his own detective work on Jewish literature, would hardly have been apparent to Mark’s audience without explanation. They even needed to have simple Jewish dietary laws explained to them (Mark 7:3-4) for Jesus’ words to make sense. Could they have understood the complex allusion suggested by Stauffer?

        But the high priest tore his robe, as if in response to blasphemy. Before running off with Stauffer to investigate various extrabiblical texts, may l suggest that Buell, Hyder, and Yamauchi take a closer look at the Marcan text in front of them? Jesus claims in the same breath that he will be “seated on the right hand of Power” (14:62). l dare say that most readers of this text naturally assume that this statement was the alleged blasphemy in question. And I think they are right.

        If one still wants to go in search of extrabiblical corroboration, it is there to be found. Rabbinic literature refers to a Jewish “binitarian” heresy, whereby some claimed that “There are two Powers in heaven.” This binitarian heresy was particularly associated with the idea that one of God’s servants should be so highly exalted as to be enthroned by his side. According to one rabbinic text, a scholar suggests that David will occupy a throne next to God. A colleague reproaches him: “How long will you profane the Shekinah?” In the late book III Enoch, the exalted Enoch is given the divine Name and a throne next to God’s. A later redactor tries to tone this down for fear of binitarianism. [6] What we can see in all this is that Jesus’ claim to be enthroned by God’s side could be taken by hearers as blasphemy even if not intended as a claim to be God.

        In the examples just referred to, the binitarian divinity claim was a conclusion drawn not by the original speaker (or writer) , but by his opponents who feared what they saw as the implication of his words. We might be justified in reading the “blasphemy” charge in the Marcan text as one more example of this. My appeal to Jewish literature merely supports what l believe to be the natural’ reading of the Marcan text. Stauffer’s on the other hand serves to interpret the text in a way that is rather less than obvious. In short, once again, it is not at all clear that we must reckon with a “claim to be God.”

        See also p. 140-143 in this work


  13. mr.heathcliff

    I have been arguing that if we want to understand the book of Revelation, we need to situate it in its own historical context in the Roman Empire of the first century rather than assume it is talking about our own world in the twenty-first. Very few people read it that way, of course (or are interested in reading it that way). It’s far more intriguing to think the author was predicting what would happen in our own future. It’s ALL COMING TRUE! God has REVEALED IT TO US! We can NOW SEE THE SIGNS OF THE END!

    But, alas, like every other book of the Bible, Revelation was written to address an ancient audience in a different context, and its bizarre symbols need to be read with their own context front and center in mind. Here is how I sometimes try to illustrate the problem. (Parts of this are taken from my book The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings; Oxford University Press; 7th ed.)


    One of the most popular ways to interpret the book of Revelation today is to read its symbolic visions as literal descriptions of what is going to transpire in our own day and age. But there are problems with this kind of approach. On the one hand, we should be suspicious of interpretations that make everything about our own world or our own lives; this way of understanding the book maintains that the entire course of human history has now culminated with us! An even larger problem, however, is that this approach inevitably has to ignore certain features of the text in order to make its interpretations fit.

    Consider, as just one example, an interpretation sometimes given of the “locusts” that emerge from the smoke of the bottomless pit in order to wreak havoc on earth in chapter 9. The seer describes the appearance of these dread creatures as follows:

    On their heads were what looked like crowns of gold; their faces were like human faces, their hair like women’s hair, and their teeth like lions’ teeth; they had scales like iron breastplates, and the noise of their wings was like the noise of many chariots with horses rushing into battle. They have tails like scorpions, with stingers, and in their tails is their power to harm people. . . . (Rev 9:7–10)

    One of the most popular interpretations today of this passage comes to us from “prophecy writer” non-pareille, Hal Lindsay. Lindsay is one of the best selling authors of modern times that (ironically) most people apart from evangelical Christians have never heard of. His most famous book is the incredibly well-selling Late Great Planet Earth. Have you heard of it? It was apparently THE best selling work of non-fiction (speaking loosely) in the entire decade of the 1970s.

    The book explained how the end of history as we know it was going to happen soon, by the end of the 1980s, when Jesus returned in judgment on the earth. But that would come only after all hell breaks out down here (as if it’s not already…). And Revelation predicts it. Often in detail. For example, in this passage I’ve just quoted. For Lindsay this is not a description of locusts coming up out of the bottomless pit but a vision of modern attack helicopters flying forth through the smoke of battle.

    The seer, living many centuries before the advent of modern warfare, had no way of knowing what these machines really were, and so he described them as best he could. They fly like locusts but are shaped like huge scorpions. The rotors on top appear like crowns; they seem to have human faces as their pilots peer through their windshields; they are draped with camouflage that from a distance looks like hair; they have fierce teeth painted on their fronts; they are made of steel and so appear to have iron breastplates; the beating of their rotors sounds like chariots rushing to battle; and they have machine guns attached to their tails, like scorpions’ stingers.

    What could be more plausible? The prophet has glimpsed into the future and seen what he could not understand. We, however, living in the age in which his predictions will come to pass, understand them full well.

    As captivating as the idea might be, one of the major problem is that the interpretation simply doesn’t work when you actually look carefully at the most important details of the passage. Consider, for example, what these locusts are actually said to do. The text is quite emphatic: they are not allowed to harm any grass or trees, but only people; moreover, and most significantly, they are given the power to torture people for five months, but not to kill them (9:4–5). Those who are attacked by the locusts will long to die but will not be able to do so (9:6). These locusts can’t be modern instruments of war designed for mass destruction because they are explicitly said to be unable to destroy anything.

    The same problems occur with virtually every interpretation of the book that takes its visions as literal descriptions of events that will transpire in our own imminent future. These approaches simply cannot account for the details of the text, which is to say that they don’t take the text itself seriously enough. It is more reasonable to interpret the text within its own historical context, not as a literal description of the future of the earth, but as a metaphorical statement of the ultimate sovereignty of God over a world that is plagued by evil.

    Too bad! It would indeed be nice if we had a blueprint for our future. But alas, it does not come to us in the book of Revelation.


      1. mr.heathcliff

        * Did he see stuff far off into the future? Why not? *
        For one thing, we know that John thought his visions would come to pass rather soon. The very first verse refers to “what must soon take place”, and the last chapter reiterates “the time is near”. If he was mistaken about the time frame, can you really trust him about his visions? Yet this “soon” appears very much in line with the expectations of Jesus himself for an imminent apocalypse.

        Remember the author was pretending to have written in the past, so “present tense” is the past tense relative to the audience. The psueudepigrapher is pretending to be Paul talking to Thessalonians in the past. The letter was not actually sent to the Thessalonians, it’s fake correspondence.

        There’s no doubt enesteken just means imminent. It means basically within reach. Very near. It’s also meant to be rhetorically persuasive and Jewish rhetoric is characteristically hyperbolic and immediate, so being hyper literal about it just borders on sophistry. It is certainly not enough to hypothesize a third letter that no one has ever heard of in which someone purporting to be Paul says “The kingdom of heaven is literally here right now, right this second,” rather than to assume that 2 Thessalonians is referring to 1 Thessalonians, which was presenting the exact same problem to the author. Paul had said that Jesus would return in his own lifetime or at least the lifetimes of people who were presently alive. That obviously didn’t happen. So the pseudepigrapher wrote a fake letter to the Thessalonians claiming that the first letter was fake. It doesn’t help to posit a different fake letter because the real 1 Thessalonians still implied that Jesus was supposed to have come already and people were certainly taking it that way, and that’s why the church had to walk it back. Debunking a third letter which said “the kingdom is here now” would be superfluous. It didn’t stop 1 Thessalonians from still being wrong. The church was not above forgery. 13 of 27 books in the New Testament are believed to be pseudepigraphical and 2 Thessalonians is thought to be one of the most obvious ones, and it’s not just because of that verse. It’s mostly on stylistic grounds.

        For example, Udo Schnell’s comments on the same page I linked earlier:

        Although the author of the second letter made use of 1 Thessalonians, there are still peculiarities in language and style. That there are seventeen expressions in 2 Thessalonians that occur nowhere else in the New Testament is very revealing. In contrast to the undisputed Pauline letters, 2 Thessalonians lacks antithetical formulations, passages in the style of the diatribe, and (with the exception of 2 Thess. 2.5) real questions. Different from the lively, sometimes abrupt argument of Paul’s letters, 2 Thessalonians appears as a didactic compositiion with a narrowly limited theme. The manner of expression is favored by 42 words and expressions repreated twice or more. In summary it may be said: ‘The use of words, stylistic peculiarities and the train of thought must be seen together. Typical ideas, words and expressions point to a more developed situation in doctrine and forms of Christian life than is seen in 1 Thessalonians and all the other undisputed Pauline letters.’

        Ehrman gives a lot of technical arguments too, in Forged and other books. The same person did not write both letters, even though the second author was trying to sound like Paul.

        Then there’s Loisy:

        “Imitated from the First Epistle and specially co-ordinated with the insertion on the resurrection of the dead [4:13-5:11], the Second to Thessalonians is, for the most part, a theological dissertation on the conditions of the Second Advent. It is not written for the instruction of a particular community but aims rather to dissapate the general uneasiness of Christian thought in regard to the Parousia, impatiently expected and continually postponed. The author enlarges on the apocalyptic theme of the Antichrist, prehaps identified with Nero risen from the dead, whose manifestation was to cause the ruin of the Roman Empire. The document is conceived in the spirit of the synoptic Gospels and is probably not earlier than the first quarter of the second century. Since Marcion accepted it as authentic, we can hardly place it as late as 130-135. The pains taken by the author at the end (iii, 17) to declare his signature genuine render it the more suspect.

        These are not radical, liberal scholars talking. This is mainstream NT scholarship. It is opposed in academia only by those who are committed (sometimes contractually) to a view that there can be no pseudepigraphy in the Bible.

        Maybe I’m dense, but I don’t see how 1 Thess 3:11-13, where Jesus acts sovereignly with the Father to direct history and strengthen their hearts, is a lower Christology than anything in 2 Thess.

        I haven’t made any comment about the Christology in either 1 or 2 Thessalonians, so I don’t know what you mean.



      2. mr.heathcliff

        how miracle is not required to explain the ressurection of jeebus:

        The early followers believed they were living in the end times which is exactly when the resurrection would occur. So they were imminently expecting it. Moreover, combine this with Jesus’ own predictions of his death and resurrection and you have the idea already primed in his followers minds. Thus, we now see why they would be biased to proclaiming he was resurrected in response to his sudden death.

        and he argues that appearances alone would not have sufficed to convince them that Jesus was raised from the dead. We need an explanation of why they would interpret the appearances the way that they did.

        In Acts, Paul has a “vision from heaven” and immediately converts because of it. Thus, seeing or hearing about an empty tomb was not required in order to believe Jesus had been raised. Unless Acts is just wrong of course.


    1. mr.heathcliff

      July 25, 2021
      In this thread I have been discussing the importance of putting the book of Revelation in its own historical context instead of transplanting its (bizarre) symbols and message into the 21st century, as if the author was trying to communicate not with the churches that he actually names as the recipients of his book (in Asia Minor at the end of the first century) but with us (in America in the twenty-first). Instead of modern interpretations (666 is Saddam Hussein! The Whore of Babylon is the Roman Catholic Church!), surely it is better to interpret the book in light of what the author and his audience would have themselves understood.

      That can be illustrated many times over from the book; for this post I would like to do so by returning to one of the key images that I have posted about several times before. Apologies if this is old news for you from a relatively recent post, but to make my point about the book of Revelation as a whole, this is the most relevant and important issue to address. So, here we return to a key passage that describes the author’s arch-enemy, the violent and horrifying opponent of the Christians, the “Whore” named “Babylon” in Revelation ch. 17.

      In a previous post I summarized, rather tersely, the narrative flow of what happens in the book of Revelation. It is important here to stress that none of this breathtaking vision can be read literally as an indication of what, chronologically, will happen at the end of time. That’s because it is impossible to place the events it portrays in a linear timeline: as we have seen, the universe has collapsed less than a third of the way into the book (chapter 6). Moreover, the author himself indicates that his account is symbolic, and in fact gives keys to the interpretations of his symbols. This can be readily demonstrated from a particularly key passage that describes the ultimate enemy of God for this author.

      In chapter seventeen, one of the seven angels who will pour out bowls of God’s wrath on the earth takes the prophet and shows him a “great whore who is seated on many waters” (17:1). He is told that this prostitute has “committed fornication” with the kings of the earth. He goes into the wilderness and there he sees a woman sitting on a scarlet colored beast that has seven heads and ten horns. The woman is luxuriously arrayed in purple and scarlet, wearing gold, jewels, and pearls; she is holding a golden cup filled with abominations and on her head is “written a name, a mystery: ‘Babylon the great, mother of whores and of earth’s abominations.’” We are told that the woman is “Drunk with the blood of the saints and …of the witnesses to Jesus” (17:6). In the King James Version of the Bible we are confronted at this point by a slight problem with Jacobean English: we are told that the prophet looked upon this great Whore “with great admiration.” Modern translations rectify the problem. The prophet was deeply amazed. As well he might be.

      Who or what in the world is this “Whore of Babylon”? The prophet himself cannot figure it out, but the angel explains to him by assuring him: “This calls for a mind that has wisdom” (17:9). He first indicates that the beast on which the woman is seated is destined to ascend from the bottomless pit (17:8). Looking ahead, the reader knows that in 20:2 it is Satan who is bound for this pit; moreover, there he is called the Dragon, the Serpent of old. The woman is supported, then, by the Devil himself.

      But who is the woman? A future anti-Christ? One of the violently anti-Christian countries on earth of our day? Russia? China? The ultimate religious enemy of TRUE believers (the Catholic Church? Islam?)

      Nope. The angel goes on to explain that the seven heads of the beast are actually seven mountains on which the woman is seated (17:9). Anyone living in the ancient world would by now have no trouble figuring out who she is. For those not who do not understand the clue, the angel provides the final answer “The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth” (17:18).

      Who is the city ruling the world of John’s day? Rome, famous even in antiquity for being the city “built on seven hills” (= the beast with seven heads). Why is she called “Babylon”? That was the city that in 586 BCE destroyed Jerusalem and burned the temple under the direction of the Babylonian ruler Nebuchadnezzar. Now, six centuries later, it is Rome who has destroyed Jerusalem and burned its second temple, under the Roman emperor Vespasian, in 70 CE. This is the city ruled ultimately by Satan, the enemy of God, the city responsible both for the economic exploitation of the earth (hence her luxurious attire and many jewels) and for the persecution of Christians (she is drunk with the blood of the martyrs). Thus for the author of Revelation, the enemy of God is the Roman empire and its rulers. It is not some wicked woman bound to appear soon in the twenty-first century or a wicked country or religious group among us now already.


      1. mr.heathcliff

        July 27, 2021

        In two previous posts I talked about the “genre” of the book of Revelation (see and ). Now I can give a brief description of how the book of Revelation functions as an apocalypse – that is, how the features of the genre, that I’ve already mentioned, work themselves out in the narrative of the book. Again, this is taken from my textbook on the New Testament (Oxford University Press; 7th edition 2020).


        In general terms, Revelation corresponds to the basic description of apocalypses that I have given. It is a first-hand account written by a prophet who has been shown a vision of heaven that explains the realities of earth, a vision that is mediated by angels and that is chock-full of bizarre and mysterious symbolism. The nature of the book is indicated at the outset, in the magnificent vision of the exalted Christ that the prophet describes in ch. 1. Here Christ appears as “one like a Son of Man” (cf. Dan 7:13-14, where the phrase describes the cosmic judge of the earth) and is seen walking amidst the seven golden lampstands (i.e., he is present among the seven churches of Asia Minor, 1:20), with seven stars in his hands (i.e., he himself is in control of the guardian angels of these churches and therefore of the churches’ own destinies; 1:20). His appearance is symbolic: among other things, he is a king (long robe with golden sash, 1:12); he is ancient (white hair, 1:14); he is the cosmic judge (eyes like fire, 1:14); he is full of splendor (feet of burnished bronze, 1:15); he is all-powerful (voice of many waters, 1:15); he speaks the word of God (two-edged sword in his mouth, 1:16); he is totally overpowering (face like the sun, 1:16). The prophet’s response to this vision is understandable: he falls down as if dead. But Christ raises him up and commands him to convey both the message of his vision and the truth of what is yet to come.

        Features of the Apocalypse

        Rather than examining all that happens in this book in detail, it may prove more useful to see how some of its features make sense in light of the apocalypse genre, as I have just described it.

        Bizarre Symbolism. The symbolic character of John’s visions is obvious. Sometimes he himself doesn’t understand what he sees and needs an angel to explain it for him (e.g., 17:7). This does not mean, however, that everything he says is completely shrouded in mystery. Indeed, many of the symbols are not difficult to understand for those who know enough about the Old Testament (e.g., the image of “one like a Son of Man”) or about common images in ancient culture (e.g., eyes of fire). The explanations of yet other symbols are hinted at in the text. These are among the most interesting features of the book. Here we may take a few prominent examples to illustrate the process of historical interpretation. [At this point in the book I discuss the “Beast” of ch. 17 and the “Number of the Beast” (666 from ch. 13) – both of which I have already posted on.]
        Violent Repetitions. As I have mentioned, it is impossible to take the predictions of this book as a linear, chronological sequence of events that are to transpire at the end of time. The universe caves in on itself in chap. 6 but the pain and agony continue for another thirteen chapters! This is because the author has written for effect, following a literary convention that compounds the tribulations and intensifies the sufferings of the last times in order to show how dreadful things are going to be.
        Triumphalist Movement. The Apocalypse moves through tragedy to triumph, through despair to hope. The fundamental point of the narrative is to provide assurance that ultimately, regardless of how terrifying the situation may become, it is God who is in control of it all. The suffering of the present is part of God’s plan, and he will vindicate his people by destroying their enemies. When he does so, he will establish a new kingdom on earth in which there will be no more pain or suffering or death, no more persecution or exploitation, no more disease, famine, or war. There will only be Christ and his kingdom of saints.
        Imminence. The author emphasizes at the beginning and end of his work that the events that he records are going to happen soon (1:1, 3; 22:6, 10, 12, 20). This stress may suggest that the people he addresses are presently undergoing considerable suffering (cf. the pervasive references to persecution, exploitation, and martyrdoms). He is writing to provide them with hope that they will not have to suffer long before the end comes and God intervenes in history to make right all that has gone wrong.
        Encouragement and Admonition. Ultimately, then, this is a book about hope. In some respects, the author’s timetable matters less than his overarching message, that God is sovereign over this world, appearances notwithstanding, and that he will soon bring the history of his people’s suffering to a crashing halt. This message is meant to encourage those who are persecuted and weak. But it is also meant to admonish those who are tempted to abandon ship in view of their present distress. Here John is quite emphatic: those who depart from the faith will face a severe judgment; indeed, they will experience eternal torment. Believers must therefore hold on and not cave in, they must keep the faith and never abandon hope. For the end is near, and with it comes a fearful judgment for those who have proved faithless but an eternal reward for those who have stayed true.


  14. mr.heathcliff

    > This is the background to Muhammad’s being poisoned by a Jewish woman. She
    > administered the poison in a piece of lamb. It took three years for the
    > poison finally to kill him.

    There are differing reports of the account. Some have the Prophet
    tasting it, another he is not reported to have tasted anything. What
    is confirmed is that the Companion who also ate from the meat died
    immediately. In which world does poison remain in system for over 3
    years, before eventually killing somebody?

    Let us assume the report is correct:

    Isn’t it ironic that even with the alleged poisoning, Muhammad (S) did
    not die until he completed his mission by liberating the Ka’aba and
    gaining dominance over Arabia? Isn’t it ironic that he only passed
    once the revelation of the Quran was complete?

    What are you trying to prove?

    > Muhammad’s dying words are remarkable; they are a curse on Christians and
    > Jews. Here is the account in Ibn Sa’d’s biography, “Kitab al-Tabaqat
    > al-Kabir”, vol 2, p322:

    These were not the Prophet’s dying words. These are some of the
    things he is reported to have said during his last few days. His last
    reported words reflected his desire to meet his Lord. Prior to these
    words, “prayer” was on his lips.

    > “When the last moment of the prophet was near, he used to draw a sheet over
    > his face, but when he felt uneasy, he removed it from his face and said
    > ‘Allah’s damnation on the Jews and Christians who made the graves of their
    > prophets objects of worship.'”

    Why not try to understand? This statement was one of many statements
    he made, knowing that his time was approaching.

    If you would take a minute to think, before you speak, you wold have
    realized that this phrase was directed to the Muslims, and how they
    need to react once the Prophet leaves this world, i.e. he died. The
    Prophet, whom you would like to claim as self-serving, is warning his
    own ummah from falling into worshipping him, unlike the Jews and
    Christians, who took to excess, and moved away from the worship of God
    by worshipping their Prophets. He, even to the point of death, was
    keen n preserving the tradition of monotheism that all Prophets


    > It is illuminating to compare this curse with the words of Jesus, also the
    > victim of murder, in his case judicial murder. He prayed for those
    > responsible for his death: “Father, forgive them; they know not what they
    > do.”

    Actually, Jesus reported that the Temple would be destroyed, and God’s
    punishment would lead to the Rabbinic expulsion from Jerusalem. It
    happened in 70 AD, just as Jesus foretold.

    And does this sound like a man that was sent to be ‘crucified’ for
    men’s sins? Praying forgiveness for the people who comitted an act
    that was suppose to free men from their sins?

    > Any report of Muhammad’s not tasting anything of the poisoned lamb
    > hardly makes sense.
    According to who? If a Companion ate first, and immediately died,
    than why would Muhammad taste it? How does that not make any sense?
    And you failed to answer the obvious question.

    Which poison maintains itself in the body for 3 years, ultimately
    causing the death of a person? Abbass (R) is reported to have stated
    to Ali (R) that his uncle was going to die, and the latter should make
    a request for leadership. Abbass (R) is reported to have given the
    reason for this because the manner in which the Prophet died was
    common to his ancestors. They fell ill, and their condition seemed to
    improve, yet they ultimately passed.

    It is all well and good that you quoted varying reports, but it only
    proves what I was saying all along. There are varying reports, and
    they differ on whether Muhammad actually tasted the meat or not. But
    they all agree on one thing. The Jews tried to assassinate Muhammad,
    despite putting on a pretense of reconciliation. What are you trying
    to prove?

    > How do you know that he only died when the ‘revelation’ of the Koran

    > was complete? Do you have access to the heavenly tablets to check
    > that?

    So are you admitting the Quran is stored in the heavenly tablets? If
    you assert that, than you would have to assert that God has protected
    the revelation of the Quran, because every verse about the heavenly
    tablets is an argument in favor of the preservation of the
    transmission of the Quran.

    The Quran itself states that the religion was perfected, and the
    descendants of Ishamel were given dominance in the land as promised.
    They were further given control of the Ka’aba, as foretold in the
    Quran. The declaration of victory was made in Surah Nasr. The
    internal evidence dictates that the mission of Muhammad (S) was
    nearing it’s end.

    The irrational assumption is to assume the Quranic revelation wasn’t
    complete. It is a subjective assertion, not supported by a single
    piec of evidence.

    > You ask what I am trying to prove. Proof isn’t the issue, but I am
    > showing that Muhammad was not a Prophet: Jesus said that those who
    > live by the sword will die by the sword and forbade his disciples to
    > resort to arms to defend him against the Jewish authorities; but
    > Muhammad established his power in Arabia by violence – consequently he
    > died by violence at the hands of a Jewess revenging herself for the
    > horrific treatment that Muhammad handed out to the Jews.

    ANd the final Prophet would be like Moses, not Jesus. Further, Moses
    and David raised the sword. Many Prophets of past raised the sword
    from among the Israelites, and their power was established through
    violence. The Israelites forceable entered Canaan, by directive of
    Moses, the one whom God spoke face to face. Deuteronomy is full of
    stipulations of what the Israelites are to do with various groups
    within Canaan.

    How did the Prophet die of violence, when he lived 3 years after this
    alleged incident? Especially considering the Kaaba was liberated and
    he was granted dominance in the land. The state of the Muslims was of
    complete independence and victory. What planet are you living in if
    you think that Muhammad died by ‘violence’? He died in the lap of his
    wife, in his own house. He prayed with his Companions, and smiled
    when observing them in prayer. He even had the chance to brush his
    teeth with miswak.

    Whatever the Quran predicted about his mission came true? How is that
    a horrific death? God grant me such a horrific death…

    > Whether Muhammad’s words cursing Jews and Christians were precisely
    > his last, as reported by Ibn Sa’d, cannot be determined and isn’t
    > important.

    Your the one that claimed it was important. You wanted to drum up
    some charge that his statement was predicated upon his being
    ‘assassinated’ by the Jews, when it had nothing to do with the
    situation. It is called fabricating evidence. But you have become
    reknowned for that on this forum.

    > No, the curse was directed at Christians and Jews, though no doubt it
    > had point for Muslims. And Muhammad’s curse is false: Christians and
    > Jews do NOT worship the graves of prophets.

    Yes, they do. They build monuments around the bodies of past saints.
    The Catholic Church declares certain places sacred, because a
    particular saint died there. People invoke saints at these grave-
    yards. Maybe to you, this is not worship. But to Muslims and our
    world-view it is clearly worship.

    You are again completely
    > misinformed – no doubt it is a current Muslim canard – Christians and
    > Jews do not worship Prophets. No doubt you will cite Jesus as a
    > Prophet who is worshiped, but he is not worshiped as man, but as God.

    And the idol-worshippers bow to stones because they believe they are
    gods? Does that mean that they are invoking gods?

    “These are just names, which ye and your forefathers have made up.”

    You can worship Jesus as God, but that makes you guilty of two things:

    1. Foolishness for worshipping a man
    2. Believing that Jesus said He was God, yet he bowed to God in

    > Thus there is no idolatry. If Muslims were not wholly ignorant of
    > Christianity and Judaism they would not believe such canards.

    Than the idol-worshipper isn’t guilty of idolatry, because he believes
    that the stone he actually worships is a god.

    > You seem to imply that in prophesying the destruction of the Temple in
    > 70CE Jesus was uttering a curse: not so. Jesus didn’t prophesy the
    > expulsion of the Rabbis from Jerusalem.

    If calling certain Jews wolves in sheeps clothing, and condemning them
    in prophetic words about their total destruction in the context of
    their hypocrisy isn’t a curse, than what is? I guess we are also to
    assume that Jesus wasn’t really being harsh, despite the fact he
    called them liars, and unfaithful to God, and hypocrites who seek to
    deceive men. He was really trying to ‘inspire’ them…

    > The fact that Jesus’s self-sacrifice would enable men to be freed from
    > their sins in no way took away from the guilt of those responsible for
    > his judicial murder; THEY didn’t send him to be crucified for men’s
    > sins. Again you are abysmally ignorant of Christianity and have no
    > understanding of it.

    So he was assassinated by his enemies… Interesting that this whole
    argument is predicated on the fact that Muhammad was allegedly
    assassinated by his enemies… So who was behind this assassination
    attempt of Jesus? And who was behind this assassination attempt of

    They both have a common theme, i.e. the people behind it were
    rejecting the claims to Prophethood without due right…

    > Do you find it incredible and illogical that Jesus should pray for
    > those who were killing him?

    Jesus wasn’t even on the cross…

    Liked by 1 person

  15. mr.heathcliff

    > You say that many prophets “raised the sword” from among the
    > Israelites. This is not true.
    No, it is absolutely true one hundred percent without a shadow of a
    doubt. Prophets have raised the sword and continued to raise the
    sword in Israelite tradition, whether it was against the idolaters or
    other tribes of Israel. The prophecies of Isaiah are in regards to a
    battle between Israel and Judah, not the Israelites and the non-
    Israelites. I am not woefully ignorant of your scriptures Robert,
    that you can pass away blatant disregard for truth right before my

    Also David was guilty of great
    > wickedness: adultery and murder, and for this violence he was
    > condemned. Do you condemn Muhammad for his many violent and unjust
    > actions? None of the great Prophets used violence, just as none of
    > them practised polygamy.


    Nice game of logic, but I don’t suscribe to your games. First of all,
    violence does not necessarily predicate injustice. Second, none of
    Muhammad’s violent actions were unjust.


    The fact is we are speaking about what God is recorded to have ORDERED
    in the Old Testament, irrespective of whether the allegations
    regarding David are true or not. Further, we are not just referred to
    David, but a series of Prophets within the Israelite tradition. Your
    just side-steeping the issue. As I pointed before, we have the
    example par excellence in Judaic tradition of a Prophet, whom God
    spoke face-to-face with, that ordered his people to invade Canaan and
    take it by force. The greatest Prophet, according to Israelite
    tradition, ordered offensive wars. This is just the reality of the
    matter, and no amount of back-peddling can change this reality.


    Further, the Israelite theme of salavation is found in the re-
    establishment of the Temple of DAVID. David is the central figure in
    apocalyptic Judaic tradition regarding salvation. The Messiah, as
    propagated by the lying pens of the Pharisees, was suppose to descend
    from the line of David.

    What does this say about your argument regarding violence?

    > The Israelites, on the instructions of Moses, fought to enter Canaan,
    > and ‘devoted’ a number of Canaanite cities; that is they killed and
    > destroyed everything in them. This was the practice of the nomadic
    > Semites of the time.

    Ah… You see how the justification changes for your own beliefs.
    Interesting… I find it rather hypocritical.

    Whether this was God’s will I find difficult to
    > decide: certainly God, only God, has rights over innocent life.

    Yes, and in my eyes just as Moses was a Prophet, Muhammad was a
    Prophet. So you need to confine yourself to the standard of whether
    Muhammad was a Prophet or not. We all know Prophet’s waged wars, so
    waging wars and fighting battles, even OFFENSIVE, are not the standard
    that defines a Prophet from a non-Prophet. Your whole argument is
    predicated on the fact that because Muhammad waged violent wars as a
    staple of his prophethood, which is in fact disputable, because the
    violence itself was rather limited, he could not be a Prophet. Yet,
    you refuse to follow this same standard for Moses or David. You just
    keep running around in circles trying to justify it for Moses, but not
    for Muhammad.

    I find it rather ironic that not in one single instance do you speak
    about all the persecution that Muhammad and his followers faced in
    Mecca, as well as the baseless idol worship they indulged in. The
    very idol-worship that neither Moses, Abraham, or Jesus justified.
    Yet, you want to make Muhammad the subject of your attacks.

    “When they (Bani Israel) are asked who is better, they reply the

    This is how far their hatred had reached for their own brother, the
    one who descended from their father Abraham. They had preferred the
    defense of what was clearly forbidden in their own scriptures, because
    they hated a man for receiving revelation from God, who was not
    directly from their own tribe. THIS IS THE REALITY OF THE MATTER.
    And you are acting just like them Robert. But “those who do wrong,
    wrong their own souls.” Your not going to bother Muhammad or me
    regarding what you say. I am just speaking the truth as it is.

    > However, your raising this is just another instance of the common
    > Muslim practice of deploying the ‘tu quoque’ fallacy, distracting from
    > the facts about Islam, which are the issue.

    What distraction? Muhammad is the final Prophet in the line of a
    series of Messengers God sent to humanity. This has nothing to do
    with distracting from the facts of Islam, because Islam is the same
    religion sent to mankind, through the Prophets, throughout the ages.
    If Prophets of past fought, than what is so strange that Muhammad
    fought? You are not going to find me denying that Muhammad waged wars
    and some of these wars were quite violent. Just as your not going to
    find me denying that nations such as Sodom and Gomorrah, or the towns
    of Thamud and Ad were destroyed rather violently, and the heavens and
    the earth never shed a single tear for them. In fact, the Quran is
    rather blunt when it speaks about the punishment accorded to the
    disbelievers in the next life.

    Thus, to claim Muhammad is not a Prophet simply because he waged
    violence is the ‘to quoque’ fallacy. I assert Muhammad is a final
    chain of Messengers. And I assert that God punishes those that
    ultimately reject his Messengers, despite the fact that God makes it
    clear to the people that these are Messengers.

    It bothers me NOT ONE BIT that blood was shed. I wish it hadn’t, and
    the people accepted, but those who were stubborn, and bore hatred,
    they only harmed themselves.

    Muhammad DID have many
    > innocent people killed and must be condemned for this. On the evidence
    > of the earliest Muslim historians he was responsible for eighty
    > political assassinations; the early historians and the hadith report
    > numerous atrocities.

    Can you tell me the count of how many people Muhammad killed in these
    battles of war? You know, there is an interestin statistic. Out of
    ten of the 13 years Muhammad was in Medina, he can be said to be in a
    state of war. Yet the amount of blood that was shed, was quite
    small. A few hundreds. Further, Muhammad was the one who had almost
    ALL OF ARABIA against him, yet he came out in top. At least, if your
    not going to accept him as Prophet, give him credit for unifying a
    nation of tribes and nomads into an amazing civilization.

    > But the main point is that whereas violence is intrinsic to Islam,
    > present in its origins, written into the Koran, and being claimed to
    > be enjoined by God himself, this is not true of Christianity and
    > Judaism.

    Judaism, as it is taught today, is founded on the premise that they
    have right to the Holy Land, and they can wage war for it.
    Salvational history is premised on the idea that the Temple will be
    rebuilt, and the Sons of Light will defeat the Sons of Darkness, to
    borrow the Dead Sea Scrolls terminology, in a battle unknown by human
    history. And your arguing that our religion is violentally intrinsic?

    The Quran says,

    “We created death and life to see who amongst you is BEST in deeds.”

    The foundation of this life is a test. It is not predicated on any
    salvational history, and further, this life is meant for the doing of
    good. Salvation is predicated on the doing of good, not some concept
    of armageddon. As our Prophet is reported to have said,

    “If the Day of Judgement comes, and you are planting a tree, continue
    planting the tree.”

    Islam was spread by violence: pagans were offered the
    > alternatives of submission to Islam or death.

    What happened in Canaan? God promised certains lands to the
    descendants of Abraham, did he not? Were not the descendants of
    ABraham required to uphold a certain code. Did not Moses order the
    killing of the guilt among Israel for calf-worship when he returned
    from Sinai?

    To this day every Muslim
    > is under an obligation to support jihad – armed conflict against the
    > infidel in the way of God.

    Jihad is a JUST WAR, fought for God. And your right. If a LEGITIMATE
    jihad is being waged for the sake of God, and the sake of God means
    the removal of oppression and injustice, than we are obliged to
    support it whether materially, financially, economically, or SIMPLY BY
    OUR CONSCIENCE. We do not favor nationalism or any other -ism over
    the Eternal Being. You shouldn’t either, especially since you claim
    that you follow people like Jesus.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. mr.heathcliff

    > Poisoned at the age of 63, by a Jewish Woman, who had a beef with him;
    > poisoned not instantly but over a period of a few years (which sounds to
    > me like the arsenic poisoning of Napoleon on St. Helena, many years
    > later).
    That Jewish woman was executed because her poisoining resulted in the
    death of one of the Prophet’s Companions. How could the Prophet be
    poisoned over a series of a few years, if his contact with the woman
    was at most a few minutes?
    And how does death happen instantly for his Companion who tasted the
    same meat, and not for the Prophet? Arsenic does not cause death
    because of a taste. Napolean sustained exposure to arsenic over many

    Let me repeat it clearly, one more time:

    Muhammad liberated the Arabian peninsula, re-gained control over the
    Kaaba, and by the end of his life, the nation was in his total

    His death was ordained by God, when his mission was to be completed.
    It happened just as foretold.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. mr.heathcliff

      > If you check out the Wikipedia you will find confirmation of what I
      > have said about the Koran’s allegation that Christians worship saints.
      According to our world-view this is worship. Worship is the practical
      manifestation of extreme reverance for a particular being. One does
      not worship something one does not have reverence for. Further,
      worship, according to the Quran, also is to follow a people who
      declare certain things forbidden that God has declared allowed, and
      indulge in things forbidden that God has ordaiend because these very
      people consider it allowed. One does not do this unless one
      reverences a particular person so much so, whether from social
      conditioning or some other reason, that one follows him not matter
      what. God does not accept claims of belief in his oneness, but
      practical manifestation of belief in his oneness.

      > Christians give honour and respect to Saints and ask them to intercede
      > and pray to God for them; Divine worship is offered only to God and
      > NEVER to saints.

      That is your claim, but that is not our world-view. And again, you
      missed the point. The idol-worshippers believe that the idols they
      bow to actually have power over the affairs of the heavens and the
      earth. This belief has no effect on reality. So you can say the
      Christians believe that they are worshipping God, but they are not
      when they indulge in these acts.

      Dead saints cannot hear. People pray to Saints, because they believe
      they have some uncanny ability to hear, even from beyond the graves.
      They fall into exxageration, which is ultimately how all polytheism
      starts. This exxageration than turns into worship, and people start
      erecting monuments, wasting money on gold tombs, instead of social
      justice and alleviating the misery of the poor. Pope’s begin to wear
      extravagant clothes, because he has some special status with God.
      People cry when the Pope comes to town, but the rest of their life,
      they are neglecting the real obligations of their religion. This is
      how Satan deceives men.

      > As regards the poison lasting for three years in Muhammad’s body,
      > there are many poisons that remain indefinitely in the body; that is
      > how cumulative poisons act.

      Now your an authority on medicine? Can you inform me of what types of
      poison’s act like that, especially considering one of his Companions
      died when tasting the meat? What happened to the rest of the
      Companions that allegedly ate it?

      > Pagans, whether they believe their idol is a god or not, are guilty of
      > idolatry because they accord divine worship to what is not God.

      So what… Your argument is predicated on the notion that Christians
      believe that they are doing something that is worship. The idol
      worshippers do the same thing. But the reality is, they both, just as
      Muslims who indulge in these type of activities, are living in

      Liked by 1 person

      1. mr.heathcliff

        You accuse me
        > of blatant disregard of truth but fail to produce any candidates for
        > the truth you allege I disregard.
        You are blatantly disregarding the truth. That is the reality….

        Did not Moses order the killing of the Israelites who partook in calf-
        worship when he went to the top of Sinai to receive the Torah?

        Why do I have to quote scripture, when what I state is a fact that
        everybody knows? That is like asking me to quote scientific text to
        prove that the sun is a ball of fire in the sky. Why should I waste
        my time for something that is indisputable?

        David did not fight wars? Solomon did not fight wars? Joshua did not
        fight wars? Moses did not command the Israelites to expel the
        idolaters? Gideon was not ordered by God to wage violent wars? The
        Israelites did not request God to appoint for them a king so that they
        might fight wars? God did not command the Israelites to not leave a
        single, breathing being in Canaan? War is written all over the Olt
        Testament, and the majority of these wars are offensive.

        How can I be living in denial, when you later on say:

        “The action of the Israelites in invading Canaan was not an act of
        VIOLENTIA – it was just since God promised them the land.”

        An act does not become less violent because God ordered it. Violence
        is still violence. Your argument does not stand a a single inch on
        any solid ground whatsoever. Your more interested in arguing a
        thoroughly baseless point, than the truth of the matter. What I
        stated is indisputabnle, which you know is true. You tried to
        convolute the argument by saying that it is not violent because God
        ordered it. Guess what?

        I can just as well say that Go ordered Muhammad to conquer Arabia, so
        it was not an act of violentia…

        > Of course, violence does not predicate injustice: the hangman’s
        > violence, the policeman’s reasonable violence, and the violence of a
        > just war are not unjust. That is the very point of my describing
        > Muhammad’s violence AS unjust: his political assassinations, his
        > decapitation of 600 Jews at Medina, and his murder of his dozen
        > personal enemies, includinn gold men and girls, in Mecca were unjust,
        > and therefore in the strongest sence of the legal term VIOLENTIA – the
        > opposite of justice.

        God ordered Canaan to be cleansed from a single-living breathing
        creature. I am sure there were more than 600 people in Canaan. If we
        accept that Muhammad killedd 600 Jews, that still does not absolve
        Moses of killing many of the Israelites from partaking in calf-
        worship. Even if we assume what you say is true, Muhammad is no
        different than other Prophets for being ‘violent’. The real issue is
        why was he violent? And it is obvious that the context of certain
        events in the life of the Prophet do not concern you, because that
        does not interest you. Your simply trying to prove Muhammad was not a
        Prophet, even if that means that you ignore basic reality, and
        willfully distort evidence.

        > Where is your evidence concerning “the lying pens of the Pharisees”?

        These are the words of Jeremiah, they are not my words. The fact that
        the Old Testament has been altered is indisputable historical fact. I
        am not going to get into a quotation match with you from various
        authorities, because we all know how yolur not interested in fact.
        The above is an example of your convoluted ways in which you deny
        basic realities, such as God ordering Canaan to be cleansed of every
        single, living being.

        > What motive could they have for lying about the descent of the Messiah
        > from David?

        Isn’t the Zionist claim for their supremacy, based upon the fact that
        God chose them above all people? I already told you about the tribal
        confilcts within Israel. Messiah connoted political power. Why would
        not various tribes claim the Messiah would arise from their ranks?

        How could they perpetrate a falsification of the
        > Scriptures given that there were thousands of copies distributed
        > across the Roman and Persian Empires. All the Scriptures would need to
        > be collected and replaced. How could this extraordinary feat be
        > performed while maintaining deceit and without becoming a fact of
        > history?

        Where is your evidence for the thousands of copies? Most jews could
        not read, and the translation of the Torah as well as teh study of it
        was confined to a certain elect.

        > My argument is that because Muhammad’s violence and teaching of
        > violence were unjust he was not a prophet.

        No, your argument was that because Muhammad was violent, that could
        not make him a Prophet. Since you have been shown undoubtedly that
        violence has been a way of life for many Prophets, you have changed
        the argument. This is further proven by the fact that you tried to
        negate violence for the OT Prophets in the beginning of your
        response. Your wrong, and you need to get over the fact that your

        > Since very ancient times the Jews never waged war for the Holy Land;
        > when Israel was founded, the Muslim Arabs invaded it and the Israelis
        > successfully defended themselves. Every other war they have been
        > involved in was defensive.

        They were waging war all the time. This is a baseless assertion for
        you. IOn fact, the Rabbinic scholars have all delineated the rules of
        war as per Canaan and outside of Canaan. Deuteronomy explcitily
        outlines the conditiosn of war for Canaan and outside of Canaan. The
        details are so intricate, they establish whether one can take
        prisoners of war and women as captives. And ironically, all of these
        wars are specifically outlines as offensive wars.

        Liked by 1 person

  17. mr.heathcliff

    > You seek to replace the concept of worship with the “practical manifestation
    > of extreme reverence.” There can be no objection to this reverence if the
    > person is worthy of such reverence. Muslims express extreme reverence for
    > Muhammad; do you object to that? You must, by your argument; you must find
    > Muslims guilty of idolatry.

    Yes, I object to Muslims who pray to Muhammad, asking him to benefit
    them. Our Prophet (S) hated that his Companions even stand for him
    when he came. He explicitly warned his followers not to turn his
    grave into a place of worship.


    Where did I seek to replace the word worship with ‘extreme reverence
    for a particular person”? What I stated is that worship is a RESULT
    of EXTREME reverance for a particular person. It is the PRACTICAL
    MANIFESTATION of this EXTREME reverance that a person hold’s in his
    heart for that personality. One does not pray to dead figures unless
    you believe that person to be HOLY. And when one does such things,
    one also comes forth with humility to that being. And once that
    humility is there for another being, than idol-worship is the
    necessary result. One begins to serve that person, i.e. worship
    them. One begins to pray to them. Whether you deny it or not, the
    reality is still present. It is God that is neglected, and the saint
    is not. And it is God, in whose hands is ALL GOOD.

    What is ironical is that the majority of these types of situations,
    the saints that an ignorant person turns to has no affiliation with
    the person praying to them. While a person directly experiences the
    manifestation of God’s mercy in his life everyday, the only relation a
    person has to a saint is social conditioning. Saint Augustine or Sufi
    Muinudeen Chisti have not done anything for you and me to deserve that
    we call upon them to ‘intercede’ with God, as if they can somehow
    influence the decisions of God to benefit us. It is the result a mere
    condition that a person does so.

    We experience God’s hand everyday in our lives, and by common sense
    and reason, it is only logical we turn our hands to him in prayer and
    ASK HIM directly. Nobody has any reason to deny the connection
    between God and man, while everybody has reason to deny man’s
    connection to another saint.

    > As I have said in practical terms, for Christians, a saint is someone
    > already enjoying the Beatific Vision because of his or her holiness of life
    > and who is asked TO PRAY FOR ONE. There can be no objection to this: one can
    > ask anyone to pray for one.

    How do you measure the ‘sainthood’ of a person? The only reason one
    asks a dead saint is because one ASSUMES, i.e. one lives in
    conjecture. One assumes the dead person can hear, i.e. has access to
    absolute knowledge. People who pray to Saints, they in reality do not
    recognize that God’s bounty extends over everyone, even though they
    experience it everyday in their lives

    > You say that for Muslims to follow people who declare things forbidden that
    > God allows is worship. In that case Islam is simply wrong and ought to
    > choose a word other than “worship”; in the English language and in religious
    > cultures across the world this is not worship. It’s not a matter of world
    > view, it’s a matter of conceptual confusion.

    The conceptual confusion is really on your side. A person does not
    choose to follow another being, unless he holds that person holy, i.e.
    has exterem reverence for him. He begins to live his life in
    accordance with the dictates of that being he reverences. He begins
    to STOP THINKING for himself, and start obeying, i.e. worshipping,
    that ther being.

    WORSHIP, once again, is the PRACTICAL MANIFESTATION of an extreme
    reverence a person has for another being. IT IS PRACTICAL through and

    > Christians are not deluded when they say they do not accord divine honours
    > to saints: it’s a simple matter of fact that can be readily verified.

    They are deluded, just as Muslims are deluded, and followers of other
    religions are. Even the OT affirms that God is zealous and proud over
    His RIGHT that he be worshipped. He does not accept that his worship
    be mixed with false adulation for other beings.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. mr.heathcliff

    Actually, you did argue this point. Considering that you have been
    shown the fallaciousness of the claim from many perspective, you have
    now modified your stance to the CONTEXT of Jesus’ mission versus the
    CONTEXT of Muhammad’s message.

    To sum up the original argument according to you:

    Because Muhammad was ‘poisoned’, it predicates that he was a violent
    man and could not be a Prophet.

    To repeat one more time your argument suffers from serious flaws in


    Just because a person has faced an assassination attempt does not
    predicate that he is the one who is unjust. In fact, it may be the
    other way around.


    Violence does not predicate that a person is not a Prophet, or that
    person is necessarily bad. The OT is full of stories about Prophets,
    including Moses and David, waging offensive wars, and cleansing the
    Holy Land from idol-worshippers. These wars were bloody and violent.
    Even if we were to assume that the ALLEGED difference between the
    mission of Jesus and the mission of Muhammad exists, which is teh
    argument you are now stating, this does not mean that the mission of
    Muhammad differed in any way from the mission of the majority of OT
    MAJOR Prophets. You can continue to talk about Jesus and what you
    believe his mission was, which is totally INCORRECT BTW, but that does
    not prove your point at all.

    What makes the credibility of the mission of a Prophet contingent on
    following the same pattern as that of Jesus, i.e. that of not waging
    wars? If that were the case, one would have to deny the prophethood
    of the majority of the major Prophets of the OT.

    > It doesn’t follow that I imply that if one dies by the sword (like
    > Jesus) then one lived by the sword. This is an elementary, and very
    > common, logical fallacy: p implies q does not imply that q implies p.

    P = one lives by the sword
    Q = one dies by the sword

    So now your admitting that because one dies by the sword, in this case
    your claim is that the sword was poisoned, does not predicate that
    Muhammad necessarily lived by the sword. What defines the actual
    foundation of the argument is the context of the assassination
    attempt, and in this case it is:

    “Why did the Jews of Khaibar try and assassinate Muhammad?”

    But than again, you don’t want to deal with context.

    > I have no respect for Muhammad because, among many other things, of
    > the treatment that he dealt out to the Jews of Khaibar – pillage,
    > murder, torture, enslavement – which I described.

    So because Robert does not respect Muhammad, does not make Muhammad a
    Prophet? Should we abandon faith because of your ‘arguments’ that
    have no basis in reality?

    Guess what also?

    I have no respect for the Jews of Khaibar. As far as the Jews of
    Khaibar, they committed treachery trying to de-stabilize the very
    foundations of the city-state of Medina, despite signing treaties.
    They knew the situation at hand, and the enmity that was already in
    force all around the Arabian peninsula regarding this city-state.
    They got what was coming to them. Too bad for them. They lost, and
    the mission of Muhammad succeeded, and Islam stabilized itself, and
    further expanded all over the world in unprecedented time, which led
    to my forefathers converting to the religion of Muhammad. Whatever
    Muhammad predicted, TURNED OUT TO BE TRUE. Whatever the OT predicted
    regarding the awaited Prophet, turned out to be true. Not only were
    the Jews of Khaibar defeated, but multitudes upon multitudes that
    tried to reject the power of what was once such a small state were
    humbled to their knees. Do you expect me to feel sorry for those that
    were defeated?

    If Jesus stated that the punishment would descend on the Children of
    Israel that rejected him, than there is no difference between him and
    Muhammad. Both these promises were fulfilled, with the exception that
    the punishment of the rejectors of Jesus were expelled by a pagan
    nation. A monotheistic nation that was descended from Abraham was
    humiliated by a PAGAN nation, and prior to this humiliation had become
    thoroughly dependent on a pagan nation to sustain itself.

    My point is that he
    > invited a violent death by the monstrous and violent injustices that
    > he imposed upon many people: the 80 people that he had assassinated
    > for political reasons (according to the early Muslim historians), the
    > 600 Jewish men he had decapitated in Medina, the dozen people who had
    > offended him when he victoriously entered Mecca whom he had killed –
    > one for mocking him! …

    But Moses commanded the killing of the Israelites after he returned to
    Sinai. In fact, he ordered that they would be killed by the hands of
    their own relatives. The numbers killed were enormous. There were
    more than 80 people in the Exodus, according to the OT. In fact, the
    numbers exceed well in the thousands.

    Then he said to them, “This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says:
    ‘Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the
    camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend
    and neighbor.’ The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about
    THREE THOUSAND of the people died. (Exodus, 32:7-28)

    You keep ignoring these facts. Assassination attempts?

    So how many people were in Mecca? Even if we were to assume the truth
    of your numbers, which they are nothing but unsubstantied absurdities
    as well as statements devoid of context, that is a total of TWELVE
    people. Were there only 12 people in the whole of Mecca? Wasn’t
    Mecca the city that rejected him as well as MOCKED him? So why is the
    number only 12, if Muhammad allegedly killed people just for mocking

    I am sure ‘mocking’ is not the only reason. Let us just continue to
    make such absurd statements as well as conveniently ignore such facts
    such as ‘poetry’ was the defining feature of Arabian civilization, and
    it was not only a literary past-time, but it was also used to incite
    tribes to war.

    12 is a lot less than three thousand BTW, just in case you didn’t do
    to well in math.

    People who behave in this way will generate
    > such hostility that they can be expected to be assassinated in turn:
    > as Jesus said, those who live by the sword shall die by the sword.

    But Jesus’ mission was 3 years, and in this 3 years amount in time,
    not only did the Rabbis and Pharisees try and stone him, they tried to
    have him executed. Why would they do this if all he was doing was
    saying “turn the other cheek”? If all he was doing was pleading with
    them not to revolt from Roman authority?

    > Jesus did not live by the sword: when he was arrested he rebuked Peter
    > for offering violence; he refused to offer himself as a ‘king’ leading
    > resistance to the Roman colonization of Israel.

    Is that why the Gospel records the disciples as running away scared
    when Jesus was arrested? Do you think Jesus was in any way, shape or
    form in any position to offer any resistance to the Roman Empire?

    Since when do you even find Jesus’ in the Gospels preaching against
    Roman rule? Jesus’ mission wasn’t even aimed at Roman rule. At
    least 90 percent of his passages threatening the wrath of God are
    directed to the Rabbis and Pharisees of Israel. As he himself stated,
    “I have been sent to the Lost Sheep of Israel.” His last parable of
    the King and his murdered son clearly allude to the role of his
    mission, and in this very parable, he pretty much stated that the
    rejectors of God from among the Children of Israel would be severely
    punished. Why do you think the Rabbis and Pharisees conspired
    against him? He wasn’t telling the Rabbis and Pharisees how much he
    loved them. He was exposing their hypocrisy, as well as performing
    miracles which proved his authority from God. This is why one finds
    him saying such thins as ‘Wolves in sheep’s clothing’, as well as
    calling them ‘hypocrites’.

    Jesus warned the Jews
    > that if they continued in violent opposition to Roman rule this would
    > result in the destruction of the Temple and Judaea – his prophecy,
    > unlike Muhammad’s, was fullfilled.

    1. Trying to push Jesus against Muhammad does not work for a Muslim.
    We know Jesus’ prophecy was fulfilled. Further, how can your argue
    Muhammad’s prophecy wasn’t fulfilled? He was granted victory in the
    Arabian peninsula, died in the lap of his wife, his followers pushed
    the message in every corner of the world, and the Quran is the most
    memorized, as well as recited book in the history of humanity. If
    this isn’t success, what is? Is this the rational basis for your

    2. Your assertion regarding Jesus is absolutely incorrect. Jesus
    warned the Jews that their persistent transgression of the
    commandments of God, including their REJECTION OF HIM. He mission
    spoke nothing of the sort regarding ‘rebellion’ against Rome. He was
    exposing the hypocrites among the elite of Israel for what they were
    worth, as well as was foretelling the removal of the kingdom of God
    from them because of their slaying of the Prophets and hypocrisy.

    3. Further, even if we were to assume that what you are saying is
    true, how difficult would it be to prophesize that a few thousand ill-
    equipped people revolted against Roman rule and that massive military
    might, they would be defeated and expelled and mercilessly crushed?

    Jesus’s violent death was not due
    > to a build up of hatred due to his espousing violence (as Muhammad’s
    > was), it was due to the political calculation of the High Priest and
    > his party that the continued existence of the Temple state required
    > his elimination:

    What did the Temple have to do with Rome? According to you, Jesus was
    telling the people not to revolt otherwise their Temple would be
    destroyed. Now your saying that the continuation of the existenec of
    Temple was predicated upon the High Priest attempting to have executed
    the man who was telling them not to revolt and put themselves in
    danger of having the Temple being destroyed? Wow… Keep coming up
    with new arguments…

    it was better for one (innocent) person to die for
    > the good of the people. Jesus died a violent death because of the
    > wickedness of the High Priest and the Sanhedrin (the internal
    > government of Judaea) in sending an innocent man to his death out of
    > what they judged was political expediency.


    It is better that the good people attain political power and establish
    rule so that justice will prevail.


    What did the High Priest and the Sanhedrin have to do with Rome? And
    what was the political expedience, considering Jesus was telling the
    High Priest and Sanhedrin not to revolt at put themselves in danger?


    Further, who said Jesus’ wanted to die?

    > Jesus was entirely innocent: Muhammad had much blood on his hands. Is
    > it surprising that the history of Islam is drenched in blood?

    No doubt the history of Islam is drenched in bood… That blood is
    the blood of the martyrs, who held their heads high and faced death
    bravely. May God reward those 313 men that stood against a thousand,
    despite beind ill-equipped. That blood bears the scent of perfume.
    It is the blood and sweat of an Abyssinian slave, a captured Roman, a
    Persian without a home, and many other poor and noble men. It is the
    blood and sweat of the greatest among the wealthy men as well.

    It is the blood and sweat that ushered in what Jesus proclaimed would
    be ushered in:

    The Kingdom of Heaven and Earth…

    You should enter it.

    > Can YOU take this seriously, or are you going to practise Muslim
    > denial?

    Who is living in denial other than you?

    Then he said to them, “This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says:
    ‘Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the
    camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend
    and neighbor.’ The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about

    Liked by 1 person

  19. mr.heathcliff

    Debating the Authenticity of Daniel: A Discussion with Jonathan Sheffield
    In May I published How We Know Daniel Is a Forgery and discussed a debate on the topic involving my Anglican friend Jonathan Sheffield, who has now produced an attempt at a rebuttal, his best case for Daniel being authentic after all. We have arranged to engage a discussion about it. Below I publish his piece. In coming days I will publish my reply in the same word count or less. Then we will discuss this written exchange live on MythVision (this October 2 at 10am PST / 1pm EST). Sheffield has funded this exchange and we share full non-exclusive rights to its content. To follow this exchange you certainly should read my previous article as well as my coming follow-up, but you don’t have to view my recorded discussion of the other debate.

    Comments on each of the entries in this exchange are open to anyone who submits polite and relevant remarks. In fact, thoughtful or constructive comments are highly sought and recommended by both of us. Patreon patrons retain the privilege of their comments publishing immediately (if they don’t, email me so I can get you on the white list). Everyone else’s will wait in a moderation queue that I will have to check and clear every few days.


  20. Vaqas Rehman

    I tried posting this video before directly but it wouldn’t load so here I am posting it in tweet form with my own thoughts attached in the tweet.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. mr.heathcliff

      If the scholar does not have ancient manuscripts to compare a mazoretic reading , what would be the logical approach to prove that the mazoretic is older than the septuangint?

      we must not forget that septuangint has gone through translation after translation and updates by crosstians, so we have no actual original septuangint translation


  21. mr.heathcliff

    tag : zaynab , zaid


    The ayah indicates that Allah SWT gave the Prophet SAW knowledge that they would divorce and that he will marry Zaynab. When Zayd had a problem with his wife he said “””Keep your wife and fear Allah ,” and kept what he knew secret. keeping it secret was not blameworthy, as zayd was still married to her. Imagine he had said ” yes, divorce her because she will be my wife” .

    Allah SWT is not saying that the Prophet did anything wrong. “you concealed within yourself that which Allah is to disclose” Allah made it come out because it would be a law that will be prescribed ( permissibility of marrying former wife of your adopted son). “And you feared the people, while Allah has more right that you fear Him.”

    the fear here is doing something in front of people that they believe is unacceptable. so fear of shame, reputation, honor etc The prophet SAw followed the command and married her and then the ayah gives the reason for all this – We married her to you in order that there not be upon the believers any discomfort concerning the wives of their adopted sons when they no longer have no desire to keep them.

    The Prophet felt great discomfort to make the believers not feel discomfort. Imagine a law was prescribed saying the wives of adopted son are halal – it would make people question this ruling because to them it was like marrying real sons wife. The Prophet SAW undertook it personally to leave no doubt about the issue.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. mr.heathcliff

      i am going to refer to you as BASTARD from now on.

      1. lets say that the hebrew desidered to marry the BEAUTIFUL captive, but decided to give his son a CHANCE instead ,AND new that in a FEW YEARS down the line, the son will LET the captive go. he goes to her and MAKES her his wife….
      tell me, lol, how yhwh explain this problem LOL LOL OL OL L L O L

      LOL L O L O
      LOL OL L OL


      1. mr.heathcliff

        What bible say,

        “But if you are not satisfied with her, you shall let her go free and not sell her for money.”

        From pleasure to dissatisfaction which would obviously be a common problem….but note law is allowing for woman to be let go off, rabbi elliot who gave his son a CHANCE NOW HAS his chance to bang captive woman ….ALREADY law accomodates lol lol


  22. mr.heathcliff


    No that’s wrong! There are apparatuses that precisely define how every single syllable should be pronounced in recitation. I would say that that is probably more precisely defined in the Quran than in Hebrew recitation, and much more judiciously adhered to.

    Which, in part, why recitation of the Hebrew Bible sounds totally different among the Yemenite Jews, Sephardic Jews and Ashkenazi Jews. For the Quran, such details in pronunciation are more precisely controlled for

    The difference is the masoretic text only records one reading tradition: the tiberian tradition. There were others, and the Samaritans have a different one still. The Islamic tradition preserves multiple traditions to an extreme level of detail

    There is indeed a reading tradition that specifies two different pronunciations for the name ibrāhīm besides ibrāhām. But in that tradition it is precisely defined where you read one or the other. If you read the one form in a place where you needed the other that is a mistake.

    “But the spelling of Ibrahim is still confused or inconsistent in the ancient manuscripts themselves, no?”

    No, not really. I have a paper where I show that which of the two spellings are used is mostly identical from manuscript to manuscript (and the reading tradition that has both pronunciation follows the spelling as it occurs in those manuscripts!)


  23. mr.heathcliff

    Professor of Bible and theology at Point Loma Nazarene University in San Diego, C. S. Cowles, states:
    “We hang our heads to admit it, but jihad (“holy war”) is not a Muslim invention. Its origins and justification are to be found in the Hebrew Scriptures. Moses was the first in known history to spell out an ideology of “holy war” that dictated–unlike Muhammad’s reformulation–the genocidal destruction of enemies. Moses and Joshua were the first to engage in campaigns of “ethnic cleansing” as herem (“acts of religious devotion”). It is to these texts that Christians have appealed, from St. Augustine in the fourth century to Orthodox Serbs in the twentieth, in justifying the mass destruction of human beings.”
    C. S. Cowles. 2003. “The Case For Radical Discontinuity,” In: 𝑆ℎ𝑜𝑤 𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑚 𝑁𝑜 𝑀𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑦: 4 𝑉𝑖𝑒𝑤𝑠 𝑜𝑛 𝐺𝑜𝑑 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐶𝑎𝑛𝑎𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑒 𝐺𝑒𝑛𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑑𝑒, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, pp. 16-17

    Liked by 1 person

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